Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I can’t help but feel that we’re falling into the same traps on ‘our side’ of the equation (not that it really is ‘our side’, whilst we’re supporting Ukraine we’re not directly involved) as those on the ‘other side’ in terms of propaganda and information / misinformation.

I appreciate the contributions from folks in this thread in terms of digging up and sharing info but it’s so one sided, always high numbers of Russians dead and vehicles destroyed etc.

I appreciate it’s impossible these days but it would be great to just have balanced / accurate information.

The figures the Ukraine Govt publishes in regards to casualties/equipment losses are generally considered by independent sources to be in the right ball park. At the start of the war they were considered to be on the high side but not any more. There are some independent sources that claim that the loss of men figures at this point are on the low side

Ukraine doesn't publish its own losses and the Russian descriptions of losses are so far wide of the mark, they are laughably inaccurate, in fact most of the time they are just demonstrable lies but no-one considers that Ukraine's losses are even in the same ballpark as Russias. The reasonable estimates put Ukraines losses of manpower at about 20-25% of Russias and probably reducing over the winter as most of the Russian losses are soldiers being told to run towards a well defended Bakhmut and they just get mowed down, day after day after day with little in the way of the support that they need, like you know... tanks. You can read daily reports from Ukraine forces around Bakhmut and the same soldiers are posting pictures of them and their same colleagues day after day. very few of them disappear.

I understand your scepticism but there really isn't a lot wrong with the figures for Russian losses that Ukraine publishes.

The biggest supplier of armour to Ukraine in this war? It's very probably Russia itself. Russia has lost a huge amount of its mechanised armour inventory, thats why T-55s are now coming out of storage

[bickster]

Going back to the EU/US military aid to Ukraine. There is obviously a high degree of co-ordination going on between NATO partners as to what equipment iss provided. First it was the French announcement of sending AMX-10RC light tanks to Ukraine, then Germany announces it is sending more Patriot and Marder IFVs and now the US announced a $3bil package which includes for the first time M2 Bradley light tanks. All those announcements have been this week and represents a big shift up in supplying western armour to Ukraine.

 

[avfc1982am]

50 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I can’t help but feel that we’re falling into the same traps on ‘our side’ of the equation (not that it really is ‘our side’, whilst we’re supporting Ukraine we’re not directly involved) as those on the ‘other side’ in terms of propaganda and information / misinformation.

I appreciate the contributions from folks in this thread in terms of digging up and sharing info but it’s so one sided, always high numbers of Russians dead and vehicles destroyed etc.

I appreciate it’s impossible these days but it would be great to just have balanced / accurate information.

I don't know anybody hoping Russia prevails in this conflict. Absolutely nobody. Certainly not in this thread and certainly not amongst family or friends. So then you either support the Ukrainian resistance or remain neutral, I'm most definitely not neutral.

The other point to make is whether you feel the info people post is skewed or not it still tells you the situation on the ground. No one is going to lie about Russian advances or loses as the news is easy enough to find. As far as Ukrainian loses are concerned, well there is very little info out there.

I cant speak for everybody but I think all those contributing are trying to posts facts or opinions. If it seems one sided more often than not it is because the other side are full of shit so nothing is worth posting, unless for laughs at the idiocy. 

Personally I admit, I will not glorify Russia or Russian propaganda. If that makes what I post imbalanced to some, I'm cool with that.    

 

 

[bannedfromHandV]

3 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

I don't know anybody hoping Russia prevails in this conflict. Absolutely nobody. Certainly not in this thread and certainly not amongst family or friends. So then you either support the Ukrainian resistance or remain neutral, I'm most definitely not neutral.

The other point to make is whether you feel the info people post is skewed or not it still tells you the situation on the ground. No one is going to lie about Russian advances or loses as the news is easy enough to find. As far as Ukrainian loses are concerned, well there is very little info out there.

I cant speak for everybody but I think all those contributing are trying to posts facts or opinions. If it seems one sided more often than not it is because the other side are full of shit so nothing is worth posting, unless for laughs at the idiocy. 

Personally I admit, I will not glorify Russia or Russian propaganda. If that makes what I post imbalanced to some, I'm cool with that.    

 

 

I’m not suggesting for a second anyone should be pro-Russia, in this conflict or otherwise frankly. All I’m questioning is whether or not all the various content being bandied about on social media, and subsequently ending up on here is accurate.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my wanting to have an actual grasp on what’s happening out there, that’s all.

[trekka]

Bit late with this one (sorry if already posted).  

 

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’m not suggesting for a second anyone should be pro-Russia, in this conflict or otherwise frankly. All I’m questioning is whether or not all the various content being bandied about on social media, and subsequently ending up on here is accurate.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my wanting to have an actual grasp on what’s happening out there, that’s all.

If you want an idea of why the figures are accurate, Russia has just started a second general mobilisation, albeit semi-surreptitiously. A massive one, estimates vary between 1 and 2 million men. They had 190,000 dedicated invasion troops at the outset, they mobilised a further 300,000 and now they've started to mobilise at least another million.

What Russia appear to be stuck in, is a sunk cost fallacy, that they don't know how to get out of but must keep pouring more and more human resources into. Their losses have gone way beyond what was originally planned and then some but carry on they must because the only thing that matters is a victory they are now incapable of obtaining. They have been going backwards for months and the main reason Ukraine's forward momentum has stalled is the weather and the mud, that will change very soon, the ground will freeze and attacks by Ukraine will become practical again. Then a thaw will come and the mud will return until early summer and off they'll go again and then they'll be off with Bradley M2s etc too

Ukraine is much better equipped now than a year ago and will be better equipped again after this weeks announcements, Russia on the other hand has lost huge amounts of its heavy inventory and is nowhere near as well equipped as it was in Feb 22

[Enda]

The EU as an organisation, intentionally, has very little military capability. I don’t trust the EU with war anymore than I do tax policy, which is why both are largely left up to individual member states 

Individual EU members (e.g. Poland and Finland) have given quite a bit of support.

[Awol]

Ukraine doesn’t publish its casualty figures for operational security, no point giving the Russians info they can use. It is correct and fair to say Ukrainian casualties are high. But they have no choice anyway, it’s an existential fight for existence.  

[tinker]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

The EU as an organisation, intentionally, has very little military capability. I don’t trust the EU with war anymore than I do tax policy, which is why both are largely left up to individual member states 

Individual EU members (e.g. Poland and Finland) have given quite a bit of support.

Their a joke, it's a war in Europe and they sit on their hands, politicaly. 

You can see why the pipelines were deystroyed, it was to stop the chance of a political collapse in the support of the Ukraine. 

9 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’m not suggesting for a second anyone should be pro-Russia, in this conflict or otherwise frankly. All I’m questioning is whether or not all the various content being bandied about on social media, and subsequently ending up on here is accurate.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my wanting to have an actual grasp on what’s happening out there, that’s all.

I watched an interesting YouTube video of a UK national fighting with the Ukrainians. He spoke of foreign fighters joining the cause just to loot and the fact many East Ukrainians are pro Russian and give their locations away or guide Russian artillery, difficult situation as they get towards the Russian border. 

It's probably Russians relocated to the Ukraine but it is what it is. 

[Enda]

4 minutes ago, tinker said:

Their a joke, it's a war in Europe and they sit on their hands, politicaly. 

Strong disagree. I’m Irish, and Ireland (rightly or wrongly) is neutral. That’s our decision. Brussels can f-off if they think of doing anything militarily we don’t agree with. We retain a veto on military action. Foreign policy is rightly devolved to the member states.

Now I’m actually against Ireland’s defence policy and think we should join NATO, but it’s not the EU’s place to tell us different.

[bickster]

42 minutes ago, tinker said:

Their a joke, it's a war in Europe and they sit on their hands, politicaly. 

What do you think the EU should be doing that it isn’t?

[magnkarl]

 

Finland has squarely put the ball in Scholz’ court. Let’s see if he can wiggle himself out of this one.

Poland is also happy to deliver leopards, noise from Norway, Denmark indicating the same. What’s your move Olaf?

[chrisp65]

12 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’m not suggesting for a second anyone should be pro-Russia, in this conflict or otherwise frankly. All I’m questioning is whether or not all the various content being bandied about on social media, and subsequently ending up on here is accurate.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my wanting to have an actual grasp on what’s happening out there, that’s all.

I see a fair bit of stuff from these Ukraine accounts and its fair to say that those accounts do mention ‘tactical withdrawal’ from various places at various times. So its not the unremittingly positive story you might get from this thread. This thread does slightly filter and promote the more positive news. You’ll remember how back in September we were told Russia was now almost completely out of drones and missiles, yet, somehow…

I also don’t doubt that many that live in those ‘disputed’ regions are pro Russian. Through family ties, business ties, language, history, and culture. I don’t doubt that once this is over, stories will surface again of the fascist (Nazi) units in Ukraine. You’ll remember at the start there were lots of pictures of Ukrainian Nazi sympathisers, now Russia using the word Nazi is seen as ridiculous, laughable.

But now is not the time for an even handed balanced look at things. Russia has made a huge play here that we simply cannot afford for them to profit from. By profit, I don’t mean short term GDP points, or Siberian crude oil spot prices, or trade links with Tehran. I mean gaining land. If at the end of this they have gained land, they have won. A million dead conscripts clutching rusty toy rifles? Irrelevant, if they gained land, they won.

If they are perceived to have won, what does that do for Moldova, or Serbia, or Taiwan or any number of other places we haven’t heard of because they are less important than Harry’s necklace?

So for now, we’ve been manoeuvred into one of those horrible us v them, black and white scenarios that don’t reflect real life. But we are where we are. Ukraine needs to win, then we need to pick through the pieces. 

But we also need to be careful of thinking we need to destroy Russia economically so they can’t be a threat for a hundred years. We tried that before, with Germany, not sure it panned out as planned.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But now is not the time for an even handed balanced look at things. Russia has made a huge play here ...If at the end of this they have gained land, they have won. A million dead conscripts clutching rusty toy rifles? Irrelevant, if they gained land, they won.

If they are perceived to have won...

Well, yes, and more no, really IMO - it's all opinions and perceptions, but the way I think about it is that for Russia there is no feasible win. It's not even Russia at all, it's Putin. His aim, and was his personal aim, from all we know, was to take Ukraine. He can't, he won't, so he'll "lose". His reduced aim seems to have been to take the eastern regions, but that's in very serious doubt, too. Really, he cannot afford to be seen to actually lose - for Russia to be expelled from Ukraine - if that happens he's dead, literally. The current tactic of destroying electricity and water and communications and other infrastructure and facilities is aimed at breaking the resolve of both the Ukrainian civilians, and the military. It seems likely a forlorn hope, just drag it out in the hope that Ukraine cracks and the West gives up its support. But it's no kind of win, and if the West keeps supporting, then the likely outcome is unknown for Putin, but not looking like a win.

But Ukraine can't really, feasibly "win" either - the place and its people have been wrecked, bombed, mined, obliterated in areas.

probably 200,000 dead, thousands of others maimed, traumatised, fled, displaced...

No one wins, no one will really be seen or perceived as "having won". Mass mobilisation of more Russians isn't going to change things in Russia's favour as they have little or no kit. For Russia, killing Zelensky seems likely their best chance for improving their odds, and for Ukraine, the end of Putin similarly so. Neither of those 2 is going to want to voluntarily go, but who knows what will happen? But a few relative bits of gained land - that's not going to fool anyone that Russia has won, when the whole picture is taken into account - ruined reputation, ruined economy, stronger NATO...etc. etc.

[chrisp65]

I think we’re looking at different timescales. That’s why I mentioned a million dead and oil prices, all statistics that will eventually just be footnotes for nerds. How many did Russia lose in WW2? 27 million? You would imagine the loss of 27 million in living memory would put a country off picking fights. But it fades. It boils down to lines on a map. The lines on Russia’s map have been constricting. If at the end of this they’ve expanded, then its a win.

If the Second World War ended with all those dead, all that economic collapse all that wasted generation, but with Germany slightly larger than when hostilities began. Perhaps gaining a few small towns you’d never previously heard of in France, a 20 mile strip of Poland that isn’t great farm land, and a little bit of Czechoslovakia. Then I think there would be a strong case 20 or 30 years later when their economy is on the up, to say they might have won.

Oh, and if their economy isn’t on the up. If we decide on a policy of long term punishment. Will we be surprised by columns of refugees walking in to Latvia, Estonia, and Finland? 

Pragmatism suggests they must gain no land, but not be turned in to a long term basket case. 

As always, it’s a case of be careful what you wish for.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

 

Finland has squarely put the ball in Scholz’ court. Let’s see if he can wiggle himself out of this one.

Poland is also happy to deliver leopards, noise from Norway, Denmark indicating the same. What’s your move Olaf?

Why do they need to wait on Germany to do the same? Is there an agreement when they purchased them that they need permission to send them to another state?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

9 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Why do they need to wait on Germany to do the same? Is there an agreement when they purchased them that they need permission to send them to another state?

Germany said that it would send tanks when the rest of Europe did. 

[avfc1982am]

13 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’m not suggesting for a second anyone should be pro-Russia, in this conflict or otherwise frankly. All I’m questioning is whether or not all the various content being bandied about on social media, and subsequently ending up on here is accurate.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my wanting to have an actual grasp on what’s happening out there, that’s all.

And I'm not suggest you are. Not for a second. I'm just responding to my personal posts and the information I'm informing on.

It's not just yourself that has mentioned this either in relation to the info posted, so I'm not just directing this at you. However, if posters feel the info is skewed towards positive info for Ukraine and produces an imbalanced view then those posters an do their own research and provide a more balanced view as they see it. At the end of the day we're all just trying to inform on the truths of what is going on. 

If you look back at the start of the thread I'm sure most of the posts were reporting on Russian advances, the destruction and death of Ukrainians and Ukraine. Very pro Russian from a Russian advance point of view. It couldn't have been any different because that was the situation. Ukraine was on the brink and Russian forces were nearly in Kyiv. Due to Russian logistical incompetence the situation over the following months right up until now has very much been about Ukrainian advances in recovering land. It's not like Russia have really advanced in several months so there will be limited info on Russian gains because there aren't many. 

In short the situation in Luhansk has stalled with minimal movement backwards and forwards from both sides, Russians have flooded the P66 highway border from Kreminna up to Svatove but are not advancing currently. Bhakmut is destroyed but Russia are struggling too advance, maybe metres today, and give them back tomorrow. They've also been trying to encircle the City but to no avail. Kherson as everybody knows is very much mainly under Ukrainian control left of the Dnipro with Russians on the right shelling the City. The Zaphorizhzhia region hasn't really changed in 5 months although there is a softening of Russian logistics and defensive positions which may indicate a potential push to Melitopol for Ukraine. This is how I'm seeing things from both standpoints and whats happening on the ground, everything else is just noise.  

 

[magnkarl]

57 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think we’re looking at different timescales. That’s why I mentioned a million dead and oil prices, all statistics that will eventually just be footnotes for nerds. How many did Russia lose in WW2? 27 million? You would imagine the loss of 27 million in living memory would put a country off picking fights. But it fades. It boils down to lines on a map. The lines on Russia’s map have been constricting. If at the end of this they’ve expanded, then its a win.

If the Second World War ended with all those dead, all that economic collapse all that wasted generation, but with Germany slightly larger than when hostilities began. Perhaps gaining a few small towns you’d never previously heard of in France, a 20 mile strip of Poland that isn’t great farm land, and a little bit of Czechoslovakia. Then I think there would be a strong case 20 or 30 years later when their economy is on the up, to say they might have won.

Oh, and if their economy isn’t on the up. If we decide on a policy of long term punishment. Will we be surprised by columns of refugees walking in to Latvia, Estonia, and Finland? 

Pragmatism suggests they must gain no land, but not be turned in to a long term basket case. 

As always, it’s a case of be careful what you wish for.

Russia’s losses in ww2 weren’t what you think. At least half of that were ex-Soviet states, Ukraine lost 8 million men in ww2 alone. Russia used their Western republics as cannon fodder until Germany got to Russian borders.

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

But Ukraine can't really, feasibly "win" either - the place and its people have been wrecked, bombed, mined, obliterated in areas.

I agree with the rest of your post but I'm not sure about this. What is a win? If Ukraine exits tomorrow or several months, years down the line, will Ukrainians see it as a win. I think they will. I think they will celebrate/commemorate this period as a win against political dictatorship, the influence of Russian rule and a fresh start for their Nation.

Without doubt the deaths of thousands will never be recoverable or forgotten but Cities just like after WW2 can be rebuilt and a nation can become stronger economically.