Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Do share where you get your 1000 a day figure.

Quote

Oleksiy Arestovych, another adviser to President Zelensky known for making revelatory statements, also told the Guardian that “up to 150 troops a day were being killed and 800 wounded.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/16/kdyq-j16.html

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

Of course, Ukraine are using  the tried and tested strategy of getting pounded by artillery which has resulted in them losing around 1000 troops a day (Ukraine's figures, not mine). Genius

6000 a month I saw quoted yesterday thats a huge difference to the figure you are claiming.

In fact most of the claims you've made / figures you've quoted since joining this topic have been way off

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/16/kdyq-j16.html

Dodgy Website, that article contains such classics as this...

Quote

Testifying to the criminal nature of the Kiev government, the revelations of the staggering death toll of the conflict were made only as part of a PR campaign to obtain even more military aid and continue a war with nuclear-armed Russia.

Notice the spelling of Kyiv too

Quote

In a systematic attempt to weaken Russia and drag out the war, the United States has already provided $4.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the invasion, including 108 howitzers, 26,500 Javelin missiles and 1,400 Stinger missiles. In May, the US Congress approved $40 billion in assistance, including $20 billion more in military aid.

Quote

Despite the mounting losses, Ukrainian officials have shown no interest whatsoever in continuing negotiations to end the war with Russia that is not only devastating Ukraine but also spurring worldwide inflation and food shortages.

It's a bit, you know, Trotskyite. It's the Trotskyite Party of America, still going on about the Fourth International.

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I was trying to prompt thought around 2 things really.

Firstly "defensive weapons are weapons deployed to repel an attack(er)" (as @PussEKatt said) - so basically just about anything - whether a handgun, a SAM, an anti-tank missile, artillery, MLRS, artillery, drones, aircraft and so on - all the stuff the West has been supplying. And that's what Ukraine is attempting to do - to repel the Russian invaders.

But then of course, there's a desire on Ukraine's part to essentially "attack" the territory taken by the Russian forces, and to do that the Ukrainians need...er. exactly the same types of weapons as they use to defend themselves.

So in other words what Ukraine needs are "weapons" and that's what they're getting. There's not really any such thing as a solely defensive weapon. They have a desire, of course, to have better weapons, as you say - whether longer range artillery and Missiles, fancy drones, aircraft and etc. And they've asked for that stuff. Here, (going back to the "we" again) there is not unified "we" response. the UK and US, Norway, Denmark have to an extent granted their request, Germany Switzerland, France rather less so. It's individual nations acting on their own initiative or views or politics, not a coherent approach from the RotW.

 

Yep, I do get that other than weapons with ‘anti’ in the title or weapons the other side has to engage with such as mines, all weapons are by their nature ‘offensive’.

But the narrative we are fed, and I absolutely get this is through journalism not first hand, is that Ukraine cannot fight equally with Russia as Russia can throw artillery shells further than Ukraine. That Russia might finally have worked out its a better tactic to just shell a town for 3 weeks rather than try to drive tanks up the road. The lack of tanks to knock off has left Ukraine at a bit of a loss, they are tooled up to defend a different sort of attack.

Those weapons to take the fight back to the Russians exist. But not in sufficient numbers in Ukraine. ‘We’ are worried that supplying them could be seen as a provocation. That sort of makes it difficult for Ukraine to do much more than hold out for the fabled Russian collapse, or for the better suited weapons to arrive in sufficient numbers to be effective.

I completely get that there isn’t a NATO unified response in deeds and actions. But you’d have to say the bigger players haven’t exactly mobilised to get this thing finished conclusively in the shortest possible time. It’s good that Denmark and Norway and Poland etc (coalition of the willing) are helping as much as they can, be that for moral reasons or more likely self preservation. 

[bickster]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Yep, I do get that other than weapons with ‘anti’ in the title or weapons the other side has to engage with such as mines, all weapons are by their nature ‘offensive’.

But the narrative we are fed, and I absolutely get this is through journalism not first hand, is that Ukraine cannot fight equally with Russia as Russia can throw artillery shells further than Ukraine. That Russia might finally have worked out its a better tactic to just shell a town for 3 weeks rather than try to drive tanks up the road. The lack of tanks to knock off has left Ukraine at a bit of a loss, they are tooled up to defend a different sort of attack.

Those weapons to take the fight back to the Russians exist. But not in sufficient numbers in Ukraine. ‘We’ are worried that supplying them could be seen as a provocation. That sort of makes it difficult for Ukraine to do much more than hold out for the fabled Russian collapse, or for the better suited weapons to arrive in sufficient numbers to be effective.

I completely get that there isn’t a NATO unified response in deeds and actions. But you’d have to say the bigger players haven’t exactly mobilised to get this thing finished conclusively in the shortest possible time. It’s good that Denmark and Norway and Poland etc (coalition of the willing) are helping as much as they can, be that for moral reasons or more likely self preservation. 

The current problem with artillery Ukraine.vs Russia is not that Russia outdistance Ukraine, distance wise they are on a par. Ukraine currently are severely outgunned in terms of numbers. The distance issue is slowly being resolved as longer range artillery are starting to hit the front lines. What Ukraine needs is more long distance artillery.

Also there’s a bit of confusion about “the west” (that'll be the yanks) not supplying the longest range shells, they made the point about distance to not enrage Putin but the truth of the matter is that the Americans don’t really have much of it. They had actually phased production of the longer stuff years ago and Ukraine doesn't really need it anyway. They already have a 10 km advantage now ( or was it miles I forget) they just haven’t got enough of it in action yet and they need more of it too

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ukraine currently are severely outgunned in terms of numbers. The distance issue is slowly being resolved as longer range artillery are starting to hit the front lines. What Ukraine needs is more long distance artillery.

Yeah. Also ammunition. They’ve pretty much used up all the shells for their artillery and so as well as more western howitzers, plus ammo to add to their own, they’ve got the problem of their own soviet era artillery being useless as soon as they’ve used up the last shells.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Yeah. Also ammunition. They’ve pretty much used up all the shells for their artillery and so as well as more western howitzers, plus ammo to add to their own, they’ve got the problem of their own soviet era artillery being useless as soon as they’ve used up the last shells.

Yes that too

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I completely get that there isn’t a NATO unified response in deeds and actions. But you’d have to say the bigger players haven’t exactly mobilised to get this thing finished conclusively in the shortest possible time. It’s good that Denmark and Norway and Poland etc (coalition of the willing) are helping as much as they can, be that for moral reasons or more likely self preservation. 

This is where we agree. There isn’t and was never going to be a unified response, there isn’t really a “we”, there’s a loose coalition of nations with different domestic takes on it, but who all view what Russia has done as appalling.

NATO was never going to act/intervene directly given Ukraine is not a member, never mind the risk of MAD.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[magnkarl]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/16/kdyq-j16.html

This'd be the American version of George Galloway's Russia-love-fest website. 100% funded and operated by people with connections to the Kremlin. Stick a "Russia State Propaganda" on that one.

The figures I've heard are around 100-150 a day, with around 3 times that wounded. Ukraine are also reporting a very high return to service rate on their wounded soldiers:

Over 80% of wounded soldiers return to fight after recovering

Quote

More than 80% of wounded Ukrainian soldiers are returning to the army thanks to the efforts of military medics.

Yes, Pravda is probably also quite slanted, but I'm sure the return rate for Ukraine is much, much higher than Russia who seem to be letting their soldiers die rather than trying to save them. The will to return to defend your homeland is probably higher than the will to be underfed, under supplied and under-equipped cannon fodder.

Edited June 19, 2022 by magnkarl

[Arj Guy]

5 hours ago, bickster said:

6000 a month I saw quoted yesterday thats a huge difference to the figure you are claiming.

 

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

This'd be the American version of George Galloway's Russia-love-fest website. 100% funded and operated by people with connections to the Kremlin. Stick a "Russia State Propaganda" on that one.

The figures I've heard are around 100-150 a day, with around 3 times that wounded. Ukraine are also reporting a very high return to service rate on their wounded soldiers

 

I guess Arakhamia must be pro Russia and the Kiev Independent is now Russian state propaganda. Sorry for bringing up these numbers. You can go back to talking about the genius strategy of getting pounded by Russian artillery now

Edited June 19, 2022 by Arj Guy

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, Arj Guy said:

 

 

I guess Arakhamia must be pro Russia and the Kiev Independent is now Russian state propaganda. Sorry for bringing up these numbers. You can go back to talking about the genius strategy of getting pounded by Russian artillery now

You’re still not getting the point. Russia does not have more troops than Ukraine. An attritional war goes in Ukraine’s favour. I’m starting to wonder why you keep regurgitating this story of Russian triumph, when this war has been a total cluster#%% for the Russian army.

Ukraine will gladly give 1000 (this includes wounded of which 80% are claimed to come back to the front) soldiers a day if it means keeping their country free of raping, murdering lunatics who thinks they’re subhuman. I know you think Ukraine should just roll over as you think they’re getting awestruck by Russia’s military might, but I assure you Russia is experiencing far worse. Credible sources state that Russia has lost 25-30% of their land capability. Add that to having to defend the largest country in the world and anyone can see that this isn’t the Russian triumph you’re claiming it to be.

Severodonetsk is to Russia what Stalingrad was to Germany. Sure they’ve almost taken the whole town, but at the expense of most of their combat power. There are very few combat operative BTGs left in Russia’s Ukraine campaign, while Ukraine has a queue out of the door with applicants to defend their country, modern weaponry on the way and still a fairly operative airforce. This isn’t ending in George Galloway’s wet dream where he gets to be propaganda minister in Kreml.

Ukraine is within 10km of Kherson city centre, and are on their way towards Melitopol because Russia thought they could divert most of their combat power to Severodonetsk. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by magnkarl

[blandy]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

This'd be the American version of George Galloway's Russia-love-fest website. 100% funded and operated by people with connections to the Kremlin. Stick a "Russia State Propaganda" on that one.

 

6 hours ago, bickster said:

It's a bit, you know, Trotskyite. It's the Trotskyite Party of America, still going on about the Fourth International.

The quote is the quote. Whether it’s on the Guardian website or repeated and picked up by other websites of whatever slant…

lots of soldiers and civilians are being blown to bits. Russian, Ukrainian, foreign fighters.

Narratives and wishful thinking. Shit it.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The quote is the quote.

I wasn't disagreeing with the quote being correct just pointing out the article itself was on a website of absolute whoppers

[KentVillan]

It was always clear the Ukrainians would lose enormous numbers of troops and civilians, but the question is what they can endure.

The evidence from most defensive wars like this (Ireland, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan) is that the defending country's appetite for battle will outlast the aggressor's, even in the face of significant military disadvantages.

We haven't even got to the occupation + guerrilla warfare stage in most of Ukraine yet.

I don't see how Russia gets anywhere near success? Putin massively underestimated the strength of Ukrainian national identity, even in the apparently "pro-Russia" regions.

It may be that the West and China eventually get tired of the enormous global economic costs of this war (something Putin has shown an ability to endure), and start pushing for a settlement. But even then, the Ukrainians won't just accept it.

And as Churchill said, "you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth". Putin is not temperamentally inclined towards diplomacy, and the Ukrainians know that. There's so much wishful thinking doing the rounds... of course this will be a horrendous war with enormous casualties, but there's no easy solution that brings that to an end. NATO / EU enlargement is a red herring. In all likelihood any ceasefire would be followed by a period of intensive Russian reinforcement, followed by another military campaign.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Tass is reporting that Ukraine has struck 3 Russian drilling rigs in the Black Sea. 

It looks like those longer range missiles have arrived.  

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

Interesting to see if Lithuania blockading Kaliningrad results in a big escalation. Russia has threatened retaliatory measures, what that means who knows, but Lithuania are of course a NATO member and would have no doubt been instructed to take this action by its allies in the West. Russia took that land a long time ago, it was never theirs but the Gremlin in the Kremlin is probably seething at this development. 

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Tass is reporting that Ukraine has struck 3 Russian drilling rigs in the Black Sea. 

It looks like those longer range missiles have arrived.  

I'm seeing that it might have been SU-25 attack, not sure anyone knows right now

But there's also an attack on Snake Island again as that is in flames so that could be the SU-25 attack

Also worth noting that the three oil rigs are actually Ukrainian but have been in Russian hands since the annexation of Crimea

[KentVillan]

35 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Tass is reporting that Ukraine has struck 3 Russian drilling rigs in the Black Sea. 

It looks like those longer range missiles have arrived.  

Would this be quite a big escalation, attacking civilian infrastructure? Not that the Ukrainians don't have any justification to do stuff like this, but just wondering if anything like this has happened previously?

Edit: sorry, just realised these are drilling rigs that were stolen from Ukraine during the conflict. All good.

Edited June 20, 2022 by KentVillan

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Interesting to see if Lithuania blockading Kaliningrad results in a big escalation. Russia has threatened retaliatory measures, what that means who knows, but Lithuania are of course a NATO member and would have no doubt been instructed to take this action by its allies in the West. Russia took that land a long time ago, it was never theirs but the Gremlin in the Kremlin is probably seething at this development. 

 

 Think they're just blocking sanctioned goods / individuals, in line with EU policy. Russians trying to turn this into an escalation?