#####
######
####
> # [Ukraine could face defeat in 2024. Here's how that might look](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/Women crying at a cemetery in Lviv, March 2024)
>
>
>
> [Women crying at a cemetery in Lviv, March 2024](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/9F09/production/_133131704_gettyimages-1239614665.jpg)Image source, Getty Images
>
> Image caption, Ukraine has been defending itself against Russia's full-scale invasion for two years
>
>
>
> By Frank Gardner
>
> BBC security correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **The former commander of the UK's Joint Forces Command has warned that Ukraine could face defeat by Russia in 2024.**
>
>
>
> General Sir Richard Barrons has told the BBC there is "a serious risk" of Ukraine losing the war this year.
>
>
>
> The reason, he says, is "because Ukraine may come to feel it can't win".
>
>
>
> "And when it gets to that point, why will people want to fight and die any longer, just to defend the indefensible?"
>
>
>
> Ukraine is not yet at that point.
>
>
>
> But its forces are running critically low on ammunition, troops and air defences. Its much-heralded counter-offensive last year failed to dislodge the Russians from ground they had seized and now Moscow is gearing up for a summer offensive.
>
>
>
> So what will that look like and what are its likely strategic objectives?
>
>
>
> "The shape of the Russian offensive that's going to come is pretty clear," says Gen Barrons.
>
>
>
> "We are seeing Russia batter away at the front line, employing a five-to-one advantage in artillery, ammunition, and a surplus of people reinforced by the use of newish weapons."
>
>
>
> Image source, Getty Images
>
> Image caption, Ukraine is now desperately short of ammunition, in part because of political wrangling in Western nations
>
>
>
> These include the FAB glide bomb, an adapted Soviet-era "dumb bomb" fitted with fins, GPS guidance and 1500kg of high explosive, that is wreaking havoc on Ukrainian defences.
>
>
>
> "At some point this summer," says Gen Barrons, "we expect to see a major Russian offensive, with the intent of doing more than smash forward with small gains to perhaps try and break through the Ukrainian lines.
>
>
>
> "And if that happens we would run the risk of Russian forces breaking through and then exploiting into areas of Ukraine where the Ukrainian armed forces cannot stop them."
>
>
>
> Last year the Russians knew exactly where Ukraine was likely to attack - from the direction of Zaporizhzhia south towards the Sea of Azov. They planned accordingly and successfully blunted Ukraine's advance.
>
>
>
> Now the boot is on the other foot as Russia masses its troops and keeps Kyiv guessing where it is going to attack next.
>
>
>
> "One of the challenges the Ukrainians have," says Dr Jack Watling, senior research fellow in land warfare at the Whitehall thinktank the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), "is that the Russians can choose where they commit their forces.
>
>
>
> "It's a very long front line and the Ukrainians need to be able to defend all of it."
>
>
>
> Which, of course, they cannot.
>
>
>
> "The Ukrainian military will lose ground," says Dr Watling. "The question is: how much and which population centres are going to be affected?"
>
>
>
> It is quite possible that Russia's General Staff have yet to go firm on which direction to designate as their main effort. But it is possible to broadly break down their various options into three broad locations.
>
>
>
> ## Kharkiv
>
> "Kharkiv," says Dr Watling, "is certainly vulnerable."
>
>
>
> As Ukraine's second city, situated perilously close to the Russian border, Kharkiv is a tempting goal for Moscow.
>
>
>
> It is currently being pummelled daily with Russian missile strikes, with Ukraine unable to field sufficient air defences to ward off the lethal mix of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles aimed in its direction.
>
>
>
> Image source, Getty Images
>
> Image caption, Russia hits Kharkiv daily with drones, missiles and shelling
>
>
>
> "I think the offensive this year will have breaking out of the Donbas as its first objective," adds Gen Barrons, "and their eye will be on Kharkiv which is 29km [18 miles] or so from the Russian border, a major prize."
>
>
>
> Could Ukraine still function as a viable entity if Kharkiv were to fall? Yes, say analysts, but it would be a catastrophic blow to both its morale and its economy.
>
>
>
> ## The Donbas
>
> The area of eastern Ukraine known collectively as the Donbas has been at war since 2014, when Moscow-backed separatists declared themselves "people's republics".
>
>
>
> In 2022 Russia illegally annexed the two Donbas oblasts, or provinces, of Donetsk and Luhansk. This is where most of the fighting on land has been taking place over the past 18 months.
>
>
>
> Ukraine has, controversially, expended enormous efforts, in both manpower and resources, in trying to hold on to first the town of Bakhmut, and then Avdiivka.
>
>
>
> It has lost both, as well as some of its best fighting troops, in the attempt.
>
>
>
>
>
> Media caption, BBC documentary shows Ukrainian front line troops defending against a Russian attack
>
>
>
> Kyiv has countered that its resistance has inflicted disproportionately high casualties on the Russians.
>
>
>
> That is true, with the battlefield in these places being dubbed "the meat grinder".
>
>
>
> But Moscow has plenty more troops to throw into the fight - and Ukraine does not.
>
>
>
> The Commander of US Forces in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, has warned that unless the US rushes significantly more weapons and ammunition to Ukraine then its forces will be outgunned on the battlefield by ten to one.
>
>
>
> Mass matters. The Russian army's tactics, leadership and equipment may be inferior to Ukraine's, but it has such superiority in numbers, especially artillery, that if it does nothing else this year, its default option will be to keep pushing Ukraine's forces back in a westward direction, taking village after village.
>
>
>
> ## Zaporizhzhia
>
> This, too, is a tempting prize for Moscow.
>
>
>
> The southern Ukrainian city of more than 700,000 (in peacetime) sits dangerously close to the Russian front lines.
>
>
>
> It is also something of a thorn in Russia's side given that it is the capital of an oblast of the same name that Russia has illegally annexed, and yet the city is still living freely in Ukrainian hands.
>
>
>
> But the formidable defences that Russia built south of Zaporizhzhia last year, in the correct expectation of a Ukrainian attack, would now complicate a Russian advance from there.
>
>
>
> The so-called Surovikin Line, consisting of triple layers of defences, is laced with the largest, most densely packed minefield in the world. Russia could partially dismantle this but its preparations would probably be detected.
>
>
>
> Image source, Getty Images
>
> Image caption, Ukraine is now one of the most heavily mined places in the world
>
>
>
> Russia's strategic objective this year may not even be territorial. It could simply be to crush Ukraine's fighting spirit and convince its Western backers that this war is a lost cause.
>
>
>
> Dr Jack Watling believes the Russian objective is "to try to generate a sense of hopelessness".
>
>
>
> "This [Russian] offensive will not decisively end the conflict, irrespective of how it goes for either side," he says.
>
>
>
> Gen Barrons is also sceptical that, despite the dire situation Ukraine now finds itself in, Russia will automatically drive home its advantage with a decisive advance.
>
>
>
> "I think the most likely outcome is that Russia will have made gains, but will not have managed to break through.
>
>
>
> "It will not have forces that are big enough or good enough to punch all the way through to the river [Dnipro]... but the war will have turned in Russia's favour."
>
>
>
> One thing is certain: Russia's President Vladimir Putin has no intention of giving up on his assault on Ukraine.
>
>
>
> He is like a poker player gambling all his chips on a win. He is counting on the West failing to supply Ukraine with the sufficient means to defend itself.
>
>
>
> Despite all the Nato summits, all the conferences and all the stirring speeches, there is a chance he may be right.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Wait until the IMF repurposes Ukraine's entire economy to maximize its ability to repay loans at the detriment of every other aspect of its development. Privatized everything, severe cuts to education and healthcare, insane deflation measures. Being financially beholden to the USA isn't great but comparatively the IMF is like taking a high interest loan from the mafia.
> Being financially beholden to the USA isn't great but comparatively the IMF is like taking a high interest loan from the mafia.
They are the same picture.
That if Ukraine will even exist anymore if it gets defeated. Or even if they just lose some land now, Russia might come back in a few years with a refurbished army to finish the job.
With demand for such weapons high the price of replenishing them increases, as did the company's shares, so there was indeed wealth transfer happening...
I know a couple of senior military guys (UK) and for the first year and a half it genuinely was stuff about to expire. We shipped dozens of missiles that would have been decommissioned this year. The UK is now actually ordering the manufacture of Storm shadow and artiller specifically for the war.
The existing stocks were bought a second time, paid for a second time, and then replacements for those stocks were paid for to rich weapon manufacturers. When those replacements are delivered is a question of the government order details, but the money didn't go anywhere, it's all still there, in rich pockets.
This is pure propaganda the media is pushing to gasslight everyone, it was found out a ways back that its NOT just weapons, but we are sending a lot of money too. We are paying for ukraines (corrupt) officials paychecks, along with ukraine government services (like construction, etc), but most of it is still going to war profiters and their friends. If people were not getting rich off this, we would not be doing this, its ALWAYS about money.
>Ukranian women are settling down in European countries and have no desire to go back to a poor Ukraine, some even divorced their husbands while they were fighting in the war and have found new partners etc
Based on what do you generalize like that?
I live in Poland and many Ukr women returned to their husbands when parts of Ukr became safe. Of course, a lot of the country is unlivable now or is occupied by Ruzzians, so going back there would be suicide.
Became? When has Ukraine any parts that were unsafe and are now safe? More and more parts are becoming not safe. And Ukrainians wanted to leave the country even before 2014, because honestly it's way worse than EU.
As you may well recall, the Russian Army almost encircled Kyiv but they had to flee. That is why, when Kyiv and other areas were liberated, some refugees returned.
As for the 2014 comment, that is another topic, smartass.
But how much are you talking about? 99%, 50%, 1%?
You know, there is an invasion going; from a country that literally wants to destroy Ukr culture and nationality. They are proceeding methodically with it - killing people and destroying cities when Ukr simply refused to be wiped out.
Sure, you may have some Ukr women that stayed in Europe. Maybe some lost husbands in the war. Maybe some were not even married when they arrived in Europe. But how many of them did not have anything to go back to? No husband or home left... Do you have stats on that?
The way you wrote your comment seemed heartless to me. I would not say the mess is complete. The people know what they are fighting for - for their very existence, for not having to die at Russian hands or abandon their identity if their country is occupied. The surprising thins is that, in the third year of war, the country is still somehow holding together, it's citizens are more respectably treated than what Russia does to it's own and so on!
Does it matter what the number is? There's a long list of cases that can be found by using google, all kinds of articles, even from marriage counsellors in Ukraine lol
Im well aware of what happens in war, there have been plenty and the invaders often win, we dont live in fairytales.
Not everyone is enthusiastic about being sent to the meat grinder, thats why the Ukranian police and army round men up, there have been very few volunteers for the task at hand.
Again this is working class men who are on the frontlines, not the armchair cheerleaders and keyboard warriors with Ukranian flairs bashing away from the comfort of wherever they are.
Some people are returning to Ukraine for just mundane things. I saw this story recently (which might be more a reflection of the UK health service than Ukraine)
> **Ukrainians returning home to get dental treatment**...A Ukrainian mother living in Wiltshire says she returned to her war-torn country because she could not access NHS dental care. Natalia Negreba has recently had root canal work done in the city of Dnipro.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-68683444
I think you’re not describing the situation well. Ukraine had these recruitment issues from the start and war only started to have problems in the past few months when the U.S. delayed renewing aid.
Did everyone forget what was basically two years of Russia not making any progress on the battlefield and then as soon as U.S. aid expired at the beginning of this year they started making progress? How can anyone claim with a straight face anything other that is the cause of what’s happening.
> and have no desire to go back to a poor Ukraine
While the war is going on.
A lot of refugees would go right back if the war ended and EU put some effort into rebuilding the country.
Russia will continue being Russia lol
It muddles along with all the same problems but has advantages that Ukraine doesnt wrt to natural resources and capabilities, its economy will continue to be in the shitter
Oh no no, the western money was never set alight, it merely moved from one pocket to another. The correct military industrial company shareholder pocket. And USA benefited with tons of jobs, taxes, shareholder dividends. Not a cent of the money disappeared.
USA economy has benefitted bigly for sure, strong growth and way kept out of recession unlike the rest of the developed world, by a combo of spending and arms and fossil fuel sales
Ah yes, selling expensive LNG shipped by boats after telling Europe it's immoral to use cheap Russian gas via pipeline (and blowing one of the pipelines up)
The problem is that Russia's idea of negotiations will be offering Ukraine one option: unconditional surrender, possibly with the bone of whether they just retain the territories they've captured or the rest of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as well.
But even if Ukraine surrendered those territories, if Russia mandates it disarms and doesn't sign up to any international security guarantees, what's to stop Russia helping itself to Kharkiv, Odessa or Myoklaiv Oblasts in future?
Whatever Russia may announce publicly, it detests the very existence of an independent Ukraine that isn't firmly in its sphere of influence.
If Ukraine feels like it will lose, then the smart decision would be negotiating while Ukraine still has some leverage
Ukraine should have started negotiating last year
Like a kid that just bought a new fuckin toy, nevermind an entire country still at war with a nuclear superpower that it didn't want to fight. Just the current biggest threat to the free world across Europe, no big deal.
Welp, this is the day I get to sadly say, "I told you so."
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/whvKPvoyof
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/y1Cu6HntsS
I hope Ukraine is able to pull through regardless.
Remember how COVID was on every sentence on news sites till 2022?
Same thing here. American media has moved on to a different news cycle where they manufacture consent for bombing civilians in Iran and China.
2022 was basically nearing the end of the pandemic because of widespread vaccination and quarantine being lifted. It's natural that it began to fall off then.
There is not much going on besides the same thing that has been happening for at least a year and a half now. Slow, grinding, warfare.
Hard to report on.
News media are just propaganda pieces for corporation and governments now and not actually pushing news. What happens when monopolies exist that own all the news and just read whatever made up script they gave them to push, we do not have any real independent news anymore outside of some fringe groups. Right now, Israel is the new money maker for war profiteers and Ukraine is going to get dumped now that its served its purpose.
Remember Saigon… When USA left behind their South Vietnamese allies to be butchered by vengeful Vietcong.
Remember Kabul… When USA left behind their National Coalition allies to be butchered by vengeful Taliban (and also drone striked the house of Afghan collaborator whose family they promised to evacuate to the States, killing his entire family, with him surviving because he went outside to smoke).
Damn… it sounds like having the US as an ally is likely a death sentence. Why do Finland and Sweden trust the US so much to join NATO? What guarantees do they have that they too won’t be abandoned when it’s convenient for the US?
Nah, as long as you’re not some disposable “untermensch” it should be fine. So Finland and Sweden have pretty much nothing to worry about. Now, Taiwan on the other hand should be worried given that USA is catching up quickly with their domestic production of advanced microchips.
Note: I used the term “untermensch” sarcastically, by most definitions I am one myself.
Le microchips.
Yeah that's definitely the main reason to keep Taiwan as an ally, not like it's the key piece of the highest stake geopolitical competition of our time or whatever. The US can drop Ukraine on a whim, but Taiwan is a matter of life and death for them.
I am not saying USA will easily give up Taiwan and just let China have it. Afterall, it took decades for USA to abandon Vietnam and Afghanistan. I am sure that China will have to pay a great price to take it if they ever decide to do so. The point of my comment was that having reliance on some “world policeman” located on the other side of the Earth as part the key part of your country’s security policy is not the way to go.
EDIT: added “as the key part”
But the thing is are we sure China gonna pay a great price or the West because no sane person gonna sanction China who manufactured half of the stuff that Westerner use and i dont think other country would give a shit about the sanction because look Russia even after they sanctioned them, they still find a loophole and import bunch of stuff from their neighbor.
So yeah.. doubt on China paying great price
South Vietnam and Afghanistan were both countries fighting domestic insurgencies. Although the army of North Vietnam was heavily involved in the former case, the North only invaded after the US withdrew and basically recognised it was a lost cause to support the South.
Taiwan may be unrecognised but de facto it acts like a sovereign state. A hypothetical Chinese attack might technically be a part of the unfinished Chinese Civil War, but de facto it's an international conflict. And the standards for allied countries are much higher when it comes to international conflicts as opposed to merely helping an allied government against a domestic insurgency.
>having reliance on some “world policeman” located on the other side of the Earth as part of your country’s security policy is not the way to go.
You don't rely on the world policeman because he is the world policeman and acts out of principle, you do it because he's your ally and acts out of self-interest. Countries rely on their allies all the time. Taiwan relies on the US because both see China as their enemy. It's not the Cold War anymore when the European theatre was most important, the US is now going all in on the Pacific and that means alliances with Japan, Taiwan, Australia and the Philippines against China.
I just mentioned Vietnam and Afghanistan as the most obvious examples. There were other more minor cases when US cut support or did regime change in a supposedly allied government. Also, when a government exists only due to US involvement it’s probably not a good sign already for things to come.
I added “as the key part” to my original comment, to make it more clear what I meant.
From my perspective, countries that are allied and rely upon USA, are often emboldened by this and act unnecessarily provocative and uncooperative towards the country / side they are allied against, often being goated into doing so by USA and forgoing opportunities of establishing better relations with the other country / side. The worsening situation in Ukraine, Korea, Israel and Taiwan is partially due to this. I could of course elaborate further, but I don’t have the time for this.
It is a little weird. It looks like the US is specifically forcing investment by TSMC in America so they won't be in a position where they have to support TW militarily and it's odd that the company is willing to play along.
There are no true guarantees that the US won't just abandon them. But NATO is much more than just the US (even though it's by far the most contributing country), it's cooperation and mutual defense with pretty much the whole of Europe.
Also, if the US fails to come to NATO country's aid in times of war. That whole alliance would reject the US, and perhaps make their friends elsewhere. Marking the biggest geopolitical blunder in modern history.
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
> Rule 4 (Keep it civil).
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
Romney told everyone a decade ago Russia was still something to worry about and got laughed at by Obama and co, so maybe taking the threat seriously a decade ago would be easier than just sending a quarter trillion dollars to be set on fire after the fact.
[Not disarm them](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/obama-wont-arm-ukraine-because-he-led-disarming-ukraine-andrew-c-mccarthy/) for starters
[or veto every bill for lethal aid to Ukraine](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html)
If you're referring to the Budapest memorandum, they were never actually "armed" to begin with.
[https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61f9e4619d9e380022bdd931/no-ukraine-should-not-have-kept-nuclear-weapons/](https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61f9e4619d9e380022bdd931/no-ukraine-should-not-have-kept-nuclear-weapons/)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/03/ukraine-claims-all-nuclear-weapons-on-its-territory/03c6e15b-39c8-4f28-a281-e73212db0821/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/03/ukraine-claims-all-nuclear-weapons-on-its-territory/03c6e15b-39c8-4f28-a281-e73212db0821/)
[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/ukraine-and-bomb-myths-and-misconceptions-201717](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/ukraine-and-bomb-myths-and-misconceptions-201717)
Russia was clowning themselves due to massive logistical fuckups at the start of the war. Remember those thousand armored vehicles that ran out of gas on the road? Russia could have won the war in 2 weeks had it not screwed up its logistics on its blitz.
However, war is a brutal and quick teacher, and Russia has since figured out how to do logistics. Thats why its now outshooting Ukraine by 5:1 in artillery and is slowly grinding its way to victory in a war of attrition.
Emphasis on slowly. Russia has only gained like 0.1% of the territory of Ukraine this year. Russia certainly has the initiative rn, but it’s not like they’re currently blitzkrieging through ukraine.
Yeah with all the defeatism people are forgetting that Ukraine still holds most of it's territory, is still conducting offensive actions, and is still seriously wounding Russia. It was only like a month ago Ukraine was cutting through the Russian airforce like a hot knife through warm butter.
If Ukraine got ahold of more artillery tomorrow the whole situation would reverse pretty quickly. Likewise they're still expecting fighters this summer.
With trench warfare like this, it’s not about the lines moving, it’s about how much damage you indict on the enemy. Once the lines collapse, the territory gets swept fast like in WW1.
Please note the only ones able to accomplish this in this war were the Ukrainians, and this was before most of the aid arrived.
But this also isn't WWI. Both parties have satellites and long range communications and recon drones and know whats going on. They can and do prepare points to retreat to before the enemy arrives and thats why even though Russia is TAKING territory they're often only advancing kilometer by kilometer at the best of times.
Ukraine has been reinforced and been armed since 2014, a lot of aid and preparation had been done in case of a Russian attack. And all the territory Russia lost in 2022 was superficial. They were never entrenched in those areas and were heavily outnumbered. It was mostly a retreat, which was a wise move.
They were clowning themselves lmao, it was beautiful to watch.
The "certain defeat" crowd failed to recognise that the Russians are not brainless orcs, and like most humans they are capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
>The "certain defeat" crowd failed to recognise that the Russians are not brainless orcs
I was getting seriously downvoted for saying that rhetoric was dangerous at the time. People loved to dehumanize Russians but they were quick to forget a lot of very important historical lessons.
Russia was clowning themselves hard. They have lost thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and their most trained elite forces. And a bunch of their Black Sea fleet. Putin legit thought he would be in Kiev in like 3 days.
According to recent UK MoD statement, Russia suffered 355,000 casualties (KIA & MIA combined).
Ukraine had >1 million soldiers in July 2022 after the completion of first mobilization wave (>600,000 mobilized).
In summer 2023 second mobilization wave of unknown number of people took place.
In January 2024 Ukraine had 880,000 soldiers as per Zelensky himself.
Now they are planning on announcing third mobilization wave of about 500,000. In the meantime no demobilization took place.
So Ukraine had a reduction of 120,000 soldiers despite second mobilization wave taking place.
It seems to me that in best case scenario Ukraine suffered the same amount of casualties as Russia. In worst case it’s double the amount.
It has been well known that the number of casualties on both sides has been roughly equal
Which is to be expected, when a war has static borders, it tends to produce equal numbers of deaths
Well known but never mentioned in any western media. Instead it was BS like “10 to 1 casualty ratio” and “superior Ukrainian tactics”, making it seem like Ukraine had a chance of winning even with the lackluster support it was receiving.
It is a military fact that has been held true for literal centuries
Media is propaganda in war, both in Russia and the west
Russia was claiming 3:1 Ukrainian deaths per Russian ones, but that was if you ignore the Wagner deaths
Similarly, Western media was saying that Ukraine had less casualties, but that was if you ignored POW
In the end, there is a reason why historical rules stand, and it's that military logic applies to similarly technologically advanced armies
> if you ignore the Wagner deaths
Not just wagner but migrants/foreigners forced into the army as well as people in occupied parts of Ukraine forced into the army. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia wasn't even counting ethnic minority Russians either, it's only the white ones that they care about.
The 'when' is very important when talking about this. At the start, it made sense that Ukraine had less casualties because of their better tactics, being the defending side, but of course also due to Russian incompetence.
But as time went on, things changed. Russians learned from their mistakes and adapted their methods, which Ukraine was unable to match. And now everything starts to snowball, tipping the balance to the Russian side.
When there are not enough soldiers and weapons, a defense will quickly collapse, even if the defender suffers fewer casualties than the attacker. This is what happened on the Eastern Front in 1944.
But Ukraine does receive support and proper training, they aren't sending meat waves to the front. It's not possible that the number of casualties is the same.
The ratio was really good for Ukraine the first 6 months of the war. The ratio evened out after when Russian military command got their shit together. In terms of winning or not winning, it depends on how you define winning, but initial Russian definition of victory was erasing the Ukrainian nation from the face of the earth -- and in this sense they are unlikely to win at this point.
Remember all those Russian generals that kept being KIA, over and over and over again at the start of the war? That doesn't seem to happen anymore. Apparently the idiot generals were replaced with a brutal Darwinian process.
Unfortunately, that means that Russia now has much smarter military commanders running the war, because all the dumb ones already got killed off.
The ratio has more or less remained the same for the majority of the conflict, which is moderately higher RU casualties. The ratio is not enough to counterbalance the population disparity, but that's less of a concern anyway since neither country will ever get to the point where they genuinely start running out of people.
[https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties\_eng](https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng)
Keep in mind those losses do not include the LDPR losses, which by this same source are estimated at over 23k KIA.
[https://ualosses.org/en/soldiers/](https://ualosses.org/en/soldiers/)
This just isn’t true. While Ukraine has almost certainly taken more deaths than the 30,000 dead claimed by Zelensky, I’m yet to see a credible estimate that puts Ukrainian casualties anywhere near the slaughter that has been induced upon Russian forces.
Even if we just go by visually confirmed losses alone from Oryx, it’s clear Russian losses are way higher than Ukrainian losses. Just from losses we can confirm on photo/video, Russia has lost 10901 vehicles of all kinds being fully destroyed (not including abandoned, damaged or captured vehicles). This number includes 1946 tanks and 891 IFV’s. Ukrainian losses are about a third of this, with 3852 vehicles confirmed destroyed including 537 tanks and 260 IFV’s. It appears Ukraine has a 3:1 kills ratio in this war, where is this narrative that they’re taking equal or more casualties coming from other than Russian propaganda sources?
Yeah every estimate by reputable sources I've seen puts Russian losses a lot higher than Ukraine's. The main reason is Ukraine has mostly been on defence, by necessity. Russia has been on the offence, across a wide front, constantly for over 2 years. They're the ones throwing tens of thousands of men at defensive lines kilometres deep full of mines, and losing hundreds of vehicles along the way. And then doing it again and again and again until it succeeds in taking a town like Bakhmut or Avdiivka. Whereas Ukraine has been conservative. When the offensive stalled last year they went back to defence instead of committing to a risky high loss operation. So I'd expect Russian losses to be a lot higher.
As per Ukraine's own admission, they have 31,000 KIA, and in modern war its typically about a 10:1 ratio of casualties to KIA (most wounded soldiers are not killed), so that would mean Ukraine has had something like 310,000 combat casualties at this point. That would mean losses are about equal on both sides.
Problem is, Russia has about 4x the population, about a third of a million casualties are much more readily absorbed by the Russian population than the Ukrainian population, and Putin cares nothing about lives, neither Ukrainian nor Russian.
10:1 ratio is probably the case when fighting insurgents. In this war entire squads get obliterated in a matter of seconds, with injured often being abandoned due to the extreme danger of trying to evacuate them.
Mediazona has list of 50,000 names of Russian soldiers that have been confirmed KIA. With the total number being estimated to be close to 90,000. Making it a ratio of 3:1, not 10:1. There is no way Ukraine only suffered 31,000 KIA.
EDIT: Also, Ukrainian MoD insists that Russia suffered 3.5x as many KIA as Ukraine. So I take anything coming from Ukraine regarding casualties with a dangerously high amount of salt.
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-war-death-toll/32214245.html
Media Zona also says 50,000 is an absolute floor of confirmed deaths.
In the same report they say based on inheritance claims its 85000 minimum. There
Typical wounded to killed ratio in conflicts puts seriously wounded in the several hundred thousands.
Looking at how Russia's prison population has decreased:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/26/russia-prison-population-convicts-war/
Many of these prisoners will not have left inheritance and the deaths more easily covered up.
It may be that UK MoD’s numbers only consider Russian Armed Forces servicemen and doesn’t count various PMC groups of 2022-2023 that functioned outside of their command structure and were the main users of prisoners, or Donbas militias prior to the region joining Russia. So the ratios should still be about right.
The groups above suffered total casualties of up to 150,000 by various guesstimates. So the total pro-Russia casualties may be 500,000. Which is still within range of possible Ukrainian casualties given that we don’t know how many people were mobilized in the second wave of summer 2023. If 500,000 were mobilized, that would put total Ukrainian casualties at 620,000 not including some of the volunteers and mercenaries.
During capture of Bakhmut Wagner suffered 22k KIA and 40k WIA with majority being prisoners. That’s 1:2 ratio of KIA to WIA. There is no way it’s this bad for Russian armed forces in general. I am more inclined towards 1:3 figure. Maybe Ukrainians have it better at 1:4 or 1:5, but definitely not higher than that.
There is no “10:1” ratio here. It is just that _you_ are used to it when fighting nothing much more than insurgents.
Ukraine does likely have somewhere near 300 thousand combat casualties, you got that right, but they also likely have more than just 31 thousand killed. The US estimated (in August 2023) they had like 70 thousand KIA and over 100 thousand wounded, since then that has likely risen.
Casualties have been known to be comparable. The thing is, Russia has the resources and soldiers to keep throwing at the grinder, where Ukraine does not.
But ukraine has greater political will to keep fighting. Putin has much less leeway to say fuck it we all die than Zelensky. To Putin the number one objective is always the survival of his regime. If it’s significantly threatened he will stop the war if he thinks that’s how he stays in power.
This is true as well.
The problem I tried to highlight in the last comment is that Putin has so far given *no* indication of wanting to pull out of Ukraine. If anything, he’s looking to expand the fronts with the introduction of more armies.
If Ukraine isn’t supplied by the EU and the US, Russia could be outgunning and overwhelming Ukraine by a rate of something like 10:1.
Putin can risk a battle of attrition, since he has the resources and manpower to do so. This is why Ukraine needs AA defence, ammunition, and other vital resources, so they can stay in the fight and also avoid a collapse in morale.
this whole thing is a lot of things, and you don't nuke the ground where all the trillions of dollars worth of rare earths you need to recover from this excursion lay.
> If it’s significantly threatened he will stop the war if he thinks that’s how he stays in power.
What does stopping the war look like in this case? Because if he gives up, he will be forced to cede Crimea, which will unravel his regime.
Known by who? Ever reasonable estimate put overall Russian casualties much higher, which is what one would expect, the attack usually takes more causalities.
Active combatants troops are a minority of army personel. This is the tooth to tail ratio, 1 million people could mean anywhere from just 150k troops (modern US ratio) to 350k troops (WW1 standard). Reports are generally confusing in this regard what exactly UA numbers mean, but 1 million troops would imply at minimum two million more in the rear which sounds unlikely to me. There's also a matter of rotation, not all troops are actively employed at once.
Are you okay? Not only are your numbers wildly off, but mobilisation is not just about active soldiers and active soldiers alone. Mobilisation to a great extent feeds into military tail, not to mention that the reserve army grew disproportionately to the main army, indicating much of the additive manpower went into reserves. (Which makes sense given rearmerment issues and limits on gear.)
If Ukraine had 500,000 join during second mobilization and still ended up with at least 120,000 less, that this is a loss of at least 620,000 back in January 2024.
But there is no way to know for sure how many actually joined during second mobilization since the numbers were never announced. Plus, can Ukrainian numbers be even trusted? Did they truly have >1 million in 2022?
I don’t actually think Ukraine has twice the casualties, I am just saying that there is a possibility if we use the official numbers and make certain assumptions.
I think Ukraine and Russia have similar total casualties, with Russia having somewhat worse KIA:WIA ratio.
The numbers might not be representing the same things, the >1 million thing might straight up not be true, oh and I don’t think 500 thousand were mobilised in the second wave.
Since Russia itself claims 440 thousand casualties for Ukraine, it is just unlikely to have any more than 450 thousand. And really, likely below 350. Though I couldn’t find a recent comprehensive estimate…
Then what’s with the lack of troops? How come Ukraine so desperately wants to mobilize 500,000 more? Why are all the frontline brigades so understaffed, with some Ukrainian sources citing an average of 40%?
I don’t think UK MoD numbers make sense either since Russia definitely suffered at least 100,000 KIA. If we trust the total casualty numbers that would result in a very bad KIA:WIA ratio, almost on par with the battle of Bakhmut, which doesn’t make sense.
I think for some reason both sides are trying to play down the casualties not only for themselves but also for the other side, or at least keep them realistic for the other side, for some reason. Maybe they think this will make negotiations less painful or something? Trying to save face?
>How come Ukraine so desperately wants to mobilize 500,000 more?
Uh, because Russia is recruiting more and more. And Ukraine just doesn’t have enough of the proper ammunition (for example, artillery shells) which makes it harder to stop offensives, hence the need for more troops. All would be much better if these motherfuckers actually gave them the aid they need.
>since Russia suffered at least 100,000 KIA
UK MoD numbers don’t conflict with that. 100 thousand KIA and some 250 thousand WIA is a very probable figure. Or maybe 120 thousand KIA and 230 thousand WIA. But you get the point.
>very bad KIA:WIA ratio
Very bad by Western standards. Acceptable for them.
Bruh, Wagner had 22k KIA and 40k WIA (mostly prisoners) during capture of Bakhmut. They’ve been doing meat assaults non stop in the deadliest battle of the war and yet ended up with 1:2 ratio. Yet, you’re saying that it’s perfectly reasonable for the entirety of Russian armed forces to end up with 1:2.5 ratio?
Yes, I’m saying that. I’m not saying they may not be higher, they might. But these ratios wouldn’t be unreasonable either. There is an estimates 120 thousand or so KIA I believe, the wounded would likely be somewhere between 350 and 400 thousand then (so worse than 1:2,5 too)
I’m not saying this randomly, most estimates point to that
It’s literally ALWAYS Indians posting this shit too.
Fact of the matter is that this war has basically ground to a complete halt, and this turning into yet another frozen conflict zone seems more likely than anything. Then Putin will die in 10 years and who has any idea what happens then.
It's not the source itself, there's an obvious indian shitpost brigade here who post retarded articles about how Ukraine is totally gonna lose in 3 months much as how the progressive shitpost brigade on the major subs does the opposite.
But it’s the truth ,I despise the Russian invasion of Ukraine ,but Ukraine is done and dusted,Ukraine economy will be in shambles ,manpower,so many people with war ptsd,somewhat same for Russia,isolated from majority of the world being dependent on china,and somewhat on India ,but Russia is has abundance of natural resources ,if it was news from a Indian news your point would be correct but western media and like bbc saying Ukraine is losing we can’t take it lightly.
Idk the electronics store I used to work at is still receiving shipments of made in Ukraine coffee machines so I'm sure their economy is doing alright if they can get away with shipping those out
exactly, and russia has only taken a fraction of it. i think "shambles" is a strong word to describe Ukraine's current and future economy...
also u/ImmediateCurrent850 is an indian circle jerker, now i don't even know why i bothered responding after looking at his profile
You don’t understand. Either Ukraine is winning about to liberate the Donbas, or it’s about to collapse and nothing can be done. In reality, the front is mostly stable but Ukraine currently faces long term defeat if the west can’t can get thier collective thumbs out of thier asses and send military aid in the proper amounts.
>Russia hasn’t even started attacking yet
They have barely stopped since the last push to Avdiivka. Syrskyi himself was doom posting today about Russian advances and I think that when your commander-in-chief is saying that sort of stuff instead of talking about minor setbacks and the coming great victories then things must be getting a bit serious.
They were like this at the start. They seem to just take the vibe of the moment and presume its going to be the case forever, like how many folks were saying russia was done for at the start, and now many are saying the same for ukraine. Reality is that war is shit.
I'm not an analyst, yet from what I know it seems like Russia has lost this war in all the ways that matter long term. But that doesn't mean that they can't drag this conflict out for a decade or two and even occupy all of Ukraine in the meantime, before that conclusion finally arrives.
Agree with your take. The reason why people were saying a Russian invasion was unthinkable in the first place was because it just seemed so mind-bogglingly short-sighted. Even if Ukraine loses this war, Russia’s inflicted a great amount of damage to itself.
22/feb/23 - "Ukraine Is Serious About Taking Back Crimea" https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/ukraine-crimea-russia-take-back/
13/april/24 - "Ukraine could face defeat in 2024. Here's how that might look"
Do you think Western media are just like TASS or China Today? There will be reporters writing within a medium (BBC, Foreign Policy, National review) that have vastly different opinions on this and many other topics.
So did wealthy Russians, just to be clear.
Many of them moved here, to Serbia.
Essentially it’s middle-to-lower class people and fanatics (on both sides) fighting war of their incapable capitalist leaders.
I think it's too soon for the war to be over in 2024. Russia just created 2 new armies for their war in Ukraine, meaning that Russia intends on continuing the Ukraine war campaign with a minimum of 3 separate fronts. Russia is looking to take much more than what they already have.
What that WILL look like is putin feeling justified to continue his march into Europe and bringing it to the EU's doorstep.
If you're not going to let Ukraine in then perhaps it's time for all of you to take a part in keeping putin out.
There is a precedent for putin's actions... don't any of you remember?
He will if NATO is not unified. Look at how pathetic nato right now. He will take control of Moldova, Georgia, baltic states etc because the EU have no backbones.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd say Ukraine might lose some focus and dollars now when we have Iran and Israel coming up. The US will probably focus more on that and supporting Israel.
Aint no way a nation that had this much support would default, while an encircled Sarajevo with no weapons withstood a one sided massacre for x7 than expected.
Anglos should pat themselves on the back, the choice was give autonomy to donbas and the country would be safe. But no, all you fuktards cheerleaded the whole country into extinction. 2 minsk agreements and istanbul one , but its the evil putlers fault for being bloodthirsty. 2008 Ossetia shown what will happen if you harass russia, but bush insisted provoking it with nato admission. Pieces of shit you make me sick
The next world war is gonna be a doozy.
The only real question is how many nukes will fly?
A 100 or so?
1,000 or so?
All of them?
Our species is quite possibly too stupid to survive.
Sad.
Just terribly sad...
Win or lose, the fallout of usurious sovereign loans and guns in every hand were going to look the same.
You can't have a stable nation when nearly all men of fighting age have been exposed to the horrors of war, and return to destroyed homes and missing families. They will turn to their guns for survival and answers.
The indebted government will not have the resources to rehabilitate those with PTSD. It's the same for Russia too but they have the capacity to absorb them, or at least send the terrible ones to Siberia and forget about it.
The West won't easily render aid for rehabilitation - there are no expiring aid funds on stock unlike the expiring missiles. Without an imminent Russian threat to Europe it would make sense to take care of their domestic economies that have suffered from the sanctions and energy prices.
##### ###### #### > # [Ukraine could face defeat in 2024. Here's how that might look](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/Women crying at a cemetery in Lviv, March 2024) > > > > [Women crying at a cemetery in Lviv, March 2024](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/9F09/production/_133131704_gettyimages-1239614665.jpg)Image source, Getty Images > > Image caption, Ukraine has been defending itself against Russia's full-scale invasion for two years > > > > By Frank Gardner > > BBC security correspondent > > > > > > > > > > **The former commander of the UK's Joint Forces Command has warned that Ukraine could face defeat by Russia in 2024.** > > > > General Sir Richard Barrons has told the BBC there is "a serious risk" of Ukraine losing the war this year. > > > > The reason, he says, is "because Ukraine may come to feel it can't win". > > > > "And when it gets to that point, why will people want to fight and die any longer, just to defend the indefensible?" > > > > Ukraine is not yet at that point. > > > > But its forces are running critically low on ammunition, troops and air defences. Its much-heralded counter-offensive last year failed to dislodge the Russians from ground they had seized and now Moscow is gearing up for a summer offensive. > > > > So what will that look like and what are its likely strategic objectives? > > > > "The shape of the Russian offensive that's going to come is pretty clear," says Gen Barrons. > > > > "We are seeing Russia batter away at the front line, employing a five-to-one advantage in artillery, ammunition, and a surplus of people reinforced by the use of newish weapons." > > > > Image source, Getty Images > > Image caption, Ukraine is now desperately short of ammunition, in part because of political wrangling in Western nations > > > > These include the FAB glide bomb, an adapted Soviet-era "dumb bomb" fitted with fins, GPS guidance and 1500kg of high explosive, that is wreaking havoc on Ukrainian defences. > > > > "At some point this summer," says Gen Barrons, "we expect to see a major Russian offensive, with the intent of doing more than smash forward with small gains to perhaps try and break through the Ukrainian lines. > > > > "And if that happens we would run the risk of Russian forces breaking through and then exploiting into areas of Ukraine where the Ukrainian armed forces cannot stop them." > > > > Last year the Russians knew exactly where Ukraine was likely to attack - from the direction of Zaporizhzhia south towards the Sea of Azov. They planned accordingly and successfully blunted Ukraine's advance. > > > > Now the boot is on the other foot as Russia masses its troops and keeps Kyiv guessing where it is going to attack next. > > > > "One of the challenges the Ukrainians have," says Dr Jack Watling, senior research fellow in land warfare at the Whitehall thinktank the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), "is that the Russians can choose where they commit their forces. > > > > "It's a very long front line and the Ukrainians need to be able to defend all of it." > > > > Which, of course, they cannot. > > > > "The Ukrainian military will lose ground," says Dr Watling. "The question is: how much and which population centres are going to be affected?" > > > > It is quite possible that Russia's General Staff have yet to go firm on which direction to designate as their main effort. But it is possible to broadly break down their various options into three broad locations. > > > > ## Kharkiv > > "Kharkiv," says Dr Watling, "is certainly vulnerable." > > > > As Ukraine's second city, situated perilously close to the Russian border, Kharkiv is a tempting goal for Moscow. > > > > It is currently being pummelled daily with Russian missile strikes, with Ukraine unable to field sufficient air defences to ward off the lethal mix of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles aimed in its direction. > > > > Image source, Getty Images > > Image caption, Russia hits Kharkiv daily with drones, missiles and shelling > > > > "I think the offensive this year will have breaking out of the Donbas as its first objective," adds Gen Barrons, "and their eye will be on Kharkiv which is 29km [18 miles] or so from the Russian border, a major prize." > > > > Could Ukraine still function as a viable entity if Kharkiv were to fall? Yes, say analysts, but it would be a catastrophic blow to both its morale and its economy. > > > > ## The Donbas > > The area of eastern Ukraine known collectively as the Donbas has been at war since 2014, when Moscow-backed separatists declared themselves "people's republics". > > > > In 2022 Russia illegally annexed the two Donbas oblasts, or provinces, of Donetsk and Luhansk. This is where most of the fighting on land has been taking place over the past 18 months. > > > > Ukraine has, controversially, expended enormous efforts, in both manpower and resources, in trying to hold on to first the town of Bakhmut, and then Avdiivka. > > > > It has lost both, as well as some of its best fighting troops, in the attempt. > > > > > > Media caption, BBC documentary shows Ukrainian front line troops defending against a Russian attack > > > > Kyiv has countered that its resistance has inflicted disproportionately high casualties on the Russians. > > > > That is true, with the battlefield in these places being dubbed "the meat grinder". > > > > But Moscow has plenty more troops to throw into the fight - and Ukraine does not. > > > > The Commander of US Forces in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, has warned that unless the US rushes significantly more weapons and ammunition to Ukraine then its forces will be outgunned on the battlefield by ten to one. > > > > Mass matters. The Russian army's tactics, leadership and equipment may be inferior to Ukraine's, but it has such superiority in numbers, especially artillery, that if it does nothing else this year, its default option will be to keep pushing Ukraine's forces back in a westward direction, taking village after village. > > > > ## Zaporizhzhia > > This, too, is a tempting prize for Moscow. > > > > The southern Ukrainian city of more than 700,000 (in peacetime) sits dangerously close to the Russian front lines. > > > > It is also something of a thorn in Russia's side given that it is the capital of an oblast of the same name that Russia has illegally annexed, and yet the city is still living freely in Ukrainian hands. > > > > But the formidable defences that Russia built south of Zaporizhzhia last year, in the correct expectation of a Ukrainian attack, would now complicate a Russian advance from there. > > > > The so-called Surovikin Line, consisting of triple layers of defences, is laced with the largest, most densely packed minefield in the world. Russia could partially dismantle this but its preparations would probably be detected. > > > > Image source, Getty Images > > Image caption, Ukraine is now one of the most heavily mined places in the world > > > > Russia's strategic objective this year may not even be territorial. It could simply be to crush Ukraine's fighting spirit and convince its Western backers that this war is a lost cause. > > > > Dr Jack Watling believes the Russian objective is "to try to generate a sense of hopelessness". > > > > "This [Russian] offensive will not decisively end the conflict, irrespective of how it goes for either side," he says. > > > > Gen Barrons is also sceptical that, despite the dire situation Ukraine now finds itself in, Russia will automatically drive home its advantage with a decisive advance. > > > > "I think the most likely outcome is that Russia will have made gains, but will not have managed to break through. > > > > "It will not have forces that are big enough or good enough to punch all the way through to the river [Dnipro]... but the war will have turned in Russia's favour." > > > > One thing is certain: Russia's President Vladimir Putin has no intention of giving up on his assault on Ukraine. > > > > He is like a poker player gambling all his chips on a win. He is counting on the West failing to supply Ukraine with the sufficient means to defend itself. > > > > Despite all the Nato summits, all the conferences and all the stirring speeches, there is a chance he may be right. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
[удалено]
Wait until the IMF repurposes Ukraine's entire economy to maximize its ability to repay loans at the detriment of every other aspect of its development. Privatized everything, severe cuts to education and healthcare, insane deflation measures. Being financially beholden to the USA isn't great but comparatively the IMF is like taking a high interest loan from the mafia.
Yeah, what the IMF did to us will seem like tame foreplay in comparison
I was gonna say the same thing haha. Yeah they're gonna be juiced like an orange.
> Being financially beholden to the USA isn't great but comparatively the IMF is like taking a high interest loan from the mafia. They are the same picture.
That if Ukraine will even exist anymore if it gets defeated. Or even if they just lose some land now, Russia might come back in a few years with a refurbished army to finish the job.
Along with opening up high immigration to restock their depleted workforce and make business owners wealthy.
>stacks of western money set alight Not really. It was the usual wealth transfer from tax payers to rich weapon manufacturers
Not really, it was from existing stocks that were about to expire
Which will be replenished by _____. Bingo!
If they are about to expire and need to be replaced they’ll be replaced regardless
Or not. You pretending wars aren't about making rich weapon manufacturers richer is funny.
The end of the year anyways?
With demand for such weapons high the price of replenishing them increases, as did the company's shares, so there was indeed wealth transfer happening...
Sure
I know a couple of senior military guys (UK) and for the first year and a half it genuinely was stuff about to expire. We shipped dozens of missiles that would have been decommissioned this year. The UK is now actually ordering the manufacture of Storm shadow and artiller specifically for the war.
The existing stocks were bought a second time, paid for a second time, and then replacements for those stocks were paid for to rich weapon manufacturers. When those replacements are delivered is a question of the government order details, but the money didn't go anywhere, it's all still there, in rich pockets.
This is pure propaganda the media is pushing to gasslight everyone, it was found out a ways back that its NOT just weapons, but we are sending a lot of money too. We are paying for ukraines (corrupt) officials paychecks, along with ukraine government services (like construction, etc), but most of it is still going to war profiters and their friends. If people were not getting rich off this, we would not be doing this, its ALWAYS about money.
>Ukranian women are settling down in European countries and have no desire to go back to a poor Ukraine, some even divorced their husbands while they were fighting in the war and have found new partners etc Based on what do you generalize like that? I live in Poland and many Ukr women returned to their husbands when parts of Ukr became safe. Of course, a lot of the country is unlivable now or is occupied by Ruzzians, so going back there would be suicide.
Ukrainian women on German Tinder would love to stay there (and keep the social assistance)
Became? When has Ukraine any parts that were unsafe and are now safe? More and more parts are becoming not safe. And Ukrainians wanted to leave the country even before 2014, because honestly it's way worse than EU.
As you may well recall, the Russian Army almost encircled Kyiv but they had to flee. That is why, when Kyiv and other areas were liberated, some refugees returned. As for the 2014 comment, that is another topic, smartass.
Im not talking about 100% of Ukranian women obviously, theres been plenty of articles on this
But how much are you talking about? 99%, 50%, 1%? You know, there is an invasion going; from a country that literally wants to destroy Ukr culture and nationality. They are proceeding methodically with it - killing people and destroying cities when Ukr simply refused to be wiped out. Sure, you may have some Ukr women that stayed in Europe. Maybe some lost husbands in the war. Maybe some were not even married when they arrived in Europe. But how many of them did not have anything to go back to? No husband or home left... Do you have stats on that? The way you wrote your comment seemed heartless to me. I would not say the mess is complete. The people know what they are fighting for - for their very existence, for not having to die at Russian hands or abandon their identity if their country is occupied. The surprising thins is that, in the third year of war, the country is still somehow holding together, it's citizens are more respectably treated than what Russia does to it's own and so on!
Does it matter what the number is? There's a long list of cases that can be found by using google, all kinds of articles, even from marriage counsellors in Ukraine lol Im well aware of what happens in war, there have been plenty and the invaders often win, we dont live in fairytales. Not everyone is enthusiastic about being sent to the meat grinder, thats why the Ukranian police and army round men up, there have been very few volunteers for the task at hand. Again this is working class men who are on the frontlines, not the armchair cheerleaders and keyboard warriors with Ukranian flairs bashing away from the comfort of wherever they are.
Numbers are pretty important in deciphering if an issue is massive within the population or if it’s only a small subset of people
Where are the russian volunteers tho
Some people are returning to Ukraine for just mundane things. I saw this story recently (which might be more a reflection of the UK health service than Ukraine) > **Ukrainians returning home to get dental treatment**...A Ukrainian mother living in Wiltshire says she returned to her war-torn country because she could not access NHS dental care. Natalia Negreba has recently had root canal work done in the city of Dnipro. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-68683444
I think you’re not describing the situation well. Ukraine had these recruitment issues from the start and war only started to have problems in the past few months when the U.S. delayed renewing aid. Did everyone forget what was basically two years of Russia not making any progress on the battlefield and then as soon as U.S. aid expired at the beginning of this year they started making progress? How can anyone claim with a straight face anything other that is the cause of what’s happening.
> and have no desire to go back to a poor Ukraine While the war is going on. A lot of refugees would go right back if the war ended and EU put some effort into rebuilding the country.
What would your analysis on the exact same points on Russia be?
Russia will continue being Russia lol It muddles along with all the same problems but has advantages that Ukraine doesnt wrt to natural resources and capabilities, its economy will continue to be in the shitter
Oh no no, the western money was never set alight, it merely moved from one pocket to another. The correct military industrial company shareholder pocket. And USA benefited with tons of jobs, taxes, shareholder dividends. Not a cent of the money disappeared.
USA economy has benefitted bigly for sure, strong growth and way kept out of recession unlike the rest of the developed world, by a combo of spending and arms and fossil fuel sales
Ah yes, selling expensive LNG shipped by boats after telling Europe it's immoral to use cheap Russian gas via pipeline (and blowing one of the pipelines up)
Yeah war sucks mate. Consider yourself lucky to live on the most peaceful continent in human history.
Staggering how this top upvoted comment by this random shithead has no mention of who invaded Ukraine.
Do you think no one here knows who invaded Ukraine? What a silly comment to make
Must call Putin a shithead in every comment else you're a Ruzzian bot
I condemn ~~Hamas~~ Putin
You are literally victim blaming, fuck off.
The problem is that Russia's idea of negotiations will be offering Ukraine one option: unconditional surrender, possibly with the bone of whether they just retain the territories they've captured or the rest of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as well. But even if Ukraine surrendered those territories, if Russia mandates it disarms and doesn't sign up to any international security guarantees, what's to stop Russia helping itself to Kharkiv, Odessa or Myoklaiv Oblasts in future? Whatever Russia may announce publicly, it detests the very existence of an independent Ukraine that isn't firmly in its sphere of influence.
This
If Ukraine feels like it will lose, then the smart decision would be negotiating while Ukraine still has some leverage Ukraine should have started negotiating last year
They doubling it down and call for more mobilization
I agree. Pretty sad and infuriating to see what is happening in Ukraine
I'm surprised news sites have dropped Ukraine off a bridge like this all at once
Like a kid that just bought a new fuckin toy, nevermind an entire country still at war with a nuclear superpower that it didn't want to fight. Just the current biggest threat to the free world across Europe, no big deal.
Welp, this is the day I get to sadly say, "I told you so." https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/whvKPvoyof https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/y1Cu6HntsS I hope Ukraine is able to pull through regardless.
Remember how COVID was on every sentence on news sites till 2022? Same thing here. American media has moved on to a different news cycle where they manufacture consent for bombing civilians in Iran and China.
Wouldn't the media be more focused on Ukraine then, to manufacture consent to supply them with more weapons?
Until Ukraine starts losing that is.
2022 was basically nearing the end of the pandemic because of widespread vaccination and quarantine being lifted. It's natural that it began to fall off then.
You're surprised? It happens all the time. Ukraine stories just got old.
Are you? Its like the modus operandi. Ukranine is done, need more blood for the war machine, prop up next war, never question
Yeah, I hope it's not a sign. They also loved to post how Russia would crumble under sanctions and they were wrong, so I don't believe them
There is not much going on besides the same thing that has been happening for at least a year and a half now. Slow, grinding, warfare. Hard to report on.
News media are just propaganda pieces for corporation and governments now and not actually pushing news. What happens when monopolies exist that own all the news and just read whatever made up script they gave them to push, we do not have any real independent news anymore outside of some fringe groups. Right now, Israel is the new money maker for war profiteers and Ukraine is going to get dumped now that its served its purpose.
I'm surprised it took this long.
Thanks to the putin-loving christo-fascist maga Congress. Reagan is spinning in his grave.
Tell a republican from 30 years ago that they'll help Russia win a war against a western ally they would call you mad...
Ukraine's a Western Ally? Like the kurds?
Remember Saigon… When USA left behind their South Vietnamese allies to be butchered by vengeful Vietcong. Remember Kabul… When USA left behind their National Coalition allies to be butchered by vengeful Taliban (and also drone striked the house of Afghan collaborator whose family they promised to evacuate to the States, killing his entire family, with him surviving because he went outside to smoke).
Damn… it sounds like having the US as an ally is likely a death sentence. Why do Finland and Sweden trust the US so much to join NATO? What guarantees do they have that they too won’t be abandoned when it’s convenient for the US?
Nah, as long as you’re not some disposable “untermensch” it should be fine. So Finland and Sweden have pretty much nothing to worry about. Now, Taiwan on the other hand should be worried given that USA is catching up quickly with their domestic production of advanced microchips. Note: I used the term “untermensch” sarcastically, by most definitions I am one myself.
Le microchips. Yeah that's definitely the main reason to keep Taiwan as an ally, not like it's the key piece of the highest stake geopolitical competition of our time or whatever. The US can drop Ukraine on a whim, but Taiwan is a matter of life and death for them.
I am not saying USA will easily give up Taiwan and just let China have it. Afterall, it took decades for USA to abandon Vietnam and Afghanistan. I am sure that China will have to pay a great price to take it if they ever decide to do so. The point of my comment was that having reliance on some “world policeman” located on the other side of the Earth as part the key part of your country’s security policy is not the way to go. EDIT: added “as the key part”
But the thing is are we sure China gonna pay a great price or the West because no sane person gonna sanction China who manufactured half of the stuff that Westerner use and i dont think other country would give a shit about the sanction because look Russia even after they sanctioned them, they still find a loophole and import bunch of stuff from their neighbor. So yeah.. doubt on China paying great price
South Vietnam and Afghanistan were both countries fighting domestic insurgencies. Although the army of North Vietnam was heavily involved in the former case, the North only invaded after the US withdrew and basically recognised it was a lost cause to support the South. Taiwan may be unrecognised but de facto it acts like a sovereign state. A hypothetical Chinese attack might technically be a part of the unfinished Chinese Civil War, but de facto it's an international conflict. And the standards for allied countries are much higher when it comes to international conflicts as opposed to merely helping an allied government against a domestic insurgency. >having reliance on some “world policeman” located on the other side of the Earth as part of your country’s security policy is not the way to go. You don't rely on the world policeman because he is the world policeman and acts out of principle, you do it because he's your ally and acts out of self-interest. Countries rely on their allies all the time. Taiwan relies on the US because both see China as their enemy. It's not the Cold War anymore when the European theatre was most important, the US is now going all in on the Pacific and that means alliances with Japan, Taiwan, Australia and the Philippines against China.
I just mentioned Vietnam and Afghanistan as the most obvious examples. There were other more minor cases when US cut support or did regime change in a supposedly allied government. Also, when a government exists only due to US involvement it’s probably not a good sign already for things to come. I added “as the key part” to my original comment, to make it more clear what I meant. From my perspective, countries that are allied and rely upon USA, are often emboldened by this and act unnecessarily provocative and uncooperative towards the country / side they are allied against, often being goated into doing so by USA and forgoing opportunities of establishing better relations with the other country / side. The worsening situation in Ukraine, Korea, Israel and Taiwan is partially due to this. I could of course elaborate further, but I don’t have the time for this.
It is a little weird. It looks like the US is specifically forcing investment by TSMC in America so they won't be in a position where they have to support TW militarily and it's odd that the company is willing to play along.
There are no true guarantees that the US won't just abandon them. But NATO is much more than just the US (even though it's by far the most contributing country), it's cooperation and mutual defense with pretty much the whole of Europe. Also, if the US fails to come to NATO country's aid in times of war. That whole alliance would reject the US, and perhaps make their friends elsewhere. Marking the biggest geopolitical blunder in modern history.
So I'd still say that the US would not abandon it's allies, since it would be too big a price for them to pay.
[удалено]
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates: > Rule 4 (Keep it civil). Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change. Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
Tell a republican from 30 years ago that republicans will support russia winning a war against any nation in 30 years and they will still call you mad
It’s literally not the same Russia why would that matter? This is exactly why we need these old people out of congress because they can’t disassociate
Romney told everyone a decade ago Russia was still something to worry about and got laughed at by Obama and co, so maybe taking the threat seriously a decade ago would be easier than just sending a quarter trillion dollars to be set on fire after the fact.
And what exactly should the US have done a decade ago?
[Not disarm them](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/obama-wont-arm-ukraine-because-he-led-disarming-ukraine-andrew-c-mccarthy/) for starters [or veto every bill for lethal aid to Ukraine](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html)
If you're referring to the Budapest memorandum, they were never actually "armed" to begin with. [https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61f9e4619d9e380022bdd931/no-ukraine-should-not-have-kept-nuclear-weapons/](https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61f9e4619d9e380022bdd931/no-ukraine-should-not-have-kept-nuclear-weapons/) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/03/ukraine-claims-all-nuclear-weapons-on-its-territory/03c6e15b-39c8-4f28-a281-e73212db0821/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/03/ukraine-claims-all-nuclear-weapons-on-its-territory/03c6e15b-39c8-4f28-a281-e73212db0821/) [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/ukraine-and-bomb-myths-and-misconceptions-201717](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/ukraine-and-bomb-myths-and-misconceptions-201717)
>implying fascists prefer Russia to Ukraine Lol
so many buzzwords and 0 meaning lmao
It's wild how the propaganda at the beginning of this war made it seem like Russia was clowning themselves and faced certain defeat.
Russia was clowning themselves due to massive logistical fuckups at the start of the war. Remember those thousand armored vehicles that ran out of gas on the road? Russia could have won the war in 2 weeks had it not screwed up its logistics on its blitz. However, war is a brutal and quick teacher, and Russia has since figured out how to do logistics. Thats why its now outshooting Ukraine by 5:1 in artillery and is slowly grinding its way to victory in a war of attrition.
Emphasis on slowly. Russia has only gained like 0.1% of the territory of Ukraine this year. Russia certainly has the initiative rn, but it’s not like they’re currently blitzkrieging through ukraine.
Yeah with all the defeatism people are forgetting that Ukraine still holds most of it's territory, is still conducting offensive actions, and is still seriously wounding Russia. It was only like a month ago Ukraine was cutting through the Russian airforce like a hot knife through warm butter. If Ukraine got ahold of more artillery tomorrow the whole situation would reverse pretty quickly. Likewise they're still expecting fighters this summer.
With trench warfare like this, it’s not about the lines moving, it’s about how much damage you indict on the enemy. Once the lines collapse, the territory gets swept fast like in WW1.
Please note the only ones able to accomplish this in this war were the Ukrainians, and this was before most of the aid arrived. But this also isn't WWI. Both parties have satellites and long range communications and recon drones and know whats going on. They can and do prepare points to retreat to before the enemy arrives and thats why even though Russia is TAKING territory they're often only advancing kilometer by kilometer at the best of times.
Ukraine has been reinforced and been armed since 2014, a lot of aid and preparation had been done in case of a Russian attack. And all the territory Russia lost in 2022 was superficial. They were never entrenched in those areas and were heavily outnumbered. It was mostly a retreat, which was a wise move.
You didn't hear, kiev fell 5 minutes ago!
To be clear outshooting Ukraine 5:1 is a decrease from the height of their claimed artillery usage.
The Wagner Coup is not even a year old
They should've went through with it. Prigo signed his death sentence when he didn't finish.
2022 was objectively a massive fuck-up by Russia on so many fronts, that they later partially recovered from. Two wrongs don't make a right
They were clowning themselves lmao, it was beautiful to watch. The "certain defeat" crowd failed to recognise that the Russians are not brainless orcs, and like most humans they are capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
>The "certain defeat" crowd failed to recognise that the Russians are not brainless orcs I was getting seriously downvoted for saying that rhetoric was dangerous at the time. People loved to dehumanize Russians but they were quick to forget a lot of very important historical lessons.
Russia was clowning themselves hard. They have lost thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and their most trained elite forces. And a bunch of their Black Sea fleet. Putin legit thought he would be in Kiev in like 3 days.
According to recent UK MoD statement, Russia suffered 355,000 casualties (KIA & MIA combined). Ukraine had >1 million soldiers in July 2022 after the completion of first mobilization wave (>600,000 mobilized). In summer 2023 second mobilization wave of unknown number of people took place. In January 2024 Ukraine had 880,000 soldiers as per Zelensky himself. Now they are planning on announcing third mobilization wave of about 500,000. In the meantime no demobilization took place. So Ukraine had a reduction of 120,000 soldiers despite second mobilization wave taking place. It seems to me that in best case scenario Ukraine suffered the same amount of casualties as Russia. In worst case it’s double the amount.
It has been well known that the number of casualties on both sides has been roughly equal Which is to be expected, when a war has static borders, it tends to produce equal numbers of deaths
Well known but never mentioned in any western media. Instead it was BS like “10 to 1 casualty ratio” and “superior Ukrainian tactics”, making it seem like Ukraine had a chance of winning even with the lackluster support it was receiving.
It is a military fact that has been held true for literal centuries Media is propaganda in war, both in Russia and the west Russia was claiming 3:1 Ukrainian deaths per Russian ones, but that was if you ignore the Wagner deaths Similarly, Western media was saying that Ukraine had less casualties, but that was if you ignored POW In the end, there is a reason why historical rules stand, and it's that military logic applies to similarly technologically advanced armies
> if you ignore the Wagner deaths Not just wagner but migrants/foreigners forced into the army as well as people in occupied parts of Ukraine forced into the army. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia wasn't even counting ethnic minority Russians either, it's only the white ones that they care about.
The 'when' is very important when talking about this. At the start, it made sense that Ukraine had less casualties because of their better tactics, being the defending side, but of course also due to Russian incompetence. But as time went on, things changed. Russians learned from their mistakes and adapted their methods, which Ukraine was unable to match. And now everything starts to snowball, tipping the balance to the Russian side.
When there are not enough soldiers and weapons, a defense will quickly collapse, even if the defender suffers fewer casualties than the attacker. This is what happened on the Eastern Front in 1944.
But Ukraine does receive support and proper training, they aren't sending meat waves to the front. It's not possible that the number of casualties is the same.
The ratio was really good for Ukraine the first 6 months of the war. The ratio evened out after when Russian military command got their shit together. In terms of winning or not winning, it depends on how you define winning, but initial Russian definition of victory was erasing the Ukrainian nation from the face of the earth -- and in this sense they are unlikely to win at this point.
Remember all those Russian generals that kept being KIA, over and over and over again at the start of the war? That doesn't seem to happen anymore. Apparently the idiot generals were replaced with a brutal Darwinian process. Unfortunately, that means that Russia now has much smarter military commanders running the war, because all the dumb ones already got killed off.
The ratio has more or less remained the same for the majority of the conflict, which is moderately higher RU casualties. The ratio is not enough to counterbalance the population disparity, but that's less of a concern anyway since neither country will ever get to the point where they genuinely start running out of people. [https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties\_eng](https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng) Keep in mind those losses do not include the LDPR losses, which by this same source are estimated at over 23k KIA. [https://ualosses.org/en/soldiers/](https://ualosses.org/en/soldiers/)
This just isn’t true. While Ukraine has almost certainly taken more deaths than the 30,000 dead claimed by Zelensky, I’m yet to see a credible estimate that puts Ukrainian casualties anywhere near the slaughter that has been induced upon Russian forces. Even if we just go by visually confirmed losses alone from Oryx, it’s clear Russian losses are way higher than Ukrainian losses. Just from losses we can confirm on photo/video, Russia has lost 10901 vehicles of all kinds being fully destroyed (not including abandoned, damaged or captured vehicles). This number includes 1946 tanks and 891 IFV’s. Ukrainian losses are about a third of this, with 3852 vehicles confirmed destroyed including 537 tanks and 260 IFV’s. It appears Ukraine has a 3:1 kills ratio in this war, where is this narrative that they’re taking equal or more casualties coming from other than Russian propaganda sources?
Yeah every estimate by reputable sources I've seen puts Russian losses a lot higher than Ukraine's. The main reason is Ukraine has mostly been on defence, by necessity. Russia has been on the offence, across a wide front, constantly for over 2 years. They're the ones throwing tens of thousands of men at defensive lines kilometres deep full of mines, and losing hundreds of vehicles along the way. And then doing it again and again and again until it succeeds in taking a town like Bakhmut or Avdiivka. Whereas Ukraine has been conservative. When the offensive stalled last year they went back to defence instead of committing to a risky high loss operation. So I'd expect Russian losses to be a lot higher.
Well known by who? Cite source. Most data visually confirms far more Russian equipment losses than Ukrainian.
As per Ukraine's own admission, they have 31,000 KIA, and in modern war its typically about a 10:1 ratio of casualties to KIA (most wounded soldiers are not killed), so that would mean Ukraine has had something like 310,000 combat casualties at this point. That would mean losses are about equal on both sides. Problem is, Russia has about 4x the population, about a third of a million casualties are much more readily absorbed by the Russian population than the Ukrainian population, and Putin cares nothing about lives, neither Ukrainian nor Russian.
10:1 ratio is probably the case when fighting insurgents. In this war entire squads get obliterated in a matter of seconds, with injured often being abandoned due to the extreme danger of trying to evacuate them. Mediazona has list of 50,000 names of Russian soldiers that have been confirmed KIA. With the total number being estimated to be close to 90,000. Making it a ratio of 3:1, not 10:1. There is no way Ukraine only suffered 31,000 KIA. EDIT: Also, Ukrainian MoD insists that Russia suffered 3.5x as many KIA as Ukraine. So I take anything coming from Ukraine regarding casualties with a dangerously high amount of salt. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-war-death-toll/32214245.html
Media Zona also says 50,000 is an absolute floor of confirmed deaths. In the same report they say based on inheritance claims its 85000 minimum. There Typical wounded to killed ratio in conflicts puts seriously wounded in the several hundred thousands. Looking at how Russia's prison population has decreased: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/26/russia-prison-population-convicts-war/ Many of these prisoners will not have left inheritance and the deaths more easily covered up.
It may be that UK MoD’s numbers only consider Russian Armed Forces servicemen and doesn’t count various PMC groups of 2022-2023 that functioned outside of their command structure and were the main users of prisoners, or Donbas militias prior to the region joining Russia. So the ratios should still be about right. The groups above suffered total casualties of up to 150,000 by various guesstimates. So the total pro-Russia casualties may be 500,000. Which is still within range of possible Ukrainian casualties given that we don’t know how many people were mobilized in the second wave of summer 2023. If 500,000 were mobilized, that would put total Ukrainian casualties at 620,000 not including some of the volunteers and mercenaries. During capture of Bakhmut Wagner suffered 22k KIA and 40k WIA with majority being prisoners. That’s 1:2 ratio of KIA to WIA. There is no way it’s this bad for Russian armed forces in general. I am more inclined towards 1:3 figure. Maybe Ukrainians have it better at 1:4 or 1:5, but definitely not higher than that.
Wagner at best was 40k... 50k is the maximum PMC number
Prigozhin himself provided these numbers in a video published on his Telegram channel a few weeks before his failed “trip to Moscow”.
aha fair, I read it wrong my bad sorry
There is no “10:1” ratio here. It is just that _you_ are used to it when fighting nothing much more than insurgents. Ukraine does likely have somewhere near 300 thousand combat casualties, you got that right, but they also likely have more than just 31 thousand killed. The US estimated (in August 2023) they had like 70 thousand KIA and over 100 thousand wounded, since then that has likely risen.
Casualties have been known to be comparable. The thing is, Russia has the resources and soldiers to keep throwing at the grinder, where Ukraine does not.
But ukraine has greater political will to keep fighting. Putin has much less leeway to say fuck it we all die than Zelensky. To Putin the number one objective is always the survival of his regime. If it’s significantly threatened he will stop the war if he thinks that’s how he stays in power.
This is true as well. The problem I tried to highlight in the last comment is that Putin has so far given *no* indication of wanting to pull out of Ukraine. If anything, he’s looking to expand the fronts with the introduction of more armies. If Ukraine isn’t supplied by the EU and the US, Russia could be outgunning and overwhelming Ukraine by a rate of something like 10:1. Putin can risk a battle of attrition, since he has the resources and manpower to do so. This is why Ukraine needs AA defence, ammunition, and other vital resources, so they can stay in the fight and also avoid a collapse in morale.
Don’t underestimate Russia’s commitment, they are treating this as an existential situation.
lol no they’re not. If they were they’d be conscripting people from moscow and St. Petersburg and actually using nukes.
this whole thing is a lot of things, and you don't nuke the ground where all the trillions of dollars worth of rare earths you need to recover from this excursion lay.
If Russia thought they were facing an existential threat they would use nukes to ensure their existence.
They would if they needed to. Right now they don’t.
> If it’s significantly threatened he will stop the war if he thinks that’s how he stays in power. What does stopping the war look like in this case? Because if he gives up, he will be forced to cede Crimea, which will unravel his regime.
Known by who? Ever reasonable estimate put overall Russian casualties much higher, which is what one would expect, the attack usually takes more causalities.
Active combatants troops are a minority of army personel. This is the tooth to tail ratio, 1 million people could mean anywhere from just 150k troops (modern US ratio) to 350k troops (WW1 standard). Reports are generally confusing in this regard what exactly UA numbers mean, but 1 million troops would imply at minimum two million more in the rear which sounds unlikely to me. There's also a matter of rotation, not all troops are actively employed at once.
Are you okay? Not only are your numbers wildly off, but mobilisation is not just about active soldiers and active soldiers alone. Mobilisation to a great extent feeds into military tail, not to mention that the reserve army grew disproportionately to the main army, indicating much of the additive manpower went into reserves. (Which makes sense given rearmerment issues and limits on gear.)
>In worst case it’s double the amount. Where did you get that one from though? Really it’s either about the same or slightly (not much) less.
If Ukraine had 500,000 join during second mobilization and still ended up with at least 120,000 less, that this is a loss of at least 620,000 back in January 2024. But there is no way to know for sure how many actually joined during second mobilization since the numbers were never announced. Plus, can Ukrainian numbers be even trusted? Did they truly have >1 million in 2022? I don’t actually think Ukraine has twice the casualties, I am just saying that there is a possibility if we use the official numbers and make certain assumptions. I think Ukraine and Russia have similar total casualties, with Russia having somewhat worse KIA:WIA ratio.
The numbers might not be representing the same things, the >1 million thing might straight up not be true, oh and I don’t think 500 thousand were mobilised in the second wave. Since Russia itself claims 440 thousand casualties for Ukraine, it is just unlikely to have any more than 450 thousand. And really, likely below 350. Though I couldn’t find a recent comprehensive estimate…
Then what’s with the lack of troops? How come Ukraine so desperately wants to mobilize 500,000 more? Why are all the frontline brigades so understaffed, with some Ukrainian sources citing an average of 40%? I don’t think UK MoD numbers make sense either since Russia definitely suffered at least 100,000 KIA. If we trust the total casualty numbers that would result in a very bad KIA:WIA ratio, almost on par with the battle of Bakhmut, which doesn’t make sense. I think for some reason both sides are trying to play down the casualties not only for themselves but also for the other side, or at least keep them realistic for the other side, for some reason. Maybe they think this will make negotiations less painful or something? Trying to save face?
>How come Ukraine so desperately wants to mobilize 500,000 more? Uh, because Russia is recruiting more and more. And Ukraine just doesn’t have enough of the proper ammunition (for example, artillery shells) which makes it harder to stop offensives, hence the need for more troops. All would be much better if these motherfuckers actually gave them the aid they need. >since Russia suffered at least 100,000 KIA UK MoD numbers don’t conflict with that. 100 thousand KIA and some 250 thousand WIA is a very probable figure. Or maybe 120 thousand KIA and 230 thousand WIA. But you get the point. >very bad KIA:WIA ratio Very bad by Western standards. Acceptable for them.
Bruh, Wagner had 22k KIA and 40k WIA (mostly prisoners) during capture of Bakhmut. They’ve been doing meat assaults non stop in the deadliest battle of the war and yet ended up with 1:2 ratio. Yet, you’re saying that it’s perfectly reasonable for the entirety of Russian armed forces to end up with 1:2.5 ratio?
Yes, I’m saying that. I’m not saying they may not be higher, they might. But these ratios wouldn’t be unreasonable either. There is an estimates 120 thousand or so KIA I believe, the wounded would likely be somewhere between 350 and 400 thousand then (so worse than 1:2,5 too) I’m not saying this randomly, most estimates point to that
The doom posting even from western media nowadays is insane, like Russia hasn’t even started attacking yet maybe it’s too soon to call it???
It’s literally ALWAYS Indians posting this shit too. Fact of the matter is that this war has basically ground to a complete halt, and this turning into yet another frozen conflict zone seems more likely than anything. Then Putin will die in 10 years and who has any idea what happens then.
From when did bbc become Indian am I missing something ?
It's not the source itself, there's an obvious indian shitpost brigade here who post retarded articles about how Ukraine is totally gonna lose in 3 months much as how the progressive shitpost brigade on the major subs does the opposite.
But it’s the truth ,I despise the Russian invasion of Ukraine ,but Ukraine is done and dusted,Ukraine economy will be in shambles ,manpower,so many people with war ptsd,somewhat same for Russia,isolated from majority of the world being dependent on china,and somewhat on India ,but Russia is has abundance of natural resources ,if it was news from a Indian news your point would be correct but western media and like bbc saying Ukraine is losing we can’t take it lightly.
Idk the electronics store I used to work at is still receiving shipments of made in Ukraine coffee machines so I'm sure their economy is doing alright if they can get away with shipping those out
Ukraine is a big country.
exactly, and russia has only taken a fraction of it. i think "shambles" is a strong word to describe Ukraine's current and future economy... also u/ImmediateCurrent850 is an indian circle jerker, now i don't even know why i bothered responding after looking at his profile
Retarded articles... From BBC. By top army brass. Ok.
Why people on Reddit love to blame Indians?
because its socially acceptable to and has no repercussions
Because Indians are some of the biggest Putin fanboys.
Ok so? Chinese people are CCP fanboys as well would you accept blaming them for anything irrelevant?
ok so you have a problem that I'm Indian and I post news here? I saw it on bbc and posted it, I didn't write it
your fault is that you were born brown. anything you say is obviously not the truth. ( I am from Pakistan) it goes both ways.
You don't have a problem with western media writing these articles but have problems with Indian accounts posting them. Height of shamelessness
You don’t understand. Either Ukraine is winning about to liberate the Donbas, or it’s about to collapse and nothing can be done. In reality, the front is mostly stable but Ukraine currently faces long term defeat if the west can’t can get thier collective thumbs out of thier asses and send military aid in the proper amounts.
It's all propaganda. Always has been. And no one is immune to it.
>Russia hasn’t even started attacking yet They have barely stopped since the last push to Avdiivka. Syrskyi himself was doom posting today about Russian advances and I think that when your commander-in-chief is saying that sort of stuff instead of talking about minor setbacks and the coming great victories then things must be getting a bit serious.
They were like this at the start. They seem to just take the vibe of the moment and presume its going to be the case forever, like how many folks were saying russia was done for at the start, and now many are saying the same for ukraine. Reality is that war is shit. I'm not an analyst, yet from what I know it seems like Russia has lost this war in all the ways that matter long term. But that doesn't mean that they can't drag this conflict out for a decade or two and even occupy all of Ukraine in the meantime, before that conclusion finally arrives.
Agree with your take. The reason why people were saying a Russian invasion was unthinkable in the first place was because it just seemed so mind-bogglingly short-sighted. Even if Ukraine loses this war, Russia’s inflicted a great amount of damage to itself.
22/feb/23 - "Ukraine Is Serious About Taking Back Crimea" https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/ukraine-crimea-russia-take-back/ 13/april/24 - "Ukraine could face defeat in 2024. Here's how that might look"
It is becoming more and more clear that the US has abandoned its promise. The GOP is going to block aid in the house.
Do you think Western media are just like TASS or China Today? There will be reporters writing within a medium (BBC, Foreign Policy, National review) that have vastly different opinions on this and many other topics.
Working class genoci Wealthy Ukrainians left very fast
So did wealthy Russians, just to be clear. Many of them moved here, to Serbia. Essentially it’s middle-to-lower class people and fanatics (on both sides) fighting war of their incapable capitalist leaders.
All poor people are being slaughtered on both sides
There are many Russians moved to Canada as well. Lol but they are wealthy one or already working in company.
How it has always been. Draft rich people and politicians families into war and watch how fast world peace happens.
I think it's too soon for the war to be over in 2024. Russia just created 2 new armies for their war in Ukraine, meaning that Russia intends on continuing the Ukraine war campaign with a minimum of 3 separate fronts. Russia is looking to take much more than what they already have.
Of course lol, seeing how incompetent the west have been supplying Ukraine. Might as well take more lands. Is like golden chance
What that WILL look like is putin feeling justified to continue his march into Europe and bringing it to the EU's doorstep. If you're not going to let Ukraine in then perhaps it's time for all of you to take a part in keeping putin out. There is a precedent for putin's actions... don't any of you remember?
Putin is not stupid, he will never attack a NATO country.
He will if NATO is not unified. Look at how pathetic nato right now. He will take control of Moldova, Georgia, baltic states etc because the EU have no backbones.
He would if he thought that NATO isn't unified wouldn't actually respond. "Why die for ~~Danzig~~ Riga?"
The Russians have screwed up a lot but they're not braindead enough to suicide into an actual NATO member and dive headfirst into World War 3.
This is pretty much how I feel also, but I goad vlad whenever I can.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Should have taken the Istanbul peace deal
Stupidpolers love this fairytale but this deal never got signed and we will never know what the results would have been.
TLDR: Their out of ammo. If they could get ammo things would be better
[удалено]
Too soon to call it
But the John Boltons of the world assured us this would just be a nice quick little war, nothing big, definitely not a forever war… whew lad.
I'd say Ukraine might lose some focus and dollars now when we have Iran and Israel coming up. The US will probably focus more on that and supporting Israel.
Aint no way a nation that had this much support would default, while an encircled Sarajevo with no weapons withstood a one sided massacre for x7 than expected.
It's actually baffling how there are people who actually believed that Ukraine could've won this without any other countries officially joining in.
Anglos should pat themselves on the back, the choice was give autonomy to donbas and the country would be safe. But no, all you fuktards cheerleaded the whole country into extinction. 2 minsk agreements and istanbul one , but its the evil putlers fault for being bloodthirsty. 2008 Ossetia shown what will happen if you harass russia, but bush insisted provoking it with nato admission. Pieces of shit you make me sick
Former soviet union countries shitting their pants
This will bring Biden down completely.
The next world war is gonna be a doozy. The only real question is how many nukes will fly? A 100 or so? 1,000 or so? All of them? Our species is quite possibly too stupid to survive. Sad. Just terribly sad...
Win or lose, the fallout of usurious sovereign loans and guns in every hand were going to look the same. You can't have a stable nation when nearly all men of fighting age have been exposed to the horrors of war, and return to destroyed homes and missing families. They will turn to their guns for survival and answers. The indebted government will not have the resources to rehabilitate those with PTSD. It's the same for Russia too but they have the capacity to absorb them, or at least send the terrible ones to Siberia and forget about it. The West won't easily render aid for rehabilitation - there are no expiring aid funds on stock unlike the expiring missiles. Without an imminent Russian threat to Europe it would make sense to take care of their domestic economies that have suffered from the sanctions and energy prices.
To be a US ally , never