Based upon the SMO its over 10....NATO/Ukraine do narrative construction.....they are not the least bit interested in the truth.....In WOKE truth is for chumps.
The West is racing towards WW3
- Thread starter Hawkeye10
- Start date
No one has a good estimate on how many Russians have died in Putin's war. They make their guesses, but the more honest people say they cannot be exact.
Planes are another matter. They are easier to spot, and easier to count.
Also territory won is somewhat easy to know. Putin was supposed to win all of Ukraine in less than two weeks... It is two and a half years later, and still a back and forth in territory.
Putin cannot even capture the left bank of the Dnipro. That is a situation where the Ukrainians have their backs to a river. It should be an easy victory.
According to who?
Putin?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
In terms of military prowess, neither country is much good at it other than by being tenacious. The Russians took millions of casualties to beat Germany in WW 2 and did so by sheer weight of numbers and tenacity far more than through military competence. The Ukrainians appear to be no different.
You have any evidence for that assertion?
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Putin: ‘I can take Kyiv in two weeks if I want’
Putin: ‘I can take Kyiv in two weeks if I want’
The Italian daily La Reppublica has published what appears to be the account of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, of an exchange held at the 30-31 August EU summit. Commission President José Manuel Barroso is reported to have told EU leaders that Vladimir Putin had informed him that he could take...
www.euractiv.com
Putin: ‘I can take Kyiv in two weeks if I want’
Putin: ‘I can take Kyiv in two weeks if I want’
The Italian daily La Reppublica has published what appears to be the account of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, of an exchange held at the 30-31 August EU summit. Commission President José Manuel Barroso is reported to have told EU leaders that Vladimir Putin had informed him that he could take...
Ah, but that was way back in 2014- take a look at the President in Ukraine at the time of the article. There's plenty of evidence that the Ukrainian government was far weaker militarily back then. Quoting from an article written by former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud:
**
Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained.
At this stage, too rigid and stuck in a doctrinaire approach to the operational art, the Ukrainian staffs suffered the enemy without succeeding in imposing themselves. Examination of the course of the fighting in 2014-2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operational plans. However, the war waged by the autonomists was then very close to what we observed in the Sahel: very mobile operations carried out with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of the Ukrainian forces to “trap” them repeatedly.
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.
The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.
But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements…
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
scheerpost.com
As can be seen, at this stage of the Ukraine military, they were so weak that they couldn't even deal with the rebels in the Donbass, who apparently weren't even being armed by Russia at the time. I don't have the precise timeline, but I imagine it was only after this second crushing defeat that NATO and the U.S. started seriously arming Ukraine.
If it comes down to tenaciousness, then whichever side absolutely needs to win will win. The Vietnam War is an example of that. Losing the Vietnam War meant nothing to the USA. Viet Cong did not start patrolling our streets. Our standard of living actually rose as we did not have to support a war that was meaningless to us.
Putin said it repeatedly. And most of the rest of us believed it too. I am sure that if someone does some searching, they will find me saying it too.
We all assumed Russia was strong and Ukraine was weak.
It turned out not to be true. Now the question is what parts of it is not true. Arguing about whether it is true or not is a waste of time.
First the Russians. The Russians are much weaker than we ever thought they were. It is hard to say how much of this goes back to the Soviets, but some of it must. Right now they are fielding soldiers with toy bullet proof vests, and with helmets made out of tin(if you drop it on concrete, it dents). It is pathetic.
Ukrainians really wanted to be independent of Russia, and they were no where near as corrupt as everyone supposed. Russians believed that they had compromised almost all of Ukrainian leadership, but that is obviously false. I am curious now where all that money supposedly used to bribe Ukrainian officials went to. If Putin was a good leader, he would be asking the same question.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Do you really think Putin was planning on a drawn out war with no end in sight after 2.5 years?Ah, but that was way back in 2014- take a look at the President in Ukraine at the time of the article. There's plenty of evidence that the Ukrainian government was far weaker militarily back then. Quoting from an article written by former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud:
**
Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained.
At this stage, too rigid and stuck in a doctrinaire approach to the operational art, the Ukrainian staffs suffered the enemy without succeeding in imposing themselves. Examination of the course of the fighting in 2014-2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operational plans. However, the war waged by the autonomists was then very close to what we observed in the Sahel: very mobile operations carried out with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of the Ukrainian forces to “trap” them repeatedly.
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.
The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.
But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements…
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
As can be seen, at this stage of the Ukraine military, they were so weak that they couldn't even deal with the rebels in the Donbass, who apparently weren't even being armed by Russia at the time. I don't have the precise timeline, but I imagine it was only after this second crushing defeat that NATO and the U.S. started seriously arming Ukraine.
In 2014, I can believe it. You have him saying it in 2022+?
The Russian were hoping and expecting that the West would agree to negotiate through diplomacy...but we were/are not willing to even talk to the Russians and sabotaged the peace that Ukraine agreed to...we demanded war....and we are being humiliated.
Do you really think Putin was planning on a drawn out war with no end in sight after 2.5 years?Ah, but that was way back in 2014- take a look at the President in Ukraine at the time of the article. There's plenty of evidence that the Ukrainian government was far weaker militarily back then. Quoting from an article written by former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud:
**
Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained.
At this stage, too rigid and stuck in a doctrinaire approach to the operational art, the Ukrainian staffs suffered the enemy without succeeding in imposing themselves. Examination of the course of the fighting in 2014-2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operational plans. However, the war waged by the autonomists was then very close to what we observed in the Sahel: very mobile operations carried out with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of the Ukrainian forces to “trap” them repeatedly.
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.
The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.
But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements…
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
As can be seen, at this stage of the Ukraine military, they were so weak that they couldn't even deal with the rebels in the Donbass, who apparently weren't even being armed by Russia at the time. I don't have the precise timeline, but I imagine it was only after this second crushing defeat that NATO and the U.S. started seriously arming Ukraine.
I don't think anyone was planning on that, although I did think it was possible shortly after the war started. I'm not saying that I think every move Putin made was ideal. As I've said in other threads, I don't think he made the right move in regards to conscription (I'm not a fan of conscription regardless of what country does it), but I think he's corrected course and is now simply paying Russians more money to enlist. I imagine making the eastern part of Ukraine helped as well, as some of them had started fighting western Ukraine starting in 2014.
Oh, and I agree with Hawkeye, I definitely think Russia hoped that Ukraine would settle early, but the west discouraged Ukraine from doing that and so here we are.
Discouraged is the wrong word....We through Johnson said "If you sign this deal with Russia Ukraine is dead to us, we will never again have any dealings with you...... fight the Russians and you will have a blank check, we the West will give you everything you need to beat Russia....and you can beat Russia".
The children of Washington did believe that the West through Ukraine could beat the Russians, but the children of Washington are also morons who choose to live in their FantasyLand.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Which is why I’m actually considering voting for trump. He’s the only candidate that would be willing to talk with Putin. It’s time.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
See last post above^
Trump is completely ignorant on the subject of Ukraine and China Bloc.....Besides the Russians dont believe anything we say at this point, we have lied to them too many times.
Russia will set the terms, and we will agree to them....eventually.
Losing at war has consequences.
I suspect that your quote above is not really a quote, but I have heard something similar said elsewhere. However, since I haven't seen a quite like the one above, I'm a bit leery of assuming this is completely true.
As to Washington, I believe some believed that, but I also think it's possible that others just wanted to "weaken" Russia and didn't really care what happened to Ukrainians. There was a politician who recently said that Ukraine was sitting on trillions of dollars worth of resources, I definitely think that could be a factor too.