NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 17 2022 19:23 RvB wrote: But they don't have the troops for a new large scale offensive. Replacement troops will probably be of lower quality as well. Looks to me like plan A was to overthrow the Ukrainian government in a quick war and there's no plan B. Putin doesn't have any decent options left. Either he continues the war and maybe makes some slow gains at great cost or he retreats for nothing significant.
Calling in the favors gotten from the middle east Africa and the Caucasus would give him troops that I would say might not have the latest in tech or tactics but are hardened urban fighters.
He either retreats in shame now or commits such crimes that they will never open up trade again. He has delivered his nation into serfdom to the Chinese.
On March 18 2022 00:31 Sermokala wrote: Calling in the favors gotten from the middle east Africa and the Caucasus would give him troops that I would say might not have the latest in tech or tactics but are hardened urban fighters.
He either retreats in shame now or commits such crimes that they will never open up trade again. He has delivered his nation into serfdom to the Chinese.
I don't think troops from the middle-east or Africa would be properly equipped and prepared to operate during winter/spring in Ukraine.
On March 17 2022 22:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So it seems the FSB is now arresting persons of the Military for failing to achieve objectives. Unclear on what the charges are but can't see how this will help things.
Haha the "wasteful squandering of fuel" accusation reminds me of those memes explaining the lack of Russian progress with Russian commanders stealing half of their units fuel without knowing their own superiors already stole the other half.
On March 18 2022 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia is now threatening Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same fate as Ukraine if they attempt to join NATO.
On March 18 2022 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia is now threatening Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same fate as Ukraine if they attempt to join NATO.
That threat doesn't have nearly as much weight behind it as it used to. How's Russia supposed to invade them right now anyway?
Bosnia is pretty unstable right now, lots of internal conflicts. He knows that if a conflict is to start in Bosnia, Serbia and perhaps Croatia will most likely get involved. Looks like he is trying to divert attention. Classic Russian politics, they always interfere in internal politics of Balkan countries. We're used to this crap from them.
On March 18 2022 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia is now threatening Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same fate as Ukraine if they attempt to join NATO.
On March 18 2022 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia is now threatening Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same fate as Ukraine if they attempt to join NATO.
That threat doesn't have nearly as much weight behind it as it used to. How's Russia supposed to invade them right now anyway?
Ukraine will probably be in a pretty bad state for a while, lots of people there are still dying, and lots of stuff there gets destroyed.
Yea of course, but the war doesn't look like it's about to end anytime soon and the Russian military has all of their focus there. So what do the Balkans have to worry about from Russia right this moment? Just seems like a poor time to be making threats, while you're being the aggressor yet failing to own up to the threats in the way you want to.
Russian morale is reportedly very low. Still debate on the number of casualties but one thing is certain is that they are very high.
WASHINGTON — In 36 days of fighting on Iwo Jima during World War II, nearly 7,000 Marines were killed. Now, 20 days after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invaded Ukraine, his military has already lost more soldiers, according to American intelligence estimates.
The conservative side of the estimate, at more than 7,000 Russian troop deaths, is greater than the number of American troops killed over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
It is a staggering number amassed in just three weeks of fighting, American officials say, with implications for the combat effectiveness of Russian units, including soldiers in tank formations. Pentagon officials say a 10 percent casualty rate, including dead and wounded, for a single unit renders it unable to carry out combat-related tasks.
With more than 150,000 Russian troops now involved in the war in Ukraine, Russian casualties, when including the estimated 14,000 to 21,000 injured, are near that level. And the Russian military has also lost at least three generals in the fight, according to Ukrainian, NATO and Russian officials.
Pentagon officials say that a high, and rising, number of war dead can destroy the will to continue fighting. The result, they say, has shown up in intelligence reports that senior officials in the Biden administration read every day: One recent report focused on low morale among Russian troops and described soldiers just parking their vehicles and walking off into the woods.
The American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters, caution that their numbers of Russian troop deaths are inexact, compiled through analysis of the news media, Ukrainian figures (which tend to be high, with the latest at 13,500), Russian figures (which tend to be low, with the latest at 498), satellite imagery and careful perusal of video images of Russian tanks and troops that come under fire.
American military and intelligence officials know, for instance, how many troops are usually in a tank, and can extrapolate from that the number of casualties when an armored vehicle is hit by, say, a Javelin anti-tank missile.
The high rate of casualties goes far to explain why Russia’s much-vaunted force has remained largely stalled outside of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.
“Losses like this affect morale and unit cohesion, especially since these soldiers don’t understand why they’re fighting,” said Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Russia and Ukraine during the Obama administration. “Your overall situational awareness decreases. Someone’s got to drive, someone’s got to shoot.”
On March 18 2022 14:01 lasncf wrote: Europeans will find they are dragged into an unnecessary war and U.S is winner again.
Don’t quite get it. Eurooe is not an active actor in this conflict and what has the us got to gain that Europe hasn’t?
We are supporting Ukraine with weapons and heavy economical sanctions... yes we are very active and lasncf is right, everything as planned, war might go global in europe while American cash out.
I do kind of wonder if there will be profiteering from all the weapons sales. Though they refer to the $2 billion sent since the Biden administration as "aid", does that mean it is not sales?
According to the report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the global arms trade volume from 2017 to 2021 decreased by 4.6% compared with 2012 to 2016, but the US arms export increased by 14% in the same period, and the global share increased from 32% to 39%. During this period, US arms sales were concentrated in the Middle East, accounting for 43% of the total sales. The largest increase in US arms sales to Saudi Arabia was at 106 per cent. Where there is war in the world, there is the figure of the United States. Even if the United States does not directly participate in the war, it is not difficult to find American weapons and equipment on the battlefield. There will be no war in the United States. If there is unrest in Europe, capital will flow out, and the destination of the inflow will be the United States.
On March 18 2022 17:28 Starlightsun wrote: I do kind of wonder if there will be profiteering from all the weapons sales. Though they refer to the $2 billion sent since the Biden administration as "aid", does that mean it is not sales?
Yes weapons sent to Ukraine aren't sales. Ukraine has a relatively small military budget anyway so any sales wouldn't be significant. Increased expenditure from other EU countries will be more important (Germany buying new F35s for example).
In the grand scheme of things weapon sales aren't very important for an economy and they won't weigh up to the instability of the world and all the costs associated with war. The US profiting economically seems to me like a ridiculous notion.
On March 18 2022 17:28 Starlightsun wrote: I do kind of wonder if there will be profiteering from all the weapons sales. Though they refer to the $2 billion sent since the Biden administration as "aid", does that mean it is not sales?
They are printing this money out of thin air they could send 1 trillion if they want to. The US always wanted to go to war with Russia and they've been building up this conflict since 2014 with NATO. We would be lucky if this doesn't expand beyond Ukraine and this choice only depends on the US, they have the red button and Europe, we the dogs will follow.
On March 18 2022 14:01 lasncf wrote: Europeans will find they are dragged into an unnecessary war and U.S is winner again.
Don’t quite get it. Eurooe is not an active actor in this conflict and what has the us got to gain that Europe hasn’t?
We are supporting Ukraine with weapons and heavy economical sanctions... yes we are very active and lasncf is right, everything as planned, war might go global in europe while American cash out.
What do you mean by go as "planned"? Do you think the US wanted this war? If so, what do they stand to gain by a new iron curtain dropping in the middle of Europe? To me it seems that this will cost them (all of us, really) a lot, driving Russia into the arms of China and preventing "the pivot to Asia" that they seem to want to make as China is rising to the status of a second global power. That they would risk all of that to sell more guns seems incredibly far-fetched.
On March 18 2022 17:28 Starlightsun wrote: I do kind of wonder if there will be profiteering from all the weapons sales. Though they refer to the $2 billion sent since the Biden administration as "aid", does that mean it is not sales?
They are printing this money out of thin air they could send 1 trillion if they want to. The US always wanted to go to war with Russia and they've been building up this conflict since 2014 with NATO. We would be lucky if this doesn't expand beyond Ukraine and this choice only depends on the US, they have the red button and Europe, we the dogs will follow.
They definitely printing money out of thin air, no doubts. But let's be fair, every nation/government does so, and this is one of the reasons why we are having inflations (our current financial system is far from perfection), so that's not an argument.
Wait, are you seriously implying the US is a bad guy in this war? I can agree that the US might benefit at some point (hardly due to the arms trade, the scale is just ridiculous), I can see economic benefits for the US in rebuilding Ukraine when it's over, but the most important aspect here is that w/o the support from the US/West - Ukraine might not even exist in alternative reality at this point. Should I remind you who have started the whole shitstorm in 2014?
EPT
