Russia launches invasion of Ukraine - MASTER THREAD

[GrandpaBernard]

I tend to go off Western reports so as to avoid the inevitable arguments about pro-Russian bias. My personal belief is that they are probably not a million miles away from 1:1, or maybe just a little above - guesstimate I usually think about 1:1.25 in favour of Ukraine - principally because despite the artillery advange for most of the conflict it's the Russians who have been on the offensive and they've expended considerable effort against prepared defenses.

OSINT casualty trackers have confirmed and named deaths roughly equal (about 45K each... although of course this is only a part of the full count) and both sides are offering similar official figures for total casualties on the other side (400K or so).

Most impartial commentary award goes to Theo

It has been 2 years and I still think you're rooting for neither

Western sources for confluence

Russian reports are news, Western reports are evidence, and Ukrainian admissions are proof

[Citizen Koba]

You did strawman me though. It might not have been your intention so that's ok. And yes. 1sad is a fool.

I believe Russian casualities will ensure their defeat. Ukraine is motivated by the fact that if they stop fighting, there will be no Ukraine. Russians fight for money.

Still Ukraine needs weapons in order to be able to fight. That's the issue. If they get the arms, Russia will be defeated like so many other times in history.

Questioning or challenging assertions offered in support of a propositon is not a strawman Bat.

Your argument was - unless my reading comprehension has deteriorated sharply - that Ukraine is waging a (successful) war of attrition but needed NATO help to sustain it. The supporting evidence you offered was that Ukraine was 'often' reaching ratios of 10:1

I wasn't challenging a different proposition. I agree that it's an attritional war. I agree that NATO weapons are required to sustain Ukraines efforts. I also agree that in specific instances 10:1 ratios have likely been achieved.

All I did was point out that the overall casualty ratio estimates do not support the proposition that it's an attritional war Ukraine has much hope of winning.

That's offering different (I would say much more relevent) evidence, not attacking a different proposition

That's not a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Least, as I understand it.

Not trying to be a dick btw, I actually had to go and check just to make sure I had my definitons right... I just thought it might save time for the future if we both had the same understanding of the language we're using.

[BattlingNelson]

To those questioning the 10:1 losses... from the neutral and quite critical BILD journalist:


WARNING GRAPIC!!!!!!!

[BattlingNelson]

Questioning or challenging assertions offered in support of a propositon is not a strawman Bat.

Your argument was - unless my reading comprehension has deteriorated sharply - that Ukraine is waging a (successful) war of attrition but needed NATO help to sustain it. The supporting evidence you offered was that Ukraine was 'often' reaching ratios of 10:1

I wasn't challenging a different proposition. I agree that it's an attritional war. I agree that NATO weapons are required to sustain Ukraines efforts. I also agree that in specific instances 10:1 ratios have likely been achieved.

All I did was point out that the overall casualty ratio estimates do not support the proposition that it's an attritional war Ukraine has much hope of winning.

That's offering different (I would say much more relevent) evidence, not attacking a different proposition

That's not a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Least, as I understand it.

Not trying to be a dick btw, I actually had to go and check just to make sure I had my definitons right... I just thought it might save time for the future if we both had the same understanding of the language we're using.

I agree. You got my argument fairly well.

I believe that it's paramount to sustain a fairly vast casualty rate advantage and for that to ensure victory, I reckon US aid is neccessary. I believe that the western 'official' estimates of losses is underestimating the russian loss rate also due to russia having worse medical treatment for their WIA than Ukraine (which of course is based on sources that doesn't have inside perfect knowledge).

PS: I will look into that exact strawman definition later. I might have been brainwashed by 1sad by possibly throwing out the accusation as a knee-jerk lol.

[Citizen Koba]

I agree. You got my argument fairly well.

I believe that it's paramount to sustain a fairly vast casualty rate advantage and for that to ensure victory, I reckon US aid is neccessary. I believe that the western 'official' estimates of losses is underestimating the russian loss rate also due to russia having worse medical treatment for their WIA than Ukraine (which of course is based on sources that doesn't have inside perfect knowledge).

PS: I will look into that exact strawman definition later. I might have been brainwashed by 1sad by possibly throwing out the accusation as a knee-jerk lol.

Well I mean yeah, Ukraine has to do that in the absence of any current possibility of achieving a decisve breakthrough. They need to go on targeting high value targets, logistics hubs, troop concentrations as well as infrastructure within Russia (to hurt Russian morale and put political pressure on Putin as much as anything) etc but mainly on the front lines they need to concentrate on building strong defenses in order to ensure that those casualty ratios (and I won't press the issue about exactly what they are because frankly all the figures are pretty specualtive - although anything above about 2:1 overall doesn't seem realistic) remain as high as possible and that the Russian have to pay dearly for ever meter of territory.

Essentially Ukraine has to try and play the numbers game and although it's virtually impossible that Russia will actually physically run out of men first they have to hope that by inflicting heavy enough casualties on the Russians the war will become poltically unpalatable for the Russian people. Slim hope in my estimation but it's also not like the Ukrainians have any other option.

And yeah US aid is undoubtedly necessary at least for the foreseeable until Europe is able to ramp up its military production - the Ukrainian artillery deficit in particular is a real problem because as long as neither side is actually spending troops attacking and the lines are relatively static troops are still being attrited by artillery fire. To a degree this is being mitigated by the use of drones on both sides (both in direct attack on troops and material and in the Ukrainian ability to detect and target Russian artillery systems) but it still remains an area in which Russia has a major advantage. Ukraine quite possibly has an edge in drone warfare - particularly when backed with western surveillance assets - but it's not a wide one.

Tangentially I have pet theory that the Kherson / Left Bank operations and landings are actaully more to do with it being something of a proving ground for Western drone warfare strategies and systems, long been a complaint in the Russian infospace that drone attacks are particularly heavy in Krynki and surrounds and that Ukrainian EW is particularly adept here. There's a lot of potential for the use of AI / machine learning in the use of massed drone 'swarm' attacks and since the Dneipr intself virtually guarantees a static line in the area and can be considered a non-critical front it would seem like an ideal place to test such sytems and methods without the risk of a failure leading to a potential Russian breakthrough

[Kris Silver]

'In February 2024, over eight out of ten percent of Russians approved of the activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The popularity level was nine percentage points higher than in September 2022, when the figure declined following the announcement of a partial mobilization in the country. After Russia invaded Ukraine at the end of February 2022, the approval rating increased. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, the figure declined.

What has shifted Putin’s approval rating?


Since his first presidential term started in 2000, Vladimir Putin's highest approval rating was measured at 88 percent, when he was the country's prime minister. In 2008, as a result of the war with Georgia, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In 2014, Russia annexed the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, viewing it as a historic reunification. Despite Western sanctions that were imposed on the country in response the violation of territorial integrity of Ukraine, the approval rating remained high over the following years. In February and March 2019, among the reasons behind the decline in approval were a pension reform and a retirement age hike.'

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0the%20country.


his approval levels are very high, not sure why he would need to 'rig' an election to win...

Yes Madison, you're such a neutral, defending a dictator committing illegal invasions and well known to be totally corrupt.


Election forensics of the Russia 2021 elections statistically indicate massive election fraud
https://www.csh.ac.at/wp-content/upl...-Elections.pdf

Observers Detail Flaws in Russian Election
https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-med...aid%20they%20f ound,a%20result%20of%20procedural%20violations.

Russia election: Putin's party wins election marred by fraud claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58614227

Field experiment estimate of electoral fraud in Russian parliamentary elections
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1206770110

THE NATURE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN’S REGIME IN RUSSIA
https://committees.parliament.uk/wri...ce/89928/html/

Researcher Says Raw Voting Data Points To Massive Fraud In United Russia's Duma Victory
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-elect.../31472787.html

Fabricating Votes for Putin: new tests of fraud and electoral manipulations
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67182/1/La...ng%20votes.pdf

Why we must not recognize Russia’s fraudulent election
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...lent-election/

Independent Russian vote monitor says election was a mockery
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ry-2024-03-18/

[BattlingNelson]

An absolutely damning, revolting and appauling list of warcrimes comitted by the russians in Ukraine as listed in the latest report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine under UN. The court in Hague will be busy for a decade after the war:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/h...-ukraine/index

[Prince Madison]

Yes Madison, you're such a neutral, defending a dictator committing illegal invasions and well known to be totally corrupt.


Election forensics of the Russia 2021 elections statistically indicate massive election fraud
https://www.csh.ac.at/wp-content/upl...-Elections.pdf

Observers Detail Flaws in Russian Election
https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-med...aid%20they%20f ound,a%20result%20of%20procedural%20violations.

Russia election: Putin's party wins election marred by fraud claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58614227

Field experiment estimate of electoral fraud in Russian parliamentary elections
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1206770110

THE NATURE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN’S REGIME IN RUSSIA
https://committees.parliament.uk/wri...ce/89928/html/

Researcher Says Raw Voting Data Points To Massive Fraud In United Russia's Duma Victory
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-elect.../31472787.html

Fabricating Votes for Putin: new tests of fraud and electoral manipulations
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67182/1/La...ng%20votes.pdf

Why we must not recognize Russia’s fraudulent election
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...lent-election/

Independent Russian vote monitor says election was a mockery
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ry-2024-03-18/

Lots of people claim the American election was fraudulent too... this is common when people aren't happy that a candidate they didn't like wins. If 8 out of 10 russians are happy with him it is not a surprise he won 87 percent of the votes.

[Marchegiano]

Questioning or challenging assertions offered in support of a propositon is not a strawman Bat.

Your argument was - unless my reading comprehension has deteriorated sharply - that Ukraine is waging a (successful) war of attrition but needed NATO help to sustain it. The supporting evidence you offered was that Ukraine was 'often' reaching ratios of 10:1

I wasn't challenging a different proposition. I agree that it's an attritional war. I agree that NATO weapons are required to sustain Ukraines efforts. I also agree that in specific instances 10:1 ratios have likely been achieved.

All I did was point out that the overall casualty ratio estimates do not support the proposition that it's an attritional war Ukraine has much hope of winning.

That's offering different (I would say much more relevent) evidence, not attacking a different proposition

That's not a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Least, as I understand it.

Not trying to be a dick btw, I actually had to go and check just to make sure I had my definitons right... I just thought it might save time for the future if we both had the same understanding of the language we're using.

176,000 people killed in Afghanistan

2,456 were US military

174k more murdered by the loser than the winner.


I don't know about strawman or not, but I do know it's not a difficult argument to work around.

America killed more Vietnamese than lost soldiers as well

More Koreans than American as well

I'm not saying you are wrong, or Bats is right, and I have no intention on commenting on what is a strawman, but, I do think the terms of this particular mini debate are easy to escape and the limitation placed on this argument by both of you is artificial.


How many Ukrainians were murdered by Nazis and still beat the Nazis? OOO that a good one. I ain't ask about the USSR military. I asked about the Ukrainians in that military. See? Super easy to just bust that all to ****.



War is unique, every time. Ukraine has seen a force more powerful, better tech, more numbers, and still won with American and British gear and we all know that **** got **** all nothing to do with the current situation so for these numbers y'all throwing around to mean anything you're going to have to explain juxta and situation unique to this war. We know last time they were backed by an economic engine that was superior to the Nazi engine and so resupply makes the former make sense today. What has the current Russia brought to make this war go in their favor? A softer hand and so less motivated ally. IDGAF, that is key to this. IDGAF which side you see winning or why, Russia is having more success than the Nazis because they are not blitzing. Vital, super important, way bigger factor than numbers of murders.


IMO Point was I think both y'all need to expand you arguments rather than double down on what positions you already stated. IMO. No offense intended.

[GrandpaBernard]

176,000 people killed in Afghanistan

2,456 were US military

174k more murdered by the loser than the winner.


I don't know about strawman or not, but I do know it's not a difficult argument to work around.

America killed more Vietnamese than lost soldiers as well

More Koreans than American as well

I'm not saying you are wrong, or Bats is right, and I have no intention on commenting on what is a strawman, but, I do think the terms of this particular mini debate are easy to escape and the limitation placed on this argument by both of you is artificial.


How many Ukrainians were murdered by Nazis and still beat the Nazis? OOO that a good one. I ain't ask about the USSR military. I asked about the Ukrainians in that military. See? Super easy to just bust that all to ****.



War is unique, every time. Ukraine has seen a force more powerful, better tech, more numbers, and still won with American and British gear and we all know that **** got **** all nothing to do with the current situation so for these numbers y'all throwing around to mean anything you're going to have to explain juxta and situation unique to this war. We know last time they were backed by an economic engine that was superior to the Nazi engine and so resupply makes the former make sense today. What has the current Russia brought to make this war go in their favor? A softer hand and so less motivated ally. IDGAF, that is key to this. IDGAF which side you see winning or why, Russia is having more success than the Nazis because they are not blitzing. Vital, super important, way bigger factor than numbers of murders.


IMO Point was I think both y'all need to expand you arguments rather than double down on what positions you already stated. IMO. No offense intended.

That iteration of Ukraine was the Soviet Union and had DIRECT assistance from the other Soviets

Todays Ukraine is a nato reject and peeping jane watching through the window as Big Daddy America gives every other European hoe a turn

natoKraine /= UkSSR

It took the Nazis 2 or 3 days to bust through 2nd defense line in UA

natoKraine had the entire summer last year and couldnt reach the 1st defense line

natoKraine is nowhere near as capable as the Nazis that the Russians faced in Ukraine

Nam has a huge population for its size, and since WW2 America has a habit of tapping out while up on the scorecards.

In other words Nam had adequate manpower and willpower to outlast the US

natoKraine is right at the doorstep of the great power that is invading it

unfavorable logistics for natoKraine. It will not get enough supplies to have a shot of taking back that land.

natoKraine is losing

If it manages to turn things around, it would fight to a draw but the Russian Empire keeps the most valuable parts of what was once natoKraine

the Donbass or what’s now Western Russia generated most of natoKraine’s revenue

And most of natoKraine’s coastline was taken too