I really doubt 2,000 soldiers were killed. I do think a lot were killed and the rest noped right the hell out of there.
That said, if 2,000 soldiers were killed then I'd bet on it being from a remote strike and the option to surrender probably never came up.
"Dead, captured, or routed" is pretty plausible. 100% casualties does seem unlikely - I'm sure some got away... but whatever's left probably no longer matters militarily.
Issue constantly with figures from this war is many people, including politicians and the media, using deaths, losses, and casualties interchangeably when they are not interchangeable. As the citation trees grow different writers pick different words for whatever reasons and the confusion grows. Comparisons get made between two different numbers with the same word and you got to wonder which is wrong and if it's intentional or not.
Deaths: Soldiers actually no longer alive.
Losses: Soldiers out of the fight long term or permanently, including deaths, prisoners, deserters, MIA, disabled, etc.
Casualties: Soldiers out at all, including the above plus short term injuries from which they will return for future fights.
And of course every number we see goes through multiple filters for both strategic and agenda purposes.
Alright Lady's & Gentlemen, boys and girls, it is time for another Truck logistics thread🧵 for this latest Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
In it we are going to discuss the concept of "Operational Attrition" as applied to the Russian Army truck fleet in combat.
1/
In my now widely read thread on poorly maintained, cheap Chinese made, truck tires, I explained how Russia lost trucks & mobility by not maintaining tires.
This loss of vehicles without a shot being fired is referred to as "Operational Attrition."
2/
That is, just by operating vehicles, you lose some of them because they break.
This gets a lot worse in combat. Each mile traveled by a military truck in war is between 10 and 20 miles wear. This is simple.
Truck drivers abuse trucks because they don't want to die.
3/
I was associated with three US Army "Reset" programs in 2003 - 2008 to fix all the FMTV trucks that lived through a year of "Punch it Chewy."
4/
My good friend at Sealy, Gilbert Duran, wrote an article about the 1st phase of the effort called:
Resetting the FMTV: the Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Reset Program refurbishes FMTV trucks returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.
5/
Yeah, long title, but authors in Army branch publications gotta do what they gotta do to get published.
As the low seniority DCMA guy I got to do induction inspections on IED blast damaged trucks like these.
6/
None of those vehicles ran, but mainly because they had been picked over for parts
There were not that many miles on them, but goodness was there oil leaks, sludge, leaky radiators, carbon build ups & the suspensions were beat to h--l
Cab glass was noticeable by it's absence
7/
This was in an Army that has professional NCO's that lived, breathed and ate preventive maintenance as a religious catechism.
And the US Army enforced rest periods for its truck drivers because it cared enough about having men & equipment future operations.
8/
None of that is true for the Russian Army.
Most of the time between 2012 and 2022 the Russian Army did not maintain their trucks.
The Russians don't have a professional NCO Corps so they ARE NOT DOING IT NOW.
9/
The overriding priority of Russian logistics is transporting artillery ammunition.
10/
Every truck is being sent out in whatever condition, overloaded with ammunition.
The engines are running white hot and no one has checked the oil or other fluid levels, let alone does an oil change, in these last three weeks.
11/
This Russian officer "Meet the Plan now" over everything else has real world consequences with tired drivers.
It's not just convoy chain reaction accidents.
Driver fall asleep at the wheel and do things like fall off bridges.
12/
And running overloaded by artillery ammunition trucks through previously destroyed convoys like this are going to shred even good tires and catch road debris in CTIS and pneumatic brake hoses.
Plus driving through/around this takes more time.
13/
And then there is the "conscript factor." Who do you think were towing the helicopters in this video? Russian conscripts, that's who.
What does that mean in a panicked evacuation?
They pulled those choppers as fast as they could get 15km of so
14/
...out of artillery range. The choppers were trash at that point.
However, after that, those guys slowed the <bleep> down & took their time dragging those choppers to their drop off point so they had as much "safe time" as they could before the next artillery ammo run.
15/
The cumulative effects of all these factors leads to horrendous levels of Russian Army Truck fleet operational attrition.
Short form: 6-to-8 weeks more fighting will deadline the entire Russian Army military truck fleet.
16/
Between the end of April and Mid-May 2022, the Ukrainian Army will be able to counter-attack EVERYWHERE.
Because there will be NOWHERE more than 20 miles/30 km inside Ukraine where Russian troops won't be out of food and low on ammunition.
I really doubt 2,000 soldiers were killed. I do think a lot were killed and the rest noped right the hell out of there.
That said, if 2,000 soldiers were killed then I'd bet on it being from a remote strike and the option to surrender probably never came up.
"Dead, captured, or routed" is pretty plausible. 100% casualties does seem unlikely - I'm sure some got away... but whatever's left probably no longer matters militarily.
Issue constantly with figures from this war is many people, including politicians and the media, using deaths, losses, and casualties interchangeably when they are not interchangeable. As the citation trees grow different writers pick different words for whatever reasons and the confusion grows. Comparisons get made between two different numbers with the same word and you got to wonder which is wrong and if it's intentional or not.
Deaths: Soldiers actually no longer alive.
Losses: Soldiers out of the fight long term or permanently, including deaths, prisoners, deserters, MIA, disabled, etc.
Casualties: Soldiers out at all, including the above plus short term injuries from which they will return for future fights.
And of course every number we see goes through multiple filters for both strategic and agenda purposes.
Yeah, a unit could be considered "destroyed" even if no one died; if they were cut off from supplies and had to run for home without most of their equipment the unit is still functionally "destroyed" even if hypothetically in a couple weeks you can round up all 2,000 guys again. Obviously that's not the case here but it needs to be kept in mind that the sort of flowery language the media likes to use to report on military engagements obscures many possibilities within it.
The Russian 331st Guards Airborne Regiment of the 98th Guard Airborne Division is Claimed to have been almost Completely wiped out by Ukrainian Forces near the Capital of Kyiv, the Unit consisted of around 2000 Airborne Soldiers alongside over 200 Armored Fighting Vehicles.
The Commander of the 331st, Colonel Sergei Sukharev as well as the Deputy Commander, Major Sergey Krylov were also Confirmed to have been Killed during Combat near Kyiv on March 17th.
The only Survivors of the Battle are reported to be 1 Severely Wounded Airborne Soldier who is Currently under Ukrainian Medical Care as well as up to 100 Russian Airborne POWs that has been Captured over the last few days during the Fighting.
From the sounds of it this was one of the units NW of Kyiv which has been somewhat cut off, and possibly hasn't been able to get supplies due to the Belarusian railroad saboteurs. Did Russia literally lose 1900 troops out of 2000? Well, hard to say, but it seems clear that this unit is now entirely out of the fight.
If the airborne are supposed to be Russia's best then I doubt that front's gonna hold for Russia much longer.
That same source mentioned U.S. SEALs and Delta Force active in country as advisors and trainers for the new weapon systems being delivered. Which, if true, is pretty much spot on with my earlier prediction.
Russia wants to play the "I'm not touching you" game of chicken, NATO countries can do the same.
Can we join an alliance to help defend against our neighbor who keeps invading?
NATO: get bent. But we'll gladly string you along for PR.
NATO exists to avoid ever getting into a war with Russia. Ukraine was clearly never going to get accepted into it, as Russia has made it clear they are willing to go to war over them. The whole thing's just been an act since day one to try and rattle military support from NATO countries.
StarZapper on
+28
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited March 2022
Ukraine needs some solid nations that are pledged to jump in and fight Russian forces the instant they put one toe across the no-no line. They also need artillery and air defenses they know how to use - fancy vehicles and armor won't be that helpful because those require trained, experienced crews. Sure, more javelins, MANPADs, drones, night vision, the best personal armor and all that jazz will be great because Ukraine still has reserves aplenty that are being prepped and trained. If there is one thing this war has shown, it's that regular soldier teams and COs with versatile, proper equipment can work wonders. The visually verified losses of Russian vehicles are currently at 1610.
Can we join an alliance to help defend against our neighbor who keeps invading?
NATO: get bent. But we'll gladly string you along for PR.
They aren't stringing them along. Ukraine also knows what's up. Like with the EU application, the NATO stuff is a polite fiction both sides are pushing for propaganda/solidarity/etc purposes. The only people buying this are random people following the war on the news/social media/etc.
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO for the same reason NATO isn't intervening right now: because no one wants to start WW3 over Ukraine. NATO has very deliberately made it clear that Ukraine is not a red line for them because of that.
It's not like NATO is leaving them out in the rain, either. Ukraine probably has more javelins than most non-frontline NATO countries at this point. Destroying Russia's ability to wage war without actually being at war themselves is a pretty good deal for NATO.
I don't think there was ever any chance of Ukraine getting into NATO. Ever since they kicked out their Putin-approved dictator they have been under attack by Russia and losing parts of their country. IF we wanted a war with Russia, the fastest way to do that would be to let a country that they are already essentially at war with into our defensive alliance.
The only way Ukraine would get into NATO is if Russia is no longer able to attack them, or sincerely not wanting to. In which case Ukraine wouldn't really need to be in NATO anymore.
I think that if Ukraine survives this the West will help them rebuild and re-arm and make themselves an even harder target if Russia tries it again, and that's probably the best they can hope for right now.
NATO exists for its members' interests and they don't have much to gain by inviting Ukraine.
Compensatorily we have much to gain by arming Ukraine to the teeth.
So they can expect plenty of that kind of support at least from the US.
If there's a ceasefire expect the US to be basically "and this is how you do Logistics motherfuckers"
If we're already importing s*** now and it could potentially come under Fire when it can't yeah we're going to be dropping shit in there like there's no tomorrow
I guess it's a miracle NATO expanded at all. Russia should of promised WW3 over Poland, let alone the Baltic's.
The heads of Russia at the time were fine with it. Poland actually went to Russia first and asked if Russia cared if they joined NATO, and Russia told them it was fine.
I guess it's a miracle NATO expanded at all. Russia should of promised WW3 over Poland, let alone the Baltic's.
Not really: Countries joined NATO during the period where Russia could only stop them by triggering MAD. Ukraine did not want to join during that period, and the window had closed years before they started reconsidering.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
I guess it's a miracle NATO expanded at all. Russia should of promised WW3 over Poland, let alone the Baltic's.
Earlier expansions were pursued by NATO with the goals of reinforced internal centeral/southern European stability and expanding American reach, respectively. The new members had their own reasons for joining, but the invitation was in line with existing members' interests.
I guess it's a miracle NATO expanded at all. Russia should of promised WW3 over Poland, let alone the Baltic's.
The heads of Russia at the time were fine with it. Poland actually went to Russia first and asked if Russia cared if they joined NATO, and Russia told them it was fine.
Russian feelings on varied from expansion to expansion. They were distinctly unhappy about the 1999 one.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
Without condemning or condoning, I think its pretty straightforward when nations are unhappy about the expansion of hostile alliances and accompanying troop deployments. The 1999 expansion included old Soviet countries and put NATO very close to Moscow.
Yeah, at this point, Ukraine isn't getting into NATO right now because is likely so far gone that he is willing to start WW3 over it. Maybe in 5 years at the earliest, but that really depends on how things look. Really the three factors to consider are:
-Does Ukraine manage to put together a third defensive pact in that part of Europe that makes Russia back the fuck off. I suspect some of the former USSR satellites that aren't in either NATO or the EU might end up having to find a third option given how those two have a setup where a single member nation can kneecap a candidates entry into them.
-Russia strength at the time. I'd argue that they are probably a middle power at this point. Maybe they get back up to regional power status in that time. I doubt they can get to great power status in the next decade. Granted with the rampant corruption, I'm inclined to think they are probably stuck in middle power status for awhile. Also unlikely they drop down to small power status, not unless they fracture or see a massive decrease in their population. If they stay as weak as they are, it makes it less likely they can do much.
-Ukraine's strength. With Russia pissing away good will and the historical status between the two and the increasing generational game, as well as sanctions. It's possible that Ukraine does siphon significant manpower out of Russia. Also the West has a vested interest in propping Ukraine up against Russia and after this war is over, I'd be surprised if they didn't devote significant funds to rebuilding Ukraine because a strong, stable Ukraine not only will better resist Russia, but again, could contribute to further weakening of Russia, since it's an easy place for defecting Russians to go and integrate into.
Given that NATO is built primarily to ensure that Russia fucks off without firing a shot. They'll likely only take Ukraine in, if their is both a benefit and also if it won't result in Russia attacking anyways..
Actually, if I were China, I'd be pretty pissed with Russia because not only is this making a case for a reinvigorated NATO, but likely also makes the case for expanding NATO's purpose. That being pivoting things towards also being a counter to China's bullshit. Granted China is doing this partly to themselves by giving Russia any support, which is going to be used to push for such a repivoting of NATO.
Everyone knows the stakes. Ukraine isn't joining NATO and NATO isn't attacking Russia in this conflict.
NATO is going to continue to dump plane loads of weapons and equipment and provide covert intelligence information and other aid and assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine is going to do everything they can to fight and win because NATO or not they are fighting for their homes and country. Zelenskyy is going to do whatever it takes to end the war and give up whatever he feels is worth it on trade to Russia for his people to stop being murdered. Even if we sitting safe behind our computers 10k miles away want Ukraine to keep kicking Russia in the balls and give Russia no concessions and no face saving.
We all know Putin's agreements aren't worth shit, so if Zelenskyy says everyone withdraws to where they were before the invasion, some token shit like renaming streets / not discouraging use of the Russian language, and totally pinky swears that he's going to remain neutral, that's a win. Russia drags what little they can of their battered military back to their crushed economy, and maybe in a generation or two when they start having imperial ambitions again the board will have changed enough that they ceded the whole buffer zone to the west. Remember pre-Euromaidan Ukraine was basically in the same boat as Belarus, and it's quite possible Belarus will be taking the same path soon.
Yeah, at this point, Ukraine isn't getting into NATO right now because is likely so far gone that he is willing to start WW3 over it. Maybe in 5 years at the earliest, but that really depends on how things look. Really the three factors to consider are:
-Does Ukraine manage to put together a third defensive pact in that part of Europe that makes Russia back the fuck off. I suspect some of the former USSR satellites that aren't in either NATO or the EU might end up having to find a third option given how those two have a setup where a single member nation can kneecap a candidates entry into them.
-Russia strength at the time. I'd argue that they are probably a middle power at this point. Maybe they get back up to regional power status in that time. I doubt they can get to great power status in the next decade. Granted with the rampant corruption, I'm inclined to think they are probably stuck in middle power status for awhile. Also unlikely they drop down to small power status, not unless they fracture or see a massive decrease in their population. If they stay as weak as they are, it makes it less likely they can do much.
-Ukraine's strength. With Russia pissing away good will and the historical status between the two and the increasing generational game, as well as sanctions. It's possible that Ukraine does siphon significant manpower out of Russia. Also the West has a vested interest in propping Ukraine up against Russia and after this war is over, I'd be surprised if they didn't devote significant funds to rebuilding Ukraine because a strong, stable Ukraine not only will better resist Russia, but again, could contribute to further weakening of Russia, since it's an easy place for defecting Russians to go and integrate into.
Given that NATO is built primarily to ensure that Russia fucks off without firing a shot. They'll likely only take Ukraine in, if their is both a benefit and also if it won't result in Russia attacking anyways..
Actually, if I were China, I'd be pretty pissed with Russia because not only is this making a case for a reinvigorated NATO, but likely also makes the case for expanding NATO's purpose. That being pivoting things towards also being a counter to China's bullshit. Granted China is doing this partly to themselves by giving Russia any support, which is going to be used to push for such a repivoting of NATO.
This list is basically Moldova and Belarus.
Maybe Georgia if you stretch the limit of what one calls Europe.
+2
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Germany signs long-term LNG deal with Qatar to wean off Russia's pipeline gas - huge delegation of German energy industry representatives accompanied German economy minister to Doha who will all ensure Germany will build the necessary infrastructure.
Exchanging one regime for another.
Albeit one that isn’t a threat to its neighbors and does not have nuclear weapons of its own.
And not actively invading another country while shelling civilians.
It's an extremely low bar to limbo under, but Russia managed that.
Qatar is problematic, but 10 years in the future problematic, Russia is 10 months in the future problematic.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
And yet, seeing Russian actions, NATO also has a point, and I'd say the far better one.
Germany signs long-term LNG deal with Qatar to wean off Russia's pipeline gas - huge delegation of German energy industry representatives accompanied German economy minister to Doha who will all ensure Germany will build the necessary infrastructure.
Exchanging one regime for another.
Albeit one that isn’t a threat to its neighbors and does not have nuclear weapons of its own.
And not actively invading another country while shelling civilians.
It's an extremely low bar to limbo under, but Russia managed that.
Qatar is problematic, but 10 years in the future problematic, Russia is 10 months in the future problematic.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
And yet, seeing Russian actions, NATO also has a point, and I'd say the far better one.
It's not really fair to consider current actions in regards of a slight 30 years back. That's all on Putin and not on the point made.
I really doubt 2,000 soldiers were killed. I do think a lot were killed and the rest noped right the hell out of there.
That said, if 2,000 soldiers were killed then I'd bet on it being from a remote strike and the option to surrender probably never came up.
They presumably mean the regiment's knocked out of commission, not annihilated.
A military unit that's taken 20-30% losses - maybe less depending on training or professionalism - is going to be useless for awhile. That probably doesn't have to be 20-30% of their manpower either - if you take a mechanized unit and throw enough missiles at it that it's effectively no longer mechanized, even if the bulk of the soldiers came through it okay the rest would be scrambled enough organizationally that they wouldn't be able to fight effectively for awhile.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
There was a vague informal agreement between Gorbachev and I wanna say Bush? but nothing that was actually in writing. Further, NATO didn't exactly force anyone to join, those countries signed on because they were worried about a combinaion of regional instability and the possibility of some asshole coming to power in russia who had second thoughts.
For more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0OWPjdLzU&ab_channel=AlternateHistoryHub
Keep in mind, "they told me privately no, but they're going to publicly pretend like it's still going to happen" is definitely an option I'd consider announcing were I the leader of a country that wanted in to NATO, but didn't want my warmongering neighbor to know that I was trying to get into NATO. Make all the public moves you see look like it's hopeless because "secretly" it's never going to happen, and I "accidentally" just said that out loud in frustration, until I'm able to just speedrun the last bits to make it official.
It's..... not super likely that's what's happening, and also not likely to succeed as planned, but it's definitely something I'd consider.
Yeah, at this point, Ukraine isn't getting into NATO right now because is likely so far gone that he is willing to start WW3 over it. Maybe in 5 years at the earliest, but that really depends on how things look. Really the three factors to consider are:
-Does Ukraine manage to put together a third defensive pact in that part of Europe that makes Russia back the fuck off. I suspect some of the former USSR satellites that aren't in either NATO or the EU might end up having to find a third option given how those two have a setup where a single member nation can kneecap a candidates entry into them.
-Russia strength at the time. I'd argue that they are probably a middle power at this point. Maybe they get back up to regional power status in that time. I doubt they can get to great power status in the next decade. Granted with the rampant corruption, I'm inclined to think they are probably stuck in middle power status for awhile. Also unlikely they drop down to small power status, not unless they fracture or see a massive decrease in their population. If they stay as weak as they are, it makes it less likely they can do much.
-Ukraine's strength. With Russia pissing away good will and the historical status between the two and the increasing generational game, as well as sanctions. It's possible that Ukraine does siphon significant manpower out of Russia. Also the West has a vested interest in propping Ukraine up against Russia and after this war is over, I'd be surprised if they didn't devote significant funds to rebuilding Ukraine because a strong, stable Ukraine not only will better resist Russia, but again, could contribute to further weakening of Russia, since it's an easy place for defecting Russians to go and integrate into.
Given that NATO is built primarily to ensure that Russia fucks off without firing a shot. They'll likely only take Ukraine in, if their is both a benefit and also if it won't result in Russia attacking anyways..
Actually, if I were China, I'd be pretty pissed with Russia because not only is this making a case for a reinvigorated NATO, but likely also makes the case for expanding NATO's purpose. That being pivoting things towards also being a counter to China's bullshit. Granted China is doing this partly to themselves by giving Russia any support, which is going to be used to push for such a repivoting of NATO.
This list is basically Moldova and Belarus.
Maybe Georgia if you stretch the limit of what one calls Europe.
I wouldn't exclude Team Visegrad+Lithuania+Latvia. All of them (except Hungaria) have been pretty concerned about the Ukrainian escalation and Czech+Latvia+Lithuania were all fairly quick by giving immunity to all volunteers going to Ukraine (it's illegal in all of those countries to volunteer for a foreign military without special dispensation, something which usually takes time. This time various parliaments and presidents have all said "Go. You have immunity"). So longterm some sort of military pact isn't unthinkable.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Germany signs long-term LNG deal with Qatar to wean off Russia's pipeline gas - huge delegation of German energy industry representatives accompanied German economy minister to Doha who will all ensure Germany will build the necessary infrastructure.
Exchanging one regime for another.
Albeit one that isn’t a threat to its neighbors and does not have nuclear weapons of its own.
And not actively invading another country while shelling civilians.
It's an extremely low bar to limbo under, but Russia managed that.
Qatar is problematic, but 10 years in the future problematic, Russia is 10 months in the future problematic.
Guess that depends on how Yemeni you are
That’s a mess down there, but their contribution has been minimal, and their culpability is similar to Canadas in the US Afghanistan war. They had some troops there, but they weren’t the major belligerents.
The only reason it would make sense for Ukraine to be accepted into NATO would be if NATO believed open war with Russia was imminent and wanted to make sure Russia had as many headaches as possible when that happened.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
And yet, seeing Russian actions, NATO also has a point, and I'd say the far better one.
It's not really fair to consider current actions in regards of a slight 30 years back. That's all on Putin and not on the point made.
If you think Russia started only now, you should read up?
I really doubt 2,000 soldiers were killed. I do think a lot were killed and the rest noped right the hell out of there.
That said, if 2,000 soldiers were killed then I'd bet on it being from a remote strike and the option to surrender probably never came up.
They presumably mean the regiment's knocked out of commission, not annihilated.
A military unit that's taken 20-30% losses - maybe less depending on training or professionalism - is going to be useless for awhile. That probably doesn't have to be 20-30% of their manpower either - if you take a mechanized unit and throw enough missiles at it that it's effectively no longer mechanized, even if the bulk of the soldiers came through it okay the rest would be scrambled enough organizationally that they wouldn't be able to fight effectively for awhile.
While 2000 might be on the high end, considering they've been hitting this unit for a few days now, the command's been wiped out since at least Thursday, and they have 100 POWs (which I'm assuming is not inflated), they'd have to be the luckiest unit in the world if they got out of this with only a couple hundred lost.
The only reason it would make sense for Ukraine to be accepted into NATO would be if NATO believed open war with Russia was imminent and wanted to make sure Russia had as many headaches as possible when that happened.
Or if they believe Russia wouldn't attack a NATO state, and this could help save lives (and prevent the need for millions of dollars in future military donations) in the future by preventing the next invasion.
One thing that still hasn't been said out loud i think is Russia's hurt over NATO continuing after they disbanded the Warshaw pact. I don't know all the details but from what i've gathered they kind of have a point there?
And yet, seeing Russian actions, NATO also has a point, and I'd say the far better one.
It's not really fair to consider current actions in regards of a slight 30 years back. That's all on Putin and not on the point made.
If you think Russia started only now, you should read up?
Posts
Issue constantly with figures from this war is many people, including politicians and the media, using deaths, losses, and casualties interchangeably when they are not interchangeable. As the citation trees grow different writers pick different words for whatever reasons and the confusion grows. Comparisons get made between two different numbers with the same word and you got to wonder which is wrong and if it's intentional or not.
Deaths: Soldiers actually no longer alive.
Losses: Soldiers out of the fight long term or permanently, including deaths, prisoners, deserters, MIA, disabled, etc.
Casualties: Soldiers out at all, including the above plus short term injuries from which they will return for future fights.
And of course every number we see goes through multiple filters for both strategic and agenda purposes.
First tweet
Text of tweets, as is
Source is a random with a previously interesting tire analysis
TL:DR:
Yeah, a unit could be considered "destroyed" even if no one died; if they were cut off from supplies and had to run for home without most of their equipment the unit is still functionally "destroyed" even if hypothetically in a couple weeks you can round up all 2,000 guys again. Obviously that's not the case here but it needs to be kept in mind that the sort of flowery language the media likes to use to report on military engagements obscures many possibilities within it.
NATO: get bent. But we'll gladly string you along for PR.
That same source mentioned U.S. SEALs and Delta Force active in country as advisors and trainers for the new weapon systems being delivered. Which, if true, is pretty much spot on with my earlier prediction.
Russia wants to play the "I'm not touching you" game of chicken, NATO countries can do the same.
NATO exists to avoid ever getting into a war with Russia. Ukraine was clearly never going to get accepted into it, as Russia has made it clear they are willing to go to war over them. The whole thing's just been an act since day one to try and rattle military support from NATO countries.
They aren't stringing them along. Ukraine also knows what's up. Like with the EU application, the NATO stuff is a polite fiction both sides are pushing for propaganda/solidarity/etc purposes. The only people buying this are random people following the war on the news/social media/etc.
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO for the same reason NATO isn't intervening right now: because no one wants to start WW3 over Ukraine. NATO has very deliberately made it clear that Ukraine is not a red line for them because of that.
The only way Ukraine would get into NATO is if Russia is no longer able to attack them, or sincerely not wanting to. In which case Ukraine wouldn't really need to be in NATO anymore.
I think that if Ukraine survives this the West will help them rebuild and re-arm and make themselves an even harder target if Russia tries it again, and that's probably the best they can hope for right now.
Compensatorily we have much to gain by arming Ukraine to the teeth.
So they can expect plenty of that kind of support at least from the US.
If there's a ceasefire expect the US to be basically "and this is how you do Logistics motherfuckers"
If we're already importing s*** now and it could potentially come under Fire when it can't yeah we're going to be dropping shit in there like there's no tomorrow
But we all know we ain't going to do that over Ukraine. As sorry i am for them in all this.
The heads of Russia at the time were fine with it. Poland actually went to Russia first and asked if Russia cared if they joined NATO, and Russia told them it was fine.
Not really: Countries joined NATO during the period where Russia could only stop them by triggering MAD. Ukraine did not want to join during that period, and the window had closed years before they started reconsidering.
Earlier expansions were pursued by NATO with the goals of reinforced internal centeral/southern European stability and expanding American reach, respectively. The new members had their own reasons for joining, but the invitation was in line with existing members' interests.
Russian feelings on varied from expansion to expansion. They were distinctly unhappy about the 1999 one.
Without condemning or condoning, I think its pretty straightforward when nations are unhappy about the expansion of hostile alliances and accompanying troop deployments. The 1999 expansion included old Soviet countries and put NATO very close to Moscow.
-Does Ukraine manage to put together a third defensive pact in that part of Europe that makes Russia back the fuck off. I suspect some of the former USSR satellites that aren't in either NATO or the EU might end up having to find a third option given how those two have a setup where a single member nation can kneecap a candidates entry into them.
-Russia strength at the time. I'd argue that they are probably a middle power at this point. Maybe they get back up to regional power status in that time. I doubt they can get to great power status in the next decade. Granted with the rampant corruption, I'm inclined to think they are probably stuck in middle power status for awhile. Also unlikely they drop down to small power status, not unless they fracture or see a massive decrease in their population. If they stay as weak as they are, it makes it less likely they can do much.
-Ukraine's strength. With Russia pissing away good will and the historical status between the two and the increasing generational game, as well as sanctions. It's possible that Ukraine does siphon significant manpower out of Russia. Also the West has a vested interest in propping Ukraine up against Russia and after this war is over, I'd be surprised if they didn't devote significant funds to rebuilding Ukraine because a strong, stable Ukraine not only will better resist Russia, but again, could contribute to further weakening of Russia, since it's an easy place for defecting Russians to go and integrate into.
Given that NATO is built primarily to ensure that Russia fucks off without firing a shot. They'll likely only take Ukraine in, if their is both a benefit and also if it won't result in Russia attacking anyways..
Actually, if I were China, I'd be pretty pissed with Russia because not only is this making a case for a reinvigorated NATO, but likely also makes the case for expanding NATO's purpose. That being pivoting things towards also being a counter to China's bullshit. Granted China is doing this partly to themselves by giving Russia any support, which is going to be used to push for such a repivoting of NATO.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
NATO is going to continue to dump plane loads of weapons and equipment and provide covert intelligence information and other aid and assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine is going to do everything they can to fight and win because NATO or not they are fighting for their homes and country. Zelenskyy is going to do whatever it takes to end the war and give up whatever he feels is worth it on trade to Russia for his people to stop being murdered. Even if we sitting safe behind our computers 10k miles away want Ukraine to keep kicking Russia in the balls and give Russia no concessions and no face saving.
We all know Putin's agreements aren't worth shit, so if Zelenskyy says everyone withdraws to where they were before the invasion, some token shit like renaming streets / not discouraging use of the Russian language, and totally pinky swears that he's going to remain neutral, that's a win. Russia drags what little they can of their battered military back to their crushed economy, and maybe in a generation or two when they start having imperial ambitions again the board will have changed enough that they ceded the whole buffer zone to the west. Remember pre-Euromaidan Ukraine was basically in the same boat as Belarus, and it's quite possible Belarus will be taking the same path soon.
This list is basically Moldova and Belarus.
Maybe Georgia if you stretch the limit of what one calls Europe.
And yet, seeing Russian actions, NATO also has a point, and I'd say the far better one.
I mean, inviting ukraine at this point=
Because Putin will absolutely go there if he thinks his country is finally locking horns directly with NATO.
Guess that depends on how Yemeni you are
It's not really fair to consider current actions in regards of a slight 30 years back. That's all on Putin and not on the point made.
They presumably mean the regiment's knocked out of commission, not annihilated.
A military unit that's taken 20-30% losses - maybe less depending on training or professionalism - is going to be useless for awhile. That probably doesn't have to be 20-30% of their manpower either - if you take a mechanized unit and throw enough missiles at it that it's effectively no longer mechanized, even if the bulk of the soldiers came through it okay the rest would be scrambled enough organizationally that they wouldn't be able to fight effectively for awhile.
There was a vague informal agreement between Gorbachev and I wanna say Bush? but nothing that was actually in writing. Further, NATO didn't exactly force anyone to join, those countries signed on because they were worried about a combinaion of regional instability and the possibility of some asshole coming to power in russia who had second thoughts.
For more details:
It's..... not super likely that's what's happening, and also not likely to succeed as planned, but it's definitely something I'd consider.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I wouldn't exclude Team Visegrad+Lithuania+Latvia. All of them (except Hungaria) have been pretty concerned about the Ukrainian escalation and Czech+Latvia+Lithuania were all fairly quick by giving immunity to all volunteers going to Ukraine (it's illegal in all of those countries to volunteer for a foreign military without special dispensation, something which usually takes time. This time various parliaments and presidents have all said "Go. You have immunity"). So longterm some sort of military pact isn't unthinkable.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
If you think Russia started only now, you should read up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991–present)
While 2000 might be on the high end, considering they've been hitting this unit for a few days now, the command's been wiped out since at least Thursday, and they have 100 POWs (which I'm assuming is not inflated), they'd have to be the luckiest unit in the world if they got out of this with only a couple hundred lost.
Or if they believe Russia wouldn't attack a NATO state, and this could help save lives (and prevent the need for millions of dollars in future military donations) in the future by preventing the next invasion.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
You know me better than that, but if we can't talk about this sentiment being with some merit in the eyes of the Russian population then never mind.