| |
| ▲ | dralley 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Ukraine doesn't claim a 6:1 ratio overall. Only in certain parts of the front line during certain periods of fighting is it so lopsided, such as the recent Russian attempts to retake Kursk or the early assaults on Bakhmut and Vulhedar. An optimistic estimate for the overall war would be more like 2.5 to 1, but realistically it's probably lower. Equipment kills are another story. | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Russia is losing 1000+ a day. I get thee is propaganda, but it would be news is Ukraine was losing 400/day. The rate of Russian advance (that is, extremely slow) would imply the kill rations are very high in Ukraine's favor | | |
| ▲ | dralley 7 months ago | parent [-] | | You can't really imply kill ratios by the speed of the advance, it doesn't work like that. | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Go look at the history of WWI. That is the historical analogue of the conflict. | | |
| ▲ | dralley 7 months ago | parent [-] | | No, it's not. Fast advances often mean that the defender pulled back their forces, not that the defender got destroyed. | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Fast advances? Who is talking about fast advances? What is happening is almost trench warfare. Ultra-slow front advancement, ultra-high casualties. Now, maybe what you mean is when Ukraine has successes they are rapid and wide ranging like the Donbas counterassault about a year ago or the Kursk incursion. But Russia has advanced only about 30 miles in the last year, tops. All while going through multiple rounds of conscription, mercenaries, and now North Korean shock troops. The ultra slow front advancement combined with massive numbers of poorly trained conscripts means: really high casualty rate for the gained territory. My sources are generally the UK media. TimesRadio is pretty rah-rah Ukraine, but other sources generally back up the fundamental claim: Russia is lose 1000-1500/day to gain really small amounts of territory. For russia to win they'll need to progress another 200 miles, which at this rate means 2-3 million dead russians or more. Russian advances are enabled by artillery shells. If the artillery losses mount and production issues appear in shell production, then suddenly the Russian ground forces will be sitting ducks and Ukraine will counterattack very effectively. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | geysersam 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bizarre propaganda. |
|
| |
| ▲ | consumer451 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | By Russia using "meat wave tactics." Here is a sober assessment of the strategy from Anders Puck Nielsen. He is an extremely well informed source on these matters. I highly recommend all of his videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ZPbnVqHrY | | |
| ▲ | NicoJuicy 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Only checked the first few minutes ( if I even got there). His opinion is really bad. Listen to his first minutes and compare it with my "couch" take vs his "well informed" opinion. --- Russia doesn't have unlimited resources and they are not grinding the meat assault to let the west fear. Russia needs to pay a lot to get it going, their resources are getting depleted, things that were already known ( eg. Demographics). Why they are so willing to conquer Ukraine is simply because they went to add x million people to attack and fix that to prepare for a next meat grinding war. Russia hasn't got unlimited resources. They need external help. They are not going all in. They don't even enforce military conscription in the well known areas. They are just down the rabbit hole now and we just need to support Ukraine more. --- now listened to it completely --- He's even wrong about why the west is funding Ukraine. Most of them want Ukraine to win, definitely neighbors of Ukraine that know Russia, or look at how the Netherlands is supporting Ukraine. The rest, thinks at least there should be enough funds to Ukraine to deplete Russia from their capable men or their tanks ( which is actually happening) and helps NATO. I actually hope that now NATO has expanded to what was expected, that military aid increases. The ones that want to stop funding Ukraine are the dumbest people in politics and believe in fairy tales that Russia claims or are literally Russian funded. |
| |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We are approaching the third year and you're unaware to the degree the Russian military industrial complex was revealed as a fraud? The NATO concern with Russia in a conventional conflict isn't whether they would win, it's if they would win so convincingly that Russia would immediately escalate to nukes. | | |
| ▲ | refurb 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > We are approaching the third year and you're unaware to the degree the Russian military industrial complex was revealed as a fraud? It's very hard to square that conclusion based on the fact that it's Ukraine that has consistently lost territory during this war, save for a couple offensives that ground to a halt pretty quickly. This war will end with Ukraine losing a significant chunk of it's territory. | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Russia has gained territory slowly using meat waves. It has possibly taken 500,000 casualties gaining only 18 miles of front in the last year. During the war Ukraine has regained territory in fast maneuvers and large amounts when Russia's defenses falter. Ukraine has utterly defeated Russia's Navy, its has neutralized its armor, fights on peer or better with the air force. What is necessary for Ukraine to achieve near total victory is to neutralize Russia's artillery and disrupt supply lines and staging inside Russia, which the NATO rules of engagement only just allowed. It's my general opinion that while all of the Donbas region may not be reclaimed which isn't of great value except as a buffer zone, it is still possible for Ukraine to recapture Crimea, which is inevitable if the Ukrainians defeat the Russians across the Dnieper because of Russia's functional loss of its navy. | | |
| ▲ | refurb 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > It has possibly taken 500,000 casualties gaining only 18 miles of front in the last year. That seems highly unlikely considering the over inflated Ukraine estimate of Russian casualties is 700,000 for the whole war. More trust sources estimate total Russian casualties for the war under 500,000, so I doubt one battle was 500,000. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NicoJuicy 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Russia has ego projects funded with oil revenue. Their 5th stealth fighter => isn't stealth Their naval fleet => literally has tow boats following them on missions Newest tank => T90 => barely build... 60? Practically all their tanks are build a long time ago. The engine was a bad engine copy of the Germans. Nuclear arsenal => they forgot maintenance like with everything else Rocket missles => yes, it was still used a lot. Not reusable and was still based on a design from the 1960's. Lada => taken over by Renault to make it profitable ------ Sure, during the cold war, Soviet Union was powerful, their facilities were all funded by the US during the world war, this is where they got the tech ( see reason of Holodomor). But it's only 2 modern cities and the rest is shitty to stay in. Additionally, their invasion is just similar like the past. It ain't tech, it's literally meat grinder tactics. | | |
| ▲ | Nexxxeh 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a wild video of a Russian group mocking a tank and then discovering it was a Russian T-90 and its reactive armour was literally a construction brick. https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1gt1... They also had to chase their latest stealth prototype drone (S-70) over Ukraine with a pseudostealth fighter (Su-57 Felon, one of only about 30) to blow it up themselves. Almost certainly due to the drone being so faulty they tried to destroy it. They didn't even do that effectively, the large intact portions surviving and being collected for UA intelligence. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/why-russia-shot-down-s-70-... Russia couldn't manage to get naval superiority against Ukraine, a country with effectively no functional navy vessels. | |
| ▲ | geysersam 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | They're still producing more artillery shells than Europe and US are able to provide Ukraine. That seems to be the determining factor in this war. | | |
| ▲ | NicoJuicy 7 months ago | parent [-] | | These tactics have all been observed. Shells don't have a long range, bodies either. The use shells because of terror tactics and because they barely have accurate stuff. Blow up oil and their economy will collapse. Funding military and payouts will decrease. No money for nuclear stuff. No troops to interfere in other countries. War stops and their arsenal won't receive any maintenance anymore for the next 20 years. Moscow's influence decreases, Russia collapses and will be split up in different countries again. One of them will be high oil production, the rest will benefit from passthrough payments ( instead of nothing before) and will be partially deserted as it always has been. | | |
| ▲ | geysersam 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I have no idea what point you are making. Russia is winning the war, oil prices are still high, the new US government is ready to negotiate and stop arming Ukraine. There are no signs Russia is about to collapse. > The use shells because of terror tactics and because they barely have accurate stuff. They're using shells because 80% of casualties in the war are caused by artillery. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | There are no signs Russia is about to collapse. Imminently, no. And it doesn't need to collapse outright. It just needs to become sufficiently clear to whomever is currently gearing up to take over after Putin croaks/fades in a few years -- that its projected general condition (as affects their own wealth and comfort) for the next 10-20 years or so will start to look very blighted indeed, if it doesn't rapidly change course on its optional (and very, very costly) neocolonial project. | |
| ▲ | NicoJuicy 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't know that Russia has to sell it's oil under the official oil price because of sanctions? Other: Euro/dollar vs. Rubble NATO added a bunch of strong countries ( eg. Finland) CSTO => failed Inflation rate in Russia, eg. Food Decreased military exports abroad The requirement to get help from Iran and North Korea Depleting tanks Unemployment rate in Russia ( overheating of the economy) And weirdly enough, the high rates companies has to pay their employees I'm more amazed why you would even think Russia is even winning. Ah, yes, the new government. Who wants a Trump tower in Russia. Lol |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dralley 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Russia is an underdeveloped country. 1/4 of the population doesn't have indoor plumbing. If you don't live in St. Petersburg or Moscow, your standard of living is just not very comparable to the rest of the developed world. It's like if NYC and Seattle were the only two major American cities and the rest of the country was basically Appalachia. "The Russian military is large and modern, but the modern part isn't large and the large part isn't modern" is a basically true statement. They have a handful of modern platforms for prestige reasons but in very small quantity, and a large quantity of leftover Soviet trash. And even the "modern" stuff is several tiers below Western kit. |
|
