| |
| ▲ | ponector 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >>> stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough War is not only the 155mm shells. NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war with USSR, they could send everything to Ukraine and it will help a lot. As an example, just check how many old Abrams the are in storage and never will be used and how many have been sent. | | |
| ▲ | pydry 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >War is not only the 155mm shells. In this war it is most: >Artillery has been known as the “king of battle” for centuries, and this largely remains true today. In the Russia-Ukraine war, artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-ru... >NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war Many, like the F16 proved expensive and fairly useless. And, at some point they had to start deciding whether to strip their inventories bare or hold back weapons deliveries to Ukraine. So, while there are many stockpiles, theyre not necessarily much help. In a supreme act of irony the NATO member that stripped its inventories the most now has America threatening its territory. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties is no longer the case. Now it's drones https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-... which I guess show that things can change. If it had been a NATO vs Russia war it would have been air power or maybe nukes which everyone wants to avoid. The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. They had a clear advantage in artillery but it's more even with drones and western collaboration like this Project Octopus may give Ukraine the advantage. (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western...) | | |
| ▲ | pydry 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I can believe that 80% of Russian casualties are drones, however that's more of an artefact of a dire shortage of artillery on the Ukrainian side. Drones are the one thing theyve got left. It makes sense theyd hype them up. It also makes sense that military-industrial complex lobbying machinery like your website would hype up whatever seems to be working - it fills their order book. >The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. Body bag exchange ratios have recently topped ~40:1. Actual casualty ratios are (being generous, here) probably 25:1 at this point. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I suspect your casualty figures are from Russian misinformation rather than reality if you mean 25 Ukrainians for 1 Russian. Reasonably neutral estimates have the military deaths since 2022 at about 80k Ukrainians, 250k Russians. (see wikipedia) | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg752y13meo That case was 1212:27, or 44:1. >Reasonably neutral estimates have the military deaths since 2022 at about 80k Ukrainians, 250k Russians You might want to reassess your measure of what constitutes "reasonably neutral" because that 80k number is off by roughly an order of magnitude. It's also worth noting that these lopsided 44:1 casualty exchange ratios are A) a relatively recent phenomenon - only in the last ~4-5 months. They are hard to bullshit though. | | |
| ▲ | ponector a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Body exchange means only that, not related to causality count. If russians are continuing slow advance, where do you expect bodies to be found? Who is controlling territories heavily covered with dead bodies? Russian army is attacking with little to no success, and it's reasonable to expect 3:1 KIA rate between attacking and defending sides. | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | >Body exchange means only that, not related to causality count Thats the most off the wall opinion Ive heard today. >If russians are continuing slow advance, where do you expect bodies to be found? Note that body exchanges were not this lopsided when Russia was retreating in 2022. >it's reasonable to expect 3:1 KIA rate between attacking and defending Unless one side is comprehensively outgunned and keeps falling into cauldron traps because they have orders to cling on to land at all costs. Which seems to be a repeated pattern here. | | |
| ▲ | ponector a day ago | parent [-] | | >> Note that body exchanges were not this lopsided when Russia was retreating That is the point. There are simply no Russian bodies in the territories controlled by Ukrainian army. To extract bodies they should be far from the front line, with current drone activity it's 20+ km. Body exchange says nothing about KIA. If russian "meat" assault costs them a 100 killed to fulfill talk to capture a treeline - those 100 bodies will be on russian-controlled territory and not for exchange. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tim333 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not sure an exchange of bodies like that has much to do with casualty ratios. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > is no longer the case. Now it's drones Now, yes. But we wasted two years of war before going to that point and during this entire time Russia has outgunned Ukraine by almost an order of magnitude, mostly because shells where a scarce resource for the AFU, which is a shame. And artillery still is far from irrelevant even now. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The whole war seems a bit unnecessary. If Biden had said if you invade Ukraine we'll set the USAF on the invading troops the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar a day ago | parent [-] | | Or the French, the Germans, the Poles and the Brits could have prepositioned troops (a brigade each, maximum) in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Putin wouldn't have moved either. As I said above, I don't blame the US for not doing more as their action maximized their own interests, but I blame out European leaders for being spineless cowards. | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. There is no question of that. European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. Trump has comprehensively and publicly ruled that out though. He refuses to be drawn in. And what would you do in that situation? with a bunch of dead troops, an infuriated Russia and no US to come to the rescue? | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar a day ago | parent [-] | | > The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. 4 years and a million casualties too late though. > If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly, nor can they secure air dominance over a country with only old Soviet airframes, they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. > European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. They'd been no need to save anything, Putin isn't dumb enough to start a fight with European countries. Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years, hoping to win against the whole Europeans would be stupidly delusional. | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | >What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced. >nor can they secure air dominance Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days and glide bombs are wrecking all front line fortifications. This certainly wasnt the case in 2023 or 2024 when the russian air force did nothing, but it is now. >they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. I think you might be wildly overestimating how many troops Europe has to spare, also. >Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years He invaded the largest country in Europe, supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation? | | |
| ▲ | ponector 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >> Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation? He is asking North Korea and Iran for help - definitely not a sign of success. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He also destroyed Russian arm export industry, which used to be second only to the US and is now far behind France. | |
| ▲ | pydry 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Nork troops are not really a sign of anything more than Putin's desire to keep the official Russian military death count down. The US also prefers to use PMCs and proxy forces for its most deadly battles. Iran isnt helping, theyre just a customer and a supplier. |
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced I for sure have not been watching it on RT. Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm, not “our three days special operation has been bogged down in Donbass for three years”. > Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days If only… The only way Russia keeps a steady amount of damage from Shahed is by multiplying their deployment because the AFU similarly increase their interceptions. > shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke, and it turned out these red lines where all bluff. > He invaded the largest country in Europe The third biggest, after Russia (and France) with only a fifth the population of Russia, and a country that didn't have an actual army before 2014. > supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Just barely: western countries first refused to send heavy weapons, then refused to send tanks, then refused to send fighter jets, then they piled up restrictions after restrictions on the use of force and some are still refusing to send long range weapons (hello Germany). > Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation? He definitely failed his 3 days military operation and put his country in a years long war that annihilated all of its army modernization program that was running for the past decade. Now how much can he limit the consequences of his failure is an open question. And that doesn't change the fact that he still hasn't been able to win against the small and weak Ukraine after three years, which is not a good situation to be in if you want to fight European powers together… | | |
| ▲ | pydry 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm Desert storm was a war against an isolated 3rd world country with no military industry and military hardware from the 1970s. Were the Iraqis plugged into the supply chains of a global superpower (like, say, the vietcong was) then it'd be a bit more comparable. >Just barely Not just barely. We've emptied our inventories of air defense missiles. European capitals are essentially undefended. Trump, meanwhile, has decided to wrap up supplies because he wants to save the remaining arms for a war with China. It's not fun being a Russian proxy but it's even less fun being an expendable American junior partner. The biggest poke in the eye has to be Denmark. They emptied their inventories the most out of all of NATO and Trump is now threatening their sovereign territory. >Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke This never happened even once. The west just made a big song and dance about crossing what they declared to be Russian red lines. They backed away from a few, as well. >3 days military operation Was a phrase used by US General Mark Milley: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-w... By contrast, in 2022 Putin gave a timeline of "as long as it takes". It is impressive enough that the largest country in Europe supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world is being defeated at all. There are lessons we could learn from this or we could do as you do - stick our fingers in our ears and just pretend everything is rosy. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Desert storm was a war against an isolated 3rd world country with no military industry and military hardware from the 1970s. Why do you keep embarassing yourself on a topic you have no clue about except what you heard from Russian propaganda? Saddam's army was full of modern western and soviet kits and was much better equipped than the AFU (not only for the time but in general: Irak in 1991 had more modern weapons than the Soviet leftover the Ukrainians had back in 2022). Ukraine is as much of a shithole country as Saddam's Ukraine was, of just happened to have a more competent military leadership, and faced an incompetent opponent. > Were the Iraqis plugged into the supply chains of a global superpower (like, say, the vietcong was) then it'd be a bit more comparable. It wouldn't have, because the supply wouldn't have arrived in time. Like what happened in the 6 days war, where the Arab countries were indeed plugged into the Soviet supply line but lost too fast for that to matter. That's the point of the Airland Battle doctrine to begin with. That's also why the US refused to hand over heavy weapons before the invasion, as they genuinely expected the Russians to be capable of toppling the AFU in just a few days or weeks, and didn't expect their aid to be enough to overcome the challenge. > Was a phrase used by US General Mark Milley As if Soloviev and other Kremlin-approved pundits never said that as well. Also the “special military operation” phrase itself was coined by Putin and people calling that a “war” were criminalized. > By contrast, in 2022 Putin gave a timeline of "as long as it takes". After the retreat in early 2022, which he described like it was all going according to plans… Why are you listening to pathological liars? > Not just barely. We've emptied our inventories of air defense missiles. European capitals are essentially undefended. Same question as above, why do you keep believing Russian BS? While air defense is probably the only domain where the assistance has been nontrivial (unlike tanks or airframes with the single digit packages), only a minor fraction of the stocks have been handed over to Ukraine (stocks which were never enough to protect European cities in the first place, as the Western doctrine for air space protection leans much more on fighter jets and AA missiles than on SAM batteries which fit a much narrower niche than in Warsaw pact's doctrine). Needless to say that the AA capabilities of European nations are still untouched and would pose an overwhelming threat to a VKS which have proved its poor combat readiness at the start of the war and has been badly maimed by a country without modern fighters… > Trump, meanwhile, has decided to wrap up supplies because he wants to save the remaining arms for a war with China. You missed the memo from last week when Hegseth said China isn't a priority for the US and that they are focusing on the “Western hemisphere ”. > This never happened even once. The west just made a big song and dance about crossing what they declared to be Russian red lines. This level of selective forgetting is unbelievable, really. > It is impressive enough that the largest country in Europe You keep repeating this BS, but Ukraine is only barely more populated as Belgium and the Nederland combined. It's very, very far from being the largest country in Europe population wise… > Europe supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world The said military block has barely provided a few percent of its defense budget to Ukraine for the past three years. > is being defeated at all It's not so far. Putin and his enthusiasts may dream about Ukraine being defeated but the truth is that 3 years in Russia still isn't defeating anyone. > stick our fingers in our ears and just pretend everything is rosy. Not everything is rosy, especially because European leaders are too reluctant to supply Ukraine and have not taken the appropriate industrial investments to make that supply possible. But that doesn't mean the picture is rose on the Russian side either… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's weird coz it is possible to count the number of e.g. shells and air defense missiles manufactured and stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough. It's all a matter of investment in industrial capacities, especially for mundane early-twentieth century technology like 155mm shells. It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells than any individual NATO member, you know. | | |
| ▲ | pydry 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells It is if American military exceptionalism is treated as an article of faith, which it was, so here we are. Scaling up industrial production was never treated as a serious problem and still isnt because all you need, apparently, as OP said, is political will. Putin made a bet on American and western hubris and it seems to have paid off. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't know if was western hubris so much as gullibility. Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before and western politicians have the choice of whether to put money into shell production or schools and hospitals and went for the latter. I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives, global reputation, military equipment and so forth. And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward. You can get so far by say we're your friend, we won't attack to peaceful people and then hitting them when their guard is down but they wise up. | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | >Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before This was seemingly in an attempt to provide a diplomatic off ramp where everybody could pretend that they didnt back down in the face of a naked threat of force. America and Ukraine both rejected the 3 point ultimatum though - basically saying "bring it on". Since then the deal offered by Russia has worsened relative to Ukraine's steadily declining negotiating leverage. >I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives They have a casualty exchange ratio of 44:1 at this point. This is why Europe is in a bit of a collective panic and Trump is flailing around trying to make a deal. None of that would be happening if the original plan of "levy a crushing defeat" was working out. So yes, the bet is paying off. >And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward In that case events of the next year will probably shock you. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Well time will tell I guess. I'm not sure how you figure there was an 'original plan of "levy a crushing defeat"' - don't know how that would have worked with zero NATO troops and minimal assistance to Ukraine. I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country and not murder their peaceful neighbours. That one obviously didn't pan out but you can't win them all. | | |
| ▲ | pydry a day ago | parent [-] | | Minimal assistance? We sent half of our inventories. European capitals are stripped bare of air defense missiles. >I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country Theyre acting like the countries who are currently supporting a Nazi-level genocide were trying to set up a string of offensive military bases along their most vulnerable border. This is why they were only sanctioned by western countries. The global south that faced the full brunt of western colonialism is better able to appreciate how unpredictable and threatening we actually are. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Minimal assistance? We sent half of our inventories. Dude stop smoking Russia media's shit for breakfast! Check how many tanks, IFV and fighter jets the European countries have, and how many we sent to Ukraine. We are talking about a few percent here ! > European capitals are stripped bare of air defense missiles European countries, like the US, never relied on SAM for air defense. Instead the doctrine is air dominance both offensively or defensively and the VKS stands no chance against the combined airforce of all European countries (one could argue that they are no match against a single big European nation on their own). In fact, in case of an air attack F35 operators would hunt VKS bombers over Russian soil so even the pathetic “standoff munitions only” tactics the VKS has been conducting for the past three years over Ukraine wouldn't work against European capitals. > The global south that faced the full brunt of western colonialism They are also well aware that Russia has always been a member of the “western colonialist club”, As the Chinese gently reminded them by starting to call Vladivostok Haishenwai again. |
|
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > America and Ukraine both rejected the 3 point ultimatum though […] I was going to say that you're drinking Russia propaganda out of the fire hose then I saw that: > They have a casualty exchange ratio of 44:1 at this point What the heck are you talking about, even Russian MoD communication isn't as ridiculous. How do you think a country of 32 million inhabitants count withstand for three years against a country of 150M with such a grotesque figure (that's the kind of ratio you'd only see in colonial wars in the XIXth century against hunter gatherers). There was not even enough Ukrainian male in age of fighting at the start of the war to make that figure work. > So yes, the bet is paying off. Putin has reinforced his internal power, so yes the bet is paying off, that was the only real goal from the start. After all war is just the continuation of internal politics through other means. > In that case events of the next year will probably shock you. Ah yes, like the events of 2022 were supposed to shock us as well: The special military operation overthrowing the Nazi government of Ukraine by taking Kiyv in three days… |
|
|
|
|
|
