The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

personaldesas said:
View attachment 55977

I came across this site claiming to document the data leak involving Rosstat. I haven’t been able to verify whether it’s reliable, so take it with a grain of salt: Rosstat: combat deaths and mortality
Click to expand...
The former estimations were about 500.000 - 600.000 death. The 450.000 number excludes the North Koreans, all PMC like Wagner, and all foreign mercenaires. So the number of 500.000-600.000 could be real.
Also it is said that the death soldiers are reported with delay.
 
I don't know how accurate that number is, but people tracking published death announcements in newspapers, on social media, etc. have come up with lists of names of far more soldiers than the officially announced numbers.

I think it's a bit like COVID-19 deaths, where Russian officials diligently collated lists which were as accurate as they could make them, but people at the top ordered the publication of lies. Late in 2020 a senior official (in the health ministry IIRC) let slip the number they were using internally: it was about three times the published figure.
 
Imagine thinking you already have security architecture in Europe in place while two biggest countries in Europe have been at war for nearly 5 years now, one of them being the largest nuclear power in the world, and combined losses of killed and wounded may tip over two million men (the relevant part starts at 2:30):

https://twitter.com/x/status/2119851495307022688

Can one say that “we have not seen any willingness from the Euro side to move or seriously talk about peace”?


On her previous comments in the same video and disagreement with some G7 members that she does not identify, Rubio said earlier that they can “inflict tremendous damage on the ICC unless they see the errors in their ways” (the quote is from memory, but it is something that kindda sticks).



IMG_7504.jpeg

I am not sure if people understand it or not (probably not?), but there will be no meeting between Zelensky and Putin. There are almost no circumstances where Putin would be meeting Zelensky. Maybe if Zelensky is humiliated, but I don’t see much of other circumstances where such a meeting takes place.



The headline:

IMG_7453.jpeg

The text:

The French foreign ministry's assessment found that the 10 most-viewed X posts on the unrest from "pro-Russian spheres" got 2.8 million views from October 16 to 18.

But those figures were dwarfed by the views achieved by X posts on the riots from accounts linked to the MAGA movement and to Israeli officials and influencers.

The 10 most-viewed X posts on France's unrest by MAGA-linked officials, ‌media outlets and ⁠influencers got more than 49 million views from October 16 to 18, according to the French ministry report.

The 10 most-viewed posts from Israeli officials, government accounts, media outlets and influencers got more than 35 million views in the same period, the French report said.

Forest among the trees…

 
KipPotapych said:
Imagine thinking you already have security architecture in Europe in place while two biggest countries in Europe have been at war for nearly 5 years now, one of them being the largest nuclear power in the world, and combined losses of killed and wounded may tip over two million men (the relevant part starts at 2:30):


Can one say that “we have not seen any willingness from the Euro side to move or seriously talk about peace”?
Click to expand...
You can say it, but it's complete bollocks, & an attempt to shift the blame from the guilty party.

Russia started the war, in violation of agreements it had made. Russia keeps attacking. Russia refuses to talk seriously about peace on any terms other than victory, including the surrender of more Ukrainian territory & limits on Ukraine's sovereignty. Until Russia changes its demands, there's nothing to talk about.

The problem Russia has is that the Russian leadership has no credibility. It breaks every agreement it makes. A peace that would strengthen its position, & make it easier to take over still more territory, is obviously unacceptable to everyone else, but those are the only terms Russia is willing to discuss.
 
swerve said:
Russia refuses to talk seriously about peace on any terms other than victory
Click to expand...
In what other terms is Ukraine planning to talk? On "being at the receiving end and in desperate need of money"?
Shifting reality instead of blame?
The credibility of what leader? Gordon Brown, Boris, Bush or Reagan?
 
rsemmes said:
In what other terms is Ukraine planning to talk? On "being at the receiving end and in desperate need of money"?
Shifting reality instead of blame?
The credibility of what leader? Gordon Brown, Boris, Bush or Reagan?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the reality should just be accepted, regardless of the previously accepted agreements and boarders and wishes of the of that country. So America could take out parts of Canada or Mexico and have them as their own, because the reality is that no one could stop them or any powerful country can have its neighbor because the reality is they just can.
 
Rob c said:
Are you saying that the reality should just be accepted, regardless of the previously accepted agreements and boarders and wishes of the of that country. So America could take out parts of Canada or Mexico and have them as their own, because the reality is that no one could stop them or any powerful country can have its neighbor because the reality is they just can.
Click to expand...
In your example...
If the US invades Mexico again, how are we (or the planet?) going to move to a reality were the US has not invaded Mexico?

To not accept reality, is there a word for that? In Abu Dhabi they will define reality. NI is part of the UK, as Ireland was part of the British Empire. Please, do not accept reality.
 
rsemmes said:
In your example...
If the US invades Mexico again, how are we (or the planet?) going to move to a reality were the US has not invaded Mexico?

To not accept reality, is there a word for that? In Abu Dhabi they will define reality. NI is part of the UK, as Ireland was part of the British Empire. Please, do not accept reality.
Click to expand...
Reality is what you perceive it to be in a lot of cases and not necessarily what others see it as. Historically war and the perceived reality do not necessarily mean the same thing on either side of the conflict, the very famous case of the UK after Dunkirk were if the UK had followed the perceived reality they would have accepted the German conditions of maintaining their empire and leaving the Germans to Europe. They did not and Germany eventually lost, but at the time, the US had no intention of entering the war, lend lease had not been thought of , their army was shattered and had little equipment and no one knew that Japan would drag the US into the war.
When it comes to war reality and the truth do not feature at a high level.
Just imagine if reality had won and the UK had accepted Hitler's terms, then the Russians would have to face the extra 50+ divisions and additional squadrons of aircraft that were kept in the west due to the UK's not being realistic
What must be remembered is that reality is governed by the amount of information available and during war this is limited and seldom complete, so the perceived reality is usually based on incomplete information and likely not realist at all.
 
Last edited:
swerve said:
You can say it, but it's complete bollocks, & an attempt to shift the blame from the guilty party.

Russia started the war, in violation of agreements it had made. Russia keeps attacking. Russia refuses to talk seriously about peace on any terms other than victory, including the surrender of more Ukrainian territory & limits on Ukraine's sovereignty. Until Russia changes its demands, there's nothing to talk about.

The problem Russia has is that the Russian leadership has no credibility. It breaks every agreement it makes. A peace that would strengthen its position, & make it easier to take over still more territory, is obviously unacceptable to everyone else, but those are the only terms Russia is willing to discuss.
Click to expand...

Negotiations have little to do with guilt or innocence. They're a marketplace not a courthouse. Ukraine in particular has very little to negotiate with while wanting many things from the process.

Its also not true that Russian leadership breaks every agreement they make, especially in light of Ukraine openly refusing to abide by the Minsk Accords. Beyond a narrative being presented by some parties there is little reason to think Russia wouldn't abide by a peace deal, but they would expect Ukraine to abide by it as well. Not just the parts of the deal Ukraine likes or thinks are fair, but everything agreed upon. This I think is the real problem.
 
swerve said:
You can say it, but it's complete bollocks, & an attempt to shift the blame from the guilty party.

Russia started the war, in violation of agreements it had made. Russia keeps attacking. Russia refuses to talk seriously about peace on any terms other than victory, including the surrender of more Ukrainian territory & limits on Ukraine's sovereignty. Until Russia changes its demands, there's nothing to talk about.

The problem Russia has is that the Russian leadership has no credibility. It breaks every agreement it makes. A peace that would strengthen its position, & make it easier to take over still more territory, is obviously unacceptable to everyone else, but those are the only terms Russia is willing to discuss.
Click to expand...
Disagree in regard to blame shifting. Either you want to negotiate or not. Nothing to do with guilt assignment. Like Redshift even said once, no one is innocent.

Yes, Russia started the war and keeps attacking… and it will. Refusing to talk seriously is right back at that speech by Kallas. On any other terms than victory? Talk about shifting goalposts. How does one define victory nowadays? From reinstating Soviet Union or Russian Empire to to be determined?

Define sovereignty of Ukraine (or any other state for that matter).

Since there is nothing to talk about, the war is to continue, which is my point as well. However, only one side currently believes that the preexisting (and current, by extension) security arrangements do or did what they were supposed to do.

Nothing to talk about is a weird stance, by the way, in my opinion. Especially when it’s not your ass (figuratively speaking) that is on the line.

Credibility is not a one-side issue.

How about peace that ensures peace? What is there to suggest that they will be looking to take more territory?
 
Rob c said:
Reality is what you perceive it to be in a lot of cases and not necessarily what others see it as. Historically war and the perceived reality do not necessarily mean the same thing on either side of the conflict, the very famous case of the UK after Dunkirk were if the UK had followed the perceived reality they would have accepted the German conditions of maintaining their empire and leaving the Germans to Europe. They did not and Germany eventually lost, but at the time, the US had no intention of entering the war, lend lease had not been thought of , their army was shattered and had little equipment and no one knew that Japan would drag the US into the war.
When it comes to war reality and the truth do not feature at a high level.
Just imagine if reality had won and the UK had accepted Hitler's terms, then the Russians would have to face the extra 50+ divisions and additional squadrons of aircraft that were kept in the west due to the UK's not being realistic
What must be remembered is that reality is governed by the amount of information available and during war this is limited and seldom complete, so the perceived reality is usually based on incomplete information and likely not realist at all.
Click to expand...
How much do you see in common between what you described and what we observe today? I would argue that what we see today does not exactly have precedent, per se, no?
 
Rob c said:
What must be remembered is that reality is governed by the amount of information available and during war this is limited and seldom complete, so the perceived reality is usually based on incomplete information and likely not realist at all.
Click to expand...

I think that’s true of most of life, not just war. To me, a real sign of intelligence is recognising that your own view is incomplete and could be wrong, and taking that into account when making judgments.
 
Feanor said:
Beyond a narrative being presented by some parties there is little reason to think Russia wouldn't abide by a peace deal
Click to expand...

One could play devil’s advocate here and point to a handful of agreements about respecting each other’s territorial integrity: the UN Charter, Belovezha in 1991, Budapest in 1994, the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty etc. So it seems reasonable to ask what would make the next agreement more reliable than the previous ones.

And I guess people wary of a peace deal could argue for Georgia in 2008 as an example of Russia not fully following through on an agreement. “Russia breaks every agreement” is overstating it IMHO, I’m not sure that thinking agreements of this sort are rock solid holds up either.
 
Last edited:
Some reports about the performance of African soldiers in the Russian army.

Группировка войск «Запад» said:
Kupiansk sector

Another “brilliant” personnel move by the command: they’ve decided to send… Africans to reinforce the guys from the 272nd Motor Rifle Regiment, operating near Kivsharivka. But the frontline troops are, to put it mildly, far from thrilled with these “reinforcements.” They cause many times more trouble than they provide actual help.

First, the total language barrier hasn’t gone away. In combat, where every second and every word counts, there’s zero understanding, and that seriously compromises safety.

Second, their training and understanding of combat conditions leave much to be desired. The guys say the foreigners sent to their positions don’t even understand when to keep their heads down. There have already been plenty of cases where their carelessness simply gave away the positions. The result is predictable: everything immediately starts raining down on the spot, and the position is reduced to rubble.

And the cherry on top is discipline. Sometimes, in a critical situation, they simply turn around and run, leaving our guys to deal with the mess alone.

On the one hand, of course, it’s good that our guys are being sent into the fucking meat grinder less often in some situations. On the other, these same “helpers,” through their cluelessness, pose a deadly threat to our own guys. It’s hard to say yet which is ultimately better, or how all this will come back to bite us.
Click to expand...

t.me

Группировка войск «Запад»

Купянское направление Очередной «гениальный» кадровый маневр от командования: парням из 272 мсп, действующему в районе Ковшаровки, в помощь решили закинуть... африканцев. Вот только бойцы на передке от такого «пополнения» мягко говоря не в восторге — геморроя от них в разы больше, чем реальной...
t.me t.me
 
Rob c said:
What must be remembered is that reality is governed by the amount of information available and during war this is limited and seldom complete, so the perceived reality is usually based on incomplete information and likely not realist at all.
Click to expand...
I am talking about reality, History (did you check if The Imperial Chiefs of Staff -COS- perceived that they could win the war on their own), if you like. Is perceived reality another case of cognitive dissonance? True, decisions are taken with incomplete information, sometimes based on fantasy. Let's try to forget fantasy and look at reality, Ukraine's reality. Are you accepting the reality of NI before or after The Treaty? We have to wait after Abu Dhabi or the next one. That will be reality, reality based on reality, not on the deliriums of Zelenski.

BTW... No, reality is not "governed by..." that is not reality.
 
KipPotapych said:
Disagree in regard to blame shifting. Either you want to negotiate or not. Nothing to do with guilt assignment. Like Redshift even said once, no one is innocent.

Yes, Russia started the war and keeps attacking… and it will. Refusing to talk seriously is right back at that speech by Kallas. On any other terms than victory? Talk about shifting goalposts. How does one define victory nowadays? From reinstating Soviet Union or Russian Empire to to be determined?

Define sovereignty of Ukraine (or any other state for that matter).

Since there is nothing to talk about, the war is to continue, which is my point as well. However, only one side currently believes that the preexisting (and current, by extension) security arrangements do or did what they were supposed to do.

Nothing to talk about is a weird stance, by the way, in my opinion. Especially when it’s not your ass (figuratively speaking) that is on the line.

Credibility is not a one-side issue.

How about peace that ensures peace? What is there to suggest that they will be looking to take more territory?
Click to expand...
There's plenty which could be talked about, but first, Russia has to show some willingness to make peace on terms less than total victory. And that's bloody easy to define: Russia has to be prepared to make concessions, not just reduce the extravagance of its demands.

Neither side currently believes that the preexisting (and current, by extension) security arrangements do or did what they were supposed to do. Obviously. One of the chief parties invaded & tried to conquer another party.

What is there to suggest that they will be looking to take more territory? They're demanding it, right now.

It can be true that noone is innocent, & also true that one party is chiefly to blame, & Russia's certainly chiefly to blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top