In earnest, so do I. But the actual truth is difficult to get. Both sides have good reasons to exaggerate their gains and minimize their losses. The metric that is difficult to hide or explain away is changes in the control of terrain, and even that not in terms of who physically has what but rather the current trend. In historical context, in June 1944 Germany controlled a massive amount of land outside of its borders, but the trend obviously indicated they were losing the war. So that is what the general public has to go on for the moment. As I have indicated in previous posts, we need observer-advisors on the ground in Ukraine, the purpose of which would be three-fold: be the badly needed oversight for the mountain of aid being sent to Ukraine, advise Ukrainian armed forces on the best use of donated weapon systems, and capture all of the tactical and technical lessons learned from this conflict. On that last point, many of these weapon systems, such as the Javelin, have never been used in combat before. All kinds of invaluable lessons are being lost to us by not having our own people capture them and integrate them into our doctrine.
I dont know who it is but Im fairly certain we have people embedded and doing remote learning. This war is an intel gold mine and pretty certain there are agents from lots of countries there
Ukraine update: Advances near Svatove and Kreminna show that Ukrainian forces are still on the move This is the next big area to watch - svatove. If Ukraine can take it Russia is screwed in the north. I know the Russians have a weird hard on for bakhmut but it’s strategically pointless other than locking down Russia’s best troops in a futile and useless battle.
The link to Stephen Bryen's article was in the anti-American slanted Hong Kong based Asian Times. He also publishes in Epoch, Infowars etc. LOL
I was already comfortable with drone striking this traitor, but hopefully this will pull more people off the fence: Edward Snowden swears allegiance to Russia and receives passport, lawyer says
The truth is that while Ukraine may be losing a significant number of troops, Russia is losing a large number of experienced troops and is relying more and more on conscripts (people who were desk jockeys a few weeks ago, and have only been trained on how to dig a ditch) and criminals. Just like when Japan lost experienced pilots and maintenance crews from their aircraft carriers in WWII, it is very hard to replace experience (so much so that the Japanese used their four still-functioning aircraft carriers as a decoy in the Battle of Leyte Gulf). And while the Russian conscripts may be motivated to survive the war, it is doubtful they are all that motivated to become capable career soldiers. They only fight when someone in charge puts a gun to their head. Ukrainians will keep fighting as long as their freedom is at stake, and they still have ammunition. Remember, Russia's numbers of dead troops (which are likely under-estimated) have already reached 60% of the numbers that caused them to give up in Afghanistan.
Have to contest this point just because it gets made so often and with such authority. The Soviet Union’s reasons for quitting Afghanistan were complex and multi-faceted. Casualties were certainly a contributing factor, but the evidence suggests not the primary one. A change in leadership (to Gorbachev) was the overriding factor. If Andropov had not died and had lived, say, five more years, then the Soviets would likely have been willing to double-down by all accounts. He cared about the casualties but not to the degree that we assumed, looking at it through our perspective. Andropov was totally opposed to getting involved in Afghanistan in 1979 but once involved he believed that the USSR could not back out of Afghanistan without also facing ruinous U.S. increased pressure in Angola, Nicaragua, Poland, and Soviet Central Asia. To Andropov’s posthumous credit, he was right. When Gorbachev cried uncle in Afghanistan in 1985 and started a face-saving pullout, Reagan stomped on the accelerator, forcing Soviet strategic retreat worldwide. Putin is an acolyte of Andropov and curses Gorbachev in his evening prayers. The key to defeating Russia in Ukraine is not only maximizing Russian casualties (though, we absolutely need to keep doing that), it’s also forcing a change at the top, using open and ethical means as well as the opposite of those two concepts.
It’s going to be interesting, to see your countenance dropping, when more and more sources you do not ad hom, converge in their sentiment, with sources you do ad hom.
I already posted that BBC, working in conjunction with the Medusa Group, estimates 9,331 Russian dead. Of that number, some 5,000 are Russian troops, the remainder being volunteers. Medusa is fiercely anti-Russian and is reportedly funded by an anti-Putin oligarch.
You’ve got it backwards. In my post #12698 I explained why Ukraine must hold Bakhmut at all costs. And it is plainly evident that Russia’s “demilitarization” strategy means it is happy to see Ukrainian troops congregating in any one area to be eliminated. And from my post #12675 what “demilitarization” looks like ... Inside Bakhmut frontline 'littered with corpses' and 'colossal' losses
“Ha! Ha! Ha! Georgia Tech struggling to extend its lead to 200. Will probably quit at any moment!” — Cumberland —
I think the major reason that Ukraine has been so successful in defeating the Russians is that the Russian officers are often unwilling to be on the front lines, or they evaporate when they know a major offensive is coming. There have been too many stories of this happening to not believe that it is widespread. The stories of barrier troops also supports this idea (apparently, the barrier troops know not to shoot the retreating officers, or the officers know how to bypass the barrier troops). When there are no officers available, the soldiers may defend their position, but cannot be expected to see opportunities to counter-attack and coordinate with other troops to attack successfully. Add in the sheer numbers of inexperienced conscripts, and it has disaster written all over it for Russia.
Russia has lost more than 5000 vehicles lol. Forget manpower. We probably won’t know the full devastation until after hostilities end.
You guys face a dilemma: you can’t hate Russians enough to will a battered and bled-white NATO proxy, read: Ukrainian army to victory. Has Ukraine's Army Been Reduced by Almost 50%? - A Son of the New American Revolution
Reported that Putin soiled himself when he fell down the stairs... actually it was when he got the Russian casualties figures.
Because it would turn your perspective on the war ? MoA - Newsbits On Ukraine - Swamp Trenches, Short Training, Out Of Ammo
