Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

There'll be the grieving families of 100,000 dead Russian soldiers who won't be swallowing that crap.

There are many 'younger' Russians who have travelled or lived abroad, they won't be buying into such rhetoric either.

I suspect Putin wishes he could turn the clock back.

You been counting the dead have you?

[BillyStubbsTears]

My mistake.
200,000 on both sides. 100,000 each.

The main point still holds. This is by far the most destructive conflict that Russia has been involved in since 1945. And there is no way on God's earth Putin would have sunk into this if he'd known what was coming.

This seems to be a reasonable, and detailed assessment of casualties.
https://youtu.be/Bfj2c5racUY

You truly are away with the fairies! I'm assuming this is some bizarre joke, no?

[Bristol Red Rover]

My mistake.
200,000 on both sides. 100,000 each.

The main point still holds. This is by far the most destructive conflict that Russia has been involved in since 1945. And there is no way on God's earth Putin would have sunk into this if he'd known what was coming.

This seems to be a reasonable, and detailed assessment of casualties.
https://youtu.be/Bfj2c5racUY

You truly are away with the fairies! I'm assuming this is some bizarre joke, no?

Be specific. Try saying your issues with that, and tell me how you are sure about the stats you are using. I'm assuming you are taking Zelensky as gospel?

Further, from everything I've seen, across all media, including understanding the amount of Russian troops initially sent to Ukraine and how others have arrived since, the 100k deaths makes zero sense. Plus you have it from the horses mouth, the EU, saying 100k Ukraine deaths, which happens to concur with all methods of analysis, except of course the blatent propaganda, which I do understand, bizarely, forms the mainstay of your information diet. 100k Russian casualties is about right as a max, probs less than that, as discussed in the vid.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I got as far as him talking about the attack:defence casualty ratios in Iraq as though they had something to tell us about those in Ukraine and gave up. That's not in any way a serious analysis, for reasons that would be too condescending to list. I'm sure you can figure it out.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I got as far as him talking about the attack:defence casualty ratios in Iraq as though they had something to tell us about those in Ukraine and gave up. That's not in any way a serious analysis, for reasons that would be too condescending to list. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Yep. That's fairly clear. You're too clever and knowledgeable to go delving beyond the mush you're fed and regurgitate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you really don't get it, there's not much point in me trying to explain it.

By the way, I've never said Russian had 100,000 fatalities. If you're going to insist on an argument, at least check what you are arguing about.

[Bristol Red Rover]

If you really don't get it, there's not much point in me trying to explain it.

By the way, I've never said Russian had 100,000 fatalities. If you're going to insist on an argument, at least check what you are arguing about.

You're making no sense at all. Interesting discussion where you fold your arms and say "If you don't get it, I'm not telling you" Jeez, bet its bliss in your household.

I know you claimed approx 100k Russian casualties not fatalities, you did state that. It's the 100k Ukraine casualties is probs 1/4 to 1/5 of the reality. Though Zelensky says don't tell them, so you and the EU are keeping hush on that, edited vid excepted.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So you're saying Russian forces, in a war started by Putin when he had every opportunity not to do so, have killed and mutilated half a million opponents? At a rate of 4-5x their own losses?

Remind me how that squares with the Russian forces getting out of Kherson and Kupyiansk as fast as they could in the Autumn?

Oh no! Of course! Silly me! Those were strategic withdrawals weren't they? I remember now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And I'll say once again. If you REALLY don't get why the relative death tolls of the Americans and Iraqis say nothing of any worth about what's going on in Ukraine, you're truly a lost cause. Stop posting your diatribes for a moment and think. It's not hard!

[BillyStubbsTears]

And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.

Even if we suspend disbelief and accept your bullshit figures on Ukranian losses, that doesn't change the fact that Russia hasn't known losses like the ones it is experiencing now since the days of the drive to Berlin.

And this is 100% self-inflicted.

[Colin C No.3]

I think I can safely say (bare in mind here, ‘tis the season’ etc.,) this will be Putin’s last Christmas.

As for the Russia he leaves behind? Wind back 70 years.

[Bristol Red Rover]

So you're saying Russian forces, in a war started by Putin when he had every opportunity not to do so, have killed and mutilated half a million opponents? At a rate of 4-5x their own losses?

Remind me how that squares with the Russian forces getting out of Kherson and Kupyiansk as fast as they could in the Autumn?

Oh no! Of course! Silly me! Those were strategic withdrawals weren't they? I remember now.

Kharkiv Russia very heavily outnumbered, so yes withdraw, guessing Billy General would be stood behind the lines shooting the runners of his own side in the rear end?

Kherson - too unreliable to keep supplies up to where needed, plus troops better employed elsewhere and Russia bogged down the Ukraine's, especially their armour, in that region for a week or two with missile and drone strikes on infastructure.

But you have other explanations?

[Bristol Red Rover]

So you're saying Russian forces, in a war started by Putin when he had every opportunity not to do so, have killed and mutilated half a million opponents? At a rate of 4-5x their own losses.

Pretty much appears that way. Ukraine has lots of troops, less armour, far less firepower (anything from a fifth to a tenth of Russias), far less artillery. Just try and get your head around how that plays out on the battlefield.

[Bristol Red Rover]

And I'll say once again. If you REALLY don't get why the relative death tolls of the Americans and Iraqis say nothing of any worth about what's going on in Ukraine, you're truly a lost cause. Stop posting your diatribes for a moment and think. It's not hard!

The vid explains exactly. Like I said, you're too clever to watch it, in fact seems you think you know what you're talking about without watching.

[Bristol Red Rover]

And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.

Even if we suspend disbelief and accept your bullshit figures on Ukranian losses, that doesn't change the fact that Russia hasn't known losses like the ones it is experiencing now since the days of the drive to Berlin.

And this is 100% self-inflicted.

Not my figures on deaths, just using available info. Not the make believe propaganda of Zelensky - though, why would he want truth covered up? Why would he censor the EU from giving info?

[Bristol Red Rover]

And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.

I discussed that. You simply had a rant about how bad it is for Russia using figures direct from the US which is heavily invested financially and politically. And whose figures don't match what the EU stated before being censored. Bit of the bleeding obvious going on there don't ya think?

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think I can safely say (bare in mind here, ‘tis the season’ etc. ,) this will be Putin’s last Christmas.

As for the Russia he leaves behind? Wind back

Too much Baileys? Makes sense 

[BillyStubbsTears]

So you're saying Russian forces, in a war started by Putin when he had every opportunity not to do so, have killed and mutilated half a million opponents? At a rate of 4-5x their own losses?

Remind me how that squares with the Russian forces getting out of Kherson and Kupyiansk as fast as they could in the Autumn?

Oh no! Of course! Silly me! Those were strategic withdrawals weren't they? I remember now.

Kharkiv Russia very heavily outnumbered, so yes withdraw, guessing Billy General would be stood behind the lines shooting the runners of his own side in the rear end?

Kherson - too unreliable to keep supplies up to where needed, plus troops better employed elsewhere and Russia bogged down the Ukraine's, especially their armour, in that region for a week or two with missile and drone strikes on infastructure.

But you have other explanations?

If you're going to spout Russian propaganda, at least get with the correct line.

Every Russian military and political commentator on Russian state TV called the losses in Kharkiv and Kherson as disastrous losses. You are not remotely up to speed. You're telling yourself what you want to believe.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.

I discussed that. You simply had a rant about how bad it is for Russia using figures direct from the US which is heavily invested financially and politically. And whose figures don't match what the EU stated before being censored. Bit of the bleeding obvious going on there don't ya think?

Simple questions:

A)Did Putin expect this to be a simple operation to walk into Kyiv last Feb, eliminate Zelensky and put his own man in power?

B) If you're answer to the above is "yes" then this was a disastrous mistake. If it is "no", why did he send in light forces to Kyiv that were easily kicked out?

C) Yes or no. Is the resulting war seeing the worst Russian losses since WWII?

No obscuring the question with your Russian propaganda about supposed Ukrainian losses. That's irrelevant to the questions above.

[SydneyRover]

 ........ ''But the AP investigation into life in occupied Mariupol also underlines what its residents already know all too well: No matter what the Russians do, they are building upon a city of death. More than 10,000 new graves now scar Mariupol, the AP found, and the death toll might run three times higher than an early estimate of at least 25,000. The former Ukrainian city has also hollowed out, with Russian plans to demolish well over 50,000 homes, the AP calculated''

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-erasing-mariupol-499dceae43ed77f2ebfe750ea99b9ad9?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_02

[Filo]

I think I can safely say (bare in mind here, ‘tis the season’ etc. ,) this will be Putin’s last Christmas.

As for the Russia he leaves behind? Wind back

Too much Baileys? Makes sense 

Your support of a murdering dictator, including his own people is disgusting!!

[turnbull for england]

Another factor in all this unnecessary suffering and destruction is the long term impact on health and environment.  No doubt it's raised somewhere but not seen much about it.  The impact of all the fires and explosions releasing god knows what into the air and the amount of contaminants    in the buildings must be astronomical and will be an issue for years to come. We deal with arranging demolitions at work, and controlled asbestos removal costs thousands on a single dwelling, can you imagine what damage was done at the Mariopol steelworks?  The deaths will continue for years and are all at one man's door.

[BobG]

Don't worry Turnbull. Apparently it's all the fault of the west.

BobG

[Bristol Red Rover]

So you're saying Russian forces, in a war started by Putin when he had every opportunity not to do so, have killed and mutilated half a million opponents? At a rate of 4-5x their own losses?

Remind me how that squares with the Russian forces getting out of Kherson and Kupyiansk as fast as they could in the Autumn?

Oh no! Of course! Silly me! Those were strategic withdrawals weren't they? I remember now.

Kharkiv Russia very heavily outnumbered, so yes withdraw, guessing Billy General would be stood behind the lines shooting the runners of his own side in the rear end?

Kherson - too unreliable to keep supplies up to where needed, plus troops better employed elsewhere and Russia bogged down the Ukraine's, especially their armour, in that region for a week or two with missile and drone strikes on infastructure.

But you have other explanations?

If you're going to spout Russian propaganda, at least get with the correct line.

Every Russian military and political commentator on Russian state TV called the losses in Kharkiv and Kherson as disastrous losses. You are not remotely up to speed. You're telling yourself what you want to believe.

Billy, sorry to say but your level of comprehension is getting progressively worse.

I never said they weren't disasters, I just explained the reasoning, the military logic. And you come back with trashy propaganda style nonsense. Weird.

They were most definitely disasters in terms of bad publicity back in Russia, and giving Ukraine fab media points that helped them get more loans from the US.

Militarily, they were the right moves, as I explained. Also note that whilst territory gains and losses count on the media, and hence public opinion, and even political opinion, Russia's aims are to grind down theUkraine military - something supported by these actions, and evidently true on the battlefield.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Militarily they were the right moves because their forces were being smashed by the Ukrainian army.

The Russians didn't just choose to retreat you fool. They were forced into it because they'd suffered a crushing defeat on the battlefields.

The Russians didn't even try to cover that up in the way that you do. You're truly off the scale.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Don't worry Turnbull. Apparently it's all the fault of the west.

BobG

In Bob's BBC world, the US/UK/NATO didn't invite Ukraine into NATO, nor instigate the pro EU/NATO protests, nor stop Ukraine from reaching a peaceful settlement over the Donbas - Minsk agreement. The US hasn't been planning on destabilising Russia for decades. Also, in his world, the US isn't wanting to make a quick buck out of selling arms to Ukraine, selling shale gas to the EU, getting cut price Ukraine land and minerals. Also no desire by the US to push the EU into decline and high prices to encourage US firms back to US soil.

In fact, there's no Geopolitics at all going on, except for Russian imperialism.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Militarily they were the right moves because their forces were being smashed by the Ukrainian army.

The Russians didn't just choose to retreat you fool. They were forced into it because they'd suffered a crushing defeat on the battlefields.

The Russians didn't even try to cover that up in the way that you do. You're truly off the scale.

Where's your evidence for Russian losses being in excess of Ukraine ones in Kharkiv, and in Kherson?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Militarily they were the right moves because their forces were being smashed by the Ukrainian army.

The Russians didn't just choose to retreat you fool. They were forced into it because they'd suffered a crushing defeat on the battlefields.

The Russians didn't even try to cover that up in the way that you do. You're truly off the scale.

Yes, in Kharkiv they retreated as v v heavily outnumbered. I said that. No covering up, just your inability to read and comprehend. Maybe it's a cold you have?

[BobG]

I'm all in favour of balanced disputation and discussion based on verifiable facts. Sadly, one element of this thread, going back months, has suffered from HawHaw esque blindness from day 1. It seems to represent the school of 'If I shout loud enough for long enough some fools will believe me'.

BobG

[Bristol Red Rover]

I'm all in favour of balanced disputation and discussion based on verifiable facts. Sadly, one element of this thread, going back months, has suffered from HawHaw esque blindness from day 1. It seems to represent the school of 'If I shout loud enough for long enough some fools will believe me'.

BobG

Vague