The War in the Ukraine

SolarWarden

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is hardly surprising. We keep reading about the latest something hundred million, something billion 'package'. But quite often buried in between the lines is that the money is for weapons orders that will be delivered years from now. The Czech 'initiative' to buy 155mm shells is particularly laughable as well.
And yet Russian army is pretty much in same position (frontline map) it was this time last year. Just imagine if everything that was supposed to go to Ukraine actually went to Ukraine... and were allowed to hit Russian territory from the get-go instead of fighting with one hand tied.
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
US SecDef stated that the Russians suffered casualties of up to 350,000 dead and wounded, I find that number quite acceptable.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. html

Initial invasion force:
100-150 thousand professional soldiers between the SV and VDV
35-50 between DPR/LPR/FSB/Wagner/Chechens and Cossacks
Total = 135-200 thousand

Partial mobilization Oct/22:
300 thousand
60-80 thousand between Wagner's recruitment during the summer of 2022 until early 2023, in addition to volunteers who followed the mobilization of the 300 thousand
Total = 360-380 thousand

Volunteers 2023/2024:
540-640 thousand
Total = 540-640 thousand

Total strength: 1,035,000-1,220,000
Casualties: 350 thousand
Total = 685,000-870,000

Such numbers are very close to what Putin claims and provide basis for what US SecDef also claims about Russian casualties.

Here is a good source for a basis for estimating the size of each side's armies:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Interestingly, both sides may be suffering from a lack of military employment materials to equip their units mobilized and deployed in Ukraine:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
What is estimate for Ukrainian Casualties? If Russia is firing 10 times more artillery and also dominating the firing of Air Launched Bombs, I would assume there atleast that many casualties on the Ukrainian side as well.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
And yet Russian army is pretty much in same position (frontline map) it was this time last year. Just imagine if everything that was supposed to go to Ukraine actually went to Ukraine... and were allowed to hit Russian territory from the get-go instead of fighting with one hand tied.
So you continue with this kind of argument. It is pretty obvious the original intent of the SMO was not capturing the whole of Ukraine to begin with. Listen to Putin's speeches justifying the SMO and tell me where he stated capture of territory was the objective. In fact he said the opposite. Perhaps you would rather do like the US did in Iraq or Afghanistan, a lightning invasion, and then decades of morass.

Both NATO and Russia have been holding back for rather obvious reasons. If conquest of the whole of Ukraine was the objective why didn't Russia start mass recruitment earlier? They did not even bother doing a stop loss order.

It may come to that, the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine, but it certainly was not and still is not the objective.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
And yet Russian army is pretty much in same position (frontline map) it was this time last year. Just imagine if everything that was supposed to go to Ukraine actually went to Ukraine... and were allowed to hit Russian territory from the get-go instead of fighting with one hand tied.
I think you're confused about who has what hands. Russia is the country fighting with one hand tied, reserved to deter other enemies, and that's not even talking about their nuclear capabilities.

Ukraine is the one fighting with everything it has and 30 other people's hands helping it... you're actually imagining a situation where it has 60 other hands helping it instead.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
How does Ukraine still have electricity?
It is rationed. They only have power at certain times of the day. The Russians basically blew up nearly all the coal, gas, and hydropower plants in Ukraine. They destroyed the generator turbines and control rooms. The only major sources of electricity left are their nuclear power plants and electricity imports from Poland and Romania. Poland already has some of the highest prices for electricity in Europe. So I doubt this will make it better.
 
Last edited:

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
So you continue with this kind of argument. It is pretty obvious the original intent of the SMO was not capturing the whole of Ukraine to begin with. Listen to Putin's speeches justifying the SMO and tell me where he stated capture of territory was the objective. In fact he said the opposite. Perhaps you would rather do like the US did in Iraq or Afghanistan, a lightning invasion, and then decades of morass.

Both NATO and Russia have been holding back for rather obvious reasons. If conquest of the whole of Ukraine was the objective why didn't Russia start mass recruitment earlier? They did not even bother doing a stop loss order.

It may come to that, the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine, but it certainly was not and still is not the objective.
Only way Russia can lose is by blitzing through. If they commit the whole army, start sending in strategic bombers right above the front etc, they can drive the AFU on a rout. But the thing about a rout is that most people running away survive. And then you'll have a Russian army with much more taken land but with more alive Ukrainians ready to fight again. Russians probably lose a few dozen bombers and a whole lot of fighters.

Then, why wouldn't NATO pull a reverse Vietnam/Korea war and straight up attack the overextended Russian army, encircle and destroy them en masse, like what happened to US army in Korea? Despite threats, Russia would very unlikely use nukes, and an offensive against overextended Russians would happen so fast that Russia could not recieve material support in time to stop a disaster.

As I said, the only way Russia can lose, and therefore what NATO desparately want them to do.

Instead, they can just sit close on current lines, let Ukraine commit human waves, and then delete those waves. The human resources in Ukraine are going to run out eventually. It's a much lower risk strategy, and the Russians have also committed to that strategy. Better to see it through than do last minute changes.
 

curiousguy

New Member
Registered Member
I think you're confused about who has what hands. Russia is the country fighting with one hand tied, reserved to deter other enemies, and that's not even talking about their nuclear capabilities.

Ukraine is the one fighting with everything it has and 30 other people's hands helping it... you're actually imagining a situation where it has 60 other hands helping it instead.
yeah, sometimes I cant fathom the way Russia waging this war, for example, when news popped up about the risk of nuclear disaster due to attacks against Zaporozhie Power Plant, I just learned that the Russians still allowed the plant to provide electricity to the Ukrainian side after controlling it for months, like what the hell they were thinking, they held one of the most critical infrastructures of the enemy and still let them benefit from it? It's like them Russians intentionally shoot themselves in the foot
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
I just learned that the Russians still allowed the plant to provide electricity to the Ukrainian side after controlling it for months, like what the hell they were thinking, they held one of the most critical infrastructures of the enemy and still let them benefit from it? It's like them Russians intentionally shoot themselves in the foot

Winning the Hearts and Minds. If you intent to occupy a long term, better treat those people in your occupation zone well. As well as those nearby. You'll find them to be more cooperative.
 
Top