Ukrainian War Developments

Missing the forest for the trees will never not be amusing.

Overbom said:

Losses are probably even more. The website only compiles confirmed losses with videographic evidence. I think its reasonable to assume that there are a lot more losses which are not in photos or videos.

In any case, a military's top priority is on achieving its key military objective.
Btw not copium, but as long as the objective is reached without catastrophic losses then that's ok for me

In any case, Russia has obviously prioritized speed over going slower but being more safe.

Click to expand...

The only losses that matter are critical losses, those that would prevent the unit/formation from accomplishing its mission(s)!

I think the US has ran out of tools that does not have potential to involve the US in an nuckear exchange, and coming to realizes russia has much at stake than the US and is thus willing to go further than the US, and realize pushing further means russia can further escalate while US has nothing left.

During the cold war the US would have handled this in a much more mature way and both sides would leave this with an live and let live attitude and under a condition suitable for effective future engagement.

Richard Santos said:

I think the US has ran out of tools that does not have potential to involve the US in an nuckear exchange.

Click to expand...

They could buy some TB-2 drones (?)

Overbom said:

Losses are probably even more. The website only compiles confirmed losses with videographic evidence. I think its reasonable to assume that there are a lot more losses which are not in photos or videos.

In any case, a military's top priority is on achieving its key military objective.
Btw not copium, but as long as the objective is reached without catastrophic losses then that's ok for me

In any case, Russia has obviously prioritized speed over going slower but being more safe.

Click to expand...

According to this, Russia has taken twice the losses the Ukrainians did, with 1/3rd of their losses being trucks, while conducting an offensive operation against (at least somewhat) prepared defenses, where the population is incentivized to publish enemy losses and downplay their own, while the Russians have to keep their trap shut? Then whoever planned the offensive would make Alexander and Hannibal feel insecure.

james smith esq said:

The only losses that matter are critical losses, those that would prevent the unit/formation from accomplishing its mission(s)!

Click to expand...

But those are not critical losses, there are not confirmation that those are real (from this date) and most look like the same from different angle.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.

Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I at the time:

NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.

Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.

People need to put things in perspective.

How many months or years have US and UK been bombing Irak before their ground invasion of Irak? How many tonnes of bombs had been dropped?

Compared to how many days and tonnes Russia did in Ukraine.

How many civilians have been killed by air raids in Iraqi cities for the "great performance" of US invasion?

Compared to how many civilians killed so far in Ukraine, even based on Ukrainian government's figures.

Put US in the Russian's shoes, US won't do any better.

The difference is that, Russia cares about the population casualties and its impact for future relationship with Ukraine. US did not give a damn of Iraqi lives. That blown back to the US's face in the coming 12 years, not only in Iraq but the whole Muslim world.

taxiya said:

No, "thanks" to USA.

Without USA, China and Europe would have had CAI ratified long time ago.
Without USA, Germany would not have been "oblidged" to send its navy in SCS.
Without USA, Ukraine would not have stolen China's money.
Without USA, Huiwei would not have been banned in most of EU, overtly or covertly.
and so on and so on.

Chinese have good memories.

Click to expand...

Yes and no.
Russia pushed Europe right into US hands.
So if US is behind it all what does that make Putin?
A tool which he is clearly not.
He simply made an error of judgement out of ego and hurt pride which both the US and China will now happily capitalise on.

Notice how the officer signals his man to back off -

If anything I'm glad the soldiers on the ground seem to be taking their directive with regards to civilians to heart.

Same goes for earlier -