Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 51. (Read 73486 times)

^^^ Well, Russia acknowledges only about 100,000 war death so far. That fits right in with the 600,000 or 700,000 war deaths for Ukraine.

Even a 2:1 ratio would yield 1 million Ukrainian soldiers out of action. do you think Ukraine mobilised 1 million soldiers? I don't. Probably more like half of that and the front in manned. See why those numbers are unbelievable?

I do believe that ratio of losses was almost even, but since the failed UA offensive, overwhelming Russian artillery, surprising effects and number of Russian glide bombs, number of Russian drones, and the fact that Ukraine's army is mostly conscripts where majority on Russia's side is contractors I do believe that now the ratio of losses is to Russia's advantage. You can extrapolate the rest, using whichever numbers of Russian looses you wish

Oh, so warporn... it is all over the place. It is unlikely that "impacted soldiers" will selfi themselves after the fact. The video barely qualifies, but it is the recently hit refinery near Rostov, but there is so much stuff published out there and it is so simple to find that ... well, just go google a bit and you will see all your voyeuristic wet dreams fulfilled by the magic of people posting carnage all over. You can find all short of snuff there.

https://t.me/etorostov/55308

I would expect to see thousands of posts on social media from the soldiers and impacted civilians on both sides of the conflict - instead, nothing but crickets.

Sorry but you are not giving an answer, You have published Putin's stated ratio. So to go to the point: do you give credibility to that or are you trying to squeeze your way out of publishing something you do not believe for its possible propaganda value?

I am insisting on this because either you have not thought this figure over or you assume nobody here can do some basic math or you are plain lying. Which one is it?


Which video would you like to see? I mean, have you tried Google or duckduck? They tend to be available one or two days after the hits are reported. Many times they can be geolocated easily.

Are you questioning the ATACAMS or drone strikes? I mean... there is satellite imagery commercially available all over for most of it. I am just trying figure out if you are trying to spread fud or have some honest interest in war porn.

I'd expect to see war footage all over X, tik tok, etc...  not just the lame stream media who has lost all credibility.

Try https://duckduckgo.com/?q=videos+of+the+ukraine+war&ia=web. Here is a good one - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/ukraine-russia-war-videos-verified/.

Where is the video?

Everyone ion the world has a phone with a 4K camera, yet not a single video of this war.

Strange...

Claims that Ukraine is loosing up to 50k soldiers/month were published in response to your claims, for a full picture. I give as much credibility on Russian losses coming from the Ukrainian side, as I do for Ukrainian losses coming from the Russian side. It's hard to imagine any more biased sources than direct participants in the conflict. In fact it's kind of their job to lie to their population in order to keep morale from collapsing. But logically speaking citing such information from the involved party is just pure propaganda. But I think it's safe to say that the side that has almost daily air alerts all over the country, countrywide power blackouts, loosing land daily, mobilizing younger population, support of who's leader is dropping, and who's leadership's existence is totally dependent on the direct support from the outside, has few more reasons to exaggerate. In other words, who do you think is more dependent on public opinion, guy who's daily job is to fight for every pair of eyeballs, trying to gather as much publicity as humanly possible in order to bring as much attention/support to Ukraine as possible, or well...Putin?

You have published Putin's stated ratio. So to go to the point: do you give credibility to that or are you trying to squeeze your way out of publishing something you do not believe for its possible propaganda value? Before answering this, make sure you clearly understand the figure Putin gave.

If you ask me "do I give credibility to the figures I post", I will send you here:


So I do give some degree of credibility to figures:
https://www.minusrus.com/en 

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Vehicles:


https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240503-france-estimates-that-150-000-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-the-ukraine-war

But you can also go to any more official source, they all assume between 465000 / 510000 loses.

You literally posted about Ukraine's military making claims on Russian losses and gave it credibility when it's never going to be a real assessment. I provided claims by Russian commander on Ukrainian losses. You doubted it saying It is just ridiculous that you even try to pass that information as credible or remotely accurate. and attempted to justify that logic by asking Can you picture any situation in which Putin would go and say that Ruzzian losses are actually 5 to 1 Ukrainian? i countered that and pointed out your double standards just by mirroring your question and asked if you could picture any situation in which UA forces (Zelenskyy) would go and say that Ukrainian losses are actually higher than Russian.

What exactly you cannot follow in that?

You realize how ridiculous you sound by constantly posting outlandish claims, but when presented with claims from the other side you just start yelling that it's opinion but not facts? It's especially hilarious when you talk about "opinions" only in the same day to post stuff like "It has been mentioned that ATACAMS have been approved to be used up to 200 miles (roughly 300 km) across the whole front.".



Edited for clarity.

No, I have said what is written (a) Putin made a claim about the losses ratio and you gave it credibility when is never going to be a real assessment and (b) You, as usual, wondered about claiming that "Zelensky would not give accurate information either" which may or may not be true, but I did not make any claim about it.

just read it, it is right there. But this follows the same pattern of giving credibility to "opinions" or biased data, so no surprise here.

Meanwhile, another ATACAMS hit happened in Luhansk, on a military base that now is "in range". Pictures coming later perhaps.

It has been said that the French Mirage will be the 2005 model, which is not very modern, but can cover perfectly the Mig 29 missions required to launch SCALPs or Stormshadows. That should ring a few alarm bells out there in the Ruzzia side of the front.

I have observed that the military aid from US includes TOW missiles used mostly by Bradleys. This is the main weapon they can use when confronting tanks, which leads me to thing that they are betting on this very abundant and agile vehicle perfectly suited for war in Ukraine instead of sending more Abrams, which are too limited and expensive to maintain.

Are you now saying that Zelenskyy doesn't represent UA military or he's not in control of his defense forces? Or are you saying you can picture situation in which UA military (sans Zelenskyy) would go and say that Ukrainian losses are actually higher than Russian? You got to pick one here

Zelensky nor I did not make the claim. You did on behalf of your handlers at the farm. It is just silly to post Putin speaking about losses ratio (he is probably being lied to anyway), but I did not. You did.

Can you picture any situation in which Zelenskyy would go and say that Ukrainian losses are actually 3 to 1 Russian? It is just ridiculous that you even try to pass that information as credible or remotely accurate. 

They "would"... you know.... Can you picture any situation in which Putin would go and say that Ruzzian losses are actually 5 to 1 Ukrainian? It is just ridiculous that you even try to pass that information as credible or remotely accurate.

So back to the real world:

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-fighter-jets-military-aviation-ukraine-emmanuel-macron-kyiv-direct-support-russia-war/


If you think of this, it makes perfect sense. Once you got that many people trained in this plane, France will likely be a long term supplier. f16's are pretty much confirmed and there are thousands around the world. The right aircraft for Ukraine would be the Gripen, but unfortunately seems more difficult to obtain.

What Putin has achieved is fantastic - sorry, he would give a speech on this - Europe an the US are not just supporting Ukraine, they are actually racing to be preferred supplier.

It has been mentioned that ATACAMS have been approved to be used up to 200 miles (roughly 300 km) across the whole front. Get used to be "in range".

More refining capacity was put in the "pending repairs list" - repairs that will never come - by drones in Rostov on don. Pictures will be available later.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/06/ukraine-war-briefing-power-cuts-ordered-as-russian-attacks-create-catastrophic-shortages

Rostov in range:
https://youtu.be/UHJBA0Az_HY

Edited to add: It seems that also a few millions in ground-to-air munitions from the US. There is this old missile called "hawk" that is quite old and possibly quite a few of them about to expire like a yogurt, but depending on the model, they are perfect for Cruise missiles and perhaps to Saheds if needed. Quite portable and easy to relocate it is.

2 million Chinese troops in Russia. 
Russia would sign it's own death warrant.

Easy inviting them in.
Getting them to leave afterwards.... well...

“Never get involved in a land war in Asia”  - Vizzini

Initial source "published by Ukraine's military" https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1797857800309411907 so propaganda wrapped into newsweek.com wrapper to provide more legitimacy? But since we're citing direct side of the conflict on losses, to get a full-er picture would it not be beneficial to cite both sides?


Those numbers would be catastrophic even before we consider Russia's 3:1 advantage in population. History will not judge Zelenskyy kindly if real numbers are anything close to this, once revealed. Lowering age of mobilized Ukrainian conscripts only provides hints of the horrifying dynamics