Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[BlueOak]

 

Russian advances are heavy until aid gets in place, large losses though:
 

Odessa getting cluster bombs over it, usual Russian warcrimes:
 

Updates on the overall situation, including the movement of aid. It should still be a week or two. You have to view in on YouTube, because Russians often try to get the aid streams age restricted (to restrict their exposure).
 

 

Edited April 30 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

The last aid approved by the US and EU countries is not going to help Ukraine win, whose major problem is they have no replacements for the fight. I mean soldiers to use those weapons. The situation is desperate for Ukraine right now, it's useless they are given fighter planes for which long term training is needed. They don't have that time.

Ukraine has lost, Zelensky and NATO refused all previous negotiation opportunities, now they can only surrender or drive more of their men to death. Russia is right now easily advancing in Kharkiv, and they'll complete Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson at some point soon, likely will get Odessa too to control the sea and also the Dnipro river in the South part at least. They'll advance as much as they want, they don't need to rush it, because the Ukrainian army is being defeated hardly.

Russia will decide the terms of the end of the war, the negotiation time is gone. I think there are chances they let some part of the North-West independent, but in any case they won't allow them to play with NATO anymore. That will be signed, as it was before.

[BlueOak]

I think most people lack this understanding, so i'll quote what I wrote in another thread here, with some minor adjustments to make it more generic.

You have to calculate what America spends in the east of Europe already. If we are making a purely financial argument, this cannot be overlooked.
Then you have to factor in what happens when Russia and Europe go to war with or without US assistance, and they lose their main trading partner either to a decade of war or fully lose them. This would all cost Americans more than 2.5% of their military budget. If this security assistance is given here instead, it should reduce the need for security assistance in the east, so in the long term, it should save money for America and Europe. The worst-case scenario is that their trading power flips and trades east after being conquered.

This is the calculation that is happening. Even if I took a more pro-Russian perspective, a larger border with Russia means more of Europe's GDP on the east of Europe defending it, meaning less of its economic power trading with America, meaning less money in Americans' pockets, which would still be more than 2.5% of its military budget.

 

As i've said, I do see a larger war happening, and the chance of it increasing if Trump gets in, which is increasingly likely also.

[BlueOak]

On 5/16/2024 at 11:17 PM, Hatfort said:

The last aid approved by the US and EU countries is not going to help Ukraine win, whose major problem is they have no replacements for the fight. I mean soldiers to use those weapons. The situation is desperate for Ukraine right now, it's useless they are given fighter planes for which long term training is needed. They don't have that time.

Ukraine has lost, Zelensky and NATO refused all previous negotiation opportunities, now they can only surrender or drive more of their men to death. Russia is right now easily advancing in Kharkiv, and they'll complete Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson at some point soon, likely will get Odessa too to control the sea and also the Dnipro river in the South part at least. They'll advance as much as they want, they don't need to rush it, because the Ukrainian army is being defeated hardly.

Russia will decide the terms of the end of the war, the negotiation time is gone. I think there are chances they let some part of the North-West independent, but in any case they won't allow them to play with NATO anymore. That will be signed, as it was before.

The Russians are getting their backsides handed to them at the moment. Their casualties at the moment are insane. As always, it's 'soon,' or 'likely.' I've been hearing that for more than two years, this fantasy Russians, or those that think they are winning, claim. That isn't the reality now that the AID is there again and finally integrated into the lines. Ukraine are conscripting another 500,000 men. Fighter planes get there in the summer. There was a long period when Ukraine had to conserve its artillery, getting outshot 10 to 1, which is why Russia could make minor gains with human wave attacks, but that isn't the case now.
 

 

Edited May 19 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

The Russians are getting their backsides handed to them at the moment. Their casualties at the moment are insane. As always, it's 'soon,' or 'likely.' I've been hearing that for more than two years, this fantasy Russians, or those that think they are winning, claim. That isn't the reality now that the AID is there again and finally integrated into the lines. Ukraine are conscripting another 500,000 men. Fighter planes get there in the summer. There was a long period when Ukraine had to conserve its artillery, getting outshot 10 to 1, which is why Russia could make minor gains with human wave attacks, but that isn't the case now

I keep hearing that huge difference in casualties in this propaganda war. At some points the Russians probably had it higher, right now, it's the other way around. Russians have enough men to replace or rotate, Ukranians don't. Russians have their military industry working like a clock now, so they are not low on weapons and munition, and they have time to train the men they send to the front. There's also the evident fact that one side is advancing and the other is losing land. 

While Russia was patient, Ukraine lost more than it could afford in the counteroffensive of 2023, gaining absolutely nothing. They also lost men unnecessarily for not knowing when to withdraw from Bakhmud and Avdiivka, mostly in the second. Russia is making advances, it may seem slow, but as time goes by, it's accelerating. Ukrainian men are tired and have no replacements, while Russians can rotate and send large numbers of reinforcements when needed, but they are not going suicidal either, they are taking the time they need. It's a war of attrition, one side could afford some erosion, but the other could not. The one that could not, is having more deaths on their side right now.

I have used words like soon, because I'm talking about the future. There's a limit to how precise I can be, but with soon I mean within this year, next months, but it's already happening. When I say likely, because I'm not in the war Cabinet of Russia, I can't tell for certain what they are going to attack next, but Kharkiv is currently happening, so are Donetsk and Zaporizhia at their own pace, and Odessa just makes so much strategic sense.

Ukraine has no chance of winning, the best they could do is surrender, spare lives and kind of negotiate something if they went in good faith and said a credible bye to NATO. The other route is probably the collapse of their army at some point. Russia knows this, so they don't care, Ukraine can decide the route it prefers.

I'm very sorry for the Ukrainians, NATO got them into this mess, this war didn't need to happen. I hope the Ukrainians get to keep as much land as possible, but they gotta see that NATO was not working in their interest and that Zelensky was working for them. He will probably die old and fat in his Miami mansion.

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort

The reason what you are saying is not happening is because it's factually wrong on two counts:

On defense, you lose less. Generally, Russians use human wave tactics to break lines, going through large open spaces, so they lose even more.
Aside from some breakthroughs by Ukraine, which pushed unprepared Russian forces back over large areas earlier in the war. The Russians have been on offense almost the entire war. So their casualties have been significantly higher; the only argument is whether it's 3 to 1, which is roughly the size difference between the two countries. If so, it's precisely even in their ability to sustain the war.

Ukraine is conscripting another 500,000 for this summer. People keep saying Ukraine doesn't have enough men, yet they do, because again, it's factually wrong. What they didn't have was the gear to arm them until aid recently came in, republicans delayed it in the house. Then they tell me that Ukraine's average soldier is old, yes because they set their minimum conscription age at 27 (it's 25 now).

Avdiivka? and Bakhmut? These were fortresses; of course, they didn't withdraw, as it cost the Russians so many men to attack them. You don't defend where you are weak; you defend where you are strong. Ukraine is holding, and Russia is running its stockpiles into the ground, its economy into the ground, and its oil production into the ground. China is buying their country up. Ukraine is now resupplied for another year. You may not like or even agree with the calculation, but that's the one being made.

Nobody is negotiating because they gain nothing. Either side. If they saw more benefits in negotiation, it would already be happening, no matter what either of us thought. Then people will make up all these conspiracies to tell me why that's the case. In real terms, it's because both sides see more to lose more by doing what you suggest.

The NATO treaty is one reason Russia cited as an excuse to invade. Russia has fought 8 wars in former USSR countries to expand its control. There was a coup in Ukraine against a Russian government that was shooting civilian protestors in the streets, protesting students getting beaten. So Putin used his militias as an excuse to invade, thinking he'd have a quick victory, but he failed and got a long war.

As America pulls back, Russia pushes forward. That's the dynamic. Without assistance and without holding this war in Ukraine, it's WW3. Many people fear that because of their history with Russia in the region. If Trump gets in, that's more likely, as he's more anti-Europe and pro-Russian.

So pick one Either: The possibility of WW3 or A stalemate in Ukraine, and honestly tell me which you prefer if you, in their perspective, had that choice facing them.

Edited May 19 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

@BlueOak Ukraine lied pretty badly about its looses. They say 30.000 looses.

USA put it at around 70.000 in August 2023, now it is at least 100.000. Probably 120.000.

There is no doubt Russia has more looses overall but the difference in looses is much smaller than the difference in population.

Russia has around 4.5 times the population and around 50% more looses.

Which puts it in a net advantage.

I am just talking soldiers here, not equipment.

For example during Stalingrad Russians actually lost almost double the number of soldiers Germans lost but because of the population difference it was a heavy blow for Germany and they struggled to recovered after, even though in 1943 under Speer leadership production rose heavily. They lacked soldiers. 

The more I see this war unfold, the more it is clear that Ukraine cannot reclaim back its lost territories.

In the absolutely best case scenario it will just push back Russia every time that Russia tries to advance in a never ending cycle of war and pointless deaths.

Edited May 19 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

@BlueOak Ukraine lied pretty badly about its looses. They say 30.000 looses.

USA put it at around 70.000 in August 2023, now it is at least 100.000. Probably 120.000.

There is no doubt Russia has more looses overall but the difference in looses is much smaller than the difference in population.

Russia has around 4.5 times the population and around 50% more looses.

Which puts it in a net advantage.

I am just talking soldiers here, not equipment.

For example during Stalingrad Russians actually lost almost double the number of soldiers Germans lost but because of the population difference it was a heavy blow for Germany and they struggled to recovered after, even though in 1943 under Speer leadership production rose heavily. They lacked soldiers. 

The more I see this war unfold, the more it is clear that Ukraine cannot reclaim back its lost territories.

In the absolutely best case scenario it will just push back Russia every time that Russia tries to advance in a never ending cycle of war and pointless deaths.

I can see 70,000 easily. That will be casualties, so wounded and dead. 
Ukraine says 500,000 Russians, so even if we say 300,000 casualties, that's wounded and dead, it's 3 to 1.
Even if I lower Russia's casualties or raise Ukraine's losses further, it's still close to 3:1, which fits with it being mostly an offensive war for Russia and their human wave assaults.

Russia has 3.5 times the population of Ukraine, but as we've discussed, it is difficult to put a number on it as many fighting-age men have fled Russia and some have fled Ukraine

The reason your version of reality isn't happening is that it is factually incorrect:

Ukraine: 42 Million at the start of the war.
Russia 147.2 at the start of the war.
As I said, 3.5 is a close approximation. 

I've spoken about the Russian oil economy collapsing, which is the main offense of Ukraine right now, its hoped to be at the end of the year, or likely next year after the winter, which is another calculation to end the war. Oil and their dwindling stockpiles are what keeps it running.

I've asked you the question about WW3 before so I won't ask it again. I will put it this way to you. If Russia takes Ukraine and WW3 or a larger Russia-EU war is fought, which country will it be in? Ukraine. So, holding Russia here is better for them, even in that sense.

We can all see it's close, though, playing out on the map; it's been a grind for a long time.

Yes, the best case scenario is there will be a stalemate of pointless deaths.100% true. That is precisely the strategy being done. To create certainty out of an uncertain situation and grind Russia's offensive capability down for as long as possible.

Edited May 20 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I can see 70,000 easily. That will be casualties, so wounded and dead. 

Deaths not casualties. So 70.000 dead Ukrainians and 120.000 dead Russians back then.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia has 3.5 times the population of Ukraine, but as we've discussed, it is difficult to put a number on it as many fighting-age men have fled Russia and some have fled Ukraine

Tons of young males in Ukraine have fled too. So it goes both ways.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

If Russia takes Ukraine and WW3 or a larger Russia-EU war is fought, which country will it be in? Ukraine. So, holding Russia here is better for them, even in that sense.

If Russia keeps the current territory it has in Ukraine (which is majority Russian speakers anyway) and does not take any other I think it will somewhat appease and anger both sides . Like 80% of Ukraine is still intact and it took Russia like 2 years to take it. I would call that a stalemate. Doubtful they would attack again and again.

Russia taking the area it has is not the same as taking the whole country.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, the best case scenario is there will be a stalemate of pointless deaths.100% true. That is precisely the strategy being done. To create certainty out of an uncertain situation and grind Russia's offensive capability down for as long as possible.

Cant you see how inhumane that is?

Dont you think it is more humane for Russians in the Donbass to live under Russia than to force young Ukranians to die in trenches for no reason? Not to mention war entails Donbass being destroyed and many civilians dying as long as there is war. And seems like Russia will take all of it by this year.

Edited May 20 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

20 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Deaths not casualties. So 70.000 dead Ukrainians and 120.000 dead Russians back then.

Tons of young males in Ukraine have fled too. So it goes both ways.

If Russia keeps the current territory it has in Ukraine (which is majority Russian speakers anyway) and does not take any other I think it will somewhat appease and anger both sides . Like 80% of Ukraine is still intact and it took Russia like 2 years to take it. I would call that a stalemate. Doubtful they would attack again and again.

Russia taking the area it has is not the same as taking the whole country.

Cant you see how inhumane that is?

Dont you think it is more humane for Russians in the Donbass to live under Russia than to force young Ukranians to die in trenches for no reason? Not to mention war entails Donbass being destroyed and many civilians dying as long as there is war. And seems like Russia will take all of it by this year.

Your casualty figures are way off, which is why the reality you are expecting hasn't happened. You lose about 3:1 on offense, everything else being even, more in urban areas. Russia's human wave tactics generally guarantee this. - What you could say, and how Russia skews the figures of its dead, is that some of those dead were not originally Russian; they were conscripted from the occupied areas. Even if Russia considers the militias part of its armed forces now.

Not that many males fled Ukraine, as Ukraine had locked down travel very early in the war. Russia didn't close its borders for travel for a long time, and years before that, as well, Russian males were leaving for better opportunities, which is part of the population problem Putin is trying to fix by annexing Ukraine.

I get you doubt Russia will invade again. I'm almost certain they will. A third time, and with time to build up and prepare again. In your scenario. Ukraine won't be in NATO. Ukraine will be weaker. Trump might be in office. Russia will have suffered all the downsides of a war without getting most of what it wants: population, control of its gas connection to Europe, full control of the black sea ports, shorter borders etc, all the things we've discussed.

If Russia's stockpiles go down far enough. That calculation changes. I believe they've used up 60-70%, depending on who you believe.

All war is inhumane. There is no such thing as a humane war or a moral war; all of those ideas are nonsense. War is insanity and the product of fools. The most humane thing would have been the assassination of Putin at the start of the war, because he's a fool. So all we are talking about is inhumane, de-evolved humans, making the best of bad decisions.

Ukrainians living in Donbass: No I don't think it's more humane for Russia to be able to invade, sexually assault, torture, forcibly conscript its prisoners, shell, and kill civilians for two years, then, for the fantasy reason of 'hoping for the best', decide they won't do it in Ukraine FOR A THIRD TIME, or their 9th time in recent memory. I think that's insane. if you want my honest opinion, you are gambling on very low odds that this won't erupt into a war again a few years from now. The border will be massive, and the occupied territories will experience unrest and be full of opportunities and hate for conflict. For whatever reason, that Putin decides to invent next.
 
That's not even considering what I am telling you and what every other analyst I've been bringing here is telling you. If Ukraine falls, World War Three is a distinct possibility, and the brunt of that would be fought in Ukraine.

*Talking about assassinations, its only taken nearly 2 and a half years, but it seems people are doing exactly that now. 

Edited May 21 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Your casualty figures are way off, which is why the reality you are expecting hasn't happened

They are US estimates. You cannot trust Ukraine nor Russia regarding casualties in this war, both sides lie through their teeth and have heavy agendas. US is somewhat more objective.

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

You lose about 3:1 on offense, everything else being even, more in urban areas.

So Ukraine has no chance of liberating its lost territories by your logic.

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russian males were leaving for better opportunities, which is part of the population problem Putin is trying to fix by annexing Ukraine

To be honest both countries had plenty of immigration due to poverty. It is not like Ukraine was a thriving country. I think their income per capita was the lowest in Europe (lower than Moldova I think).

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia will have suffered all the downsides of a war without getting most of what it wants: population, control of its gas connection to Europe,

Russia wanted the Russian speaking territories of Ukraine and especially Donbas and Donetsk, which it tried to get since 2014. They never claimed Kiev, nor can they manage it. It basically wants those territories annexed into Russia and the rest of Ukraine to be a pro Russian or at least neutral government . Some like Yanakovic.

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

If Russia's stockpiles go down far enough. That calculation changes. I believe they've used up 60-70%, depending on who you believe.

So all the Western reporters and analysits saying Ukraine is in deep shit are lying . Nobody is even denying it anymore. Too obvious to try to cover.

 

 

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

All war is inhumane. There is no such thing as a humane war or a moral war; all of those ideas are nonsense. War is insanity and the product of fools. The most humane thing would have been the assassination of Putin at the start of the war, because he's a fool. So all we are talking about is inhumane, de-evolved humans, making the best of bad decisions.

Well I would say the way Russians fight wars is more inhumane compared to other countries. But that is just my opinion.

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

f you want my honest opinion, you are gambling on very low odds that this won't erupt into a war again a few years from now. Th

Well the west approved the weapons and did all it could. Now it is up to see what will happen.

Whatever can be done, has been done.

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

They are US estimates. You cannot trust Ukraine nor Russia regarding casualties in this war, both sides lie through their teeth and have heavy agendas. US is somewhat more objective.

So Ukraine has no chance of liberating its lost territories by your logic.

To be honest both countries had plenty of immigration due to poverty. It is not like Ukraine was a thriving country. I think their income per capita was the lowest in Europe (lower than Moldova I think).

Russia wanted the Russian speaking territories of Ukraine and especially Donbas and Donetsk, which it tried to get since 2014. They never claimed Kiev, nor can they manage it. It basically wants those territories annexed into Russia and the rest of Ukraine to be a pro Russian or at least neutral government . Some like Yanakovic.

So all the Western reporters and analysits saying Ukraine is in deep shit are lying . Nobody is even denying it anymore. Too obvious to try to cover.

 

 

Which analysts? It's been a grind for years. All I've seen say the same thing: weapons are there now, so they are resupplied. They were likely resupplied because a stalemate wouldn't be achieved without that. People saw the writing on the wall, told the press, the press/media ran the story, and so weapons got enough support to be sent. Its just a hamster wheel you are describing.

I don't know it's surprising when I tell you their obvious strategy again. - Stalemate - No wider war in Europe or WW3 - There isn't 'no chance' of liberating the territory; it's not the strategy being played out. Cripple Russia here because they are stupid enough to keep sending in waves of soldiers to die, and use up their stockpiles, so there is no danger to the rest of Ukraine, Europe, or the world. 

Russia is effectively now playing into the strategy. They have given all control over the direction they are going in, and are accelerating their country's change in the power they can project going forward. When the Soviet stockpiles are gone, and their oil industry is sufficiently damaged, that's it for them offensively. By that point, China's government's trading wing will also have much more power over them. It recently released a map showing the formerly settled Russian island as back under its control, as a simple example.

Yes, Ukraine had a lot of Soviet-era policies and problems to get rid of, which it was/is slowly doing—corruption, for instance.

Russia wanted a lot of things I keep talking about them. Russia tried to take Kyiv, Sumy, etc. They were kicked out.

Yes, it's a pointless war, but all wars are pointless. I sit here describing it without emotion because I am describing children hitting each other with sticks. It's just so easily demonstrated and summed up here. That I can talk about it in simple terms, its egos hitting their heads against each other, and lines on a grain of sand we called earth in an infinite cosmos, god throwing its life away again and again and again to experience suffering and hatred in stupidity. Okay, you can argue there is a point if enough suffering is reached, that hatred of 'the other' isn't used anymore, but I won't; there are a billion better ways to do it. Earth is foolish.

Edited May 21 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

It's been a grind for years

Everyone including Ukraine itself saying Russia is advancing and things are very difficult. They are outnumbered and outgunned.

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Russia wanted a lot of things I keep talking about them. Russia tried to take Kyiv, Sumy, etc. They were kicked out.

I think they wanted to change the government like they did in Georgia. Put back a Yanakovic kind of guy. In Georgia that is basically what they did in 2008. They did not annex all of it. I think their plan for Ukraine was to take Donbas and those areas and also put a new pro Russian government.

Their invading force was far too small to actually annex and occupy all of Ukraine which is why they were easily kicked.

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, it's a pointless war, but all wars are pointless. I sit here describing it without emotion because I am describing children hitting each other with sticks.

I think Ukraine becoming a buffer zone and neutral country is better than being destroyed by war.

Why cant it have the fate of Georgia in 2008?

I mean they are much better off than they would be if they were in a long war.

It is funny that the world is acting like Ukraine is this new deal when Russia literally tried the same thing in 2008 and succeeded.  It was a swift war which resulted in Russia taking certain Russian majority territories of Georgia and replacing the pro NATO government with a Pro Russian one.

That is I think the exact plan Putin had for Ukraine. Another Georgia.

However, it did not go according to plan.

When i look at the state of Georgia and the state of Ukraine, I wonder which country got the better fate in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

"The Georgian civilians, who resided in the Akhalgori district and were willing to live in South Ossetia, were coerced into obtaining a Russian passport"

"Russia accused Georgia of committing "genocide" in South Osset".

"Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia was a mass expulsion of ethnic Georgians conducted in South Ossetia and other territories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian forces,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] which happened during and after the 2008 Russia–Georgia war.[8] Overall, at least 20,000 Georgians were forcibly displaced from South Ossetia"

Jesus, the more i read about this the more it seems like Ukraine was such another rulebook application, nothing new.

How come the world ignored this shit in 2008.

Edited May 21 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

Just now, Karmadhi said:

Everyone including Ukraine itself saying Russia is advancing and things are very difficult. They are outnumbered and outgunned.

I think they wanted to change the government like they did in Georgia. Put back a Yanakovic kind of guy. In Georgia that is basically what they did in 2008. They did not annex all of it. I think their plan for Ukraine was to take Donbas and those areas and also put a new pro Russian government.

Their invading force was far too small to actually annex and occupy all of Ukraine which is why they were easily kicked.

I think Ukraine becoming a buffer zone and neutral country is better than being destroyed by war.

Why cant it have the fate of Georgia in 2008?

I mean they are much better off than they would be if they were in a long war.

Please give me two recent analysts who support what you are saying: Since receiving and integrating military aid into their army. If everyone is saying it should be easy? - Otherwise, you are following what I was saying: 1) People saw that Ukraine needed aid to maintain the stalemate 2) Press/Media Ran the Story 3) Government gets the support it needs to send aid 4) Aid goes to Ukraine.

Yes, they wanted a pro-Russian, anti-democratic government and a slow creeping integration into a Greater Russia concept that Putin has stuck in his head from the USSR days, as with everything else Russia takes.

Their invading force was what they thought they needed. They took many police units initially because they felt they'd be dealing with a civilian uprising, not organized military resistance. They didn't, as you don't, understand Ukraine isn't Russia, its so far removed from Russia now that what you are saying is out of reality.

Ukraine isn't Georgia. Its many times bigger. Its population was democratic and much closer to joining Europe's way of life. Its identity is so far removed from Russia after two years of war, what you are saying will never happen. If Putin wanted that to happen, he shouldn't have made his campaign against the civilian population; all it did was take nationalism in Ukraine and magnify it tenfold.

Why should dictators be rewarded for aggression, blackmail, torture, etc, out of fear? 

'Much better off' - No. People who disagree with Putin disappear. Are tortured etc. Almost everyone in Ukraine disagrees with Putin. That's a recipe for suffering. The country is armed to the teeth, at least for another year or so. Both sides suffer for Putin's stupidity, more will suffer if he walks all over Ukraine. As I and so many others keep trying to tell you.

[BlueOak]

 

[Karmadhi]

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Please give me two recent analysts who support what you are saying: Since receiving and integrating military aid into their army. If everyone is saying it should be easy? - Otherwise, you are following what I was saying: 1) People saw that Ukraine needed aid to maintain the stalemate 2) Press/Media Ran the Story 3) Government gets the support it needs to send aid 4) Aid goes to Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/23/russian-forces-make-significant-gains-in-eastern-ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/16/vladimir-putin-beijing-visit-china-live-updates-war-ukraine-latest-today-xi-jinping

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

They didn't, as you don't, understand Ukraine isn't Russia, its so far removed from Russia now that what you are saying is out of reality.

Not saying it is Russia, just very similar. Same ethnicity, religion, and were 1 unit until 1991. 

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Ukraine isn't Georgia. Its many times bigger. Its population was democratic and much closer to joining Europe's way of life

Well I may be wrong. I had the perception that Ukraine before the war was one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Europe. No near close even countries like Macedonia or Bosnia. Maybe I was wrong. 

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

after two years of war, what you are saying will never happen. If Putin wanted that to happen, he shouldn't have made his campaign against the civilian population; all it did was take nationalism in Ukraine and magnify it tenfold.

I am not saying NOW, i am saying if the war had been swift and fast. The discontent would have been far smaller. They shot themselves in the foot with the brutal way they conducted the war, especially in the first months.

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Why should dictators be rewarded for aggression, blackmail, torture, etc, out of fear? 

They should not. But the world is not fair. We see Israel is getting criminal protection by "The civilized world" even when they have a big fat ICC case in their face accusing them of the worst crimes you can commit. You can say they are getting away with it.

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

'Much better off' - No. People who disagree with Putin disappear. Are tortured etc. Almost everyone in Ukraine disagrees with Putin. That's a recipe for suffering. The country is armed to the teeth, at least for another year or so. Both sides suffer for Putin's stupidity, more will suffer if he walks all over Ukraine. As I and so many others keep trying to tell you.

Well if this keeps going on expect another 50.000 Ukrainians to die at least and countless more infrastructure and buildings destroyed.

If you think that is better than living under Russian oppression then that is your opinion.

Personally, I would rather live under a foreign ruler than being snatched from the streets and  die in a trench. But that is just my opinion.

I find nationalism fairly foolish.

 

Edited May 21 by Karmadhi

[Karmadhi]

@BlueOak Interesting video.

Thanks for sharing.

[BlueOak]

6 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/23/russian-forces-make-significant-gains-in-eastern-ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/16/vladimir-putin-beijing-visit-china-live-updates-war-ukraine-latest-today-xi-jinping

Not saying it is Russia, just very similar. Same ethnicity, religion, and were 1 unit until 1991. 

Well I may be wrong. I had the perception that Ukraine before the war was one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Europe. No near close even countries like Macedonia or Bosnia. Maybe I was wrong. 

I am not saying NOW, i am saying if the war had been swift and fast. The discontent would have been far smaller. They shot themselves in the foot with the brutal way they conducted the war, especially in the first months.

They should not. But the world is not fair. We see Israel is getting criminal protection by "The civilized world" even when they have a big fat ICC case in their face accusing them of the worst crimes you can commit. You can say they are getting away with it.

Well if this keeps going on expect another 50.000 Ukrainians to die at least and countless more infrastructure and buildings destroyed.

If you think that is better than living under Russian oppression then that is your opinion.

Personally, I would rather live under a foreign ruler than being snatched from the streets and  die in a trench. But that is just my opinion.

I find nationalism fairly foolish.

 

Okay the first is before the aid arrived. It says:
Regional armed forces admit ‘difficult situation’ as Kyiv awaits western military aid

Let’s take the one after aid arrived:

Quote

Zelenskiy travels to Kharkiv amid Russian offensive in region's north
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy travelled to Kharkiv on Thursday, days after Russia opened up a new front in the war with an incursion across the border in the north of the region.
Zelenskiy posted to Telegram to say that he had held a meeting there with senior leaders, posting that:
As of today, the situation in Kharkiv oblast is generally under control, our soldiers are inflicting significant losses on the occupier. But the direction remains extremely difficult – we are strengthening our units.
He said that during the meeting, which included commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, discussions included “in detail the prospects of the combat situation, the threats in the coming days and weeks, and our, Ukrainian, opportunities to counter Russian offensive plans.”

It continues in summary; most of the article is about Ukraine, saying how they are handling the war, with some summary from other countries such as treaties, more aid, and investigations. The Aid is mainly integrated into the line; it takes a couple of weeks to a month from the date of arrival in the country to be fully used. - There is nothing there telling me what you are describing except saying it's difficult because, yeah, it's been a meatgrinder for years. 'Give them more aid' is the subtext.

Russia and Ukraine are not the same country. One was going east, one was going west. As the fear of 'the other' got the better of Russia, and because the 'want for better' was in Ukraine,  we had a war. Both of those ideologies can cause problems if unchecked. This is why we have the war. 

Ukraine's quality of life https://www.undp.org/ukraine/press-releases/ukraine-still-country-high-human-development-index-new-undp-report-says
It was getting better, that's the point. The population wanted that; we can dive more into this if you like. It might reveal a few nuggets of info.

If the war had been swift, there would have been a campaign of bombs, civil unrest, and violence going on. The suffering would have been people disappearing, tortured, imprisoned, etc. You see what Russia does to dissent, and that's among the citizens who have been suppressed all their lives. That's not Ukraine. - Then, as Russia would have had its full capacity still, facing a weakened, indecisive NATO, Moldova and the Baltics would have followed.

The world is not fair, no. I am using your reasoning. You are arguing for fairness. This is a stage green point of view - Again, this is a way to stop a wider war. Holding Russia here, that's it. Talking about moral equivalence in war will not change anything; no war is moral. I am sorry to be cold with you, but there is no emotion here; the whole nature of war is to waste life until the desire to fight it no longer exists. But that has to be both sides, or else war in some form will continue.

Yes, there will be more death. Expect three times as many Russians to die too. Until their stockpiles are gone, their capacity to wage is neutered, and they are permanently a somewhat indebted client state of China.

I should tackle your casualty estimates again:

British Estimates:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/
450,000 Russian casualties (dead wounded)

French Estimates:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240503-france-estimates-that-150-000-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-the-ukraine-war
500,000 Russian casualties (dead wounded)

US talking about Bahkmut:
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine?ref=atlanticcityfocus.com

The United States estimates Russia suffered one hundred thousand casualties in Bakhmut, including twenty thousand deaths.
This is why the fortress was not given up.

The only other source we've got of estimates for Ukraine is:

35,000 killed (24,500 conf. by names),
15,000 missing, 3,400 captured,
90,000–100,000 wounded
via Museum of Military History

Its a bit annoying that we have to estimate so much ourselves

Edited May 22 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia and Ukraine are not the same country. One was going east, one was going west. As the fear of 'the other' got the better of Russia, and because the 'want for better' was in Ukraine,  we had a war. Both of those ideologies can cause problems if unchecked. This is why we have the war.

Ukraine was neutral until 2013, if not somewhat pro Russia. Then the maiden revolution happened and the country started moving towards the West.

Regarding that, there are several theories. Some say it was a US backed coup. Some say it was the majority will of Ukrainian people. Personally, I do not know, I am not informed enough so cannot say. But "Ukraine moving west" is a development as of the last 10 years. It is new. It was independent since 1991, do not forget that. I saw Yanakovic guy was pretty corrupt and he fled to Russia. Makes sense they wanted him out. But the guy after, was also an oligarch and super corrupt too, so it wonders if there was actually any real change until Zelensky came. And now Zelensky has a ton of corruption accusations. So this whole thing is a big mess. I do not know what to believe. All I can say is that Ukraine was forced to do some good anti corruption reform from 2022 because EU asked them to for EU integration and it seems according to EU Commission that the country started moving westwards. But I do not know if any progress was done about Ukraine from 2014 until 2022. 

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

It was getting better, that's the point. The population wanted that; we can dive more into this if you like. It might reveal a few nuggets of info.

Most countries are getting better. It includes Russia, China, India, Poland, Rwanda etc.

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

If the war had been swift, there would have been a campaign of bombs, civil unrest, and violence going on. The suffering would have been people disappearing, tortured, imprisoned, etc. You see what Russia does to dissent, and that's among the citizens who have been suppressed all their lives. That's not Ukraine. - Then, as Russia would have had its full capacity still, facing a weakened, indecisive NATO, Moldova and the Baltics would have followed.

Perhaps. I am not informed enough to say whether what you say is legit or not. I do know that in Russia you do not see hundreds of thousands of people dying in 2 years because of "Putin's oppression" so the war is a much bigger killer than any oppression.

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

You are arguing for fairness. This is a stage green point of view

And you are arguing for national identities holding more importance than human life. That is a somewhat stage blue nationalistic point of view.

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

The only other source we've got of estimates for Ukraine is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/world/europe/russia-ukraine-toll-bodies.html#:~:text=be independently verified.-,Mr.,and 100%2C000 to 120%2C000 wounded.

"Mr. Zelensky’s accounting of Ukrainian casualties differs sharply from estimates by U.S. officials, who, this past summer said that close to 70,000 Ukrainians had been killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded."

I would pick US estimates over Ukranian ones. Just like I would pick US estimates over Russian ones. It is not wise to take into account what parties involved in war have to say since they have heavily biased agendas.