90k
And to 100k it's:
25 days @ 400, on average per day
20 days @ 500
17 days @ 600
Crazy.
90k
And to 100k it's:
25 days @ 400, on average per day
20 days @ 500
17 days @ 600
Crazy.
It was a couple of pages back, but I recall someone on twitter hypothesising that we'd see 90k by Dec 3rd [beaten by a day] and 100k by 24th.
An absolute disregard for the lives of their own soldiers on the part of Russia, and sadly Ukraine has to keep the pressure on them, which means Ukraine risks its own troops as well.
Last edited:
Such a waste of human potential. Hopefully Russia realizes it is not worth the costs they have paid and ends the war.
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A top adviser to Ukraine's president has cited military chiefs as saying 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the country's nine-month struggle against Russia's invasion, a rare comment on such figures and far below estimates of Ukrainian casualties from Western leaders...
Late Thursday, Mykhailo Podolyak, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relayed new figures about Ukrainian soldiers killed in battle, while noting that the number of injured troops was higher and civilian casualty counts were "significant."
"We have official figures from the general staff, we have official figures from the top command, and they amount to between 10,000 and 12,500-13,000 killed," Podolyak told Channel 24.
The Ukrainian military has not confirmed such figures and it was a rare instance of a Ukrainian official providing such a count. The last dates back to late August, when the head of the armed forces said that nearly 9,000 military personnel had been killed. In June, Podolyak said that up to 200 soldiers were dying each day, in some of the most intense fighting and bloodshed this year.
apnews.com
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A top adviser to Ukraine's president has cited military chiefs as saying 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the country's nine-month struggle against Russia's invasion, a rare comment on such figures and far below estimates of Ukrainian casualties from Western leaders...
Late Thursday, Mykhailo Podolyak, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relayed new figures about Ukrainian soldiers killed in battle, while noting that the number of injured troops was higher and civilian casualty counts were "significant."
"We have official figures from the general staff, we have official figures from the top command, and they amount to between 10,000 and 12,500-13,000 killed," Podolyak told Channel 24.
The Ukrainian military has not confirmed such figures and it was a rare instance of a Ukrainian official providing such a count. The last dates back to late August, when the head of the armed forces said that nearly 9,000 military personnel had been killed. In June, Podolyak said that up to 200 soldiers were dying each day, in some of the most intense fighting and bloodshed this year.
Russia rejects pullout from Ukraine as condition for talks
Russia has rejected Western demands that it pulls out completely from Ukraine as part of any future talks to end the war, saying they effectively rule out any talks on settling the conflict.
apnews.com
Makes you wonder how long any military can sustain those sorts of losses. 500+ losses a day is a staggering amount.
In terms of pure numbers? Russia's leaders can look at that and go "fine" given the experience of World War 2 which was brutal for the USSR. But for the soldiers on the ground the combat effectiveness of a lot of units out there has to be greatly diminished. Especially the mobilised men who barely have good equipment and support.
Russians gonna run out of weapons long before they run out of bodies to sacrifice.
Mobiks are basically being used as cattle the higher leadership has no problem just sacrificing them for some useless gains like bakhmut.
Russia was losing something on the order of 5000 per day at one point in WWII. They probably think this is acceptable.
ISW analysis for 01 December 2022:
www.understandingwar.org
Institute for the Study of War
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko continued to set informational conditions to resist Russian pressure to enter the war against Ukraine by claiming that NATO is preparing to attack Belarus. Lukashenko blamed Ukraine and NATO for a growing number
This is a pretty different situation. That required a full on conscription and in some ways could be better sold because they were the defending army. I'm sure technically they won't run out of soldiers but it must be having a huge toll on the units left over both in terms of morale and effectiveness.
Then the question remains how you keep the population back home satisfied whilst the bodies keep piling up.
That's a pretty wild difference in claims. To go from almost 9k Ukr deaths in late August to even 13k 90ish days later is "only" 44 deaths per day. When Bakhmut has been the way that it is and Kherson was a meat grinder too? IIRC, the daily Ukr numbers on Russian losses are claimed deaths. So we're talking 10:1 or even *60:1* ratio [1k Ukr deaths in 90 days vs 650 Rus deaths in a day] of Ukr:Rus military deaths over the last few months? I mean. Not that it matters in any practical way, really. Numbers are numbers. But it does seem somewhat unrealistic.Such a waste of human potential. Hopefully Russia realizes it is not worth the costs they have paid and ends the war.
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A top adviser to Ukraine's president has cited military chiefs as saying 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the country's nine-month struggle against Russia's invasion, a rare comment on such figures and far below estimates of Ukrainian casualties from Western leaders...
Late Thursday, Mykhailo Podolyak, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relayed new figures about Ukrainian soldiers killed in battle, while noting that the number of injured troops was higher and civilian casualty counts were "significant."
"We have official figures from the general staff, we have official figures from the top command, and they amount to between 10,000 and 12,500-13,000 killed," Podolyak told Channel 24.
The Ukrainian military has not confirmed such figures and it was a rare instance of a Ukrainian official providing such a count. The last dates back to late August, when the head of the armed forces said that nearly 9,000 military personnel had been killed. In June, Podolyak said that up to 200 soldiers were dying each day, in some of the most intense fighting and bloodshed this year.
Russia rejects pullout from Ukraine as condition for talks
Russia has rejected Western demands that it pulls out completely from Ukraine as part of any future talks to end the war, saying they effectively rule out any talks on settling the conflict.
In addition to not being a defensive war against a genocidal invading force (i.e. something you can easily rally everybody against), there's plenty of other factors that are different too.
The USSR in 1941 (the eve of the invasion) was roughly 190 million people versus 143 million for Russia today, and it skewed quite young compared to their current demographics, meaning plenty of workers and people of fighting age. And they had all the resources and industry of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. And back then infantry just needed clothes, rifles and bullets to be basically on par with modern armies, and back then the USSR had a technologically state of the art armored force... etc. And back then, the USSR was an industrial powerhouse, second only to the United States. And the United States plus the western allies were supplying the USSR... etc etc.
I've also wondered about this for months now, but the big blob has always had the same size ever since they put it there in April. I don't think it's actively contested territory or anything.
I'm sure the casualty ratios are closer than that, Russian casualties are just more likely to translate to deaths than Ukrainian ones are.
While Russia can definitely Mobilize more men pure number wise, I think it is also important to realize that as a percentage of fielded soldiers, the daily casualties for the Russians percentage-of-force wise is actually higher than WW2 on average.
Soviet army in WW2 was 11+ million men, facing off against a German army of 4+ million. The Russian/Ukranian armies are basically 30x smaller in comparison. So, if you extrapolated the daily percentage of force loss to WW2 force numbers, the Russians are losing at a WW2 rate of ~15,000 men daily on average.
This war will literally be the highest casualty count percentage wise in over 100 years (I'd have to see how it compares to WWI). Add that to the catastrophic vehicle losses, and Russia is on track for one of the worst defeats in military history by far.
If they withdraw here, Ukraine should be able to repair the dam crossing with a temporary solution most likely. This would put a Dnipro crossing on the table sometime in the future.
I don't think that's entirely true. As soon as Russians abandoned the right bank, they gave Ukraine a massive artillery advantage overlooking the left bank since the left bank is the low lands and the right is the highlands. More or less immediately it turned any settlement 10 KM or so around the right bank into something that would be more of a no man's land as they would have fire control over any bridgehead Ukraine could establishes, but couldn't themselves resist the artillery to stay put. And we've seen a lot of Russians pulling back from the Hola Pristan, Oleshky, Nova Kakhovka, Kakhovka line because the occupation administration can't/won't stay in places where they are easily struck by Ukraine and there's no advantage to the Russian military being right on the river like that except tot try to attack the left bank which they can hit Kherson and the shoreline from further back.
It has been long talked about how 10 KM or so of the left bank just isn't sustainable for Russia to hold so closely. The Ukrainians don't really have a way to establish control over those places either and don't have good ways to get heavy equipment over the Dniper. Not to mention, most of those communities are heavily reliant on the right bank connections that are destroyed too. All that to say is there is a reason Henichesk suddenly became a place of command and retreat truly.
Now things in Zaporizhzhia? That I agree is extremely wishful thinking until we get some confirmation. Giving up Polohy without a fight would put most of the land bridge supply in serious jeopardy and put the UAF one step closer to Tokmak, which Russia cannot afford to lose. And especially around the ZNPP they'd lose the leverage, the position moving down river, ability to shell Dnipropetrovsk uncontested, etc. Losing both areas would essentially be the beginning of the end for Russian occupation along the land bridge with how much tactical position it would concede. I guess it's possible if the war aims are desperately changing towards Donetsk, but still improbable.
I don't consider leaving areas in the grey zone a "goodwill gesture"- so until UAF are on the L bank with Ukrainian flag and administration in the settlements, it's still de-facto under orc control, regardless of their physical military presence.
So i stick by my previous statement-- they aren't going anywhere in a meaningful way
Marin 100% gets it.
Who knew that Finland, a traditional neutral country would be all in with Ukraine and Freedom.
View: https://twitter.com/amandarivkin/status/1598750151484506125
Who knew that Finland, a traditional neutral country would be all in with Ukraine and Freedom.
View: https://twitter.com/amandarivkin/status/1598750151484506125
Russia forced them to be neutral. Given a chance to break free of this, Finland would be dumb not to take it.
Good point, I am admittaly not up to date on Finland's history with Russia. I will correct that.
Ironic that she complains about PESCO considering it was watered down from its original version because the US pressured countries since it feared loss of influence in europe and lost revenue for US defence companies
Need to save these people. Fuck Russia.
View: https://twitter.com/Belsat_Eng/status/1598752322246479872
View: https://twitter.com/Belsat_Eng/status/1598752322246479872
Finland was part of the Russian Empire during the 19th century but became independent during WW1. The 1940 Winter War was the USSR's failed attempt to force Finland back into the fold. Finland had to give up some important territory but was able to stay independent. When Germany invaded the USSR Finland joined in as a cobelligerent (rather than an ideological Nazi ally) because they saw it as an opportunity to get their stuff back. This was all taken into consideration following the end of the war.
In a nutshell Finland was allowed to stay independent after WW2 as long as they tried to be neutral towards the west and friendly towards the USSR. The Finnish government got really good at keeping the Soviets happy without having to actually do much. They basically had to do it to survive, but critics saw it as a form of professional fence sitting.
Now that Russia is neutered again the Finns don't have to keep pretending that they're friends.
Lmfao "Grandma needs to be an intelligence officer"
Evil
View: https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1598765384496185369?s=61&t=YpF4yvD19bOhaZWzoLVfhQ
Holy shit Grandma is a fucking hard ass.
"We don't have much time"
"I have a grenade and just gave you bombs. You will sit and eat."
I was wondering why they didn't introduce Scott Kelly as Senator Kelly, but then I learned that's his identical twin brother who was also an astronaut. Wild.
Oh my
No mercy with the headline.
View: https://twitter.com/cbsaustin/status/1598824193856098304?s=46&t=bP7nfKlcPs3uQiNsZvDB8Q
No mercy with the headline.
View: https://twitter.com/cbsaustin/status/1598824193856098304?s=46&t=bP7nfKlcPs3uQiNsZvDB8Q
It's funny but we should be very wary of all these grifters ala "winds of change" that claim to have inside sources.
Just find a few miles made up of mostly mobilized somewhere and just breach there. Doubt the Russians have a good layered defense over the entire landscape.
For post WW2:
Finlandization - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
History with Russia goes further back than WW2 though. Finland as a concept goes way back to 1300's at least, but was captured by Russians in 1800's and existed as an autonomous area:
Grand Duchy of Finland - Wikipedia
Not that I disagree with you exactly, but "finlandization" has been in the past since the mid-nineties, when Finland joined the EU. Not to say that that there's a clear cutting point, and we still have echoes of it today. Getting away from Russian influence has been a decades-long process. We actually had some public discourse on finlandization just months before the war in Ukraine happened. It finally feels like enough time has passed that people can now freely talk about it.
Finland was one of the first to send military aid to Ukraine, before Russia was in any way weakened. It's not because Finn's feel more free now that Russia currently has its pants down, it's because Finn's can strongly relate to their struggle. It has even brought some old trauma to people's minds. Some of the stuff that the Russians are doing today in Ukraine is similar to what happened in Finland, even down to events like Russia bombing civilians in a train station. This is all in living memory. My own grandpa was wounded in war, he was an invalid for the rest of his life.
Looks like kreminna is gonna fall soon. Ukrainian forces now have attacking axis from the north, west and south. Considering Ukrainian tactics so far they'll probably try to cut it off from Rubizhne before entering the city though.
I'm aware, I live here. But starting from the Great Wrath is a bit excessive when we're talking recent relations.
