The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Vivendi]

NATO membership, together with membership in other organisations, are part of an overall move to integrate countries closer to the West in order to benefit from military, political, economic and social benefits.

I don't understand why you seem to put so much emphasis on "other benefits" when it's very clear and also documented that the main motivation for Eastern European countries to joining NATO was very simple: they feared Russia and wanted protection. This was by far the most important reason for joining NATO. All other factors pale in comparison to that single one factor. I suggest you read the following (if you find the text too long, please read the last sentence, I highlighted it in bold).

Baltic leaders recognized that because of the relative weakness of Russia and the high-water mark moment of American power, they were granted an unusual degree of political maneuvering. They acted without hesitation, before Moscow clawed its way back into a stronger position.

As they began elbowing their way through international politics, formidable hurdles lay ahead. In the summer of 1992, when the United States sent its first military advisory “contact team” to Latvia, an unconventional scene could be observed in the art nouveau streets of Riga: uniformed Americans and Russians passed each other daily. In the early 1990s, all three Baltic republics still hosted thousands of former Red Army troops, together with various Soviet-era military installations ranging from a nuclear submarine training facility in Estonia to a massive anti-ballistic missile radar in Latvia. This Soviet-era carcass was the key issue hanging over the newly-freed Baltics. Moscow wanted to hold on to its strategic bases until 2002. The Baltics vehemently objected.

Severely lacking in diplomatic representation abroad, Baltic policymakers would use every opportunity to argue their case internationally. When in 1992 world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss environmental politics and sign the Kyoto Protocol, Baltic representatives used the venue to “hunt down” European heads of state in order to sway them on the importance of getting the Soviet troops out. The Clinton administration played an instrumental role in mediating and accelerating this official divorce. In retrospect, this was a crucial inflection point which, if unresolved, could have taken the Baltics in a different strategic direction. According to long-time Estonian diplomat Jüri Luik, keeping Russian troops on Baltic soil was Moscow’s “strongest card to play” if it were to destabilize this region. Even a minimal Russian presence for a longer time, in his view, would have ended Baltic dreams of a transatlantic alliance.

NATO as the ultimate strategic objective had been weighing on the minds of Baltic statesman as soon as independence was achieved. Officially, however, the desire to move towards this goal was played down in order not to jeopardize ongoing Russian troop withdrawal. In 1995, with the Russian army finally gone, it was now also on their lips. Already, the Lithuanian President had unconventionally applied for alliance membership via an open letter. It became clear, however, that the Baltic states movement towards the transatlantic alliance would not be possible through individual efforts. As a former Latvian ambassador to the United States explained, “It was very clear to us in Washington that if one country pursued something and wanted to get Congress to approve it, they wouldn’t get it unless all three agreed.” In pursuit of the principal geopolitical goal, the Baltics banded together.

But at the time, it was palpable that these nations were not yet ready to assume full member status. Early on there were a number of stumbles, diplomatic embarrassments, and instances of mistrust in the U.S.-Baltic relationship. In one such mishap, the Latvian Defense Minister had shocked the U.S. side with his desire to acquire from the United States thousands of F-16 fighter jets. It later turned out that what he had in mind was M-16 rifles.

According to Strobe Talbott, a key figure in the Clinton administration, when it was clear that the Baltics were not going to be among the first wave of NATO invitees, the Estonian president started to show up in various cities where the negotiations were taking place and stalked Talbott just to make sure he understood that there would be consequences if his country were to be ‘sold out’ as during the 1945 Yalta Conference. A senior Estonian representative summarizes those years as full of “ups and downs of false expectations, false perceptions, and political nightmares.”

Yet, despite initial setbacks, the Baltics plunged into the membership process enthusiastically and with an ironclad conviction regarding their Western orientation. In 1997, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dangled unilateral Russian security guarantees in exchange for giving up on the Baltics’ NATO hopes, the offer was promptly rejected. Gravitating back into the Russian sphere of influence was deemed intolerable. Instead, the Baltic consensus was to be fully cemented into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. Simply put, NATO was viewed as an existential necessity.

The Breakaways: A Retrospective on the Baltic Road to NATO - War on the Rocks

Fifteen years ago, NATO opened its doors to the Baltic states. In the United States this momentous historical decision is commonly framed either as one of

warontherocks.com

 

[STURM]

I don't understasd why you seem to put so much emphasis on "other benefits" when it's very clear and also documented that the main motivation for Eastern European countries to joining NATO was very simple: they feared Russia and wanted protection. This was by far the most important reason for joining NATO.

I'll repeat again what i wrote previously so you'll be able to understand the point I was aiming at. Self explanatory.

"NATO membership, together with membership in other organisations, are part of an overall move to integrate countries closer to the West in order to benefit from military, political, economic and social benefits"

Also your claim that they wanted membership because they knew and understood how the Russians think is simplistic and not entirely true because different countries joined at different periods when the geo political/stategic situation varied. Contrary to your assertion in the 1990's Russia was not seen by all as the threat is now beause it was weak and bogged down with domestic issues. This is not to say that there was no concern about it or about what it would do in the future but it's slightly different to the narrative you're stating. Also how Russia was viewed really depends on the countries; some because of geography or history felt more threatened or insecure than others.
The geo poltical/strategic environment was very different then.

 

[Vivendi]

Also your claim that they wanted membership because they knew and understood how the Russians think is simplistic and not entirely true because different countries joined at different periods when the geo political/stategic situation varied. Contrary to your assertion in the 1990's Russia was not seen by all as the threat is now beause it was weak and bogged down with domestic issues. This is not to say that there was no concern about it or about what it would do in the future but it's slightly different to the narrative you're stating. Also how Russia was viewed really depends on the countries; some because of geography or history felt more threatened or insecure than others.
The geo poltical/strategic environment was very different then.

I did not say that Russia necessarily was considered an imminent threat (although some may have considered it as such). Many countries in the East realized of course that Russia was weak at the time, however the fear was that Russia would rebuild, become strong, and try to rebuild the empire. The main reason why most Eastern European countries joined NATO was because of Russia.

Here is Poland:

Poland's NATO accession in 1999 was meant to provide protection from Russia. Two decades on, a fear of its eastern neighbor remains a decisive factor in Polish politics, especially when it comes to bolstering US ties.
[...]
Out of fear of its eastern neighbor, the country has been strongly oriented towards the West since the fall of communism in 1989.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Poland's accession to NATO became a strategic goal — one that was met with widespread support.

After 20 years in NATO, Poland still eager to please | Europe | News and current affairs from around the continent | DW | 11.03.2019

I have documented that for 4 Eastern European countries the main reason for joining NATO was a future threat from Russia. Can you please document that some Eastern European countries had another "main reason" for joining NATO, not related to Russia? Or did you try to say something else?

 

[STURM]

however the fear was that Russia would rebuild, become strong, and try to rebuild the empire.

I would not use 'empire''. I would say that the fear was that a resurgent Russia would attempt to again seek a high level of influence in those countries [like was the case during the Soviet Union] and those countries would become vassals of Russia or incapable of adopting a truly independent foreign policy. Some countries of course have a more turbulent past with Russia [Poland and the Baltics] compared to others [Romania and Bulgaria].

It was inevitable Russia would emerge stronger and get more assertive in standing up for its interests compared to the 19909's when it was weak and consumed with domestic issues ; it is a power in its own right and I would argue that a stronger Russia is far more desirable than a weaker one in the long run because; amongst other things it is a nuclear power. I would also like to stress again that it would be wishful thinking to think that Putin would be replaced by a liberal democratic Western [Russia is European but it's of course not'' Western] loving leader eager to adopt Western rules of governance, norms and values and to ensure that Russia ''behaved''.

I have documented that for 4 Eastern European countries the main reason for joining NATO was a future threat from Russia. Can you please document that some Eastern European countries had another "main reason" for joining NATO, not related to Russia? Or did you try to say something else?

I'll say it again - ''This is not to say that there was no concern about it or about what it would do in the future but it's slightly different to the narrative you're stating. Also how Russia was viewed really depends on the countries; some because of geography or history felt more threatened or insecure than others.''

I did not say Russia was not a reason; can't have been due to threats from Togo or Mongolia could it now? I also clearly stated that depending on the timeframe and other factors; some Warsaw Pact countries were in a more of rush or saw an immediate or greater need for NATO membership compared to others during the same period.....

 

[OPSSG]

Let me say these 3 points for the last time — before applying sanctions to those who continue to derail the thread. This guidance is not directed at anyone in particular. Rather, it’s intended to serve as a tool for self reflection — so play nice.

One, keep on discussions topic — Russia, Ukraine, and NATO — in particular, the military tactics and mis-steps dimension. Please focus on explaining to improve education of other members reading the thread, by providing links, if appropriate.

Two, don’t let your own ego get in the way of learning from others; especially on their area of expertise.

Three, don’t argue in an unnecessary or rude manner — it detracts from content or point being made by the person posting. Substance in posts matters.

 

[John Fedup]

Apparently the Ukrainian forces may have retrieved an abandoned Krasukha-4 EW system. As the article mentions, might be a valuable intelligence find if information on it can be relayed to NATO experts.

Ukraine Just Captured Part Of One Of Russia's Most Capable Electronic Warfare Systems

Russia's lost Krasukha-4 electronic warfare system command module would be a prize for foreign intelligence agencies.

www.thedrive.com

 

[CumbrianRover]

Fascinating thread, really great discussions happening.

Re the re-militarisation of Russia it's been at least a decade in the making.

Having lived in Latvia and worked at the Parliament, the economic attacks on Latvia in 2013 had officials worried.

The constant provocations of Russian Latvians to unrest along with pro-Russian Latvian MEPs caused unrest.

The Latvians have not always helped themselves, mind.

The strong unease I felt when watching the 18th November military parades when I saw so many Russian names in the ranks has been alleviated having seen the malleting handed out to RAF, albeit not many of my former Russian Latvian students have registered any protest against the invasion.

Just some thoughts on this great thread.

 

[STURM]

This is worth watching. Has a various speakers who talk about the military, economic and political aspects.

One speaker reminds us that the key to understanding Russian military science is taking a deep look at Russian military history and that the Russians have long accepted that wars might be won mainly at the strategic rather than tactical.or operational level. Interestingly he makes the point that how the Russians are currently performing isn't necessarily an indication of whether the West would perform better in some future war.

Another speaker points out that ties with Belarus only underwent a significant change following the mass demonstrations in the country not too long ago. Prior to that Belarus was against the annexation of the Crimea and refused to have any Russian troops on its soil. The Russia/China relationship and its limits are also discussed. In February a joint statement spoke of common interests and further economic cooperation but hardly any security cooperation was mentioned.

 

[CumbrianRover]

I would not use 'empire''. I would say that the fear was that a resurgent Russia would attempt to again seek a high level of influence in those countries [like was the case during the Soviet Union] and those countries would become vassals of Russia or incapable of adopting a truly independent foreign policy. Some countries of course have a more turbulent past with Russia [Poland and the Baltics] compared to others [Romania and Bulgaria].

It was inevitable Russia would emerge stronger and get more assertive in standing up for its interests compared to the 19909's when it was weak and consumed with domestic issues ; it is a power in its own right and I would argue that a stronger Russia is far more desirable than a weaker one in the long run because; amongst other things it is a nuclear power. I would also like to stress again that it would be wishful thinking to think that Putin would be replaced by a liberal democratic Western [Russia is European but it's of course not'' Western] loving leader eager to adopt Western rules of governance, norms and values and to ensure that Russia ''behaved''.



I'll say it again - ''This is not to say that there was no concern about it or about what it would do in the future but it's slightly different to the narrative you're stating. Also how Russia was viewed really depends on the countries; some because of geography or history felt more threatened or insecure than others.''

I did not say Russia was not a reason; can't have been due to threats from Togo or Mongolia could it now? I also clearly stated that depending on the timeframe and other factors; some Warsaw Pact countries were in a more of rush or saw an immediate or greater need for NATO membership compared to others during the same period.....

There are so many issues with you post.

Mainly political in content to start.

Russia seeks to be a great power in its own right but great powers do not threaten other State actors with nuclear weapon strikes; indeed, not sure any NATO country would threaten any nBC attack on another country.

However, Russia wages conflict on her neighbours and further abroad by the use of biological and chemical attacks on the soil of non-combatants against perceived threats.

That is an unstable mind, that has entered into conflict with a neutral country that presented as wishing to improve the lives of her citizens. All of Russia's actions are indefensible.

Now, we come to an unstable mind that has invaded a country and yet this... epic... of military might can not support logistics in even a shallow depth.

Ukrainian forces are on the attack and the RAF are suffering because of logistics issues - an unstable mind is going to have issues with reality.

Why is there so little reporting of these issues? And no comment on here.

The Ukrainian Russian war could go out of control very quickly given the gloating when units with history are wiped out: 331 Guards Airborne.

Dangerous times.

Missing in detail is any attention to Kaliningrad... and a strong Russian force positioned near the Suwalki gap, albeit, they might have the same logistical issues, this conflict has potential ramifications for the entire continent.

 

[Jed Fischer]

I have following this guy channel for some time. I found him talking quite logically and try to look on both sides. Off course when I put the link of this guy channel in here, there will be some members that going to say he is not independent, and he is bias on Russian position.

For that I'm not going to talk about his opinion in here, but more some of the points he make on the war in the ground, which he take also from western media like Financial Times.

1. There are no denying that Russia occur heavy losses. How many of them it is pointless to debate as numbers from Ukraine, Russian and Western sources differ significantly and no way to verified them. However many in Western media or offcials avoid to talk on how many the Ukrainian man power and assets that already losses.

Indication from even some western analyst shown the Ukrainian losses actually already reach similar level then Russian or oven more. Which is bad, because their assets is much smaller then the Russian. Which bring to second point,

2. The Russian targeting Ukraine fuel depo, transport infrastructure, and more importantly their heavy industries and armament production facilities. Means basically any losses endured by Ukraine are irreplaceable. This is again not a good sign for a war of attrition that happen now. Which then goes to third point,

3. The main target of Russian is not cities but Ukraine army. Especially Ukraine Joint Force Operation in the east on Donentsk and Luhansk (Donbas). This is their most powerful army units and they are in the open area.

I used to reads many Western media talking Russia is lossing the war, they haven't take many Ukraine major cities. However even if we see the map from French Defense twitter (I have put it yesterday), it is clear the main Russian movement is in the East and South and their movement is to focus on encircling large area in Donbas. Why they are doing it ? Because that's where major Ukrainian army (this JFO) located. Losing that Army for Ukraine in my opinion can be equivant to Confederates lossing Lee's Army of Virginia. Which bring to the fourth point,

4. Is the arms that West supplying to Ukraine can replaces or replenish their losses ? Ukraine is actually one of Global top ten Arms exporter. They are self sufficient because they produce most of their own equipment especially for their Army.

So will some ATGM or Manpads missile or S300 missile that US try to bring, can replace Ukraine own productions ?

I have my own conclusions base on those points above. I don't want to debate much on this, however for me getting to questions why West (in here especially US) want to achieve with Total Economic Sanctions to Russia ? Asside West bring their own foot in the ground, air, and sea facing Russia, what can West actually can help Ukraine in the ground ?

I don't want to debate his own political point of view, or his opinion. I know some members in here does not like him. However there is one question that he has a point. If West try to bring down Putin regime with very harsh economic sanctions, when ever it has been work before ?

Cuba, Venezuella, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar all the economic sanctions so far only strengthen the regime. Whether the sanctions also harden most population to support the regime can be debateable. However if Putin manage to bring most of the Russian on their Nationalistic side because of the sanctions (and many regime do that), or even some of them disgruntled, will that be enough to bring Political instabilities ?

As a citizen from a country where two bad economics condition bring down two dictators before. I can said, yes a bad economy can bring down a dictactor. However I always said Indonesian actually lucky, cause our two dictators both have enough statesmanship that they are wiling to go down in order for avoiding potential civil war. Both are resigning even actually they're still have substantial support from part of populations.

However most totalitarian regime in this world are not like that. Also Indonesian economic crisis that bring down both dictactors not the results on economic sanctions, which can make situation different as the dictactors can blame the hardships on the sanctions.

So will West keep preping up Zelensky if the situations in the ground getting harder? Tell him to keep fighthing, in hoping to push regime change in Moscow ?

He makes one fatal omission. That the USSR had a reputation for arresting the economical progress and wealth of nations. The USA has done no such thing to nations within it's sphere of influence. This says that the nations adjacent to Russia have every reason to want to align themselves with the west for a better future. in a theoretical sense this means free press, democratic rights, free trade, wider economic relationships and a more liberal existence. The west isn't a perfect place to be, we all know that but it has to be better than what Russia has.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Apparently the Ukrainian forces may have retrieved an abandoned Krasukha-4 EW system. As the article mentions, might be a valuable intelligence find if information on it can be relayed to NATO experts.

Ukraine Just Captured Part Of One Of Russia's Most Capable Electronic Warfare Systems

Russia's lost Krasukha-4 electronic warfare system command module would be a prize for foreign intelligence agencies.

www.thedrive.com

I just dont understand why they did not guard/protect this vehicle better, or at least destroyed it completely from the air. I think this has a more severe impact (a Russian advanced mobile EW center getting into the hands of Ukraine/NATO) than all those Stingers, NLAWs and Javelins confiscated by Russia.
Btw, is this the same vehicle of post #1935 from Twain?



This article shows that its actually 100% sure that the Project 22160 Vasily Bykov wasn't destroyed and sunk by the Ukrainian armed forces.

'Gezonken' Russisch marineschip vaart nog

Vasily Bykov gefotografeerd

marineschepen.nl

 

[OPSSG]

Part 1 of 2: Good grief, Russia — some casual comments

1. At least 21 paratroopers from the VDV's 331st Airborne Regiment, including its commander, have been killed in Ukraine. If I was a conscript in the Russian Army, I will surrender the 1st chance I get. They are getting frost bite. Their vehicles or sleeping tents have a thermal signature. Fuel and ammo resupply is not certain. In contrast, Ukrainians will fight to the death over random buildings and city blocks that Russians have never heard of.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506774971749584898

2. UAV spots thermal signatures, artillery follows. The choice is frost bite or get hit by artillery. Ukrainian forces are counterattacking Russian troops near Kyiv and have likely retaken the towns of Makariv & Moschun near capital, according to British Defense Intel.

3. Good grief.

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506747798636662786

(a) In the past, certain Russian diplomats said Russia would never invade Ukraine. They are the ones now most certain only they know how to end this ‘war’ as the Ukrainians call it (or ‘special military operation’ as the Russians call it). Their past idiocy is no guide to future stupidity. Nutty Russian negotiators are asking that Ukraine to reduce its army to 50,000 (a fifth of its current size).​

​

(b) "This means that Russia must be humiliated, limited, shaken, divided and destroyed," Medvedev wrote, saying if Americans succeed in that objective, "here is the result: the largest nuclear power with an unstable political regime, weak leadership, a collapsed economy and the maximum number of nuclear warheads aimed at targets in the US and Europe." Dmitry Medvedev was president from 2008 to 2012 and is now deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council.​

4. I used to respect the Russian Army. After 4 weeks, they are just providers of lessons learnt video clips — the Russian conscript shows you what not to do.

 

[John Fedup]

I just dont understand why they did not guard/protect this vehicle better, or at least destroyed it completely from the air. I think this has a more severe impact (a Russian advanced mobile EW center getting into the hands of Ukraine/NATO) than all those Stingers, NLAWs and Javelins confiscated by Russia.
Btw, is this the same vehicle of post #1935 from Twain?



This article shows that its actually 100% sure that the Project 22160 Vasily Bykov wasn't destroyed and sunk by the Ukrainian armed forces.

'Gezonken' Russisch marineschip vaart nog

Vasily Bykov gefotografeerd

marineschepen.nl

Very difficult to ascertain why stuff is happening in Ukraine wrt valued military assets. Heat of battle, bad maintenance/support or personnel morale, take your pick.

 

[Borealis]

1. At least 21 paratroopers from the VDV's 331st Airborne Regiment, including its commander, have been killed in Ukraine. If I was a conscript in the Russian Army, I will surrender the 1st chance I get. They are getting frost bite. Their vehicles or sleeping tents have a thermal signature. Fuel and ammo resupply is not certain. In contrast, Ukrainians will fight to the death over random buildings and city blocks that Russians have never heard of.

Where are you getting this information from?

 

[OPSSG]

Part 2 of 2: Good grief, Russia — some casual comments

Where are you getting this information from?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506777574084595717

5. Rob Lee has provided a link on VDV's 331st Airborne Regiment deaths; and he also says, “… losses among Russian battalion, regiment, and brigade commanders might be an even bigger issue than the losses of generals. It is really difficult to replace these losses, which sometimes includes the staff.” Therefore, logical for me to conclude morale is a problem, in some instances.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506200306975223810

6. A guide on how surrenders can be conducted.

7. Both BBC and CNN report that the United States has seen indications that some Russian soldiers have gotten frostbite in Ukraine because they lack the appropriate cold-weather gear, according to a senior US defense official.

 

[T.C.P]

7. Both BBC and CNN report that the United States has seen indications that some Russian soldiers have gotten frostbite in Ukraine because they lack the appropriate cold-weather gear, according to a senior US defense official.

How do Russian's get frost bites?? I mean if there is any nation that should be prepared to handle cold it should be the Russians. If your winters last for over 4 months and it goes bbelow 0 degree ceclius for over 3 months, then you as a people should have enough resources to handle cold. Food problems, clean water supplies I get it. But how does a nation like Russia not have enough gloves or coats. Like the civilian market alone for that type of gear should be huge over there.

 

[OPSSG]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502753367206109184

The Russians have lost a lot of their most elite troops in missions that lacked coherence — in part because their intelligence was wrong. The Ukrainians did not just surrender but pushed back hard. The air assault to seize Hostomel airport did not go well when Ukrainian armour arrived.

How do Russian's get frost bites?? I mean if there is any nation that should be prepared to handle cold it should be the Russians. If your winters last for over 4 months and it goes below 0 degree ceclius for over 3 months, then you as a people should have enough resources to handle cold.

It’s so hard to believe, I had to check multiple news reports to make sure it is not a mistake — both CNN and BBC carry this news. In the field, if a solider gets wet and does not get a chance to change out into dry uniforms, it is easy to get frost bite. There might be other legitimate or less-legitimate reasons but I prefer not to speculate.

Food problems, clean water supplies I get it. But how does a nation like Russia not have enough gloves or coats. Like the civilian market alone for that type of gear should be huge over there.

We have seen videos of Russian soldiers stealing food, they must have some logistics problems on some of their axis of advance; but I continue to believe the Russians will learn from the encounters with the Ukrainian forces and we will see a shift in their tactics.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506739391254962184

For some strange reason, Russian radio comms are not encrypted and we can hear them in the clear, talking about frost bite, lack of ammo, air support and so on.

 

[STURM]

Like the civilian market alone for that type of gear should be huge over there.

Well, we know that they expected a short war and based on this assumption planned accordingly. Planning however was based on an assumption which was highly flawed..

Michael Kaufman mentions units not having more than 3 days supplies and corruption being an issue.

For me personally, notwithstanding the less than impressive performance of the Russian military i feel it's still early days to form any firm conclusions about its overall.effectiveness given that due to.political reasons; highly flawed decisions were taken which led to the Russians entering combat unprepared and not organised and equipped the way they normally would have been as part of doctrine.

In a previous post I posted a video in which one of the speakers [I believe ex military] said something I find interesting; that based on Russia's overall poor performance so far; we should not assume that anyone else would do better in a future war against a different adversary.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union the Russians have never waged war on this scale and magnitude; against a country of this size and at the same time having a military handicapped because of decisions made by the political leadership. Whilst it's interesting to look at and analyse the various cockups the Russians have made; I'm also interested in seeing what they've got right and steps taken to rectify things.

 

[Borealis]

Part 2 of 2: Good grief, Russia — some casual comments

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506777574084595717

5. Rob Lee has provided a link on VDV's 331st Airborne Regiment deaths; and he also says, “… losses among Russian battalion, regiment, and brigade commanders might be an even bigger issue than the losses of generals. It is really difficult to replace these losses, which sometimes includes the staff.” Therefore, logical for me to conclude morale is a problem, in some instances.

I am still not seeing any actual real proof from all the sources here and elsewhere being followed. We have footage of armor being blown up on the Russian side, but not necessarily the personnel with it.
Last week Western media stated Russian loss figure was at 7000, then a day ago it was at 20k, and now they are reporting 40k losses. Getting a bit ridiculous.
The same sources pushing video game footage, Ghost of Kiev, Snake island, and Instagram models protecting cities nonsense are feeding this info into the wild...
From actual Russian military sources on the front lines, most of the losses and wounds are coming from artillery shelling. There arent many being wounded by bullets - of course its not the case everywhere. Also not counting the armor hits and crew deaths.
The point is there is an astounding misinformation campaign coming from the Ukrainian side because they and the West control the narrative. If we were to believe the things that came from Ukrainian/Western side then the Russians never made it past Donbass region and all ran out of diesel on the highway.

 

[Twain]

I am still not seeing any actual real proof from all the sources here and elsewhere being followed. We have footage of armor being blown up on the Russian side, but not necessarily the personnel with it.
Last week Western media stated Russian loss figure was at 7000, then a day ago it was at 20k, and now they are reporting 40k losses. Getting a bit ridiculous.
The same sources pushing video game footage, Ghost of Kiev, Snake island, and Instagram models protecting cities nonsense are feeding this info into the wild...
From actual Russian military sources on the front lines, most of the losses and wounds are coming from artillery shelling. There arent many being wounded by bullets - of course its not the case everywhere. Also not counting the armor hits and crew deaths.
The point is there is an astounding misinformation campaign coming from the Ukrainian side because they and the West control the narrative. If we were to believe the things that came from Ukrainian/Western side then the Russians never made it past Donbass region and all ran out of diesel on the highway.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506453063267241994

Russia has gotten nearly nothing right in terms of supplies, logistics, training etc. adding this to the list would not surprise me at all.

it could get very ugly for the RA in the next few weeks and I don't see their supply situation getting any better. They have lost at least 15% of their trucks and soon they will start losing more just due to wear and tear.