The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[StevoJH]

I don't think Russia planned an invasion and a war, it planned a SMO; like the bunch of traitors who planned a coup d'etat in Spain in 1936. It was just as good as the US after-the-Iraq-war planning.

Russia invaded the land of a Sovereign nation. It doesn't matter whether it was with 10 men with a dog and bottles of vodka, or 150,000+ troops in a horribly planned traffic jam stretching 50+km up the highway between Kyiv and Belarus.

In both cases they are an invasion, and in both cases cases they are an act of war.

Russia can call it whatever they want, in terms of international law and centuries of precedent, it is a war.

 

[deyhere]

Oh, you’re right. Really good point. US Lend-Lease to the USSR averaged about 1.4% of US GDP per year. Total US aid allocated to Ukraine averaged about 0.11% per year over 2022–2025. So the US devoted roughly 13 times as much of it's economy per year supporting the USSR as it did to Ukraine.

Unless, of course, part of your fairy tale is that sending less support somehow makes it more you fighting instead of the actual army.

Any other convenient definitions or arbitrary lines you’d like to add? I’m curious what you’ll come up with next.

this doesn't paint the real picture. while US lend lease to USSR were loans which USSR had to pay back, Ukraine mostly receive grants and direct transfers. US provided goods and materials worth $11.3 billion (equivalent to about $200 billion today) to the Soviets, so far the US has given Ukraine $131 billion and the EU has given Ukraine 231 billion Euros mostly for free.

the US didn't send men to man Soviet air defence systems or act as missile early warning to USSR. the US didn't plan any of the soviet offensive and defensive strategies against the Germans. the US role in lend lease was strictly supply of goods and material.

NATO is actively fighting Russia. who's manning the air defence systems and specialise equipment used in missile interception and drone, missile strikes into Russia? starlink? training air defence operators to be effective is not an easy task. who is planning offensive after offensive with up to date satellite data? does Ukraine operate any satellites? if you are providing target acquisition from satellites, then your fully involved in the war. put that together with sanctions, economic blockade, asset confiscation and seizure of oil tankers on the high sea, then you will come to the reality that this is a NATO war.

you will wake up from your fairy tale when there's no more money to send to Ukraine and you abandon Ukraine to the mercy of Russia like you always do to your puppets when they have exhausted their relevance

 

[swerve]

this doesn't paint the real picture. while US lend lease to USSR were loans which USSR had to pay back, Ukraine mostly receive grants and direct transfers. US provided goods and materials worth $11.3 billion (equivalent to about $200 billion today) to the Soviets, so far the US has given Ukraine $131 billion and the EU has given Ukraine 231 billion Euros mostly for free.

Most of the lend-lease aid to the USSR from the USA was never paid back. Anything used up or destroyed during the war was written off, e.g. about 9500 fighter & 3400 bomber aircraft, & a huge number of trucks. The USSR was only expected to pay for the stuff it kept after the war. In practice, it didn't pay back anything near the full value. It paid $48 million in 1972-74, & Russia paid $674 million between 1990 & 2006. That's less than 2% of the cost, allowing for inflation.

The UK never asked for payment for the many ships & their crews lost while delivering aid, e.g. almost 3000 Hurricanes & over 5000 tanks. RAF pilots flew Hurricanes to defend Murmansk from the Luftwaffe in 1941, until Soviet pilots & mechanics were trained on the Hurricane. UK & Commonwealth military aid was supplied free of charge. Civil aid was charged for, 40% in gold (the USSR sent some gold to the UK by ship in 1942, but it was sunk by a u-boat), the rest covered by a British government credit which AFAIK the USSR wasn't asked to repay.

So no, US aid to the USSR wasn't "loans which USSR had to pay back". Most of it was written off at the end of the war, & most of the rest was written off later.

 

[personaldesas]

NATO is actively fighting Russia.

Whatever makes you feel better about Russia’s battlefield performance, I guess. I’m tired of entertaining Solovyov’s talking points to soothe nationalist egos bruised by the failure to take Ukraine in three days. I’m leaving it here.

 

[rsemmes]

Small bands?

The entire army strength in Spanish Morocco, from the start. Took control of the territory almost immediately, leaving the rebel commanders there free to send as many of their men as they could transport to Spain to fight. That gave the rebels control of the largest army command, by far, from Day 1, with the best troops, & no local opposition, so it could be deployed wherever it was needed.

The proportion of the peninsula army they controlled after the first day or two is disputed, but with the troops from Africa they controlled well over half the total army, & most of the rest had been disorganised by the rebellion.

There were eight military districts in mainland Spain. In five, rebels more or less took control of the military command, or already ran it (e.g. Zaragoza) very quickly & were obeyed by most officers & men, so could quickly overpower any opposition. They were supported by many officers who weren't actively involved in the conspiracy, but joined it as soon as conspirators started issuing orders. Quite a lot of senior officers didn't actively take part in the rebellion, but knew about it in advance & did not oppose it. There were very many who refused to rebel, but once the rebels were in control in their area willingly joined them.

The coup failed.
The Army of Africa was in Africa.
No city in the mainland send any division (the plan, strong columns) towards Madrid.
Later, there was a war.

 

[rsemmes]

Russia invaded the land of a Sovereign nation. It doesn't matter whether it was with 10 men with a dog and bottles of vodka, or 150,000+ troops in a horribly planned traffic jam stretching 50+km up the highway between Kyiv and Belarus.

In both cases they are an invasion, and in both cases cases they are an act of war.

Russia can call it whatever they want, in terms of international law and centuries of precedent, it is a war.

An invasion yes, like when Iraq invaded Iran and we supported Iraq or like when the US invaded Iraq and we imposed sanctions on the US.

 

[deyhere]

Most of the lend-lease aid to the USSR from the USA was never paid back. Anything used up or destroyed during the war was written off, e.g. about 9500 fighter & 3400 bomber aircraft, & a huge number of trucks. The USSR was only expected to pay for the stuff it kept after the war. In practice, it didn't pay back anything near the full value. It paid $48 million in 1972-74, & Russia paid $674 million between 1990 & 2006. That's less than 2% of the cost, allowing for inflation.

The UK never asked for payment for the many ships & their crews lost while delivering aid, e.g. almost 3000 Hurricanes & over 5000 tanks. RAF pilots flew Hurricanes to defend Murmansk from the Luftwaffe in 1941, until Soviet pilots & mechanics were trained on the Hurricane. UK & Commonwealth military aid was supplied free of charge. Civil aid was charged for, 40% in gold (the USSR sent some gold to the UK by ship in 1942, but it was sunk by a u-boat), the rest covered by a British government credit which AFAIK the USSR wasn't asked to repay.

So no, US aid to the USSR wasn't "loans which USSR had to pay back". Most of it was written off at the end of the war, & most of the rest was written off later.

this makes perfect sense, they were all at war with Germany, they were all helping each other defeat a common enemy. is this the case with Ukraine? is NATO and Ukraine fighting to defeat a common enemy? you get the gist

 

[John Fedup]

this makes perfect sense, they were all at war with Germany, they were all helping each other defeat a common enemy. is this the case with Ukraine? is NATO and Ukraine fighting to defeat a common enemy? you get the gist

NATO is assisting Ukraine against Russia. China, NK, and Iran are assisting Russia against Ukraine. Only NK (as far as we know) is actually fighting Ukraine with the Russians.

 

[deyhere]

Whatever makes you feel better about Russia’s battlefield performance, I guess. I’m tired of entertaining Solovyov’s talking points to soothe nationalist egos bruised by the failure to take Ukraine in three days. I’m leaving it here.

good thing you have recovered from the Ukraine is winning fairy tale, now you have jumped on, Russia couldn't take it in 3 days fairy tale. 3 days or 10 years, it don't matter, as long as NATO and CIA remain in Ukraine Ukraine will remain a dysfunctional state till she will cease to exist

 

[Aleks.ov]

Whatever makes you feel better about Russia’s battlefield performance, I guess. I’m tired of entertaining Solovyov’s talking points to soothe nationalist egos bruised by the failure to take Ukraine in three days. I’m leaving it here.

The share of Lend-Lease several % of the USSR's GDP, and it did not replace the Soviet army, economy, and rear. The aid of Ukraine's allies today replaces for it 20% of GDP these are supplies of offensive and defensive weapons, money for maintaining the state (37% of the budget), intelligence data, satellite information, training, communications, and logistics. In other words, Ukraine is not capable of conducting full-scale combat operations without external aid, and the key role here belongs to NATO.

Ukraine in three days

You use as an argument a phrase initially belonging to the American military leadership (Mark Milley), which was then turned into a propaganda cliché by Western media.

 

[personaldesas]

The share of Lend-Lease several % of the USSR's GDP, and it did not replace the Soviet army, economy, and rear. The aid of Ukraine's allies today replaces for it 20% of GDP these are supplies of offensive and defensive weapons, money for maintaining the state (37% of the budget), intelligence data, satellite information, training, communications, and logistics. In other words, Ukraine is not capable of conducting full-scale combat operations without external aid, and the key role here belongs to NATO.

We're going in circles:

Are you saying I could provide identical aid and act identical in two scenarios, yet be merely supporting in one and actively fighting a war in the other, based on the recipients economy?

But please, give me the cutoff: what percentage of the recipient’s GDP turns their army’s campaign into mine? Below it I’m providing aid, above it I am in a war and doing the fighting.

You use as an argument a phrase initially belonging to the American military leadership (Mark Milley), which was then turned into a propaganda cliché by Western media.

Mark Milley looks different from what I remember:

 

[personaldesas]

An invasion yes, like when Iraq invaded Iran and we supported Iraq or like when the US invaded Iraq and we imposed sanctions on the US.

Always happy to reach for broad-brush historical whataboutisms, unless they involve Russia. Then suddenly we need to be very careful about context and differences.

 

[Aleks.ov]

Ukraine is the one being invaded and you keep expecting Ukraine to give up for the sake of peace. That might be how it was back in imperial days, but modern nationalism doesn't work that way. Practically all modern nations make it a core axiom that not one square centimeter of the motherland will be given up. Even if you manage to completely defeat the Ukrainian military, the situation will just devolve into endless guerilla war. It'll be like the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, except worse. You're the invader. You're the one who should pull back for the sake of peace.

In Russia, every third person has relatives in Ukraine, and the overwhelming majority of residents of the central and south-eastern regions, including Crimea, prefer Russian in everyday life. Could you not, to me as a resident of the Crimean peninsula, give an example of an “endless partisan war” in Crimea or in the south-east of Ukraine ?

The study "Russian Language Enjoying a Boost in Post-Soviet States," published by Gallup in August 2008.

https://ratinggroup.ua/files/ratinggroup/reg_files/ninth_municipal_survey_may_2024_ua_for_printing.pdf

% of those who report speaking Russian at home to some extent, 2024

Mariupol: (98% in 2017)
Severodonetsk: (96% in 2017)
Odessa: 92% (-3%)
Dnipro: 85% (-5%)
Kharkov: 84% (-12%)
Zaporozhye: 84% (-13%)
Nikolaev: 75% (-19%)
Chernigov: 55% (-26%)
Kiev: 54% (-15%)
Sumy: 47% (-33%)
Kropivnitsky: 42% (-29%)
Cherkassy: 37% (+3%)
Poltava: 35% (-9%)
Vinnitsa: 29% (-4%)
Chernovtsy: 28% (-3%)
Uzhgorod: 26% (+10%)
Zhitomir: 22% (-20%)
Khmelnitsky: 12% (-6%)
Ivano-Frankovsk: 6% (+2%)
Lvov: 5% (-5%)
Lutsk: 4% (-4%)
Rovno: 4% (-7%)
Ternopol: 4% (+2%)

 

[personaldesas]

good thing you have recovered from the Ukraine is winning fairy tale, now you have jumped on, Russia couldn't take it in 3 days fairy tale. 3 days or 10 years, it don't matter, as long as NATO and CIA remain in Ukraine Ukraine will remain a dysfunctional state till she will cease to exist

Okay, buddy, whatever.

 

[personaldesas]

Igor Girkin on the opposition’s victory in Serbia. He seems quite frustrated with Russia not doing a good job trying to influence foreign governments. E.g. Serbia who according to him sold weapons to Ukraine.

It's worth a read, it's funny.

President Vučić was yet another “lame horse” that Moscow decided to bet on. So much money was squandered on him, and so often a blind eye was turned to all his switching back and forth. Meanwhile, Serbia regularly and profitably sold weapons, especially ammunition, to Ukraine, which was fighting against us.

And the result is the same as usual: as with Venezuela, Libya and Syria, so now with Serbia. And with Hungary too, incidentally.

What is there to be surprised about? Nothing. The enemy is stronger than us financially. The enemy is stronger than us economically. And unfortunately, the enemy is stronger than us intellectually too, by a considerable margin.

Under these conditions, it is hardly surprising that we keep betting on “lame horses” that always finish last. Or that we lose the enormous sums we invest in them, and end up with embittered opponents in every country to which we previously granted concessions and loans.

To attract more promising figures and stronger allies, we need to be strong, smart and successful ourselves.

Unfortunately, none of those descriptions applies to the Russian Federation under the brilliant leadership of its current leaders.

 

[swerve]

this makes perfect sense, they were all at war with Germany, they were all helping each other defeat a common enemy. is this the case with Ukraine? is NATO and Ukraine fighting to defeat a common enemy? you get the gist

But it proves that you were wrong on a major & easily checked matter.

And, of course, under Putin Russia is an enemy of NATO. Russian officials & media say so, publicly & often. Russia has chosen to make NATO its enemy. It threatens to attack NATO members. And it does more.

Note that it's Russia's choice, not NATO's.

 

[KipPotapych]

Vitaly has been bringing it to the next level for a few weeks now. For example:

 

[KipPotapych]

His analysis of the recently updated Ukrainian losses from the UALosses as well:

Thread by @M0nstas on Thread Reader App

@M0nstas: Ukrainian losses, update from the @UALosses data. My own count from their public map files. Records of Ukrainian soldiers killed (KIA), missing (MIA) and captured (POW), by year of loss: - 2022: 35.0k - 202...…

threadreaderapp.com

Or on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2115579545172509150

 

[deyhere]

But it proves that you were wrong on a major & easily checked matter.

And, of course, under Putin Russia is an enemy of NATO. Russian officials & media say so, publicly & often. Russia has chosen to make NATO its enemy. It threatens to attack NATO members. And it does more.

Note that it's Russia's choice, not NATO's.

No, it proves you wrong, now you agree that Russia is fighting all of NATO put together. NATO regime change habit has to stop, next time NATO will think twice before they regime change another Russian friendly government