Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Ukraine defending Bakhmut(where the defenders usually have a 3-to-1 advantage) was causing Ukrainian losses of 1.4 to 1(where it should have been taking casualties of 1 to 3). We can logically assume that Ukraine attacking Russian defenders should have a casualty ratio of 4.2 to 1.
Now, if we take that assumption and compare it to Ukraine's marginal gains and the general pessimism coming out of even rabidly pro-Ukrainian sources, the only reasonable conclusion is that the counteroffensive has been lopsided in favor of Russia.
Is that number 2:1? 4.2:1? 10:1? It doesn't matter because Russia has 4x the population. So this constant insistence that Russia is being "attrited". That might be true in relation to the United States, but not Ukraine. The best outcome for Russia would be for Ukraine to keep their counteroffensive going to the last Ukrainian, and to have the west send more and more tanks for Russia to blow up.
Go watch Ukraine on Fire. Even George Soros admits that he and other western NGO's and the US state department were what created the 2014 coup. Not only was America heavily involved in that 2014 coup, that is exactly what America does all over the world. Do you have any idea how many coups the United States has already caused? Do you have any idea how many coups the United States attempts? It's all we ever do.
There was no US coup in Ukraine, there's no evidence for it. There wasn't even a coup at all, Yanukovich ran off to Russia, and his government collapsed. Nuland's recorded conversation was AFTER that fact, the discussion being her pick for who should be up next at bat. And yes, that did/does carry weight in Ukraine, but that's NOT THE SAME THING AS A COUP...except in your mind.
Reports are in from Ukraine that a missile attack killed 34 Russian Navy officers including the Admiral in command of the Black Sea Fleet.
And the first M-1 Abrams tank arrived in Ukraine today, many more to follow.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
1) That's why I read and post from multiple analysts, many who don't totally agree with each other.
2) Russian sources are just pure propaganda because if they weren't the journalist would get thrown out a window.
3) I don't think I have ever said in a post what the ratio of losses are between Russia and Ukraine unless it was an expressed opinion of an analyst.
4) Russia was attriting forces at a greater ratio than Ukraine...because...they were attacking.
5) Russia's approach is super costly by putting their defenses on the forward side of the defense lines.
6) Russia has more population and men than Ukraine, but what I don't hear you talk about and has been observed by countless analyst is given the size of the army in Ukraine only a handful of Russian units are capable of fighting.
1) You know, CNN doesn't always agree with MSNBC. What does that prove?
2) I don't just listen to anyone. I take my understanding of war, geopolitics, and economics and do my own analysis based on the objective facts(IE the information that passes my extreme skepticism). I'm always looking at the bigger picture. I knew what was going to happen in this war before it even started. My only hope was that the Ukrainians would come to their senses before they destroyed their country.
3) I tend to avoid claiming loss ratios as well. The only reason I made a somewhat emphatic claim was because I get tired of hearing you rant about Russian attrition. The claim was meant more to make a point than to be factual.
4) When there are equivalent forces, the defender has the advantage. The only time the attacker has the advantage is when he has far superior forces. In Bakhmut, Russian artillery outnumbered Ukrainian artillery something like 10-to-1. That 1.4 to 1 ratio is actually EXTREMELY low compared to what it should have been.
5) More costly, yes. Super costly, no. What's costly is Ukraine sending wave after wave of light infantry into Russian defenses.
6) I honestly have no idea how many troops Ukraine and Russia have. Nor do I have any clue how many units Russia has that are "capable of fighting". Nor do I care to know. As I've told you a hundred times before, war is a miscalculation. No one fights a war they know they're going to lose. You keep saying that Russia doesn't have enough troops. Does Russia think it doesn't have enough troops?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-25-2023 at 02:34 PM..
There was no US coup in Ukraine, there's no evidence for it. There wasn't even a coup at all, Yanukovich ran off to Russia, and his government collapsed. Nuland's recorded conversation was AFTER that fact, the discussion being her pick for who should be up next at bat. And yes, that did/does carry weight in Ukraine, but that's NOT THE SAME THING AS A COUP...except in your mind.
Reuters must know the future then because they wrote an article about the phone call on February 7th, 2014, two weeks before the coup.
The call happened on February 4th, 2014. Did you even listen to the ****ing phone call? They're literally talking about how the Europeans oppose the coup and want to wait instead for early elections. In which Victoria Nuland replies "F*** the EU".
Reports are in from Ukraine that a missile attack killed 34 Russian Navy officers including the Admiral in command of the Black Sea Fleet.
And the first M-1 Abrams tank arrived in Ukraine today, many more to follow.
I've been seeing photos of tanks pop up the last few days.
What I have't seen are the F-16s. I thought they were supposed to arrive in Sept.
I've read that Ukrainian fighter pilots have been training on F-16 simulators since before the invasion, and a number of them have been been off training for the last several months.
1) You know, CNN doesn't always agree with MSNBC. What does that prove?
2) I don't just listen to anyone. I take my understanding of war, geopolitics, and economics and do my own analysis based on the objective facts(IE the information that passes my extreme skepticism). I'm always looking at the bigger picture. I knew what was going to happen in this war before it even started. My only hope was that the Ukrainians would come to their senses before they destroyed their country.
3) I tend to avoid claiming loss ratios as well. The only reason I made a somewhat emphatic claim was because I get tired of hearing you rant about Russian attrition. The claim was meant more to make a point than to be factual.
4) When there are equivalent forces, the defender has the advantage. The only time the attacker has the advantage is when he has far superior forces. In Bakhmut, Russian artillery outnumbered Ukrainian artillery something like 10-to-1. That 1.4 to 1 ratio is actually EXTREMELY low compared to what it should have been.
5) More costly, yes. Super costly, no. What's costly is Ukraine sending wave after wave of light infantry into Russian defenses.
6) I honestly have no idea how many troops Ukraine and Russia have. Nor do I have any clue how many units Russia has that are "capable of fighting". Nor do I care to know. As I've told you a hundred times before, war is a miscalculation. No one fights a war they know they're going to lose. You keep saying that Russia doesn't have enough troops. Does Russia think it doesn't have enough troops?
There is a big difference in untrained troops and trained troops. How many trained troops does Russia have compared to untrained Mobiks.
The call happened on February 4th, 2014. Did you even listen to the ****ing phone call? They're literally talking about how the Europeans oppose the coup and want to wait instead for early elections. In which Victoria Nuland replies "F*** the EU".
Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Why do you people want to argue with me when I'm always right?
Hmm, you're always right lol! OMG, Nuland is talking about who should be QB, that's a coup! My 2 neighbors talk about the Bears like they own the team, so? Again, where's the proof that the US orchestrated the protests? Where, show us?
There is a big difference in untrained troops and trained troops. How many trained troops does Russia have compared to untrained Mobiks.
I agree, but you didn't answer my question.
You claim that Russia will run out of trained/untrained troops soon, and that Ukrainian troops will pour through Russian defenses. If you know this, does Russia? And if Russia knows this, why aren't they doing anything about it?
Do you think reading ISW reports makes you more informed than the Russian General Staff?
Here's a recent video from your boy Preston Stewart. The relevant part starts at 3 minutes. Watch to at least 4:15 and then tell me Russia is going to collapse any day now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
