If Russia invades Ukraine pt 2

Anyone know the true number of loses n both sides of this conflict?
Good luck getting any reliable information.
I got this from Newsweek.. The information is from Ukraine.. LOL.. How about an independent source.. Nah.. why would any US new source be into that?
www.newsweek.com

Russia losses in Ukraine pass new deadly milestone: Kyiv

Ukraine's armed forces have reported a spike in Russian losses in the war over the last two months.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

The number of Russian troop losses since the start of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has surpassed 150,000, according to Kyiv.
This is a joke right? Kyiv says? Huh? You might as well say the Japs and or Germans say in 1944.
Anyone have a nonUS, nonUkraine, nonRussian report link?
 
Yorktown said:
Anyone know the true number of loses n both sides of this conflict?
Good luck getting any reliable information.
I got this from Newsweek.. The information is from Ukraine.. LOL.. How about an independent source.. Nah.. why would any US new source be into that?
www.newsweek.com

Russia losses in Ukraine pass new deadly milestone: Kyiv

Ukraine's armed forces have reported a spike in Russian losses in the war over the last two months.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

The number of Russian troop losses since the start of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has surpassed 150,000, according to Kyiv.
This is a joke right? Kyiv says? Huh? You might as well say the Japs and or Germans say in 1944.
Anyone have a nonUS, nonUkraine, nonRussian report link?
Click to expand...
is al-Jezeera there ?
 
Yorktown said:
Anyone know the true number of loses n both sides of this conflict?
Good luck getting any reliable information.
I got this from Newsweek.. The information is from Ukraine.. LOL.. How about an independent source.. Nah.. why would any US new source be into that?
www.newsweek.com

Russia losses in Ukraine pass new deadly milestone: Kyiv

Ukraine's armed forces have reported a spike in Russian losses in the war over the last two months.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

The number of Russian troop losses since the start of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has surpassed 150,000, according to Kyiv.
This is a joke right? Kyiv says? Huh? You might as well say the Japs and or Germans say in 1944.
Anyone have a nonUS, nonUkraine, nonRussian report link?
Click to expand...
Why is it a joke?
 
lotr10 said:
Russian military doctrine does not accept that the limited use of battlefield nukes will lead to a full scale world wide nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Does Russia even have a military doctrine? Their military is not professional in the way that ours is. I mean their forces are certainly nothing to sneeze at or else this war would be long over. But that's always been my big fear about this conflict -- something happening accidentally.
 
jackson03 said:
Does Russia even have a military doctrine? Their military is not professional in the way that ours is. I mean their forces are certainly nothing to sneeze at or else this war would be long over. But that's always been my big fear about this conflict -- something happening accidentally.
Click to expand...

You mean like when a UKR AD missile accidentally landed in Poland? Then Zelensky decided to insist it was Russian and then demand NATO storm the Russian border?
 
jackson03 said:
Does Russia even have a military doctrine? Their military is not professional in the way that ours is. I mean their forces are certainly nothing to sneeze at or else this war would be long over. But that's always been my big fear about this conflict -- something happening accidentally.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. And it's a lot like the Soviet Unions was. It is well known that there are circumstances under which the Russians would use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. That they view the use of these weapons under certain circumstances as not likely to lead to a broader global nuclear conflict.

I would be surprised if the Russians didn't use nukes IN Ukraine if they were on the verge of a comprehensive conventional military defeat.
 
Cabe posted this over at the DeSantis/Trump thread but fits here as well:

thefederalist.com

Neocons Endorse Ron DeSantis’s Foreign Policy Prudence

It is difficult for me to think of a better endorsement for DeSantis’ foreign policy than being denounced by complete failures.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com

There is plenty of space for reasonable debate over how much to aid the Ukrainians, how much it is in our interest to bleed Russia of men and resources, and what costs and risks we are willing to run to achieve those ends. DeSantis did not foreclose that debate, nor declare that we should cut Ukraine off entirely.

But there will inevitably be a limit to how much we will do to help Ukraine, and Putin may be willing to outbid us in blood and treasure, given the enormous asymmetry of interest in this conflict. Russia will always care more about Ukraine than the United States will. Furthermore, China, our primary geopolitical rival, is aiding Russia, hoping it can drain us of resources and keep American focus on Europe.

It is therefore in our interest to work for a negotiated settlement, rather than prolonging the war. Indeed, after the failure of Russia’s initial campaign, it was inevitable that this war would end around a conference table.
 
lotr10 said:
Of course they do. And it's a lot like the Soviet Unions was. It is well known that there are circumstances under which the Russians would use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. That they view the use of these weapons under certain circumstances as not likely to lead to a broader global nuclear conflict.

I would be surprised if the Russians didn't use nukes IN Ukraine if they were on the verge of a comprehensive conventional military defeat.
Click to expand...
You mean like when they were being routed in Kharkiv?
 
Indiandad said:
You mean like when they were being routed in Kharkiv?
Click to expand...
No that was a major setback but far from a comprehensive conventional military defeat. I mean last I looked the Russians have recovered from that defeat and appear to have some momentum in moving forward in Ukraine.
 
jackson03 said:
Does Russia even have a military doctrine? Their military is not professional in the way that ours is. I mean their forces are certainly nothing to sneeze at or else this war would be long over. But that's always been my big fear about this conflict -- something happening accidentally.
Click to expand...
Perfect timing for this article. It does a good job laying out Russia's position on and capability in using battlefield nukes. Interesting point about how if the blast is airborne Russian troops could move through the area in a day:


While some argue that Putin will never use nuclear weapons, the Kremlin’s (2020) “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence” reveal how Moscow plans to use nuclear weapons far beyond just to deter existential threats. Putin’s repeated nuclear threats are in line with Russian policy. In the escalating crisis between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, Putin’s next move may be a low altitude air burst of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Today, Russia possesses at least 2,000 battlefield nuclear weapons of varying yields that are launched from delivery vehicles like the Iskander-M ballistic missile, which has seen its conventional version used in Ukraine. These battlefield nuclear weapons are designed to affect small areas and achieve discreet destruction on the battlefield. They are very different from the strategic nuclear weapons which inspire Hollywood Armageddon movies.
 
lotr10 said:
Perfect timing for this article. It does a good job laying out Russia's position on and capability in using battlefield nukes. Interesting point about how if the blast is airborne Russian troops could move through the area in a day:


While some argue that Putin will never use nuclear weapons, the Kremlin’s (2020) “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence” reveal how Moscow plans to use nuclear weapons far beyond just to deter existential threats. Putin’s repeated nuclear threats are in line with Russian policy. In the escalating crisis between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, Putin’s next move may be a low altitude air burst of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Today, Russia possesses at least 2,000 battlefield nuclear weapons of varying yields that are launched from delivery vehicles like the Iskander-M ballistic missile, which has seen its conventional version used in Ukraine. These battlefield nuclear weapons are designed to affect small areas and achieve discreet destruction on the battlefield. They are very different from the strategic nuclear weapons which inspire Hollywood Armageddon movies.
Click to expand...
When you control all news and health care of your soldiers, no one worries about a few extra zoomies. Remember the Russkie boneheads playing around in the red forest fallout zone downwind of Chernobyl ? If they were just some semi-literate farm rubes, they may never understand what they were exposed to, even if latent radiation sickness of some sort presents itself.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
China is leading the world it seems. What a cluster @#$%
Click to expand...
Our best hope is that China is hamstrung by their serious demographic crisis. Of course while they will see their population collapse in the coming decades we'll be watching our society drown in a woke cesspool of our own making.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
China is leading the world it seems. What a cluster @#$%
Click to expand...
It's like the Biden administration doesn't understand even the most basic elements of a foreign policy conducted in support of American interests. China & Russia joining up was never in our interests. In fact a competent foreign policy would be working tirelessly to keep those two at each others throats. I guess hating Putin and supporting Ukraine trump everything else.

BTW, check this out!

www.americanthinker.com

After billions in US aid (including a recent $1-billion pledge), South Africa is conducting joint military exercises with Russia and China

South Africa, alas, is not our friend. Despite decades of financial and moral support from the United States, South Africa is drifting into alignment with our rivals for global supremacy. Daniel Greenfield reports for Front...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

In November 2022, Climate Envoy John Kerry announced a giveaway of $1 billion in foreign aid to South Africa. The failed racist state which regularly suffers blackouts from its socialist power system was being offered billions to subsidize electric cars and green energy.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claimed that “President Ramaphosa and the South African Government have created a bold plan identifying a clear strategy for achieving South Africa’s most ambitious climate targets.”

In reward for that $1 billion and the billions in foreign aid dispensed over the years, South Africa is conducting joint military exercises with China and Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top