Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Spitfire9]

Ukraine's F-16s are mainly used for air defense for now. Russia's meanwhile are primarily used for launching glide bombs and missiles.

That's what I hoped F-16 would be used for - glide bomb and missile strikes into the next door country. Unfortunately that's not what Mr Biden wants. He prefers over border strikes in just one direction!

 

[Rooxbar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843695836582293741

 

[Afif]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843695836582293741

Seriously? Petty thing to do for US & USN. But not unimaginable.

 

[Rooxbar]

Seriously? Petty thing to do for US & USN. But not unimaginable.

Don't know man, it's a mainstream Danish newspaper; I don't think they would make the whole thing up with the sailing and all that jazz.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Danes should be pretty pissed about the environmental aspect of nordstream being blown up.

 

[Soldier30]

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun said in a speech in parliament that the DPRK could send troops to Ukraine to support Russia. According to him, "Since Russia and North Korea have signed a mutual treaty similar to a military alliance, the possibility of such a deployment is very likely." In September 2023, Vladimir Putin met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the Vostochny Cosmodrome; the meeting lasted more than five hours. After that, Western media reported that North Korean citizens could be recruited to participate in military operations in Ukraine. Earlier, Volodymyr Zelensky also accused Pyongyang of supporting Russia. The Russian and North Korean sides deny this information.

 

[Samba]

Russia's average daily casualty count hit 1,271 in September, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said on Monday

At the moment Russia is gaining on the ground in Ukraine but losing a larger number of soldiers in the process. How many of the 35,000+ killed or wounded in September will recover to be able to fight again or work again is not indicated.

I highly doubt these numbers are real. If these were real, Russia would have lost over 600 thousand soldiers/men from the start of the invasion. Even if you are Russia, losing 600.00 men would shake things..

 

[Deliorman]

600 000 dead and wounded would shake the things up in a normal country/society but not in a place like Russia where human lives have never ever been of any value- even to the ones who lose their lives. I know how cynical, barbaric and anti- human a lot of the Russians are. The voices of the decent people who are left there are repressed and they don't matter.

Russia is a pretty big country and have always been a highly centralized system- there is Moscow and St. Petersburg where all the economic and political power is concentrated and where the elite lives. Then you have a bunch of big cities where the local elites work for the Central Government and all the rest of the population is second class. And after that you have the rural parts of Russia, the rust belt towns, the Ethnic non- Russian Republics where the Third class citizens and serfs live. These people there hold no political and economic power... they are just a bunch of poor, uneducated, vodka drinking serfs whose lives are worthless.
For Vasya who lives in a dirty old apartment built in Khruschov's time and already drinks a lot like his father, to go to the SMO in Ukraine is the only chance to make some decent money. Even if he dies his momma/wife will get a compensation that is more than they could save in 3 lifetimes. For Vadim who spent most of his life in prison the SMO is a chance to be free again- to steal, kill and rape and be honored for it... if he survives. And when these guys die even if there is someone to shed a tear for them- who can they ask for help? The medias, the local governor, the Army? Nobody will even give a shit about them...

 

[Spitfire9]

I highly doubt these numbers are real. If these were real, Russia would have lost over 600 thousand soldiers/men from the start of the invasion. Even if you are Russia, losing 600.00 men would shake things..

I don't know the exact number. Nobody does but I think that the UK MOD tries to provide accurate information in its assessments of what is happening in Ukraine.

Half a million casualties in the Russian army does not strike me as unrealistic. The tactics employed by Russian commanders do not show much concern for casualties suffered by their their soldiers.

Russia is shaking from loss of manpower. Economists all seem to agree that it is a serious problem for Russia economically. Analysts see Putin trying to avoid mobilising manpower from Russia itself (rather than other areas of the Russian Federation) for political reasons. If troop losses were not high, Russia would not need to recruit so many troops. As far as I can make out, many are not released from service after a fixed period of service but are retained because they are needed. There are many signs that Russian casualties are high.

 

[SilverMachine]

Yeah, those numbers are questionable. You've gotta factor in the propaganda value in all of this too, neither side's all that open with everything. Ukraine was touting they've captured 200 Russians in Kursk, skip forward to now and Ukraine's saying 177 Ukrainians have died in Russian custody, meaning if 177 *died*, Russia took a shitload more Ukrainians total than 200.

As for the Nordstream, yeah, kinda figured from the start it was the U.S. and/or UK. Didn't some German general or colonel basically suggest that indirectly not long after? Not outright admitting it but kinda inferring it and expressing it openly? Can't recall the specifics of that story.

Spitfire, you *really* don't want former-U.S.-fleet F-16s striking Russians inside Russia. It sounds great, but trust me, you don't want it to start rolling that ball, it leads nowhere good. Intercepting Rooskie incomings is one thing, cool, but there's good reason they don't want to take that further.

 

[FiReFTW]

I don't know the exact number. Nobody does but I think that the UK MOD tries to provide accurate information in its assessments of what is happening in Ukraine.

Half a million casualties in the Russian army does not strike me as unrealistic. The tactics employed by Russian commanders do not show much concern for casualties suffered by their their soldiers.

Russia is shaking from loss of manpower. Economists all seem to agree that it is a serious problem for Russia economically. Analysts see Putin trying to avoid mobilising manpower from Russia itself (rather than other areas of the Russian Federation) for political reasons. If troop losses were not high, Russia would not need to recruit so many troops. As far as I can make out, many are not released from service after a fixed period of service but are retained because they are needed. There are many signs that Russian casualties are high.

Russian sources claim 2000-3000 Ukrainian casualties daily, 3 times worse even than the numbers of Russian casualties claims, you believe that too?

You also believe Russia lost like 500 aircraft while the official number is nowhere near 100 even? Because Ukrainian sources claim that too.

I could name a ton of other claims on both sides that are just ridiculous.

Huge propaganda on both sides of the coin.

 

[SilverMachine]

Pretty much. There's no real transparancy in any war as it's going on, but these two actors Russia & Ukraine alike seem particularly guilty of it, this stuff's an art for each of these governments. They're not to be taken at face value, I just basically wait for the US/UK/German/French type assessments. Ukraine says "..." amount of Russians killed, Russia says "..." amount, it's probably exactly halfway between and they're both scheming liars.

 

[contricusc]

Spitfire, you *really* don't want former-U.S.-fleet F-16s striking Russians inside Russia. It sounds great, but trust me, you don't want it to start rolling that ball, it leads nowhere good. Intercepting Rooskie incomings is one thing, cool, but there's good reason they don't want to take that further.

Actually, we all want it to happen. All people who support Ukraine want to see strikes inside Russia with Western weapons. As for the consequences? We should deal with whatever Russia does, which would probably be nothing, as this is what they usually do when their red lines get crossed. And if they escalate in some way, the West should escalate further.

It is Russia who should fear the West, not the other way around. It is Russia who should try to de-escalate, because they are the weaker party in this conflict. Just like Israel dealt strongly with Hezbollah and escalated greatly, the West should deal in the same way with Russia. The problem is, the West has very weak and cowardly leaders right now.

If the West had the correct attitude regarding supporting Ukraine, Putin would have been suing for peace by now.

 

[SilverMachine]

No, see, *you* want it to happen, because you're seemingly blissfully unaware of how wars tend to spiral out of everyone's control. Russia's weaker than everyone estimated - yes - they're a paper-tiger to a certain extent as far as any conceivable "NATO V.S. Russia & Belarus" hypothetical. All true.

Thing is, they're still a nuclear power, they're all buddied-up with China more than ever before, and you'd better believe Russia's more than capable of spreading a whole lot of worldwide fuckery if inclined to. They're weaker than NATO. That also doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. Just because Putin's not insane enough to start setting off tactical nukes on his western frontier against Ukraine, doesn't mean that he (and his entire group of military poobahs and anyone who might seriously succeed him if something mysteriously happens to Putin) isn't just fine with taking everyone down with him if Russia's seriously on the back foot and looking to become western-Europe's bitch. There are levels to this.

"F-16's to Ukraine to help them out, we'll even personally train up your pilots on our dime & time?" Cool. Awesome. "Here, take some of *our* pilots on top of that, and here's the best way to set St Petersburg on fire" is *not* a precedent anyone wants to set. Not even just regarding Russia in a vacuum, but thinking bigger with China and future potential situations with say India or Pakistan etc either.

I get the tough talk, it feels good. Russia's in the wrong, let's personally smack them around a little bit. Puff out your chest, push the bully around some. Thing is, the reality's a whole lot more bleak than that, and while Putin's been bluffing/saber-rattling on the nuclear stuff to a certain extent, there *is* a line where nuclear powers, any nuclear power, are going to be all "fuck it, everyone dies, me, you, everyone". Escalation has its limits with enemies like this, even when morally justified.

 

[Spitfire9]

Spitfire, you *really* don't want former-U.S.-fleet F-16s striking Russians inside Russia. It sounds great, but trust me, you don't want it to start rolling that ball, it leads nowhere good. Intercepting Rooskie incomings is one thing, cool, but there's good reason they don't want to take that further.

I really do want Ukraine to take steps to strike inside Russia. IMO it is the most effective way to reduce the level of air launched strikes against Ukraine. There is no good reason not to do that. Russia accorded itself the privilege of cross border attacks into Ukraine. I see no good reason why such behaviour should be 'permitted' to Russia but forbidden to Ukraine.

I think that Ukraine should be

a) striking at air bases in Russia used to launch attacks on Ukraine
b) downing Russian military aircraft in Russian airspace before they can launch their weapons against Ukraine

Many countries backing Ukraine fully support Ukraine striking into Russia. If you think that America's judgement is superior to that of its allies, that is your view. I think that over the last 2 years events have repeatedly proved America's judgement to be mistaken and inadequate. Every time America has hampered Ukraine's ability to defend itself for fear of escalation - and has subsequently retreated from that position - no dire escalation has followed.

If Ukraine starts winning this war and Russia threatens to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, should Ukraine raise the white flag because great minds in America do not want to risk that happening?

 

[Soldier30]

An episode of high-speed mine clearance in Ukraine, a Russian T-72 tank, with a mine trawl of an unknown model. The T-72 tank cleared six mines, but then something went wrong, the crew abandoned the tank. The location of the filming is not reported.

 

[Soldier30]

Footage of an unknown model of Russian FPV drone striking a Ukrainian AMX-10RC wheeled tank, made in France, has been published. The AMX-10 RC reconnaissance armored vehicle is equipped with a 105 mm gun, and since its use in Ukraine was not very successful, the 37th Marine Brigade of Ukraine uses it as mobile artillery. As a result of the FPV drone attack, a fire started in the AMX-10 combat vehicle, which completely destroyed it.

 

[Woland]

There's a strong letter from a bipartisan group of US congressmen and senators to Biden arguing he should let Ukraine strike back and why - Here.

This in addition to NATO's Secretary-General Mark Rutte, a resolution by the European Parliament, pressure on the White House from the UK and France, and obviously from Ukraine, the Baltics, and many others to lift these restrictions. It remains to be seen whether they will be lifted after the election.

 

[contricusc]

I get the tough talk, it feels good. Russia's in the wrong, let's personally smack them around a little bit. Puff out your chest, push the bully around some. Thing is, the reality's a whole lot more bleak than that, and while Putin's been bluffing/saber-rattling on the nuclear stuff to a certain extent, there *is* a line where nuclear powers, any nuclear power, are going to be all "fuck it, everyone dies, me, you, everyone". Escalation has its limits with enemies like this, even when morally justified.

This kind of thinking is the definition of cowardice. Why should the West be afraid of what Russia might do, instead of letting Russia be afraid of what the West might do? In the end, Russia always has the option to withdraw from Ukraine and make peace.

Do you seriously think that Russia would choose nuclear war instead of retreat from Ukraine? Let them decide if they want to get completely annihilated instead of just leaving Ukraine and returning to their pre 2014 borders.

You can’t allow a nuclear armed state to act like a global terrorist just out of fear. They should be punished and put in their place.

 

[Spitfire9]

No, see, *you* want it to happen, because you're seemingly blissfully unaware of how wars tend to spiral out of everyone's control. Russia's weaker than everyone estimated - yes - they're a paper-tiger to a certain extent as far as any conceivable "NATO V.S. Russia & Belarus" hypothetical. All true.

Thing is, they're still a nuclear power, they're all buddied-up with China more than ever before, and you'd better believe Russia's more than capable of spreading a whole lot of worldwide fuckery if inclined to. They're weaker than NATO. That also doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. Just because Putin's not insane enough to start setting off tactical nukes on his western frontier against Ukraine, doesn't mean that he (and his entire group of military poobahs and anyone who might seriously succeed him if something mysteriously happens to Putin) isn't just fine with taking everyone down with him if Russia's seriously on the back foot and looking to become western-Europe's bitch. There are levels to this.

"F-16's to Ukraine to help them out, we'll even personally train up your pilots on our dime & time?" Cool. Awesome. "Here, take some of *our* pilots on top of that, and here's the best way to set St Petersburg on fire" is *not* a precedent anyone wants to set. Not even just regarding Russia in a vacuum, but thinking bigger with China and future potential situations with say India or Pakistan etc either.

I get the tough talk, it feels good. Russia's in the wrong, let's personally smack them around a little bit. Puff out your chest, push the bully around some. Thing is, the reality's a whole lot more bleak than that, and while Putin's been bluffing/saber-rattling on the nuclear stuff to a certain extent, there *is* a line where nuclear powers, any nuclear power, are going to be all "fuck it, everyone dies, me, you, everyone". Escalation has its limits with enemies like this, even when morally justified.

What tough talk? I am suggesting that Ukraine takes sensible military measures to reduce attacks on it from within Russia. If actively reducing aggression by Russia risks enraging Putin to the point that he will unleash nuclear weapons, that IMO is a risk that needs to be taken. The alternative is for every country attacked by Russia to resign itself to indefinite attack by Russia from Russian territory.