Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, renewed a call on Monday for Russia to provide more ammunition to his forces who are fighting for control of the Donbas city of Bakhmut.
Prigozhin made the comments in a video on his Telegram channel that was recorded while he was inspecting rifles in a warehouse. He said his forces need at least 300 tonnes of artillery ammunition each day.
“Three hundred tonnes a day is 10 cargo containers — not a lot at all … But we are being given no more than a third of that,” he said. Prigozhin has been critical of Russia’s military leadership and has said his mercenary force isn’t receiving enough support.
The battle for Bakhmut has been raging for over eight months. The Wagner Group and regular Russian forces now control the majority of the city, but Ukrainian forces are still holding out and control some western portions.
Military situation in Bakhmut on May 1, 2023 (SouthFront.org)
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to give up Bakhmut, and Ukrainian soldiers have been sent into the battle with very little training and ammunition. Zelensky previously said if he lost Bakhmut, he would be put under domestic and international pressure to “compromise” with Russia.
Ukraine is expected to launch a counteroffensive soon that will likely be focused in the south, on the land bridge Russia controls to Crimea. According to Pentagon documents allegedly leaked by Jack Teixeira, the US doesn’t expect Ukraine to make significant gains.
Not tired of soap opera yet? Prigozin said this or that. Just something mexia can chew over.
Reality is in the map as shown above. Russian forces are moving on two broad fronts on each side of Bakhmut. Optics are important to Zelenski. And Russia is obliging. And while endless reserves were pulled into defending city snd its last few blocks, it is clear just how mych Bakhmut became a worthless spot. Why defend it while letting Russia move past it?
Not much is making sense, It will eventually become clear.
Russia controls roads and railroads around Bakhmut also known as Artemovsk. It appears to be a trap left open just enough for Ukrainian reinforcements.
Not sure how true his statement is. But Putin better not be playing Stalinesk tactics of the winter war of conserving arms for a larger war. The PR would be disastrous.
Ukraine forces are fighting as if they were the Russians at Stalingrad. The only difference is that in Stalingrad, it was the Germans who were exhausted and whose supply lines were attacked. Are the Ukrainian generals unaware their supply lines depend on NATO and NATO itself is an exhausted bag of putrid wind? At what point will they realize their National Socialist coup leaders have been taken to the cleaners by the collective west?
That tour sure has the feel to me of a little domestic “propoganda” to tell the people in the plants that their contribution to the war effort is important.
We do similar things in the west.
When is that Ukraine offensive going to start?
It keeps getting pushed back almost as if they know their bluster isn’t substitute for success and all that will result from it will be talk/spin and losing more territory that might get quite large if they totally collapse at the front.
Not until the mud season is over.
Excuses excuses….don’t you get tired of being lied to?
No I know about the difficulties sending tanks and other vehicles through the Ukrainian mud, and I follow the weather in Ukraine.
Those tanks they keep saying they don’t nearly have enough can’t get through the mud. This whole thing rides on those?
Last Spring they gave the same excuse for why they kept pushing it back which soon morphed into excuses why they weren’t successful.
We now know yhrough the leaks that the Ukrainian rate of death far outpaces Russia’s. We also know the West believes if they actually get it going they won’t be succeful.
I know the MSM is ignoring those leaks and keep telling you lies but honestly you need to realize this Spring offensive is just going to send a bunch of poorly trained conscripts to their death with no results.
Yes the whole thing rides on tanks being able to move across the fields, otherwise the Ukrainians will fail like the Russians did in 2022 – it is really fairly simple – when there is mud any offensive has to follow the roads or run out of supplies – following the roads means that it is easy to predict and oppose.
last spring it was the Russians who were on the offensive and they paid very dearly for having to stay road bound.
No we do not – the casualty figures had clearly been ‘edited’ so we know that we do not know.
I’m not reading the MSM – and even the Russians know that the Ukrainians have at least 60.000 troops returning from NATO training well equipped and fresh for this offensive – have you not been following the Russian bloggers?
They gave that excuse last year and when it finally started it was a failure.
The west has already shared in those leaks it will be more of the same this time too.
Ukraines collapse will be rapid when it happens and even the guys on Judge Napolitano’s are starting to postulate it won’t be much over 30 days.
After all Ukraine is already complaining they are out of stuff and they need that with even better systems to succeed with this big push.
Not the voice of confindence is that?
The Russians? If so then that would indicate that they had a good idea as to why they failed – the Ukrainians had no chance of carrying out more of an offensive than they did in August/September last year – achieving what they did was quite astounding given that they had very few tanks and only Russian models at the time.
What leaks? The west has AFAIK not shared any leaks let alone given credence to the leaks documents spread by by Jack Teixeira? Even these which are not confirmed by ‘the west’ are not claiming what you seem to believe.
https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/read-leaked-secret-intelligence-documents-ukraine-vladimir-putin-1794656.html
So when is it going to happen – are you claiming that it will be inside the next 30 days??? Otherwise claiming that when they collapse it is going to be fast is just absurd if you have no idea when that collapse is going to happen or if it is indeed going to happen.
That is the voice of the Russians on the frontline too – or have you forgotten this – it is almost always the voices of the people on the frontlines.
No credence?
Do you live under a rock or perhaps you have to claim that to make the rest of your “analysis” work.
You seem to believe, unlike most, everything the liars in DC are telling you.
No the actual western sources do not give credence to the loss figures you think they do – you wrote:
Whereas the current belief is:
So 180,000 + 43,000 = 223,000 Russian casualties against only 131,000 Ukrainian casualties – and that in an article about the Teixeira leaks:
https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/read-leaked-secret-intelligence-documents-ukraine-vladimir-putin-1794656.html
Again the leaked documents are not being given any credence the west! Indeed if you had seen the copied documents you too would have noticed that the casualty figures were edited very clumsily in them – you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that I believe in the western reported figures – that is a false conclusion – I merely tell you that the western sources do not lend credence to the leaked documents on casualties.
If you believe Newsweek of all places is credible and doesn’t just regugitate whatever is fed to it by their government sources then we know why you believe such complete nonsence.
If those leaks were false then why is he in so much trouble?
Are you going to link to a NYT’s story next or perhaps a NPR link?
The point is not that I believe Newsweek, but that the west does not lend credence to the idea that the leaked documents show higher Ukrainian than Russian losses – how is it that you do not see this???
The leaks were not false but the figures for estimated losses those you site, were obviously altered – and as Newsweek showed quite the opposite was in the non altered versions. The point I probably need to stress for you, is not that I believe the figures (I do not) but that they are not lending credence to idea that Ukrainian losses are higher than Russian ones.
And there is nothing wrong in linking to a NYT’s story next or NPR – if the point being debated is what is believed in the western media – you were claiming that the west was lending credence to the leaked papers and hence the notion that Ukrainian losses are higher than Russian ones – which western media clearly does not.
Correction: The numbers from the version that Newsweek claims is non-altered. Who knows which version is the right one? Certainly not you. I’d go for the ‘wild’ ‘uncontrolled leak’ with the figures the State Dept doesn’t want you to see over the ‘controlled’ ‘official’ leak to an ‘independent’ journalist vetted as ‘reliable’ by the State Dept.
The numbers that are quoted which tells a Russian friendly version are obviously altered and everyone who have looked at the documents agree so, the numbers that Newsweek and others report are supposedly just the ones that US intelligence have estimated – I do not trust either version, the point I’m making is that western media does not back up or lend credence to the figures that fits the Russian narrative.
Was it not clear that I do not believe in any version of the numbers???
Stop taking people for idiots, it does not work. Russian artillery outnumbers Ukrainian artillery 9-to-1 (this number comes from the Pentagon). This means that most Ukrainian casualties occur before their soldiers ever see a single Russian soldier. Most famously, a video by Preghozin, the head of Wagner, published 48 hours ago, complaining about how a 70% drop in artillery support causes a five fold casualty increase among his troops. KIA Wagners for that day was 93, compared to an average of 20 per day when artillery support is adequate. These statistics would also hold true for Ukrainians, who suffer from a near-total lack of artillery support. In March, a Ukrainian officer in Bakhmut estimated the life expectancy of the average Ukrainian grunt to somewhere between 4 to 6 hours.
In late February, there were 80,000 Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut. They have not retreated, and they are not there anymore. All that we know is that the number of Ukrainian casualties is a state secret, which means that even the State Dept cannot officially say which of the numbers are right. We also know from multiple video evidence that Ukrainian cemeteries are overflowing. The only shown evidence shown of Russian casualties is an addition to the Soledar cemetery with less than 2,000 tombs of Wagner soldiers.
A study of cemeteries in the Russian Federation by the BBC, show an estimated KIA count of around 20,000 for Russian soldiers. This number matches the numbers the Pentagon _claims_ to have been doctored. A lack of artillery support does mean more losses, up to at least a 5(foçld increase, so a ratio of 20,000 over 100,000 sounds a lot more plausible than a ration of “we don’t know, but aplenty” over “we won’t tell”.
I have not contested this.
Again not a point I have contested.
Not seen that source, nor do I believe that the Ukrainians would hold on to Bakhmut if they were suffering disproportionate casualties – because I do not take people for idiots.
But very many have been rotated in and out of Bakhmut – is this news to you?
Again nota point I have contested, actually a point I have repeatedly been trying to make, the same holds true for the Russian casualties btw.
There are a substantial amount of additional evidence for Russian casualties, but I doubt that they will make much impression on you – anyway you seem to be arguing with someone who have been trying to claim that there are few Ukrainian casualties – I’m not that person.
The number that is doctored is a US estimate, and not an independent truth, so whatever the truth may be Pentagon is more likely to know what their estimates were than you or I, and for the record those estimates may be very far from the truth – you seem to believe that the leaked papers were some version of the truth – they were not, they were documents of what the US believes is happening, not what is actually happening.
For the points you contest:
– From Newsweek, which you consider as the fountain of Truth: “Bakhmut Life Expectancy Near Four Hours On Frontlines, Fighter Warns” dated,Feb, 20th, 2023.
-From Mediazona/BBC (which can’t really be called a Russian mouthpiece) : “Russian casualties in Ukraine”. There is a regularly updated infographics, down one page or so. As of today it counts 19,688 Russian KIAs between Feb 24th, 2022 and April 7th, 2023, from obituary and cemetery data. Notice how this number matches the correct estimate by the Pentagon, and which is a state secret in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government needs the Ukrainian population to believe they are inflicting heavy casualties on the Russians, otherwise Zelensky and his cohorts would be lynched. In Feb 2022, the Ukrainian military had over 200,000 troops in Donbass, hundreds of tanks, a couple thousands APCs, and plenty of artillery. Today, according to them, they lack armor, tanks, ammunition and especially men, even after mobilizing one million men. Where are they? Since they cannot have been abducted by UFOs, and it’s also impossible that they’ve all deserted, they must be either resting 6 feet under, or rotting in a field somewhere in Donbass. There is plenty of evidence of forsests of yellow and blue flags in cemeteries across Ukraine, and also plenty of evidence of badly decomposed bodies of Ukrainian uniforms left behind by their comrades in fields. There are many channels on Telegram where soldiers on both sides regularly post footage from the frontline.
It is a source for what western media thinks – I do not read it, so I can’t speak to how true they are in general. You know that you can provide links rather than search hints?
Have you read their methodology? Just asking because their figures are based on confirmed death reports form social media, and cannot even according to themselves be taken as anything but a very lowest estimate of the actual losses.
Nonsense they may want to tell this story to get more support from the west but people in Ukraine are willing to fight because of the lacjk of a palatable alternative provided by the Russians – have you even seen what the Ukrainians can see on RT about their potential future at Russian mercy?
They need to say that they need troops and equipment to get more – the same song is being song by Prigozhin and others on the Russian side – you do not see me claiming that this means that all the 300.000 Russians have been lost.
Sure as are then the Russian forces – use a bit of critical thinking – if the Ukrainians were losing men at this rate they would have run out of trained soldiers several times already – and then why are the Russians not advancing?
Only your evidence stacks up very poorly when you then have to explain why the Russians are still struggling to take even Bakhmut. If you fins a way to explain how the Ukrainians manage to lose so many of their best troops at a faster rate thane they can train new ones and still manage to fight the Russians to a standstill then come back and we may have an issue to debate.
Russians are not struggling to take Bakhmut. As explained last November by general Gerasimov, the battle of Bakhmut is a meat-grinder, in which the goal of the Russian forces is to eliminate as many Ukrainian soldiers as possible while limiting Russian losses. Taking territory is not their primary objective. Ukrainians fed the meat-grinder with 80,000 bodies, and that took a while for the 20,000 men of Wagner to process.
Sure, I just do not believe this, Putin had asked for the entire Donetsk to be taken – the notion that the Russians are just stretching out this to allow the Ukrainians to decide how long it is going to take the Russians to end the war is just too absurd.
Prigizhin has pretty much shown that this is not how he sees things developing – nor does it agree with what Putin and others have said.
The Russians are taking their time. As a result, the kill ration if between 5:1 and 8:1 in their favor. As the numbers in the original, uncontrolled Pentagon leak indicate.
Sure if you believe the figures that are clearly manipulated, in conflict with the text and in conflict with the fact that the Russians hardly making any progress while supposedly inflicting losses on the Ukrainians that even the Russians would find unsustainable.
Those were intelligence documents that were to inform our military of what was going on and were true. Just because you read something the usual suspects in the media report that claim the intelligence was not true does not mean what you read is anything more than lies.
If you believe the leaked intelligence was a lie intended to lie to our military leaders than you will believe anything.
My gawd you are nuts if you believe the leaks were lies just because the media told you.
“Those were intelligence documents that were to inform our military of what was going on and were true.”
None, one, two, or three of those three claims (what the documents were, what they were meant to do, and whether they were true or false) may be correct.
Sure, I know some believe not all is what we are being told about those documents, however to claim they were not true, that what is contained in them did not share the West’s intelligence community views that contradicts what the American public is/was being told as the gentlemen I was replying to is claiming is complete balderdash.
Surely you are not jumping on board with his claim they were not a true representation of what was believed at the time those were generated and shared? To make that sort of claim kind of contradicts a lot of journalism wexread here based off those documents. Besides how do you overtake a city without killing more of them than how many of yours dies? Reuters is sharing Wagnor is withdrawing to be replaced with regular Russian troops (occupation force perhaps?) so it looks like they killed way more of them than they and it’s over.
I suspect the documents are genuine. It’s not a given, but it seems likely.
As to their purpose — “to inform our military of what was going on” — that’s not always the purpose of classified documents. Often they are generated to justify political decisions, tell upper management what it wants to hear, etc.
Because their purpose is not necessarily “to inform our military of what was going on,” and because intelligence operators do make mistakes, it’s not safe to assume that everything in them is true.
Sure, that is always true but we were discussing this paticular situation and I was trying to point out to the guy the Ukrainian death rate is greater than Russia’s. Those leaks while in a paticular case of obvious screwing with by someone do share that Russia is not suffering similar losses and add to that recent testimony by a 4 star that Russia’s military is not degrading.
If Reuters reporting is true and Wagner is planning a withdrawal to be replaced by regulars then it is obvious they killed way more in that grind of a war over there which does bolster the reporting on those leaks about who is killing who in larger numbers
Your problem with doing that, is that the documents do actually not claim that, at least not according to western sources – and you claim was that the western sources supported this line, they do not.
Are you actually claiming the Ukrainians are withdrawing from their territory while maintaining parity in regards to casualties?
They are slowly losing territory and are not suffering greater losses while doing so?
That you believe that is occurring despite all the reporting in various journals that share those leaks do not agree with your views?
Sure, let’s go with Ukrainians are losing territory because they run.
They are cowards. Pure Chicken Schiffs.
It certainly can’t be because they are dying at a higher rate than the Russians.
No, I’m claiming not to know they may do different things depending on the value of the territory they give up and depending on the alternatives – it is simply not for me to know.
Again this is not for outside observers to know – there have been cases of defenders giving up territory taking fewer casualties and taking more – it usually depends more on other factors than relative casualty rates.
See you here assume that I believe something, that I have not indicated that I do – debating gets difficult when you read other things into what I write than what I actually write.
they could be losing territory because they cannot supply their troops sufficiently – most withdraws have been working our based on what could be delivered and the that of encirclement – I can only think of one military fighting in the very inflexible way you seem to think they shoud.
It is very unlikely to be on account of relative casualty rates.
The mercanaries are being replaced with regular troops. Please explain how that is the Russians losing the city in your view.
You keep claiming this is some sort of a loss for the Russians, so please explain how being replaced by other troops is a loss.
I hope I did not write that the Russians are losing Bakhmut – what I wrote was that I’m leaning towards the notion that the (Ukrainians) are losing it.
No what I wrote was that Prigozhin is saying that he will withdraw his troops because the lack of supplies leads to them taking unnecessarily high losses – this is not relative to Ukrainian losses but to what he thinks is acceptable.
You just want to nitpick on minor points of your analysis instead of the more important story of who is winning and why.
The guy is withdrawing to be replaced by regular troops.
The western press is portreying in the manner you want to believe namely it’s a cut-and-run but that does not align with his being replaced no matter what you want to believe.
90% is taken and fresh troops are coming in…..
But believe whatever nonsence you want ……
No I simply point out that the sources we have do not support any confidence that one side is losing far more troops than the other – I do not read western media for how it is going, simply because I do not trust their figures for Russian losses. So you are the one here who believes a story you think you are being told, not me.
You still are claiming a replacement of troops in a city 90% held is a sign the Russians are losing.
Want to explain why Russia is sending in the regulars as Wagner withdraws?
You claim this is all a sign Wagner is losing so why the new troops?
No I’m not that the Russians are rotating forces in Bakhmut is not sign that they are losing, otherwise that the Ukrainians have been doing the same several times would be evidence that they were losing. As I stated earlier, which you again seem to have forgotten, I’m leaning towards the notion that Russia may take what little of Bakhmut they have not already taken.
If they do, it could be for any number of reasons:
1) The Wagner forces could have been rendered combat ineffective
2) Putin and or others may not want Prigozhin to get the honor of finally taking Bakhmut
3) Prigozhin may have overplayed his hand trying to force more supplies to Wagner and is being replaced
4) prigozhin is just telling the truth and he has forced the hand of the army to replace Wagner
Where did I make this claim – it may be the case, but I have not made that claim, what I have said is that Prigozhin has made the claim that they were taking unnecessarily high losses – but that was not me claiming this, but him.
Those are good speculations.
Here are few of mine;
The replacements could be there to occupy and mop up the recalcitrant final 10%.
Perhaps this was the plan all along.
Perhaps they used the current ones to do the heavy lifting?
Or perhaps this is the importation of a different ethnicity to get really ugly on a different ethnicity similar to how the Chinese break their protests?
Who knows?
But the Russian press shares if they do withdraw they will be replaced which is the most important aspect amidst everyone’s guesses in my little “stump-stupid” opinion.
This is hardly ever done however – replacing the winning troops by new ones just before the final victory is seen as an insult to the ones who actually won the battle. I would not normally expect even the Russians of being this bad, but it might just fit with what Prigozhin is claiming i.e. that the others are deliberately trying to deny him the victory.
As stated if it was it would have been a very bad plan – that is if they want other units to be prepared to fight hard.
That is what Prigozhin is proposing i.e. Wagner has done all the hard work now the others want to steal the glory – a bit surprised that you would think the Russians are this poor at motivating their troops.
Do we know the ethnic mix of the troops supposed to replace Wagner? – do we know the ethnic mix of Wagner?
I’m not sure anyone expected or expects that the Russians would retreat from Bakhmut – so even when Prigozhin threatened to withdraw Wagner the first time the talk was about who would replace them, not giving up Bakhmut.
Replacement is not retreat.
You really are missing the forest because of your focus on some tree.
That is what I wrote – glad you almost picked up on it.
That has my point from the beginning.
I’m just glad you seem to be on that side of things instead of the speculation this foretells a turning of the war or something.
Wasn’t that what you were sharing as a possiblity earlier?
After all if the guy was truly cutting and running I’m pretty sure there’d be a consequence involved that might not be so swell for him.
No I was never claiming that Wagner pulling out was indicative of anything beyond that they were not winning massively and taking far fewer casualties than the Ukrainians – but now knowing how you think battles are won, I can see why you would/could read it like that.
What he is doing is not cutting and running, these are far too simplistic terms to use for something as complex as the war we have here. He is threatening to pull out because:
1) He is not getting the kind of supplies that are the norm only 30% the last long while and only 10% now.
2) He believes that supplies are available but being held back or delivered to other units
3) He believes that this is on purpose and not to serve some greater military goal that he is not informed about.
I actually believe that he is more or less right – there may be logistical problems which explains some of the issues however. That he has sound reasons may not prevent it from being unhealthy for him personally to pull out.
You’ve devoted all this time to argue about that? The guy’s personality is what you really was all so worked up about?
We weren’t arguing the significance of the pull out but what that guy was really thinking?
Ok whatever….lol
I spend a few minutes answering your rather uninformed questions/comments.
Oh, the Russians certainly aren’t giving up on Bakhmut, and they’ll almost certainly eventually take it. Maybe even soon. I mean, they’ve only been trying to for what, nine months?
On the other hand, this isn’t being pitched by anyone as a routine relief of Wagner by regular forces. It could just be one of Prigozhin’s usual temper tantrums, or his force really may be exhausted, at the end of its ability to successfully operate, and in need of replacement. And if the latter, that may be intentional. Someone up the food chain may want Wagner out of the picture.
I just rememered his losses quote.
He also shared if he got what he needed 100% he could finish in 5(?) days or something equally ridiculous.
I’m kind of leaning towards the guy embellishing a few things …
Who Prigozhin? If so remember that it is most often the role of the commanders at or near the front to present things in the light that will secure them the best priorities for doing what they are tasked to do.
Wagner in that city is being replaced by different troops and you are still hung up on that guy and what he’s saying in the press.
No I’m not as I clearly indicated there could be several reasons other than the one Prigozin gives – do you even read what I write?
I’m going by your original disagreement with me not all the ways you keep agreeing.
Did you not postulate that the withdrawel was a sign of the fighting not going well at the beginning of this thread?
No I only claimed that pulling out was not indicative of the Russians taking far fewer casualties than the Ukrainians – in my view any such decision (pull out or stay) is far from always connected to relative casualty figures, and even in the few cases where it is, the relative ability to absorb such casualties is more important than the absolute figures.
Thus the Allies in WWII were happy to lose more planes sinking one submarine (Uboat) simply because they could better absorb the losses – the Russians were happy get the Germans to fight in cities in the early parts of WWII where they would still often be taking more casualties than the Germans, simply because the exchange rate was much closer to even than when fighting the Germans in open country – again because they could better replace the losses.
Then the side with more resources, Russia, is in a much better position to win this which has been my view through out this thread despite your want to argue about the significance of a pullout and replacement of Wagner in city 90% taken.
I only argue this because you think the larger force will always win – that is not always the case – china have lost a lot of wars it was according to you supposed to win.
That 90% of Bakmut is taken does not necessarily mean that the last 10% will be taken – remember Stalingrad?
The Russians are likely to prevail if:
1) they are willing to lose millions of men – many of us doubt this.
2) they are willing to fight to be poorer, more isolated and less powerful – some of us doubt this.
3) they are able to supply and sustain the troop numbers in the field to achieve victory – many of us doubt this.
But sure to you it is a forgone conclusion – that is why the US won in Vietnam and the Soviets and the US won in Afghanistan and….
Taking 90% is indicative of heavier losses for one-side but it sure isn’t Russia unless the Ukrainians cut-and-run a lot despite killing more Russians in their various battles.
Just how does one lose ground while killing more than you lose?
Cowardice?
Incompetence?
There really are not good answers but perhaps you have a believable one?
Where do you get the 90% figure from and what part of evacuating forces when an encirclement is threatened (or supplies cannot be continued) do you not understand?
How about being close to being encircled or not getting enough supplies for keeping up the fight much longer (this was the reason that the Russians withdrew from Kherson – or are you claiming that they were cowards????
Supply problems is the most frequent reason, an other could be that a much better exchange rate could be had from other positions – what simplistic world is it you inhabit?
The Germans were killing more Russians in Stalingrad in late 1942 – but any wise German would have withdrawn from that position by November – they did not so…
So are you claim that the Russians were cowards for withdrawing from Kherson?
“Just how does one lose ground while killing more than you lose?”
Allied casualties at Normandy on D-Day: 10,000+
German casualties at Normandy on D-Day: Accountings vary from 4,000 to 9,000.
Question: Which force gained ground and which ground lost it?
Ceteris paribus, troops on the offensive take more casualties than troops on the defensive.
Really?
Are you actually postulating the Ukrainians are actually are at parity or even killing more Russians but have lost territory while doing so?
That you’ve found a few exceptions to what I shared does not disprove this instance but is just a literary technique of which I can also find other battles in history that “prove” my point …;-)
Sure we can wander down that road but I’ll just go with the leaks and quite a few of the voices that appear here in print instead of your speculation.
“Are you actually postulating the Ukrainians are actually are at parity or even killing more Russians but have lost territory while doing so?”
Across the totality of the battle space? I don’t claim any knowledge as to what the relative casualty statistics look like.
In the area of Bakhmut, yes, the Ukrainians are almost certainly killing/wounding AT LEAST 2-3 times as many Russian troops as they’re losing themselves. AND the are obviously losing territory.
Why? Because that is how it almost always works.
A force on the offensive against a dug-in opponent is going to take more casualties than that opponent, win or lose.
There’s nothing new or novel about that observation.
Clausewitz, On War:
“What is the object of defense? Preservation. It is easier to hold ground that take it. It is the fact that time which is allowed to pass unused accumulates to the credit of the defender. Another benefit derives from the advantage of position, which tends to favor the defense. … the defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offensive.”
“Are you actually postulating the Ukrainians are actually are at parity or even killing more Russians but have lost territory while doing so?”
Across the totality of the battle space? I don’t claim any knowledge as to what the relative casualty statistics look like.
In the area of Bakhmut, yes, the Ukrainians are almost certainly killing/wounding AT LEAST 2-3 times as many Russian troops as they’re losing themselves. AND they are obviously losing territory.
Why? Because that is how it almost always works.
A force on the offensive against a dug-in opponent is going to take more casualties than that opponent, win or lose.
There’s nothing new or novel about that observation.
Clausewitz, On War:
“What is the object of defense? Preservation. It is easier to hold ground than take it. It is the fact that time which is allowed to pass unused accumulates to the credit of the defender. Another benefit derives from the advantage of position, which tends to favor the defense. … the defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offensive.”
The Russians have taken 90% of that city and you are still trying to give me some sort of a lesson with quotes and such to explain how the Ukrainians could have done it while not suffering greater losses.
I give you props for trying but give me a break.
The explanation is not complicated. In attacks on defended positions, the attacker takes greater losses. Maybe not every time, but 95% of the time. I would be surprised if less than 65% of the military casualties in the Bakhmut area are Russian, and not surprised if that percentage was as high as 80%. Because that’s how warfare works.
So you do believe the Ukrainians are suffering less casulaties, which is opposite of most voices on this topic, but are losing ground while doing so because of your studies of past conflicts.
Fine, that’s not a view I can agree with but if the Ukrainians can’t hold even when killing more Russian mercenaries they are going to be in trouble when those guys pull out and the Chechians arrive to replace them. They supposedly are a brutal bunch too.
Yes, I believe that the fighting around Bakhmut is like most fighting throughout history. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that anything magical is happening there.
Presumably the Russian chain of command believes that the cost in losses is worth the objective of taking an area defended by troops which have been digging in for close to a decade. And they’re probably right. Taking Bakhmut is the key to securing the Donbas and maybe ending the war on terms that aren’t entirely a failure.
You are of the belief that in history the side with the most losses tend to win?
OK…… .
You not only believe the West’s public pronounciations of a rough parity in losses but tend towards the Russians losing even more troops than the public pronouncements say as they grind forward and are down to the last 10% or so.
Fine, whatever.
The Ukrainians are inflicting more casulaties as they lose ground.
You’ve figured it out…
The hapless Ukrainians are running, despite killing more foes as you speculate, guess, etc. and are now down to 10% of that city.
You know better than most of those here whose writings we comment on, that the judge has on his show where they can more fully articulate what they write about here.
Greenwald and his guests are getting it wrong too.
And most importantly, the non-public analysis we saw via the leaks are wrong too.
“You are of the belief that in history the side with the most losses tend to win?”
No. I’m of the knowledge that in offensive operations against built-up positions the attackers almost always take more losses than the defenders, regardless of who wins.
Are there exceptions? Yes. But Bakhmut seems to be a fairly classic artillery/siege offensive versus well dug-in defenders. One side (the defense) is sitting in concrete-reinforced bunkers with channeled approaches, artillery registered on known approach coordinates, etc. The other (the offense) is trying to move across those well-covered approaches to get the defenders out, or relying on artillery that has to penetrate bunkers instead of just hitting troops in the open. If you don’t think the latter side is going to take heavier losses, that thing you’re doing that you think is thinking isn’t.
“You not only believe the West’s public pronounciations of a rough parity in losses”
In your imagination, perhaps. In reality, I’ve continually said that I don’t believe either side’s public pronouncements.
“but tend towards the Russians losing even more troops than the public pronouncements say as they grind forward and are down to the last 10% or so.”
Yes — BECAUSE they are down to the last 10% or so. The cost of taking built-up positions is high casualty numbers to take territory. The Russians have spend eight months taking 90% of the territory. Do you think they took that territory by sitting around eating chocolate bon-bons or something? No, they took that territory by bleeding for it.
Sure you know….
Such hubris for a guy on a really small website with not much of a background but obscure other websites.
Honestly I’m not impressed no matter how much you “try” to “school” me.
Why on earth would you fantasize that I have any interest in “schooling” you? If you’d rather flaunt your abject ignorance of basic military principles than correct that ignorance, it’s no skin off my nose.
You keep asking me if I really, really, really believe that the same factors/outcomes which have always mattered in military operations remain in play, or if I agree with you that there’s some magical military faery dust being scattered over Bakhmut that makes it different from any other similar battle ever fought.
And I keep answering you that on such questions I go with known fact, reality, history, and repeatedly emphasized military maxim rather than with magical faery dust.
That answer isn’t unique to you. I’d give it to anyone else who asked the question.
As for my “background,” it only includes one war and relatively small-unit operations. But it’s not like I’m having to draw on any weird abstruse doctrine. This is about as basic as it gets.
Lol
You keep insisting you know better and construct nice long posts as proof .
I’m finding your want for me to bow to your brillance while you mock my thoughts to be quite cute.
I really don’t want to get any more cruel than I already am but the descriptor of hubris fits you perfectly.
That city is falling slowly but surely and if those Chechnya troops really do show up in a few days it might just end pretty quickly once they get going.
But of course you’ll find something to disagree with that thought and try to give me a history lesson and a quote or two from a book you read.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn whether you “bow to my brilliance” or not.
You’re free to fantasize magical military faery dust that makes this battle unlike all others of its kind.
And I’m free to live in the real world.
You are such a child.
Someone disagrees with your wild guesses and you start name-calling and now you are really throwing a fit.
Get over yourself; you are not anything special nor is your analysis no matter how much you seem to believe.
I agree. I’m not anything special.
I’m just noticing facts of reality that most people understand.
Doing so while you happen to be engaged in weird fantasies isn’t “throwing a fit,” even when it makes you look stupid.
If anyone looks “stupid” is you.
Someone calls you out on your hubris and you just go to pieces and lash out.
I’m laughing at you and you just get madder and madder.
Why don’t you go write some juvenile copy of “what-ifs” and pretend it’s some profound analysis and let me laugh at you some more?
A little history lesson, perhaps some more quotes from the art of war? And some wild , ” why don’t we do this?” and we will have a whole column of yours.
Perhaps you can get it published and ignored by almost everyone on the internet?
I’m over getting upset at you and your juvenile prose and am just chuckling.
In order to get “madder and madder,” I’d have had to have gotten mad in the first place.
And noticing that you’re not just ignorant of a particular subject but apparently dead-set on remaining that way is neither getting mad nor “lashing out.”
Sorry it bugs you so much.
For someone to persist with this you sure are giving a good imitation of being someone upset.
I tried to share that your “history” lesson that you used to bolsture your point that you postulate that the death rate is as the west shares (the leaks not withstanding) in this city (on the cusp of falling)is not something I cared about especially since I can just as easily find battles where the victor did kill more.
But who cares?
Soon it will fall and either Wagner will be there or the Chechnya troops will be there (you could not even accept they were possibly coming without an argument or a personal bit of research, could you?)
If you don’t agree with me don’t get so upset when I push back perhaps?
Name calling is beneath you.
The next time I get upset with you will be the first.
I’m not sure who had a problem “accepting” that Kadaryov’s foreign legionnaires might be Wagner’s relief. It wasn’t me. In fact, I may have been the first one here to notice that angle.
Yes, Bakhmut will likely fall soon. And the Russian forces will likely have paid 2-3 times as many troop lives to take it as the Ukrainians paid to hold it for so long, as is the usual case with battles of this type.
The Ukrainians will presumably do their damnedest to hold out until May 10, just for the symbolism of not giving the Russians a Victory Day trophy.
Once Bakhmut falls, we see whether Putin does the safe thing (consolidate a line of control encompassing LPR/DPR and declare “victory”) or the risky thing (hope his forces have become better at maneuver warfare over the last year).
“It wasn’t me”
Oh really….
You asked me for sources and I provided a Russian one ( the story originated there after all) and a western one that essentially was a rewrite of the original Russian story.
That got me a nice snarky reply and a chuckle on my part from the predictable responce.
As I shared previously you seem to be better than this and if you aren’t upset you really are writing as if you are.
Interesting.
Actually, someone else provided a western version.
Then you argued about its meaning, asserting faery dust reasons for the replacement demand, so I supplied the Russian state media version, which sustained the realistic reasoning.
As far as evaluations of how I write are concerned, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. The only people I worry much about impressing are editors responsible for the decision to publish, or not publish, my output. That’s not a consideration in this venue. Nothing that happens here is capable of increasing my heart rate, let alone my blood pressure, very much.
Doth (man) protests too much, methinks.
Actually I provided both when you specifically asked for sources then you followed up with more snark about the sources.
But let’s not let facts to get in your way of making your point of which I really don’t care about…
Sorry, while truthful, was harsh to share.
“you want to believe namely it’s a cut-and-run but that does not align with his being replaced no matter what you want to believe.”
Throughout history, armies have replaced units which have become combat-ineffective from losses and are not winning. That’s what Prigozhin is claiming, and that’s why he’s asking for relief. Not just according to the western media — according to Prigozhin and Russian state media.
That is your view, not mine.
I’m going with the reported replacement of his force with Russian troops not as a him running like you analyze it as but as the Russians deciding to replace him for various reasons of which a few I shared.
Your insistance that I believe as you do is not going to happen.
Got a source for “the reported replacement of his force with Russian troops?” I haven’t seen anything about the Russian leadership “deciding” such a thing anywhere.
What I’ve seen, including in Russian state media, is Prigozhin BEGGING for replacement by regular troops because of “exponentially increasing” casualties, shortages of ammunition, and inability to make further progress toward the objective he says he was ordered to achieve by May 1.
The difference between the Russian state media accounts and the western media accounts is that in the former he’s asking for help and in the latter he’s threatening to leave whether that help shows up or not.
“Kadyrov promised that if the PMC really leaves the territory, then the military of the Chechen special forces “Akhmat” will come in their place.” https://mail.ru/
That’s the Russian source
Putin Ally Vows to Send Troops to Bakhmut to Replace Wagner’s Forces https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-vows-send-troops-bakhmut-replace-wagners-forces-1798722
That’s a western one and if I remember coorectly the original Newsweek link in this thread refered to the replacement and used the term “russian troops”.
So it would be Chechen quisling Kadyrov bringing his foreign legionnaires rather than the actual Russian leadership offering actual Russian troops to relieve Prigozhin, and there’s an “if he really does what he’s saying he’ll do” disclaimer instead of “there’s been a decision to relieve the Wagner forces?”
I provided you with what is in the public domain in regards to the replacement of Wagner if it happens but now you’re off on a tangent about disclaimers of which can be put on the entire speculation of this withdrawal.
Let’s just cut to the chase.
Are you proposing Ukraine can win this or even fight to a stalemate and negotiations?
What you “provided” me with was a stump-stupid assertion that a commander threatening to withdraw his forces because of failure to achieve objectives, “exponentially increasing” casualties, and lack of ammunition is actually a routine decision by his superiors to replace him because the battle is won.
“Are you proposing Ukraine can win this or even fight to a stalemate and negotiations?”
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, “winning” is about achieving objectives.
I don’t see any plausible outcome in which either side achieves its announced objectives.
The initial announced Russian objective was regime change (“de-militarization and de-Nazification”) in Ukraine, turning it back into a Russian imperial satrapy. That’s almost certainly not going to happen.
The announced Ukrainian objectives have been to retake all of the Russian-occupied territory, including the two seceded Donbas republics and Crimea. That’s almost certainly not going to happen, either.
What’s probably going to happen is that the Russian forces will eventually reasonably secure the Donbas area and establish a defensible line of control encompassing those (possibly for a land corridor connecting them to Crimea), and declare “victory” and a unilateral ceasefire.
Then Zelenskyy will have to decide whether he wants to declare “victory” because he got Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts back, or whether he wants to keep fighting. The latter decision would likely be very unpopular and cost him his job or even his life.
So it will return to “frozen conflict.”
That’s how it goes, in my view, absent some dramatic and unpredictable change in circumstances.
So you are picking the fighting to a stalemate option then negotiations.
You didn’t need to devote all that time to speculating what may or may not occur to answer a simple question.
“So you are picking the fighting to a stalemate option then negotiations.”
Not exactly. I’m predicting that that’s what will happen.
And it’s not like it’s a new prediction.
Once the Russian forces failed to conduct a well-executed maneuver war secure and Donbas in a timely manner (i.e. within six weeks or so), and the US/NATO aid spigot got flowing in, it became a war of logistics.
Russia’s production capacity is a fraction of the capacity of its adversaries, and while Putin seems to be getting some help from e.g. Iran, Xi Jinping doesn’t seem inclined to fully bail him out of his blunder.
Can’t say I blame him. When you announce a “no-limits partnership” with someone and then he pulls an idiot stunt like invading Ukraine, it’s pretty embarrassing. But if necessary (I doubt it will be), I suspect Xi would help Putin hold the fiasco to “glass half full” levels rather than let Ukraine/US/EU/NATO get a clear win out of it either.
So you are calling the invasion a blunder.
In a vacuum sure, but did he have alternative that would have been acceptable?
No matter, we are where we are now not what could have been.
Right now he holds what he has if they stop fighting today.
Very few credible people (in my estimation) are sharing Ukraine is going to push Russia out unless there is a huge western support much bigger than todays levels and that does not seem to be on the table so I’ll even quibble with your view it was a blunder.
Well, yes, by definition if they stop fighting today the Russian and Ukrainian forces will have whatever they happen to have.
But the Russians are unwilling to stop fighting without securing the seceded Donbas republics, and the Ukrainians are unwilling to stop fighting while significant portions of Kherson and Zaporzhia oblasts remain Russian-occupied.
Unless one side becomes completely exhausted (and production/logistics capacities say that if it’s going to be an exhaustion war, Russia loses), the above has to resolve before there’s any basis for ceasefire or negotiations.
It was a blunder because the realistic objective (securing the Donbas republics) was a two-week job for a properly trained, equipped, supplied, and led army, and yet it still isn’t accomplished after more than 14 months of “oh, we MEANT to do that” after every fuck-up.
and production/logistics capacities say that if it’s going to be an exhaustion war, Russia loses
And basic arithmetic says Ukraine is s dead man walking.
And yet it keeps on walking, more than a year after anything resembling competent execution of a plausible military plan by anything resembling a real military power would have put it out of business.
It’s walking on stumps. Anyone resembling a sentient being would have surrendered when they were given the chance waaay back when.
A exhaustion war kind of favors the side with the most resources.
I’m sure you’ve seen the 4 star’s testimony that Russia’s military degration is relatively nonexsistant which bolsturs the leak’s analysis that postulates similar views.
If anyside is teetering it isn’t Russia but who knows?
Also, ” stump-stupid” was uncalled for .
If you want I can start mocking what you share with similar venacular.
Feel free.
No that’s childish.
Are you getting mad because I refuse to get schooled by you?
It’s obvious that’s what you try to do with your long posts of your personal speculation with the always present hubris.
Is that good enough? I can get harsher of my views of your journey towards self-actualization but that is not what I want to do.
I’m starting to understand you and instead of getting upset I’m finding it humorous.
Sorry to not take the bait….lol.
This is exactly why I have issues with your logics – Wagner planning to withdraw does not in any way speak to them killing more Ukrainians or less Ukrainians than they get killed of their own. It only speaks to them withdrawing – and according to Prigozhin the reason is that they first got only 30% of their shell needs covered and are now down to 10%.
Concluding anything from this regarding relative casualty levels is just guesswork – note I’m not using Prigozhin’s words to argue that the Russians are or were losing more soldiers than the Ukrainians – that would again be concluding based on bias not evidence.
So they have now taken 90% and decided it is time to withdraw per the guy running the show in that city for Wagner and will be replaced with regular Russian troops and you are still arguing the city is not on the cusp of completely falling.
You seem to believe they are withdrawing from a 90% occupation because they are short on something, that by the way, if they are withdrawing why would they be fully supplied?
That your sources for your conclusions include Newsweek and assurances by the liars in DC do not assure me you are correct.
They have taken most of Bakhmut and as I heard Prigozhin they were going to take the rest, as to whether they or the regular Russian troops will succeed in this, I do not know, I’m leaning towards the idea that they will, but I’m not sure.
I listen to what Prigozhin is saying, and that is that they have not been getting the support they need, troops at the front often says such things – so I do not conclude much from it, but I do mention it as evidence that the Russians (too) are not content with what is being supplied to the frontlines.
Them withdrawing may be a way to exert pressure to et better supplies or simply a way to cut losses by not being at the frontline when supplies are not sufficient – they will not get more supplies by withdrawing, but they will need much less.
They should not assure you of that – they should show you that the western media do not support the interpretation that the leaked documents show higher Ukrainian losses than Russian ones – that is what we were debating – I’m not claiming that the Russian losses are higher than the Ukrainian ones or vice versa – I’m just claiming that the western media reported that the figures saying that the Ukrainian losses were higher then the Russian ones, were falsified.
If you don’t like the Newsweek account, here’s the RT account:
But he also shares he’s to be replaced with Russian regulars.
If it was lost then why those troops?
Even if the Russians are getting ready to leave a city they hold around 90% of ( after claiming 80% a few weeks ago) it seems to be more strategic desision not one of too many casulaties of mercenaries.
In fact just how do you gain territory to a 90% level by fighting someone to parity in regard to deaths?
Do you believe Ukraine is winning? That even if the guy is being cut off as you seem to believe it is, is it because Russia is being beat? Or just a decision to move the war to a different front?
“But he also shares he’s to be replaced with Russian regulars. If it was lost then why those troops?”
Who said anything about it being “lost?”
If Prigozhin is to believed, he’s losing lots of troops and no longer making progress, he blames the regular army for not adequately supplying him, so he’s telling them “f*ck this — if you won’t supply ME to do it, you try to do it yourself.”
That’s not “lost.” It’s “delayed.”
In the Russian press it shares he’s being replaced with regular troops.
The western press seems to be portreying it as a “bug-out” because his supplies to maintain the fight in that city is cut off.
Why would you supply someone you are withdrawing?
In fact could it be his army of mercenaries have done all the Russians want and it’s time for the regular troops to do the final “win” no matter how long it takes.
It really would look better for a Russian general to declare it is won than some businessman in a pretend military outfit proclaiming it.
I shared the official regime media story on it with you.
The official regime media account doesn’t say that he’s done all they want and it’s time for regular troops.
The official regime media account says he’s ASKING to be relieved by regular troops because his force didn’t accomplish its objective by the target date and is no longer making progress, because his force is taking “exponentially growing” casualties, and because he is not receiving the supplies he needs to change that situation.
The only major difference between the Russian regime media account and the western accounts is that in the latter he’s portrayed as “threatening” to withdraw whether regular troops show up to relieve him or not, as opposed to just asking to be relieved. Neither of them portray him as “being withdrawn.” He’s either asking to be withdrawn, or threatening to withdraw. Take your pick.
So you are now calling the news sources what I disbelieved as “News from the regime”
So are where is our disagreement? Lol.
As you share they both have their biases but it still does not negate the larger point that the City has more or less fallen to Russia with the secondary point that it had to take higher losses for the Ukrainians for it to be happening.
Just to show how wrong your logic is, consider the Kherson offensive – the Russians vacated Kherson, not because thy were , not because they were taking much bigger losses but because they could not supply troops there adequately and would eventually suffer bigger losses if they did not withdraw.
I.e. the sustainability of the fight in the near future is often a better reason for withdrawing than relative casualty figures – an other angle is that the Chinese took a lot of territory in Korea losing far more troops than the UN/South Koran forces, simply because they could easily afford it.
Sure the Ukrainians are winning….
Lol lol lol
I’m not claiming that they are winning are you?
Nope not at all.
In fact there is speculation/postulation that there will be an inevitable collapse and Russia willbthen start rapidly gaining territory when it happens.
When is that collapse going to happen? Just asking because I see very little evidence of it – and that is when reading mostly Russian milbloggers – and listening to people like Prigozhin, when trying to evaluate just how strong the Ukrainians are.
Check out Judge Napolitano podcast on Youtube.
A lot of those who we read here, appear with him daily, have shared that.
I know it goes against a strain of thought some share but that does not mean it is an impossiblity.
So your best evidence is a very biased man and his very biased guests – well that is just not the kind of evidence that seems to find any support in real developments on the ground. Judge Napolitano of Fox news fame!
Well I’m not going to take the word of people so far from events as better evidence than the word of Pro Russian sources who actually have fought on the ground or have close ties to the people who do.
Fine
You don’t believe anything you read on this site.
Russian sources most close to the original interview are not good enough for you either.
No one whose work we read here is worth considering even when they share in a give and take on someone’s show whose work has also appeared here.
Got you.
Fox news has a comment section and CNN likely does too.
Perhaps you might agree with their reporting if this site’s authors are not up to your standards.
Don’t leave of course but if you don’t even consider the work or views of those that write for this place as something to consider why hang out here?
I make up my mind on a case by case level – if what is written concurs with what evidence we have in the shape of undeniable events on the ground then I give them more credence.
In general I believe the Russians when they are talking about their own difficulties and the Ukrainians when they are talking about theirs – with the caveat that they both may be painting a worse picture to secure more supplies.
Everyone’s work may find acceptance if it concurs with evidence based on events on the ground otherwise not so much.
And???
I read mostly sources I do not agree with – you know to avoid creating an echo chamber – and I very seldom take the word of pro Ukrainian sources as the truth – instead preferring to sift through what sources reveal about their own problems.
You really should try to avoid sticking to sites that tell you the story you would like to hear, and learn to listen for what may disagree with your preferred ‘version’ – it is mostly in the debate with people like you that I get a feel for e.g. just how strong or weak the case for an imminent Ukrainian collapse is.
If you’re talking about Bakhmut in particular, Russian casualties are probably much higher than Ukrainian casualties. That’s just part and parcel of offensive warfare against entrenched positions. As to the overall casualty situation for the war to date, I’ve yet to find any source I consider especially likely to be accurate.
Furthermore, the outcomes of wars are not decided by stopping, taking a tally of the dead, and awarding victory to the side with the lower number. They’re decided by the accomplishment of the belligerents’ objectives.
Neither side could plausibly declare “victory” at the moment, nor does it look like either side has believable prospects of accomplishing its publicly announced objectives. When it gets to a point where both sides could put lipstick on the pig because they have some objectives in hand and can pretend they’ve achieved “victory,” then we’ll see “negotiations.”
“I was trying to point out to the guy the Ukrainian death rate is greater than Russia’s”
Yes. you’ve made it clear that you believe the Ukrainian death rate is greater than Russia’s.
And you’re free to believe that. I guess it’s more comforting for some people to believe whatever they want to believe than it is to admit there’s something they don’t and can’t know.
You’ve seem to take assurance in those impossiblities to keep your beliefs alive no matter what.
Perhaps I prefer what facts I can gather instead of focusing on what you prefer, the academic musings of the unknown?
Logic tells one territory is gained by killing more of there’s than you suffer, but if one wants to wander into the what ifs instead of what information one can gather such as what is contained in those leaks and the informed analysis of them by varoius sources (of which there has been quite a bit here) you can argue darn near anything can’t you?
“Logic tells one territory is gained by killing more of there’s than you suffer”
No, “logic” doesn’t tell anyone that.
Militarily, it’s quite possibly the most idiotic claim I’ve ever heard.
In the US Civil War, only 290,000 Confederate troops were killed, but 365,000 Union troops were. Question: Which army ended up gaining control of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky?
In World War 2, the Soviet Union suffered somewhere between two and three times as military casualties as Germany. Do you happen to recall which side won that war?
Ukraine will start their counteroffensive when they decide is the right time. This is not a concert date, it’s the fight that if it goes right, may lead to victory in terms of retaking most of their land back. You don’t launch a rocket into space with your fingers crossed, you do it when everything is ready.
You guys criticized the Kherson offensive that would never start, but it did and it gave them Kharkiv and Kherson city back. You conduct counteroffensive on your terms, not on Kremlin’s.
I know you are a strong supporter of Ukraine but don’t be so impatient, Pff.
Sure they will…do you believe everything they lie to you about?
Are you ignoring those leaks which share Ukraine is losing with a much more horrendous death rate than Boris? Or perhaps you are just a liar like Biden and his masters.
The real story here is the internal battle among Russians, of which this is a symptom.
It is between supporters of the war as it is, against hard liners who want the immediate utter destruction of Ukraine, and perhaps an attack on NATO too.
They skirmish in public over who gets what ammo. It is code, hiding the more basic disagreements.
If this is true, then I hope he loses bakhmut. (somehow, I doubt it’s true. The war party pressuring Zelensky to not make war?)
Currently Kiev/NATO hold about 8% of Artemovsk (Bahkmut). Its the heavily fortified high rise region called the Citadel.
May 2nd, the anniversary of the Odessa Trade Union Hall Massacre.
Coverup and denial followed a day Odessans won’t forget. Eyewitnesses and survivors remember best of all. A woman explained she “personally saw with her own eyes how a man of maybe around 40 – they cut his throat. They pushed him on the ground and cut his throat – and they shouted, ‘Glory to Ukraine.’ ”
“Everything happened so quickly. Someone said that we all have to get inside the Trades Union building. Everyone quickly began carrying everything into the building and reinforcing everything inside. When I was on the second floor, I saw many of the pro-Maidan (supporters) gathering around. They surrounded us. They were all around the building. A fire was ignited…I went downstairs and heard shooting inside the building.”
A man was shouting that the Right Sector was coming. Everybody run. I ran into an office. Two men were brought in. They had suffocated. They were dead. “There was not a sound other than the shots. A couple of minutes passed. People inside said “let us in. Let us in. We are with you. They are killing us.
“I was in such a shock. I can’t even describe this to you. I did not expect that anyone could rejoice so much over killing someone. My ears were wringing. We were screaming. We were just begging them not to kill us. They killed everyone they saw. Everyone at once. A man was lying right by my feet. He was covered in blood. They beat him with bats.”
“They took one woman away. I don’t know where. Then as soon as they took me out of an office, I begged them to let me go because I have a small child. They could not care less…I stood there. I saw everything. They were dragging people. I don’t know where they were taking them.”
“When they took me out of an office, I was walking on corpses. Then we went on the stairs and there I only saw blood. I saw bodies in the hallway. They were dragging them. They began shooting. People inside tried to get out to safety. Some of them were shot.
Somehow some eyewitness survived. Most inside the TUH perished. Most others who got out were murdered.
“Ten days before the Odesa TUH tragedy a secret meeting was held in Kiev, chaired by the incumbent president Olexander Turchinov, to prepare a special operation in Odessa. Present were minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov, the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaychenko, and the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Andriy Parubiy. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, the Kiev-appointed head of regional administration of the Dnepropetrovsk region, was consulted in regard to the operation.
During that meeting Arsen Avakov has reportedly came up with the idea of using football hooligans, known as “ultras,” in the operation. Ever since his time as the head of the Kharkov regional administration he has worked closely with the fans leaders, whom he continued to sponsor even from his new home in Italy. Kolomoisky temporarily delivered his private “Dnieper-1” Battalion under the command of law-enforcement officials in Odessa and also authorized a cash payment of $5,000 for “each pro-Russian separatist” killed during the special operation.
A couple of days before the operation in Odessa Andriy Parubiy brought dozens of bullet-proof vests to local ultra-nationalists. Ultranationalist militants from the extremist Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA-UNSO), who could be recognized by their red armbands, were also used during the operation. They were assigned a key role in the staging of the provocations: they masqueraded as the defenders of the tent city on Kulikovo Field, and then lured its occupants into the House of Trade Unions to be slaughtered.
Fifteen roadblocks were set up outside of Odessa, secured by militants under the personal command of Kolomoisky’s “Dnieper-1” Battalion, as well as Right Sector’s thugs from Dnepropetrovsk and the western regions of Ukraine. In addition, two military units from the Self-Defense of Maidan arrived in Odessa, under the command of the acting head of the administration of the president, Sergey Pashinsky – the same man who was caught with a sniper rifle in the trunk of his car on Feb. 18 on Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev.
The role of the Odessa police forces in the operation was personally directed by the head of the regional police, Petr Lutsyuk, and his deputy Dmitry Fucheji.
One act of fascism more than any other in Ukraine was pivotal in the fomenting of the uprising by ethnic Russians. The Kiev regime trucked in bus loads of thugs with the sole outcome of murdering any and all opposition. On May 2nd, 2014 there was a bloody massacre in Odessa where, at least 48 people were killed in the House of Trade Unions. The organizers of the massacre were radical Ukrainian nationalists and fascists who support the regime established in the Kiev after the coup in February 2014. Fleeing from the crowd of armed fascists which greatly outnumbered them, the Anti-Maidan protesters tried to take refuge in the House of Trade Unions.
The Ukrainian fascists attacked the House of Trade Unions with Molotov cocktails, igniting a fire that caused many of those inside the building to flee outside. There angry Ukrainian fascists beat and killed them. Others who observed this remained inside until they either, burned to death, suffocated or jumped out of windows to their deaths. Others who remained inside were hunted down and murdered in cold blood.
The US imposed ruling government of Ukraine is doing everything to hide and distort the truth about this crime. The official list of dead people has not been published. None of the perpetrators of the massacre has been arrested; the state prosecutor’s office deliberately ignores numerous videos proving their guilt.
The Odessa tragedy is just one act in the civil war that the Kiev fascists launched last spring against its own people. There are many more; the atrocities of the fascists on May 9, 2014 in Mariupol, massive bloodshed in the Donbass, sadistic treatment of war prisoners, deliberate destruction of vital facilities in the Donbass, etc. These are manifestations of a bloody totalitarian regime in Kiev, established by the US in the heart of Europe with the blessing of western political leaders.