4 ms·

> Do you think the US would have been willing to absorb similar levels of casualties if Mexico decided to join a military alliance with Russia or China? No, ce

by mopsi 2y ago

> Do you think the US would have been willing to absorb similar levels of casualties if Mexico decided to join a military alliance with Russia or China? No, certainly not. Russian losses are totally insane. The US lost 107 903 killed in action and 208 333 wounded in the entire Pacific theater of WWII, over four years that saw massive aerial and naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, large-scale amphibious operations, and savage fighting in the jungles across Southeast Asia. Mediazona, which tracks Russian losses through open sources like obituaries in newspapers, has identified over 90 000 dead Russians by name and estimates the true number of deaths to be in the range of 138 500 to 200 000. Each death is accompanied by several wounded and permanently disabled cases, so as unbelievable as the Ukrainian estimates initially seemed to everyone, they appear to be roughly correct. The consensus among military analysts is that after the initial months of 2022, Russia has seen only tactical-level successes, at best operational victories. There have been no strategic gains. For this, Russia has paid a higher price than the US did for fighting its way across the Pacific to Japan and forcing its surrender.

voidr 2y ago
> No, certainly not. I think we can agree to disagree on that one, we are talking about a country that started wars for far less. > Russian losses are totally insane. The US lost 107 903 killed in action and 208 333 wounded in the entire Pacific theater of WWII, over four years that saw massive aerial and naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, large-scale amphibious operations, and savage fighting in the jungles across Southeast Asia. You don't have as many men on the ships as you need to cover ground. You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park. > There have been no strategic gains. If they keep categorizing all Russian gains as non strategic then of course there are none. The problem with this narrative is that it makes the Ukrainians look incompetent for sacrificing so much for these unimportant places. Either the Ukrainians were complete morons for defending these places for so long or they were actually important and the media just likes to spin it the other way when the truth is inconvenient for their narratives. > US did for fighting its way across the Pacific to Japan and forcing its surrender You kind of forgot to mention one other player in that game and a certain type of weapon. Warfare has also changed a lot since WWII.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park. Indeed, let's check them: Battle of the Dnieper (Aug-Dec 1943): 1 200 000 killed and wounded Dnieper-Carpathian offensive (Dec-Apr 1944): 900 000 Lvov-Sandomierz offensive (Jul-Aug 1944): 300 000 Russia has already exceeded German losses from 1941-1942 for capturing Ukraine (including Crimea). At a rate of less than 1% of territory gained for 400k+ casualties per year, Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river. Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands. Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year. I think you've mistaken a cemetery for a park.
  - voidr 2y ago
    > At a rate of less than 1% of territory gained Capturing Texas wouldn't enlarge Russia too much percentage wise, because it's already massive, not that this metric matters at all. You keep assuming that Russia needs more territory that's why this war is happening, whereas in reality Russia does not want a powerful Ukraine armed to the teeth with NATO gear right next door, that's it, that's what the Russians have been saying all along, their position has never changed, you can look up the Mins k agreement. > 400k+ casualties per year It's not per year. > Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river. You are assuming that Ukraine has their forces uniformly distributed across it's territory which would make it the dumbest army in the universe, in reality most of it's armed forces are near the front, if they are gone, there won't be much left to defend the rest of Ukraine. > Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands. They don't have to, they can bleed the Ukrainian army by dragging them into a meat grinder elsewhere, Russia does not want Ukraine, they just want to destroy the Ukrainian army and permanently make sure Ukraine will never have an army that is a threat to Russia. The crazy thing is Zelensky is doing the work for the Russians with his media stunts like Kursk and Krynky. > Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year. Wonder how well both would have done with drones and HIMARs involved.

by mopsi 2y ago

voidr 2y ago

> No, certainly not. I think we can agree to disagree on that one, we are talking about a country that started wars for far less. > Russian losses are totally insane. The US lost 107 903 killed in action and 208 333 wounded in the entire Pacific theater of WWII, over four years that saw massive aerial and naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, large-scale amphibious operations, and savage fighting in the jungles across Southeast Asia. You don't have as many men on the ships as you need to cover ground. You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park. > There have been no strategic gains. If they keep categorizing all Russian gains as non strategic then of course there are none. The problem with this narrative is that it makes the Ukrainians look incompetent for sacrificing so much for these unimportant places. Either the Ukrainians were complete morons for defending these places for so long or they were actually important and the media just likes to spin it the other way when the truth is inconvenient for their narratives. > US did for fighting its way across the Pacific to Japan and forcing its surrender You kind of forgot to mention one other player in that game and a certain type of weapon. Warfare has also changed a lot since WWII.

mopsi 2y ago
> You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park. Indeed, let's check them: Battle of the Dnieper (Aug-Dec 1943): 1 200 000 killed and wounded Dnieper-Carpathian offensive (Dec-Apr 1944): 900 000 Lvov-Sandomierz offensive (Jul-Aug 1944): 300 000 Russia has already exceeded German losses from 1941-1942 for capturing Ukraine (including Crimea). At a rate of less than 1% of territory gained for 400k+ casualties per year, Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river. Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands. Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year. I think you've mistaken a cemetery for a park.
- voidr 2y ago
  > At a rate of less than 1% of territory gained Capturing Texas wouldn't enlarge Russia too much percentage wise, because it's already massive, not that this metric matters at all. You keep assuming that Russia needs more territory that's why this war is happening, whereas in reality Russia does not want a powerful Ukraine armed to the teeth with NATO gear right next door, that's it, that's what the Russians have been saying all along, their position has never changed, you can look up the Mins k agreement. > 400k+ casualties per year It's not per year. > Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river. You are assuming that Ukraine has their forces uniformly distributed across it's territory which would make it the dumbest army in the universe, in reality most of it's armed forces are near the front, if they are gone, there won't be much left to defend the rest of Ukraine. > Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands. They don't have to, they can bleed the Ukrainian army by dragging them into a meat grinder elsewhere, Russia does not want Ukraine, they just want to destroy the Ukrainian army and permanently make sure Ukraine will never have an army that is a threat to Russia. The crazy thing is Zelensky is doing the work for the Russians with his media stunts like Kursk and Krynky. > Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year. Wonder how well both would have done with drones and HIMARs involved.