Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

Poe said:
Which is why you ask in both, and more places, to create an accurate sample. Do you think that this isn't what happens? Again though, this is a red herring and not what I was talking about in my initial reply anyway.
Click to expand...
That is, in fact, exactly what happens. Which is how you get polls with spreads like D+20
 
Vyor said:
That is, in fact, exactly what happens. Which is how you get polls with spreads like D+20
Click to expand...
Holy shit I said normies take polls never have I argued that there aren't dishonest pollsters, that is a derail unrelated to any point I've made other than that its harder as a response to Bacle (which was itself a non-sequitur to my post.). Fuck off with quoting me about this shit
 
Bacle said:
He's on the Intel subcommittee, who would have the best access to intel about what is going on in Ukraine.

He's also has very little reason to hold back in his effort or information to get the aid funding to Ukraine passed.
Click to expand...
10 to 1, though, c'mon. If it was really that high then the Russian army would have needed a lot more conscripts/recruits than I think we have evidence for it getting. Otherwise you'd be saying Ukraine's losses were lower than even the lowest reasonable estimate.

It's probably cherry-picked, like (just to make something up) Ukraine's best month had a 10:1 kill ratio.
Zachowon said:
He isn't wrong. Bacle that is.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you agree with 10:1?
 
strunkenwhite said:
10 to 1, though, c'mon. If it was really that high then the Russian army would have needed a lot more conscripts/recruits than I think we have evidence for it getting. Otherwise you'd be saying Ukraine's losses were lower than even the lowest reasonable estimate.

It's probably cherry-picked, like (just to make something up) Ukraine's best month had a 10:1 kill ratio.

Seriously, you agree with 10:1?
Click to expand...
A little.
A little.
 
strunkenwhite said:
10 to 1, though, c'mon. If it was really that high then the Russian army would have needed a lot more conscripts/recruits than I think we have evidence for it getting. Otherwise you'd be saying Ukraine's losses were lower than even the lowest reasonable estimate.

It's probably cherry-picked, like (just to make something up) Ukraine's best month had a 10:1 kill ratio.

Seriously, you agree with 10:1?
Click to expand...

I'd... honestly say it's pretty close to reality? Offensive operations always lead to much higher casualties than defensive operations and with the tech and situation disadvantage Russia has against Ukraine...
 
strunkenwhite said:
OK well sure I can believe there is a specific area where that's happening or happened but that just illustrates how misleading it is to throw that around as an unqualified statement.

I mean that's exactly what I meant by, "It's probably cherry-picked."
Click to expand...
It's because the Russian army discourages initiative and improvisation in its soldiers. They use the exact same route and composition of forces without deviation. So much so you see vehicles following the same route enough to cut deep troughs in the frozen tundra. It's like a wave defense tower game in real life if you watch the assault videos. Anyone who tries to deviate from the route get gunned down by the second line forces behind them.
 
strunkenwhite said:
10 to 1, though, c'mon. If it was really that high then the Russian army would have needed a lot more conscripts/recruits than I think we have evidence for it getting. Otherwise you'd be saying Ukraine's losses were lower than even the lowest reasonable estimate.

It's probably cherry-picked, like (just to make something up) Ukraine's best month had a 10:1 kill ratio.

Seriously, you agree with 10:1?
Click to expand...
When you count the naval and air war in, and the strikes on the RU interior, not just the frontline situation, yes, overall I could believe this.

Just think of the kill ratio's for UA killing those Russian warships with naval drones.
 
Ukraine is claiming to have killed something like over 500,000 Russians. You're honestly going to say that they've lost only 50,000 troops doing so? The same Ukraine that's currently loosing ground and looking to forcibly conscript over 200,000 people.

There's not buying what the Russian MoD is selling, that's just good sense. But claiming 10:1? That's a little far the other way gentlemen. Taking Ukrainian MoD numbers at face value is just as foolish.

Ukraine is getting slowly pushed back on all active fronts. Is pushing for a massive new conscription law with even broader criteria. Ukraine has been open lately on how they are under a massive shell deficit and lack significant tactical or strategic air. They are currently losing.

Being supportive of Ukraine is understandable. But be realistic, a ten to one casualties ratio is at best wishful thinking.
 
Losing ground that the Russians have attempted to take since 2014?
And yeah they are comscripting. Do you not know what rotation of troops is?
 
On certain fronts, ten to one losses are entirely believable, especially in terms of equipment. Russia has a vast stockpile of Soviet Kit but they are burning through it at an industrial rate. The well may run dry if they keep it up.
 
Wargamer08 said:
Ukraine is claiming to have killed something like over 500,000 Russians. You're honestly going to say that they've lost only 50,000 troops doing so? The same Ukraine that's currently loosing ground and looking to forcibly conscript over 200,000 people.

There's not buying what the Russian MoD is selling, that's just good sense. But claiming 10:1? That's a little far the other way gentlemen. Taking Ukrainian MoD numbers at face value is just as foolish.

Ukraine is getting slowly pushed back on all active fronts. Is pushing for a massive new conscription law with even broader criteria. Ukraine has been open lately on how they are under a massive shell deficit and lack significant tactical or strategic air. They are currently losing.

Being supportive of Ukraine is understandable. But be realistic, a ten to one casualties ratio is at best wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
"Losing ground very slowly in a highly fortified area" is one of two scenarios possible that allow such casualty ratios in modern warfare.
The other is a breakthrough with enemy routing.
What's the price of a mile? That's the question Russians think they don't care to ask but in few months, years at most, will need to.

Holding ground at any cost would make it considerably worse, which is why Ukrainians aren't doing that, however unfortunately it feeds the argument of people who use the "but muh tiny land losses" argument because they don't know or want to spread defeatism as they like the other side. So do other options.
 
Marduk said:
"Losing ground very slowly in a highly fortified area" is one of two scenarios possible that allow such casualty ratios in modern warfare.
The other is a breakthrough with enemy routing.
What's the price of a mile? That's the question Russians think they don't care to ask but in few months, years at most, will need to.

Holding ground at any cost would make it considerably worse, which is why Ukrainians aren't doing that, however unfortunately it feeds the argument of people who use the "but muh tiny land losses" argument because they don't know or want to spread defeatism as they like the other side. So do other options.
Click to expand...
So the statement was 10:1 this month, not for the war as a whole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top