Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[Abhorsen]

As for the amount of Russians dead, the Ukrainian Government only claims it's 150k out of 350k total losses. A lot, but not back breaking for Russia by any means. The US estimate puts the dead at 120k, and the UK at 70k.

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bacle]

IIRC Russia isn't even running a draft right now. They've got enough volunteers. Meanwhile, Ukraine is starting to draft 40+ year old men because the younger demographics have been decimated.

Russians are for this war. They want to go fight. They aren't going to turn on Putin. It's propping up their economy and they're happy about it. They're happy to go fight, and at the current casualty numbers, Ukraine is going to run out of soldiers first.

Ukraine is not winning this war. Russia will end up with Donbass, and probably more, if Ukraine doesnt start negotiating in peace talks soon.

This is just wrong, on so many levels, and I have no idea where you get the idea Russia isn't using drafts, both official and unofficial, and have been for a while.

Please, provide links that say Russia isn't using any sort of draft.

Russia has "partially mobilized".
They can't go full mobilization because they are not able to legally (I know wierd).
We have seen a lot of people in Russia get mobilization paperwork and get forced to the front lines.
Of course you really won't hear from it due to the fact it is mostly from outlying oblasts and not from Moscow or St Petersburg.

Russia has been pulling people that work in its factories, I trades, everything to supply this war.
You just don't hear of it as much because it is being hidden more.

@Marduk @Bacle @Husky_Khan should have evidence of these "partial mobilizations" aka drafts

We've got links all over this site about the different types of BS Russia has used to hide mobilization/backdoor draft antics.

Before today I had never seen anyone claiming Russia isn't using a draft, and am wondering where this bit of bullshit originated.

 

[Zachowon]

This is just wrong, on so many levels, and I have no idea where you get the idea Russia isn't using drafts, both official and unofficial, and have been for a while.

Please, provide links that say Russia isn't using any sort of draft.

We've got links all over this site about the different types of BS Russia has used to hide mobilization/backdoor draft antics.

Before today I had never seen anyone claiming Russia isn't using a draft, and am wondering where this bit of bullshit originated.

Idk honestly.
I just know you and Marduk and Husky have posted numerous articles and posts showing otherwise

 

[Marduk]

IIRC Russia isn't even running a draft right now. They've got enough volunteers. Meanwhile, Ukraine is starting to draft 40+ year old men because the younger demographics have been decimated.

Russians are for this war. They want to go fight. They aren't going to turn on Putin. It's propping up their economy and they're happy about it. They're happy to go fight, and at the current casualty numbers, Ukraine is going to run out of soldiers first.

Ukraine is not winning this war. Russia will end up with Donbass, and probably more, if Ukraine doesnt start negotiating in peace talks soon.

Why are you repeating this retarded Russian copeaganda?
Russia didn't even officially end the previous mobilization, and why talk and ire people with talk
of new mobilization when they have a thing going already and can just get shit done quietly.

MSN

www.msn.com

If they have so many volunteers, why do they need 16 year olds?

Russia rounds up migrants on New Year’s Eve and enlists them to fight in Ukraine war

Some 3,000 labour migrants detained in St Petersburg alone as Vladimir Putin takes to increasingly desperate measures to make up for Ukraine war losses

www.independent.co.uk

Volunteers, Russian style. Sometimes they need to be informed by men with guns that they are volunteers now, but they totally are volunteers, even if they are a bit surprised about it.

 

[Rocinante]

Why are you repeating this retarded Russian copeaganda?
Russia didn't even officially end the previous mobilization, and why talk and ire people with talk
of new mobilization when they have a thing going already and can just get shit done quietly.

MSN

www.msn.com

If they have so many volunteers, why do they need 16 year olds?

Russia rounds up migrants on New Year’s Eve and enlists them to fight in Ukraine war

Some 3,000 labour migrants detained in St Petersburg alone as Vladimir Putin takes to increasingly desperate measures to make up for Ukraine war losses

www.independent.co.uk

Volunteers, Russian style. Sometimes they need to be informed by men with guns that they are volunteers now, but they totally are volunteers, even if they are a bit surprised about it.

I was wrong about the volunteers. Not really sure where I actually heard that, but I did some digging and I'll admit I was wrong on that.

I'm not wrong about Ukraine not winning this conflict, though. I've maintained that for most of this conflict, and I stand by that prediction.

 

[LordsFire]

Yeah. The war isn't about how far Ukraine will go. It's about how far the US and Russia will go. And quite simply, Russia cares more than the US ever could.

The US should negotiate a peace, if we cared at all about Ukraine.

It really bends my brain, some of the ludicrous positions you take.

Like, I could get it if you just wanted us out, not involved, thought it wasn't our business. I could understand that position and have some respect for it, even if I think it isn't correct.

But the idea that it's just the US vs Russia with the Ukraine as the battleground, that isn't just 'incorrect,' it's stupid.

There's this thing called 'the rest of Europe.'

And the rest of Europe has been sending a considerable amount of support to Ukraine basically since the start, and at this point its escalated to include 'building a factory in Ukraine to produce more war material.'

Without the US helping, aid would certainly decline quite a bit, but the longer the war has gone on, the more clear it has become to the Ukrainians just what the Russians would do to them if they surrendered.

At this point, if the US and Europe withdrew aid (but still let the Ukrainians buy weapons from them), I would fully expect the war to grind on for years, with no clear or conclusive outcome in sight. There might still be poor mobiks dying in the trenches a decade from now.

With at least moderate support from Europe, Russia functionally cannot win the war. The Ukrainians have a hell of a lot more willingness to fight than the average Russian conscript, and so long as they at least have rifle ammunition, small-scale drones, and MANPADS, Russia isn't going to be able to break them militarily.

If the US keep supporting them as well, it is practically a matter of time, because Russia will lose via economic attrition.

But Realpolitik, we don't. All the US wants to do is kill as many Russians as possible using Ukrainian lives. We don't care who wins, as long as Russia can only win Pyrrhically.

Also, this bit?

This is straight-up stepping into leftist 'I'm telepathic and I know your thoughts and motivations better than you do' BS territory.

If you want anyone to take you seriously or have any respect for you, drop nonsense like this completely.

 

[Marduk]

I was wrong about the volunteers. Not really sure where I actually heard that, but I did some digging and I'll admit I was wrong on that.

I'm not wrong about Ukraine not winning this conflict, though. I've maintained that for most of this conflict, and I stand by that prediction.

As the saying goes, it ain't over till the fat lady signs. The rest has more to do with the emotional tone projected by your choice of media sources you consume than with the facts on the ground.

 

[History Learner]

As the saying goes, it ain't over till the fat lady signs. The rest has more to do with the emotional tone projected by your choice of media sources you consume than with the facts on the ground.

In which case, @Rocinante might find this enlightening:



As author explains later on:

 

[Marduk]

In which case, @Rocinante might find this enlightening:



As author explains later on:

I don't care about what this anonymous internet person thinks, but if you agree with them, on second thought they are as untrustworthy as if the FSB posted that.
Considering that we have already argued previously over you trying to convince me Mediazona figures are comprehensive despite their own website claiming otherwise, it's just your usual Russia simping trolling scumbaggery polluting this forum again.

 

[History Learner]

I don't care about what this anonymous internet person thinks, but if you agree with them, on second thought they are as untrustworthy as if the FSB posted that.

Their data comes directly from Ukrainian sources. if the FSB has come to control all of the Ukrainian data issuing, that's a very, very bad sign for Ukraine, no?

 

[Marduk]

Their data comes directly from Ukrainian sources. if the FSB has come to control all of the Ukrainian data issuing, that's a very, very bad sign for Ukraine, no?

I was referring to the Mediazona data clearly. Now if you compare the 44k Ukrainian losses to recent Ukrainian data and western estimates of Russian losses, that's a great kill ratio.

 

[History Learner]

I was referring to the Mediazona data clearly. Now if you compare the 44k Ukrainian losses to recent Ukrainian data and western estimates of Russian losses, that's a great kill ratio.

Except UALosses does not visit cemeteries or graveyards like Mediazona does, and directly state, as I quoted, that real Ukrainian losses are much higher. Ukrainian data is completely unreliable and has never been supported by Western estimates, either, so we can toss that out.

If you'd like to discuss Western estimates, please elucidate what they are.

 

[Marduk]

Except UALosses does not visit cemeteries or graveyards like Mediazona does, and directly state, as I quoted, that real Ukrainian losses are much higher.

So it's plain malicious redefinition of Mediazona data plus handwaving the Ukrainian data anyway and then comparing the 2 sources, one completely wrong and other randomly claimed to be much higher by author fiat.
Why do you link this shitty graph then when you know it's shitty?

Ukrainian data is completely unreliable and has never been supported by Western estimates, either, so we can toss that out.

Whatever dude.

If you'd like to discuss Western estimates, please elucidate what they are.

Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say

Ukraine and Russia have lost a staggering number of troops as Kyiv’s counteroffensive drags on. A lack of rapid medical care has added to the toll.

www.nytimes.com

Russia's military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

That's what i think is a conservative estimate, coming from US officials, half a year ago.
And 362k is official UA data, from their gov site:

Casualties of Russia in Ukraine - official data

Casualties of the armed forces of the Russian Federation during the war in Ukraine.

index.minfin.com.ua

 

[strunkenwhite]

Yeah. The war isn't about how far Ukraine will go. It's about how far the US and Russia will go. And quite simply, Russia cares more than the US ever could.

The US should negotiate a peace, if we cared at all about Ukraine.

But Realpolitik, we don't. All the US wants to do is kill as many Russians as possible using Ukrainian lives. We don't care who wins, as long as Russia can only win Pyrrhically.

Regarding the last part, do you really believe the US government perceives no interest in Ukraine joining the EU market versus falling under Russian occupation?

 

[History Learner]

So it's plain malicious redefinition of Mediazona data plus handwaving the Ukrainian data anyway and then comparing the 2 sources, one completely wrong and other randomly claimed to be much higher by author fiat.
Why do you link this shitty graph then when you know it's shitty?

Except it's not two sources, they've pulled from multiple different national government memorial websites, and then they went down to the individual Oblast and town level to pull death announcements from government sources, funeral homes and other means of death announcements in Ukraine.

And they claim it's much higher because they're only accounting what is officially announced; i.e. they haven't went to the graveyards to see if there is more than what has been reported like Mediazona does.

Whatever dude.

Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say

Ukraine and Russia have lost a staggering number of troops as Kyiv’s counteroffensive drags on. A lack of rapid medical care has added to the toll.

www.nytimes.com

That's what i think is a conservative estimate, coming from US officials, half a year ago.
And 362k is official UA data, from their gov site:

Casualties of Russia in Ukraine - official data

Casualties of the armed forces of the Russian Federation during the war in Ukraine.

index.minfin.com.ua

Picking the claim from August is interesting when you can use the more recent one from November which was far lower in terms of KIA and also incidentally matches up with Mediazona. Putting that aside, however, noticeably none of these Western estimates ever include Ukrainian losses. I wonder why that is...

For reference, in September of 2022 only 9% of Ukrainians reported a close relative or friend who had died in the war. By June of 2023, as shown here, KIIS surveys showed a staggering 63% of Ukrainians now know someone who has died.

 

[Marduk]

Yeah. The war isn't about how far Ukraine will go. It's about how far the US and Russia will go. And quite simply, Russia cares more than the US ever could.

The US should negotiate a peace, if we cared at all about Ukraine.

But Realpolitik, we don't. All the US wants to do is kill as many Russians as possible using Ukrainian lives. We don't care who wins, as long as Russia can only win Pyrrhically.

It takes two to tango. Russia does not want peace, Russia wants a conditional surrender, they are willing to negotiate the conditions and the label only. Anyone who thinks peace can be negotiated just doesn't understand what are the positions and motivations that led to the war in the first place.

 

[Marduk]

Except it's not two sources, they've pulled from multiple different national government memorial websites, and then they went down to the individual Oblast and town level to pull death announcements from government sources, funeral homes and other means of death announcements in Ukraine.

And they claim it's much higher because they're only accounting what is officially announced; i.e. they haven't went to the graveyards to see if there is more than what has been reported like Mediazona does.

So one source for comparison is shit and the other one is also shit, so what's the point of it?
I think i know...

Pick the claim from August is interesting when you can use the more recent one from November which was far lower in terms of KIA. Putting that aside, however, noticeably none of these Western estimates ever include Ukrainian losses. I wonder why that is...

FFS the one i linked does include Ukrainian losses and i even put them in the quote...
And it quotes US officials, is it so hard to realize UK and US officials may have different estimates?

What is that supposed to prove? People on average have dozens of friends and relatives, and the same dead person is bound to be a friend or relative to many.
Also the way this question is asked includes civilian casualties rather than just military, like the very careful estimate of at least 20k dead civilians in Mariupol siege.

 

[History Learner]

So one source for comparison is shit and the other one is also shit, so what's the point of it?
I think i know...

You have yet to demonstrate there is anything wrong with their formula. As I said before, they draw upon official Ukrainian sources and thus can provide obituary data for every single claim they've made so far in the case of UALosses.

FFS the one i linked does include Ukrainian losses and i even put them in the quote...
And it quotes US officials, is it so hard to realize UK and US officials may have different estimates?

In that one yes, but I was referring to the more recent UK and Ukraine statements. Indeed they might have different estimates, which is the point; there is clearly a lot of uncertainty in citing their claims, whereas with other sources with Mediazona we have a firm floor backed up by evidence from official announcements of death, to direct counting of graves at cemeteries.

What is that supposed to prove? People on average have dozens of friends and relatives, and the same dead person is bound to be a friend or relative to many.

Which is why you might find it interesting to read the survey, because the average Ukrainian knows three people who have died.

If you'd also like further context, the same figure in September of 2022 was 9% of Ukrainians knew someone who had died and the official KIA then was 10,000 according to the Ukrainians. Given that figure has shot up 7x in less than a year, even assuming a linear rate of losses, that would suggest a floor of 70,000 AFU KIA by June of 2023, and that's before the counter-offensive failed.

Also the way this question is asked includes civilian casualties rather than just military, like the very careful estimate of at least 20k dead civilians in Mariupol siege.

Problem with that is the losses are focused in the Western regions, not the frontline regions. Given the Russians are not in those areas, that's rather hard to explain away except as AFU losses:

 

[Marduk]

You have yet to demonstrate there is anything wrong with their formula. As I said before, they draw upon official Ukrainian sources and thus can provide obituary data for every single claim they've made so far in the case of UALosses.

Mediazona is incomprehensive data. You claim UA losses is also incomprehensive.
So what's t he fucking point of comparing two pieces of data that are done in different environments and are most likely off by hundreds of percent but no one knows how many hundreds?

In that one yes, but I was referring to the more recent UK and Ukraine statements. Indeed they might have different estimates, which is the point; there is clearly a lot of uncertainty in citing their claims, whereas with other sources with Mediazona we have a firm floor backed up by evidence from official announcements of death, to direct counting of graves at cemeteries.

I don't know and don't care what unknown statements you are referring to.
I will repeat for a hundredth time, i will never accept Mediazona data for purposes of estimating losses, as it's a floor, not a reasonable estimate, it would be useless even in a free country like USA, as not all people are social media exhibitionists who post about deaths in their family on the internet (i for one don't) and some like privacy, and it goes at leqast double for poor regions of Russia.

Which is why you might find it interesting to read the survey, because the average Ukrainian knows three people who have died.

So? The average Ukrainian knows a few hundred people, and the same dead person is known by few hundred. Without knowing a coefficient of "repeats" its useless for the purpose you are trying to use it for.

If you'd also like further context, the same figure in September of 2022 was 9% of Ukrainians knew someone who had died and the official KIA then was 10,000 according to the Ukrainians. Given that figure has shot up 7x in less than a year, even assuming a linear rate of losses, that would suggest a floor of 70,000 AFU KIA by June of 2023, and that's before the counter-offensive failed.

No link, could be different methodology, do not play these tricks on me, it only makes me think lower of you, if that is still possible.

Problem with that is the losses are focused in the Western regions, not the frontline regions. Given the Russians are not in those areas, that's rather hard to explain away except as AFU losses:

Millions of people in Ukraine are internal refugees who fleed from occupied areas, some also from 2014 fallout. They certainly know a lot of people from areas near the frontline.

 

[History Learner]

Mediazona is incomprehensible data. You claim UA losses is also incomprehensive.

I haven't made that claim anywhere, though.

So what's t he fucking point of comparing two pieces of data that are done in different environments and are most likely off by hundreds of percent?

Because they're backed up by solid data that you can confirm, as opposed to unknown officials claiming something off the record?

I don't know and don't care what unknown statements you are referring to.
I will repeat for a hundredth time, i will never accept Mediazona data for purposes of estimating losses, as it's a floor, not a reasonable estimate, it would be useless even in a free country like USA, as not all people are social media exhibitionists who post about deaths in their family on the internet (i for one don't) and some like privacy, and it goes at leqast double for poor regions of Russia.

If you don't care, then why are you replying? You are free to stop this dialogue at anytime.

To respond, however, we luckily benefit from Mediazona going to graves and pulling from official government announcements too, so even if a family doesn't post about a loss or there's limited means to in a random Oblast, they can still find the grave or a register of the loss at another level.

So? The average Ukrainian knows at few hundred people, and the same dead person is known by few hundred. Without knowing a coefficient of "repeats" its useless for the purpose you are trying to use it for.

That's an interesting claim, can I see a citation for that? Because the average American knows only 8 to 9 people closely, so I'm very curious to hear how Ukraine is so different.

No link, could be different methodology, do not play these tricks on me, it only makes me think lower of you, if that is still possible.

You didn't ask for the link, but here you go for the most recent survey. You should also remember I am not the topic of this thread.

Yeah, Russia kills a lot of civilians in occupied areas and near the frontline.

Except the Western and Central regions of Ukraine are nowhere near the frontline, but report the highest losses. In fact, this claim makes even less sense when you look at the data:

According to our estimates, the territories that were occupied by Russia as of the beginning of September 2022 (occupied after February 24, 2022) accounted for about 9% of the total adult population. Taking into account the mass exodus of the population from these territories (most likely, we are talking about at least half of the population), as well as the fact that significant territories of Kharkiv and Kherson regions were liberated from this period, we estimate that no more than 3-5% of the total adult population of Ukraine were unavailable due to communication problems.

So no, the frontline regions can't explain it when they only account for 9% of the Pre-War population, yet 63% of the population in total knows someone who died.