Top US general says Ukraine war has become an 'absolute catastrophe' for Russia, estimating it's suffered 'significantly well over' 100,000 casualties

[AndyFoxy]

The fact he has to come out and say it tells me the Ukrainians are losing. Was always going to be the case though. 

[vandeventer]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

One thing which it seems is mentioned nowhere is who profits?

 

All those weapons for Ukraine, who pays for them? Sometimes I read weapons are donated. By whom are they donated? And if weapon A is donated which need ammunition B, who pays for ammunition B?

 

And even if i.e. the USA would pay for all the weapons and ammunition which they supply to Ukraine, why? Because they are so nice people? Or because that keeps the military industrial complex running and financed? After all, if Biden (or any other president) donates all that money, it is not really his money, it's other peoples' money.

 

I think it is naive to only look at Ukraine and Russia and who is wrong and who is right. 

Who pay's for them? Ukraine with their blood! Ukraine with their damaged buildings! Ukraine's women and children! The dead Russians that never wanted to go there in the first place. Please don't measure this invasion with dollars and cents it's Putin's unjust war.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

I don't think that there is any real prospect of a negotiated "peace". Any treaty will inevitably be broken by Putin or whichever strongman succeeds/overthrows him. Ukraine is unlikely to accept any terms which leave any of its territory in Russian hands, and after all, why should they?

 

Sadly the only viable result will be the complete victory of one side or the other. If Russia wins it will mean the complete destruction and subjugation of Ukraine as a country, a mortal blow for democracy; and existential threats to the Baltic States in particular, and perhaps Poland and Finland.

 

If Ukraine wins, it will entail the destruction of Russia's military, and probably the a break up of the country, sinking into a mess of competing warlords; the break up of the Soviet Union writ again, this time with civil war. We can only hope that their nukes are as <deleted> as the rest of their kit.

 

Either possibility will be a mess. Both possibilities will mean that Europe and NATO, in particular it's northern members will have to look to their defences.

 

It is ironic that NATO, after decades of seeming pointless, and foolishly allowing itself to be sucked into global (US) politics, has rediscovered it's core purpose, just as the USA looks as it may be losing interest. Maybe that will be Putin's legacy?

NATO was never pointless.

 

Though there has been an effort by Putin’s rightwing shills in the West have made concerted efforts to undermine the organization.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

The fact he has to come out and say it tells me the Ukrainians are losing. Was always going to be the case though. 

That’s some strange kind of logic.

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s some strange kind of logic.

Twisted logic.....

[candide]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

One thing which it seems is mentioned nowhere is who profits?

 

All those weapons for Ukraine, who pays for them? Sometimes I read weapons are donated. By whom are they donated? And if weapon A is donated which need ammunition B, who pays for ammunition B?

 

And even if i.e. the USA would pay for all the weapons and ammunition which they supply to Ukraine, why? Because they are so nice people? Or because that keeps the military industrial complex running and financed? After all, if Biden (or any other president) donates all that money, it is not really his money, it's other peoples' money.

 

I think it is naive to only look at Ukraine and Russia and who is wrong and who is right. 

The weapon industry makes money. It doesn't mean the cause is not just. For example, the US industry made a lot of money during WW2, does it imply the US was wrong tu support the allies and ultimately make war?

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Who pay's for them? Ukraine with their blood! Ukraine with their damaged buildings! Ukraine's women and children! The dead Russians that never wanted to go there in the first place. Please don't measure this invasion with dollars and cents it's Putin's unjust war.

I am not sure if you didn't read or if you are naive or ignorant.

Wars are big business. And lots of people and companies want war to sell weapons, ammunition, services, and and and. That's a fact and it prolongs wars, and it helps to start wars.

 

Sure, Ukraine and Ukraine people suffer and die and that is a tragedy. And at the same time others profit and they want profit - otherwise they wouldn't be in the war business. And that means some people and companies don't want that wars end. They want more wars to sell more weapons. Just don't forget this little fact.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, candide said:

The weapon industry makes money. It doesn't mean the cause is not just. For example, the US industry made a lot of money during WW2, does it imply the US was wrong tu support the allies and ultimately make war?

I believe at that time people had mostly better motives than now.

Do you really think the Afghanistan war would have continued for 20 years without lots of people and companies making insane profits? 

[Kwasaki]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not sure if you didn't read or if you are naive or ignorant.

Wars are big business. And lots of people and companies want war to sell weapons, ammunition, services, and and and. That's a fact and it prolongs wars, and it helps to start wars.

 

Sure, Ukraine and Ukraine people suffer and die and that is a tragedy. And at the same time others profit and they want profit - otherwise they wouldn't be in the war business. And that means some people and companies don't want that wars end. They want more wars to sell more weapons. Just don't forget this little fact.

You are correct and US arms factories and I no doubt other companies throughout the world don't really care. 

War is good business and I still believe that Ukraine is being used as an experiment on how a conventual ground war with Russia turns out, without any real  commitments other than to supply arms, what a perfect situation. 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I believe at that time people had mostly better motives than now.

Do you really think the Afghanistan war would have continued for 20 years without lots of people and companies making insane profits? 

I never said that all wars were just. I said that the weapon industry is always making profits, independently from the fact that a particular war may be just or not. There's not necessarily a causal link.

 

A better example you could have evoked is the war in Irak. It was based on lies and some key actors (ex. Dick Cheney) were obviously compromised with the militaro-industrial complex. It's completely different from the Ukraine case. Actually, several people and countries who are now supporting Ukraine, were against the war in Irak (in particular in Europe, I.e. France)

[vandeventer]

24 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not sure if you didn't read or if you are naive or ignorant.

Wars are big business. And lots of people and companies want war to sell weapons, ammunition, services, and and and. That's a fact and it prolongs wars, and it helps to start wars.

 

Sure, Ukraine and Ukraine people suffer and die and that is a tragedy. And at the same time others profit and they want profit - otherwise they wouldn't be in the war business. And that means some people and companies don't want that wars end. They want more wars to sell more weapons. Just don't forget this little fact.

I am not naïve or ignorant as a Vietnam vet I have seen war in it's darkest form have you? Sure war is a business and the money for the weapons have to come from somewhere but this is not a war but a invasion and it could happen to any country in Europe. This must end with the downfall of Putin to stop the spread.

[Tug]

9 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

When it comes to US Generals yes just bags of wind IMO.

I wouldent say that in Russia you just might get pushed out of a window or at the bare minimum a long stint in prison or perhaps a short stint in the Wagner group ehhhh?bottom line Imo Putin tryed to pull a hitler with the  im protecting the Russian speaking people nato and the west called him on it we learned from the last go around (ww2) Ukraine ???????? is not alone she has the democratic nations on her side unfortunately we cannot respond with our full capacity due to the fear of it escalating to ww3 I wish we could Russia would be out of all of Ukraine within 2 weeks bottom line this is the ambition of one evil dude and is horrible beyond words 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

I am not naïve or ignorant as a Vietnam vet I have seen war in it's darkest form have you? Sure war is a business and the money for the weapons have to come from somewhere but this is not a war but a invasion and it could happen to any country in Europe. This must end with the downfall of Putin to stop the spread.

An invasion is also a war.

No, it could not have happened to any country in Europe because most European countries are NATO members. Invade one of them and be in war with all of them. Putin is not that stupid.

 

I also hope it ends with the downfall of Putin. But will the next Russian leader be any better?

And would it be better if a million people die and then Ukraine has all their land back? Or would it be better if no more people die?

The problem is there are no good solutions. You should remember that one from Vietnam. 

[herfiehandbag]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Agree with a large part of your post. But why do you think that if Ukraine manages to evict the Russians troops from its territory this will lead to the breakup of Russia?

Because to achieve that victory Ukraine will basically have to destroy the Russian military. Without a military Putin's powerbase is gone. He will be overthrown, but again, without a strong military there will be no centralised control, and regional power bases will emerge.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Because to achieve that victory Ukraine will basically have to destroy the Russian military. Without a military Putin's powerbase is gone. He will be overthrown, but again, without a strong military there will be no centralised control, and regional power bases will emerge.

Thanks.

Disagree with you though, Putin may well give up when he is convinced he is not getting anywhere in Ukraine and continuing would be his demise. Regional powerbases take time to emerge, enough time to regain control.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced.

[herfiehandbag]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Thanks.

Disagree with you though, Putin may well give up when he is convinced he is not getting anywhere in Ukraine and continuing would be his demise. Regional powerbases take time to emerge, enough time to regain control.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced.

Well I may be wrong - it is all conjecture but I would expect a pretty rapid fall from power for Putin if the Russian military is seriously weakened. Not least because Putin's way of raising troops for this war has resulted in at least two big "paramilitary" groupings emerge, the greatly enlarged "Wagner" group and the Chechin forces. Both are unlikely to look favourably upon efforts to bring them under government control. A defeated and degraded army may well be unable to exercise that control.

 

As I said, it is very much conjecture. I am sure it is exercising many minds and contingency planners throughout the west, and given Russia's geographical spread, further afield. One thing I am sure, it will be messy.

 

 

 

[SpaceKadet]

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And?

Will the Russians now retreat and apologize and say they will never do it again?

Or will they think when 100,000 Russians died already that they want to see results for that?

Or do the 100,000 not really matter for Putin who makes the decisions?

 

And let's not forget all the dead people and the huge destruction in Ukraine. Even considering the theoretical possibility that Russia could retreat completely from everywhere in Ukraine, would that mean Ukraine won?

A big part of their country is destroyed. They lost, a lot, even if they "win".

 

 

Well, Stalin sent millions to their death, so what is 100,000 in the great scheme of Russian leader bent on restoring the "glory" of the Soviet Union, aka CCCP.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

An invasion is also a war.

The problem is there are no good solutions. You should remember that one from Vietnam. 

Agree and all the other wars too.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

If it's a war based on numbers Mr General don't forget what number the Ukrainian people have lost. 

 

They want tanks in numbers Mr General not idiots like you spouting off about Russia.

 

If you want numbers look at what the Russian population is and what the Ukrainian population is. 

And look at what Russian tactics are compared to Ukrainian tactics. The Russians are now using human waves of lightly trained soldiers in their offensive attacks. Do you think that just maybe, the kill ratio might be a relevant factor in those calculations?

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

One thing which it seems is mentioned nowhere is who profits?

 

All those weapons for Ukraine, who pays for them? Sometimes I read weapons are donated. By whom are they donated? And if weapon A is donated which need ammunition B, who pays for ammunition B?

 

And even if i.e. the USA would pay for all the weapons and ammunition which they supply to Ukraine, why? Because they are so nice people? Or because that keeps the military industrial complex running and financed? After all, if Biden (or any other president) donates all that money, it is not really his money, it's other peoples' money.

 

I think it is naive to only look at Ukraine and Russia and who is wrong and who is right. 

"And even if i.e. the USA would pay for all the weapons and ammunition which they supply to Ukraine, why? Because they are so nice people? Or because that keeps the military industrial complex running and financed?"

 

Very simplistic thinking. Have you thought that there are other possible motivations than either niceness or profit?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

You are correct and US arms factories and I no doubt other companies throughout the world don't really care. 

War is good business and I still believe that Ukraine is being used as an experiment on how a conventual ground war with Russia turns out, without any real  commitments other than to supply arms, what a perfect situation. 

Does this kind of motivation apply to Russia too? After all, they are one of the world's leading arms merchants. Or maybe were one of the world's leading arms merchants given how badly their materiel has performed under conditions of actual war.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

You are correct and US arms factories and I no doubt other companies throughout the world don't really care. 

War is good business and I still believe that Ukraine is being used as an experiment on how a conventual ground war with Russia turns out, without any real  commitments other than to supply arms, what a perfect situation. 

How fortunate for this claimed  ‘experiment’ of yours that Russia chose to invade Ukraine so that the ‘experiment’ could get underway.

 

 

 

[Tug]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

An invasion is also a war.

No, it could not have happened to any country in Europe because most European countries are NATO members. Invade one of them and be in war with all of them. Putin is not that stupid.

 

I also hope it ends with the downfall of Putin. But will the next Russian leader be any better?

And would it be better if a million people die and then Ukraine has all their land back? Or would it be better if no more people die?

The problem is there are no good solutions. You should remember that one from Vietnam. 

I take a very different lesson from Vietnam to me the will of the Vietnamese with oxcart technology and some Soviet weapons were able to hold a vastly superior force in check till the will of the American people had had enough and we withdrew I understand that the Russians aren’t allowed to have freedom of expression as we do here they go to prison or worse keeping that in mind old Putin is sitting atop a powder keg let’s hope it blows!slava Ukraine ???????? 

[The Old Bull]

23 hours ago, vandeventer said:

You can't drive the Russians out with pea shooters so give them the tanks that they badly need. 

That will give the Russians something to shoot at. Right now they can't stage an all out offensive as 45% of Ukranians are pro Russian , a fact western news media ignores.

[hotchilli]

On 1/22/2023 at 7:23 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

And let's not forget all the dead people and the huge destruction in Ukraine. Even considering the theoretical possibility that Russia could retreat completely from everywhere in Ukraine, would that mean Ukraine won?

There are no "winners" in any war...

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

That will give the Russians something to shoot at. Right now they can't stage an all out offensive as 45% of Ukranians are pro Russian , a fact western news media ignores.

Well, if it's a fact, then provide a link to it. But, of course, it's a falsehood.

 

What Next for Ukraine’s Formerly Pro-Russian Regions?

In recent years, despite growing tensions with Russia and the threat of war, this part of Ukraine had retained generally positive attitudes toward its neighbor to the east: 53 percent in Ukraine’s east and 45 percent in the south viewed Russia favorably. Some—though not many—went as far as to support unification with Russia: 22 percent in the Luhansk region, and 11 percent in the Kherson region.

Russia’s invasion largely put an end to this pro-Russian sentiment: by May 2022, only 4 percent in Ukraine’s east and 1 percent in the south still had a positive view of Russia.

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88542

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/22/2023 at 1:29 PM, vandeventer said:

You can't drive the Russians out with pea shooters so give them the tanks that they badly need. 

Do think the Russians will not have taken that into account and prepared accordingly?

It's not like the Russians don't have the means to destroy tanks, is it?

They were probably unprepared for the resistance they got at the beginning, but the longer the war goes on the more lessons they learn and revise their tactics accordingly.

It's never as simple as some on here think it is.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

There are no "winners" in any war...

100% correct, but that's a lesson the human race never learns.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

Thanks.

Disagree with you though, Putin may well give up when he is convinced he is not getting anywhere in Ukraine and continuing would be his demise. Regional powerbases take time to emerge, enough time to regain control.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced.

I have to disagree. Giving up would lead to Putin's demise, IMO, so he's not going to give up.

[Bangkok Barry]

On 1/22/2023 at 7:23 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Or do the 100,000 not really matter for Putin who makes the decisions?

Those who declare war never fight in it themselves. Funny that. They just let others die on their behalf.