Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mutzo Nutzo said:
Latest Defence Intelligence update: Horrendous Russian casualty figures.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what others may say, these type of losses simply aren't sustainable in the medium to long term, as eventually the numbers will run dry.

And that's without considering the loss of equipment, the fiscal cost and the impact at home. You can't maintain casualty figures of 35,000+ per month for very long.

On a different note (albeit slightly late)...

 
tantavisiteler said:
wth? The Guardian criticises Starmer's commitment to help Ukraine have better weapons

www.theguardian.com

It’s worrying to see the prime minister cheerleading for war. Will Ukraine turn into Starmer’s Iraq? | Simon Jenkins

The Nato summit offered a chance to work towards resolution. But instead, Starmer talked about long-range missiles, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
It is probably the best option to follow the NATO line publicly and do what you think should be done and not grandstand about it.

Giving longer range weapons and tacitly not restricting their use would give Ukraine what they need and not allow Russia to cry about it for their propaganda purposes.

If Trump gets the vote in 5 months time, then who knows if we'd get anything over there before this and if they'd be useful after Trump. Starmer has tried to show off and the potential outcome is to make it even harder to normalise relationships with Russia if a peace deal is done. He's acting like a PM who wants to look big and proactive instead of doing what needs to be done quietly and effectively.
 
PhilM said:
Regardless of what others may say, these type of losses simply aren't sustainable in the medium to long term, as eventually the numbers will run dry.

And that's without considering the loss of equipment, the fiscal cost and the impact at home. You can't maintain casualty figures of 35,000+ per month for very long.

On a different note (albeit slightly late)...

Click to expand...

More or less my immediate thoughts. Even if you have Russia's population, those are casualty counts where it had better result in a quick victory.

The highest sustained numbers I'm aware of belong to the Germans in WWII. On average, over five and a half years of war they lost over a hundred thousand people per month between KIA, MIA and wounded per their own statistics, which do not appear to be lowball.

Keeping something like that up is impossible from Putin's perspective. He has a vast, sprawling country rather than a smallish, heavily urbanized one, and doesn't have the manpower, organization or loyalty to hunt down enough people and force them to fight.
 
Martin Alvito said:
More or less my immediate thoughts. Even if you have Russia's population, those are casualty counts where it had better result in a quick victory.

The highest sustained numbers I'm aware of belong to the Germans in WWII. On average, over five and a half years of war they lost over a hundred thousand people per month between KIA, MIA and wounded per their own statistics, which do not appear to be lowball.

Keeping something like that up is impossible from Putin's perspective. He has a vast, sprawling country rather than a smallish, heavily urbanized one, and doesn't have the manpower, organization or loyalty to hunt down enough people and force them to fight.
Click to expand...
The fact it is a vaste sprawling country means he can keep loses off the headlines. Lots of his troops come from regions far from Moscow and St Petersburg so funerals ( if they aren't cremated close to the front) won't make the news media. And don't forget KIA figures are being used by both sides as propaganda,the true figures may never be known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top