I think the Ukrainians did the bridge, just like they killed that one dude’s daughter, who was close to Putin. That said, I do think hitting civilian targets such as electric, water and sewage is wrong and I would think violates the Geneva conventions. Russia has a history of targeting civilians. My main concern is Russia being successful with these campaigns.
No, it was funny. I remember those quotations now. Probably just should have led with the whole story, though.
The eye-watering total amount to 12,730, averaging more than 400 personnel a day. It brings the total death toll among Russian troops to at least 71,200 since February 24, the day Putin ordered his invasion. G8tr - But is it really eyewatering from a totalitarian nations perspective? I understand that it's not WW2 and thinking has changed, but hell, The USSR would sacrifice 71,000 in a week or two in WW2 and not blink. Unlike the USA, Putin faces little in the way of consequences, for body bags. You complain, go to jail, gulag or get a bullet in the head. Thats the way the Totalitarians roll. ESPECIALLY in Russia. The Russians have a particularily low regard, historically speaking, of casulty counts, when it comes to achieving political or geo-political goals. I don't see Putin as being much different from Russian despots of the past. 71,000 or 710,000 ....... whats the difference to him? We are talking about his legacy man, a few hundred thousand, hell a few million, dead ski's, should not get in the way of that. Of course social media is a monster even a repressive regime like Russia will have incredible difficulty "corking", in fact they can't. I personally believe that whatever influence it will take to stop Russian aggession WON'T be pile upon pile of dead Ski's. It will be something else.
Speaking for self, I don’t personally see any of the targets mentioned as illegitimate. But I will say that history tells us targeting the civilian population to undermine the war effort does not seem to work. In fact, it reeks of desperation when not combined with actual concrete victories against a nation’s armed forces. The highest example of this is during the Battle of Britain when Germany shifted its targeting from the RAF and Royal Navy to the British cities; it was the first symptom in retrospect that Germany was losing, even though they were at their high-water mark, strategically.
Assuming 71,200 Russians have been killed, allowing for the usual ratio of killed to wounded of 1:3 that means the Ukrainian military has killed or wounded more troops than Russia has ever had in theatre. And still Ukraine is unable to advance. Maybe they’re fending off bears and wolves ?
If 71,000 is an accurate number (and I assume it’s an overestimation by a factor of 2), then that’s still a staggering figure even by Russian standards. Without a bonafide threat to the Russian homeland (one that the Russian people would actually buy, not this uncreative Nazi nonsense), I don’t think a casualty rate like that is sustainable.
I agree 100%. Historically, this only makes a resolute citizenry even more resolute. But I wonder if it's Ukranian resolve Putin is testing with this. This won't just stress Ukraine, but will also stress the West as it will have to up its resource allocation.
While I would like to believe you are right, I have serious doubts. I don't think the Czar has any problems keeping the body piles from stacking up to save his ass.
FWIW, it was important enough to Putin that early on he relied more on contractors and Chechen troops and already enlisted soldiers and wanted to avoid general drafts that were visible to everyday public especially Russian mothers. So obviously it matters. Will the pushback be enough on Putin to make a difference? Hard to say.
Russian support for partial-mobilization remains strong, hovering around 75% in non-government polls. I concur that Russia started light, slow and cautious, rendering estimates of Russian casualties as the stuff of barking madness.
I would counter as follows: First it was going to be flowers and vodka greeting the troops. He used his "Wagner" Group terorists. Didn't work out to well So he calls up his 300,000 or is it 1,000,000? I hear conflicting reports. To me that shows he crossed the Rubicon. Again, I hope I'm wrong but he is slowly cranking up the killing both in destruction of Civilian infrastructure, blocking the food shipment aggrements and of course with calling his "draft". His actions demonstrate no backing down, rather a gradual increase in presssure. IMO anyway.
Putin had to go the partial-mobilization route because he knew that as few as 50,000 troops, in a country the size of Texas, with a 1,100 km contact line, against hundreds of thousands of troops weaponized by 30+ nations, was going take a helluva long time and the public was growing restless.
Yep, if he cannot conquer it, he will try to destroy it and is counting on the west to eventually tire of the matter. At that point he can do whatever he wants.
Putin never announced any intention of conquering Ukraine. That’s purely a Western projection to justify a massive proxy war. That said, if the West does not relent, I can see Putin taking the whole of Ukraine. That said, I can already see cracks in Western resolve.
From BBC : The Russian leader's initial aim was to overrun Ukraine and depose its government, ending for good its desire to join the Western defensive alliance Nato.
that and the sheer number of people that fled to avoid being drafted screams that he doesn't have the support for these kinds of losses in a war of aggression
Just making sure I understand you… you don’t see the Ukrainian power plants and water facilities as illegitimate targets? I could see that if Ukraine was the invading party and Russia was defending their sovereignty, but as we know…..that’s not the case here.
