International Russia vs Ukraine Combat Megathread vol 4

[CorninginChristianburg]

It was pretty obvious from the start they've been using kid gloves compared to how the west runs war.

Could you imagine cars doing drive by Molotov at tanks In Iraq? Hell no. They'd be destroyed before getting close. Same with firing from buildings. Thatd be a airstrike.

Seems the biggest difference is America ( and the West. Australia is as complicit ) value's it's troops lives more than civilians of whomever they've invaded. At the start of this invasion seems the Russians were far more willing to risk its troops lives when dealing with the civilians.

Fucking crazy. I've always been pro west... but pfffft. It's a bit of a joke.

I tip my hate to western propaganda tho... well played well played

Wow, this makes no sense haha. We had troops in Iraq. They were targeted by locals. We committed about the same number, perhaps slightly more troops, for the invasion of Iraq than the Russians did for the invasion of Ukraine.

There's a difference between using kid gloves and having a delusion. It's clear that the Russian leadership thought there was significantly more support for the Russian government in Ukraine than there actually was. They sent detachments of 3 or 4 tanks/APC on thunder runs down roads trying to run past Ukrainian military installations to avoid actual fighting and those armored units outran logistics and their soldiers fled. They genuinely believed that when they completed the first round of shelling military institutions, that civilians would turn on the local government and depose them.

That's why the modus operandi changed so drastically heading into the 4th day. Prior to that, they had been fighting a war of delusion. The third day was the first day they began using their fires. To which, it's really a nonsensical point "oh no, the Americans use drones!!" Are cruise missiles better? Are MLRS batteries better? It's not as though there have been fewer fires merely because of Russia's limited use of UAVs. It's not like a war is more "moral" or "humane" or whatever that might be just because you execute it poorly.

And now for over a week the Russians have not been consistently outrunning logistics. They've not been reserving their fires. Reports suggest that they've used a quarter of their PGM stock, their pace of fire usage naturally has to decline because otherwise they will exhaust their stock in a week. They're not trying to wage war poorly just to be in concert with some fool's definition of what might be a more compassionate war.

 

[Anewt]

You can find picture of Dmitry Rogozin giving a Nazi salute, he is General Director of Roscosmos. And it’s known that he is kind of a right-wing. Also in rebel republics there is Pavel Gubarev but I guess he would be considered more like an ethnonationalist in the West. I mean, there is people with such background in Russian government/politics.

Mind sourcing because I tried and got a bunch of debunking claims. Is it the black and white photo?

Either way.. my original statement of fuck em both still counts=)

 

[Feniamin]

Mind sourcing because I tried and got a bunch of debunking claims. Is it the black and white photo?

Either way.. my original statement of fuck em both still counts=)

Yeah, black and white. There is also guy holding poster “Whites of all countries unite” near him.

 

[Anewt]

Wow, this makes no sense haha. We had troops in Iraq. They were targeted by locals. We committed about the same number, perhaps slightly more troops, for the invasion of Iraq than the Russians did for the invasion of Ukraine.

There's a difference between using kid gloves and having a delusion. It's clear that the Russian leadership thought there was significantly more support for the Russian government in Ukraine than there actually was. They sent detachments of 3 or 4 tanks/APC on thunder runs down roads trying to run past Ukrainian military installations to avoid actual fighting and those armored units outran logistics and their soldiers fled. They genuinely believed that when they completed the first round of shelling military institutions, that civilians would turn on the local government and depose them.

That's why the modus operandi changed so drastically heading into the 4th day. Prior to that, they had been fighting a war of delusion. The third day was the first day they began using their fires. To which, it's really a nonsensical point "oh no, the Americans use drones!!" Are cruise missiles better? Are MLRS batteries better? It's not as though there have been fewer fires merely because of Russia's limited use of UAVs. It's not like a war is more "moral" or "humane" or whatever that might be just because you execute it poorly.

And now for over a week the Russians have not been consistently outrunning logistics. They've not been reserving their fires. Reports suggest that they've used a quarter of their PGM stock, their pace of fire usage naturally has to decline because otherwise they will exhaust their stock in a week. They're not trying to wage war poorly just to be in concert with some fool's definition of what might be a more compassionate war.

Did I say they were being more compassionate? No.. I said they've treated the Ukrainians with kid gloves compared to us forces in Iraq.

yes the locals attacked us forces.. what the hell do you call Molotov cocktails at tanks ? Locals providing free drinks ?


Look at you justifying us force because the locals fought. The irony is absolutely incredible.


In your opinion Russia has fought with kid gloves because poor logistics... everything is Russia bad Russia dumb. Not Russia not trying to harm civilians .

You can make all the assumptions about why they've not been killing civilians as much as usa does a Because " Russia dumb." At the same time justifying American killing of locals lol..

Absolutely amazing. You acknowledge they haven't fought the locals like usa did. You just have different reasons you believe than I do.

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

Does anyone have a link to a site that provides a summary of major developments/news?

I was actually using this thread initially to stay on top of the situation, but I can't seem to make heads or tails of what people are talking about now - something about Dua Lupa delivering McDonalds, and a boycott of Russian dressing on a Rueben sandwich. The only constant is people bitching at @Da Speeit, and @Da Speeit asking for additional sources because he doesn't believe the ones he is given.

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
These sites provide reasonable updates, if you can tolerate the propaganda spin.

We're now on volume 4. In volume 2 someone summed up the poster in question very well. I think it's a very good description for a certain type of thinker in general. For the things he wants to believe, he will assert without providing or requiring any proof or minimal proof. For the things he wants to disbelieve, there is no amount of proof in the world that could exist and be adequate.

We're almost 2 weeks into the war now. The group of people whose were actually curious what is happening on the ground there has basically evaporated as people move on with their lives. All that's left really are people who think that contrarianism and skepticism are the same thing, and they think themselves somehow enlightened because, despite their poor knowledge of either military tactics or philosophical logic, they persist in disbelieving the popular narratives.

 

[Jim Gilmore]

He is a serbian immigrant who lives in a western country but has this weird sympathy for Putin mainly because it is embedded in their brain that the failure of their empires are big historic injustices commited by western countries and not as a consequence of the revolt of people who have been harassed and discriminated becuase their empires (and lately Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) have used a wrong concept of co-existense. What is tragic is there is ZERO reflection from their politicians even in 2022. Putin continues his terror on civilians after all these sanctions and Serbia is the only european country candidate for EU to have imposed ZERO sanctions on Russia.

Damn that shit was deep

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

Did I say they were being more compassionate? No.. I said they've treated the Ukrainians with kid gloves compared to us forces in Iraq.

yes the locals attacked us forces.. what the hell do you call Molotov cocktails at tanks ? Locals providing free drinks ?


Look at you justifying us force because the locals fought. The irony is absolutely incredible.


In your opinion Russia has fought with kid gloves because poor logistics... everything is Russia bad Russia dumb. Not Russia not trying to harm civilians .

You can make all the assumptions about why they've not been killing civilians as much as usa does a Because " Russia dumb." At the same time justifying American killing of locals lol..

Absolutely amazing. You acknowledge they haven't fought the locals like usa did. You just have different reasons you believe than I do.

Wtf? That's not what I said. Let's go line by line.

No they have not treated the Ukrainians with kid gloves. They did about 4 days into the war. We are 13 days into the war, I'm aware that you likely have paid little or not attention to the details of the war itself but they've employed significant amounts of fires since then, both precision guided but also dumb fires, which are significantly more risky towards civilians.

You asserted in your post quote above that the US did not employ ground troops, but rather airstrikes. I pointed out that this claim is factually incorrect. You also theorized something about how Iraqi locals would be unable to fight back against the americans with molotov cocktails, which is again untrue because they did.

At no point did I say that the war was or wasn't justified. Much less did I provide the reasoning that it was justified because the locals fought back. You are clearly trying to strawman, it's really childish. I said that we did have ground troops. We did. They were targeted by locals. They were. That was the extent of my statement. If you want to read something more, go find a book.

I don't think the Russian military is dumb. I know significantly more about the Russian military than you do. Sending 3-4 piece armor units down roads on thunder runs and outstripping logistics is not saving civilian's lives. It has not turned out to save civilian lives. What would have saved civilian lives is a rapid and effective military campaign. We don't have estimates as to the total number of civilian deaths thus far, only confirmed totals, but projections indicate that this war will and may have already cost the lives of more civilians than the entire 26 day invasion of Iraq. It's clear that they didn't fight this way because they figured it would save civilian casualties, but because they thought it would result in the accomplishment of military objectives, which points to an unreasonable ROE.

How do we know that the concern wasn't civilian casualties? Because they literally abandoned this ridiculous strategy and these untenable ROE on day 4 and began to wage conventional reasonable warfare. If this was some 5 head scheme to minimize civilian casualties then they would have continued doing it because there weren't many civilian casualties in the first 4 days, so they were successful in that area. But obviously that is not the objective.

It's a terrible argument, one I'm not even sure you know enough to make. But there was this argument in the first 3 or 4 days of the war that "maybe the russians are moving slowly because they want to minimize civilian casualties." No one is making it anymore. It's actually completely wrong. The Russians actually moved through Ukraine significantly faster in the first 4 days than the Americans were able to move through Iraq. These scout parties that outran logistics made it deep into Ukrainian territory, basically as far as you can travel on a tank of gas. They just had no effectiveness because they had no support. And in fact, purely in terms of distinct area traveled by Russian forces, the Russians advanced significantly more in those first 4 days than they have in the 9 days since then. And at the time, in those first 4 days, people thought maybe this was some 4D chess move to avoid civilian casualties. No one thinks that anymore, except a person like you who clearly doesn't keep up with the actual events taking place in the war.

 

[ralphc1]

Putin has certain beliefs and surrounds himself with others who will go along with him and support him no matter what they think or know. Putin might have been deluded enough to believe that Ukrainians really longed for the days of the Soviet Union. He was also deluded enough to believe that conscripted soldiers would be willing to kill civilians. Putin isn't a military strategist and apparently neither are his commanders. Traveling in long columns with heavy equipment on roads in the spring is not a well thought out strategy. All they need to do is cripple a vehicle at the front of the column and the whole column shuts down. They can't go around because the ground is too soft. The heavy traffic on the roads breaks up the roads that aren't built to carry that kind of weight. The roads aren't wide enough to bring fuel trucks up from the rear so equipment can't be refueled. Fuel tankers are easy targets. It seems that a lot of the equipment wasn't in good shape and broke down creating more problems for the columns on narrow roads.

The drones and the shoulder fired missiles the Ukranians have make targeting anything from jet, to helicopters, to tanks very easy and have a very high target kill ratio. I don't know how many of the shoulder fired rockets they had at the start of the war but reports are that 17,000 more have been sent. Fuel trucks are easy prey for 50 cal sniper rifles with incendiary rounds from 2,000 yards. Bridges can be blown up so the Russians can't bring up supplies. When they didn't reach their objectives in a few days, they were in big trouble. Now there are reports that several Russian commanders have been killed. There are reports of Russian soldiers defecting and large numbers of casualties. It's always questionable in war what can be believed but Russia has admitted to about 500 dead and has given posthumous medals to at least two high ranking commanders.

 

[Anewt]

Wtf? That's not what I said. Let's go line by line.

No they have not treated the Ukrainians with kid gloves. They did about 4 days into the war. We are 13 days into the war, I'm aware that you likely have paid little or not attention to the details of the war itself but they've employed significant amounts of fires since then, both precision guided but also dumb fires, which are significantly more risky towards civilians.

You asserted in your post quote above that the US did not employ ground troops, but rather airstrikes. I pointed out that this claim is factually incorrect. You also theorized something about how Iraqi locals would be unable to fight back against the americans with molotov cocktails, which is again untrue because they did.

At no point did I say that the war was or wasn't justified. Much less did I provide the reasoning that it was justified because the locals fought back. You are clearly trying to strawman, it's really childish. I said that we did have ground troops. We did. They were targeted by locals. They were. That was the extent of my statement. If you want to read something more, go find a book.

I don't think the Russian military is dumb. I know significantly more about the Russian military than you do. Sending 3-4 piece armor units down roads on thunder runs and outstripping logistics is not saving civilian's lives. It has not turned out to save civilian lives. What would have saved civilian lives is a rapid and effective military campaign. We don't have estimates as to the total number of civilian deaths thus far, only confirmed totals, but projections indicate that this war will and may have already cost the lives of more civilians than the entire 26 day invasion of Iraq. It's clear that they didn't fight this way because they figured it would save civilian casualties, but because they thought it would result in the accomplishment of military objectives, which points to an unreasonable ROE.

How do we know that the concern wasn't civilian casualties? Because they literally abandoned this ridiculous strategy and these untenable ROE on day 4 and began to wage conventional reasonable warfare. If this was some 5 head scheme to minimize civilian casualties then they would have continued doing it because there weren't many civilian casualties in the first 4 days, so they were successful in that area. But obviously that is not the objective.

It's a terrible argument, one I'm not even sure you know enough to make. But there was this argument in the first 3 or 4 days of the war that "maybe the russians are moving slowly because they want to minimize civilian casualties." No one is making it anymore. It's actually completely wrong. The Russians actually moved through Ukraine significantly faster in the first 4 days than the Americans were able to move through Iraq. These scout parties that outran logistics made it deep into Ukrainian territory, basically as far as you can travel on a tank of gas. They just had no effectiveness because they had no support. And in fact, purely in terms of distinct area traveled by Russian forces, the Russians advanced significantly more in those first 4 days than they have in the 9 days since then. And at the time, in those first 4 days, people thought maybe this was some 4D chess move to avoid civilian casualties. No one thinks that anymore, except a person like you who clearly doesn't keep up with the actual events taking place in the war.

First paragraph. The casualties are still exceptionally low for civilians . You think the kid gloves came off after 3 4 days... I disagree partially. Because its definitely escalated.. I said compared to the US in Iraq.

Second paragraph = no I didn't say they didn't have boots of the ground.. that's you misreading my point. The airstrikes were called in by troops on the ground to avoid casualties. Which was my point...

3rd no I didn't say Iraqi locals couldn't and didn't fight... that's you again..

4th... never said ground troops weren't targeted by Iraqi locals... ffs man this is getting annoying. Your arguing points I never made.

4th.. oh bullshit.. you want me to go on " projections and estimates not facts? That's ridiculous. Who's projections. Who's estimates? Show me some sources buddy.

5th
Russia could Already have levelled entire cities if they didn't care about civilian deaths.......

6th. Your opinion.. as your entire post is.

As mine are as well

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

Putin has certain beliefs and surrounds himself with others who will go along with him and support him no matter what they think or know. Putin might have been deluded enough to believe that Ukrainians really longed for the days of the Soviet Union. He was also deluded enough to believe that conscripted soldiers would be willing to kill civilians. Putin isn't a military strategist and apparently neither are his commanders. Traveling in long columns with heavy equipment on roads in the spring is not a well thought out strategy. All they need to do is cripple a vehicle at the front of the column and the whole column shuts down. They can't go around because the ground is too soft. The heavy traffic on the roads breaks up the roads that aren't built to carry that kind of weight. The roads aren't wide enough to bring fuel trucks up from the rear so equipment can't be refueled. Fuel tankers are easy targets. It seems that a lot of the equipment wasn't in good shape and broke down creating more problems for the columns on narrow roads.

The drones and the shoulder fired missiles the Ukranians have make targeting anything from jet, to helicopters, to tanks very easy and have a very high target kill ratio. I don't know how many of the shoulder fired rockets they had at the start of the war but reports are that 17,000 more have been sent. Fuel trucks are easy prey for 50 cal sniper rifles with incendiary rounds from 2,000 yards. Bridges can be blown up so the Russians can't bring up supplies. When they didn't reach their objectives in a few days, they were in big trouble. Now there are reports that several Russian commanders have been killed. There are reports of Russian soldiers defecting and large numbers of casualties. It's always questionable in war what can be believed but Russia has admitted to about 500 dead and has given posthumous medals to at least two high ranking commanders.

To be fair to them, I don't think that the convoy was intended to be that long or close to that, it is merely that there have been numerous logistical issues that have basically created a traffic jam, and as you mentioned by just butting the front of the convoy, the Ukrainians have stalled it entirely.

I actually came here to make a post complaining about Zelensky and the Ukrainian propaganda that's going on until I saw the how ridiculous the existing conversation was. I am getting a bit annoyed by Zelensky's rhetoric against the west on weapons because, the reality is that we know the Ukrainians have no exhausted their fires, and suspect they're not even close. We know that, even without our reinforcement, much less with it, they're nowhere close to exhausting their supply of shoulder fired missiles. And the claim was made just two days ago I believe that a "significant majority" of Ukrainian jets were still operational. So to hear the day to day rambling of "such and such a civilian's death is on the hands of the west because they don't enforce a no fly zone, or don't provide us with fighter jets, etc." On the one hand, I understand the need to prepare for the future, they have weapons now, but they need more weapons so that they won't run out. On the other hand, I think the characterization is disingenuous. Despite what the west portrays, Ukraine actually is a top 25, arguably a top 20 military. They're not small and frail and they actually don't have a great shortage of firepower. The Ukrainian army is larger than the invading Russian task force, with reserve it's many times larger. They have fewer total fires and were theorized to have weaker airspace control, but Russia was never going to commit all of their fires to this war, and airspace has remained contested. So if they're not using their existing fires, and people are currently suffering, that is regrettable but it's not quite the west's fault. At best, the west can be blamed for future casualties down the line when munitions run out, but that won't be for a while...

 

[koquerelle]

You will never see a Woman in government power in Russia either. Are you suprised Motherfucker?

Only Putin has power, so...

 

[koquerelle]

It's like everything else. We can't have these labs in America so we do it in other countries defeating the purpose of why we don't do it.

Kind of like oil.

Don't forget prisons where we can torture enemies.

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

First paragraph. The casualties are still exceptionally low for civilians . You think the kid gloves came off after 3 4 days... I disagree partially. Because its definitely escalated.. I said compared to the US in Iraq.

Second paragraph = no I didn't say they didn't have boots of the ground.. that's you misreading my point. The airstrikes were called in by troops on the ground to avoid casualties. Which was my point...

3rd no I didn't say Iraqi locals couldn't and didn't fight... that's you again..

4th... never said ground troops weren't targeted by Iraqi locals... ffs man this is getting annoying. Your arguing points I never made.

4th.. oh bullshit.. you want me to go on " projections and estimates not facts? That's ridiculous. Who's projections. Who's estimates? Show me some sources buddy.

5th
Russia could Already have levelled entire cities if they didn't care about civilian deaths.......

6th. Your opinion.. as your entire post is.

Again, you fail to distinguish whatsoever between airstrikes and other types of fires that don't involve ground troops. You seem totally unaware but the presence of ground troops doesn't actually produce more casualties than fires, the latter of which have been employed significantly.

This is your exact quote: "Could you imagine cars doing drive by Molotov at tanks In Iraq? Hell no. They'd be destroyed before getting close. Same with firing from buildings. Thatd be a airstrike." Which is false. Because that's exactly what happened. Cars ambushed American armor in Iraq. So you did say they couldn't. I said they not only could, they did. Your reading is terrible.

Your argument is 1. The Americans never let themselves take casualties because they did everything via airstrike. 2. "never said ground troops weren't targeted by Iraqi locals." Which is it? Did we let our ground troops take casualties or not? You can't have it both ways.

No one knows the facts at this point because entire cities are leveled, and they cannot find the missing or count the dead. This has been stated and restated repeatedly, I will drop just one link with an example of the Mariupol Mayor saying it, but he has said it many times and many others have as well. And you would be new to war to expect differently, it's only typically months to years after a war has concluded that we can accurately gauge the civilian casualty rate because we can finally have some idea of who is missing temporarily and who is missing permanently.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-new...s-03-03-22/h_bb7d246bf72ba79f73edf9464f2b3712
Since these agencies that do the statistics keeping weren't born yesterday like you, they always also note in their reports that they are significantly undercounting, for the aforementioned reasons.


Not really, no. Not in the way you're thinking. People in Kharkiv and Mariupol have already said "they've leveled our cities." In that figurative sense they already have. But in terms of actually leveling cities, like knocking down every building that could be used for cover or would require clearance, that's unrealistic. Even large missiles can typically clear the area of 1 or 2 buildings. Neither is that the design of missiles, because what you hit matters more than how much you hit. But obviously even Russia does not have the firepower to level that much area. So if you mean "level" in the proverbial sense, they already have. If you mean "level" in the literal sense, then that's unrealistic.

 

[JSN]

I personally disagree with your 2nd point as the civilian casualties don't lead me to believe Russia is more likely to target civilian... honestly I go the other way. But it is food for thought

Not directly but they are willing to use them as chess pieces to a higher degree. Over time this could well lead to starvation, disease, death fro exposure, etc. and it’s fundamentally different from war generally leading to conditions that resulted in deaths because they’re not just trying to capture the fort, but the citizenry as well. Clearly they’re not doing some terrible shit like like the WW2 eastern front though.

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

5th
Russia could Already have levelled entire cities if they didn't care about civilian deaths.......

I should address the core of your argument though. Your argument at its heart is that Russians are more moral than Americans. That's why in everything they do, they take significantly more care to minimize civilian casualties. And the Americans don't.

I honestly don't care about whether you think Americans are moral or not. If you want to believe that Russians are actually saints and I just can't see the halo from here, that's fine.

BUT. EVEN IF we grant you that Russia is trying to be more moral than the Americans. As I said above. An inefficient or ineffective war does not prevent more civilian casualties than an effective one. We're 13 days into the Russo/Ukrainian War. The Russians are not on track to conquer Ukraine in the next 13 days. And the longer the war draws out, the more civilians will die. So even if you legitimately think only 474 civilians have died in the first 13 days. Its not as simple a calculation as doubling it for 26 days and just assume the war will be over by then so wow look, the Russians were so much more humane.

Perhaps it's possible, it's certainly not likely, not least in part due to the fact that they have to lay siege on a lot of major cities. Even the first round of smaller cities that they laid siege to (Mariupol, Sumy, Volnovakha, Irpin) have not yet surrendered. Much less the second round of cities that they would need to lay siege to, larger cities with significantly more area to cover and many more inroads/outroads that could lead to the city being resupplied. These include, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Odessa. To get to Odessa they first need to finish the siege of Mykolaiv, which only begun after the capture of Kherson. The siege force for Kyiv is that convoy that is stuck in a massive traffic jam outside Kyiv, etc. So not only will the sieges not likely end before 13 days have passed, they may not even have begun before 13 more days have passed. They also continually have to suppress attacks on logistics in the suburbs around both Kyiv and Kharkiv, thus far preventing effective encirclement of Kharkiv. No units have even reached Dnipro, they've only pushed so far as Zaporizhzhia.

So if you think "wow, well this war will be over really quickly and the Russians will have done it really bloodlessly compared to those bloodthirsty Americans." You're wrong. This is going to be a long war, and if Russia persists in waging it, it's really only just beginning. For the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi estimate for civilian fatalities is 7200 (the Ukrainian estimate so far in this war is over 2000) while the NGO estimate is 3200-4300. Russia has plenty of time to reach and greatly surpass those numbers, seeing as the war for the largest cities has hardly begun.

 

[Dexter]

I see no discussions about 2 Romanian military crafts (fighter jet and helicopter), probably downed by Ukrainian anti-air system 6 days ago. No news about it in western media? Meanwhile, Romania found missile parts on the crash site and asked Ukraine for their AA activities that day.

 

[San Marino]

The Russians actually moved through Ukraine significantly faster in the first 4 days than the Americans were able to move through Iraq.

How many Russian units are we talking about here? The Russians used roads, we Americans were driving on desert (sand) the early days of 2003. Elements of the 3rd and 4th Infantry Division. ...and we did not run out of gas.

. Also, just folks will know, both the AT4 and Javelin anti-tank systems are one shot and discard. You cannot reload them.

* In other news:
U.S. intel agencies: Russia does not want to engage directly with U.S. military (msn.com)

 

[CorninginChristianburg]

How many Russian units are we talking about here? The Russians used roads, we Americans were driving on desert (sand) the early days of 2003. Elements of the 3rd and 4th Infantry Division. ...and we did not run out of gas.

. Also, just folks will know, both the AT4 and Javelin anti-tank systems are one shot and discard. You cannot reload them.

* In other news:
U.S. intel agencies: Russia does not want to engage directly with U.S. military (msn.com)

Units is again a stretch because they were really just 3-4 car groups of armored vehicles. That's why the estimate is that Russia has lost about 10 tanks per day, it's really not that many. Small, I guess we can call them recon groups although is it recon if you get nothing valuable before being captured? It's not like an entire battlegroup drove until it ran out of gas. But my point is, this idea that the Russians are moving slowly and methodically to avoid civilian casualties is flawed. Running down roads until you outrun logistics is not moving slowly and methodically.

 

[Phlog]

The difference is they're white.
Let's just call it what it is. If these were brown, islamic people no one would care.

Plenty of people opposed the war in Iraq in the UK. There were big protests about it. The more people are like you though, the more you can imagine it happening to you, and this is Europe ffs, the cradle of western civilization.

It would be weird if it were not so would it not?

 

[Anewt]

Again, you fail to distinguish whatsoever between airstrikes and other types of fires that don't involve ground troops. You seem totally unaware but the presence of ground troops doesn't actually produce more casualties than fires, the latter of which have been employed significantly.

This is your exact quote: "Could you imagine cars doing drive by Molotov at tanks In Iraq? Hell no. They'd be destroyed before getting close. Same with firing from buildings. Thatd be a airstrike." Which is false. Because that's exactly what happened. Cars ambushed American armor in Iraq. So you did say they couldn't. I said they not only could, they did. Your reading is terrible.

Your argument is 1. The Americans never let themselves take casualties because they did everything via airstrike. 2. "never said ground troops weren't targeted by Iraqi locals." Which is it? Did we let our ground troops take casualties or not? You can't have it both ways.

No one knows the facts at this point because entire cities are leveled, and they cannot find the missing or count the dead. This has been stated and restated repeatedly, I will drop just one link with an example of the Mariupol Mayor saying it, but he has said it many times and many others have as well. And you would be new to war to expect differently, it's only typically months to years after a war has concluded that we can accurately gauge the civilian casualty rate because we can finally have some idea of who is missing temporarily and who is missing permanently.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-new...s-03-03-22/h_bb7d246bf72ba79f73edf9464f2b3712
Since these agencies that do the statistics keeping weren't born yesterday like you, they always also note in their reports that they are significantly undercounting, for the aforementioned reasons.


Not really, no. Not in the way you're thinking. People in Kharkiv and Mariupol have already said "they've leveled our cities." In that figurative sense they already have. But in terms of actually leveling cities, like knocking down every building that could be used for cover or would require clearance, that's unrealistic. Even large missiles can typically clear the area of 1 or 2 buildings. Neither is that the design of missiles, because what you hit matters more than how much you hit. But obviously even Russia does not have the firepower to level that much area. So if you mean "level" in the proverbial sense, they already have. If you mean "level" in the literal sense, then that's unrealistic.

...... you're being a clown.. did I say vehicle attacks didn't occur.. what do you think happened after the first few vehicle attacks?

I'm guessing the americans just sat there and let vehicles roll up to then and molotov then drive away without a single round fired.

Oh ground troops now = Lower casualties now? Luckily Russia has ground troops then hey.....

The Americans never let themselves take casualties because they did everything via airstrike. 2. "never said ground troops weren't targeted by Iraqi locals." Which is it? Did we let our ground troops take casualties or not? You can't have it both ways.

Are you purposefully being obtuse? Or just taking things so damn literally it's ridiculous?

I never said Americans never suffered casualties lol why the hell do you think airstrikes were called? It wasn't oh. I sense a disturbance in the force. Call in a airstrike.... it was fuck that they shot at us from that building./ area . call in a airstrike.


I honestly have no idea what you are actually arguing.

Oh yes.. Kiev independent I'm sure is a trustworthy non bias source... without a doubt they would be accurately reporting......

So far, 474 civilians have been killed and 861 injured. 38 children have been killed and 71 wounded.

By your source.... and it will definitely be more killed.. where are you coming up with these estimates and projections ? How many died in the first month of Iraq.. you'll obviously know the answer to that since the estimates directly referred to it.... according to you.

Look what you wrote

We don't have estimates as to the total number of civilian deaths thus far, only confirmed totals, but projections indicate that this war will and may have already cost the lives of more civilians than the entire 26 day invasion of Iraq.

So without having estimates... it's projected the war will have more deaths than the first month of Iraq already... come on bud... source me up