Lounge of The Russian-Ukrainian War

MSM (Daily Mail) is reporting that Russia has allegedly lost 1,950KIA in ONE DAY, per Ukrainian sources (hah!).

mol.im

Russia suffers 'its deadliest day of the war with 1,950 killed'

Vladimir Putin's losses in the war against Ukraine are piling up after thousands of Russian soldiers died in the last two days alone.
mol.im mol.im

Russia has suffered its deadliest day of the war in Ukraine so far, with 1,950 soldiers killed in just 24 hours, according to the Ukrainian army.

Vladimir Putin's losses in the war against Ukraine are piling up after thousands of Russian soldiers died in the last two days alone, with 1,770 soldiers being killed on Sunday and another 1,950 on Monday.

The record number of 1,950 troops dying within a day serves as fresh humiliation for Putin after his two-day Kursk counter offensive on the weekend ended with 28 tanks blown up and 100 troops killed, according to reports.
Click to expand...

Per Mediazona, the worst one-day KIA loss for Russia was less than 250, so this statement above is obviously false. Nevertheless I wonder if the Russians did indeed have a relatively bad day in Kursk or whether this is complete hogwash.
 
Cooper said:
MSM (Daily Mail) is reporting that Russia has allegedly lost 1,950KIA in ONE DAY, per Ukrainian sources (hah!).

mol.im

Russia suffers 'its deadliest day of the war with 1,950 killed'

Vladimir Putin's losses in the war against Ukraine are piling up after thousands of Russian soldiers died in the last two days alone.
mol.im mol.im



Per Mediazona, the worst one-day KIA loss for Russia was less than 250, so this statement above is obviously false. Nevertheless I wonder if the Russians did indeed have a relatively bad day in Kursk or whether this is complete hogwash.
Click to expand...

Haven't had much time to monitor everything lately, so I can't comment one way or another. But by common sense: almost 2k KIA means another 8k wounded (give or take), for a total of up to 10k loses (almost a division) in a sector where both sides operate platoon, at most company, sized elements seems too far-fetched.
 
Last edited:
Vox Day's latest post is entitled "Zelensky on the Way Out." This would not surprise me. What did surprise me was this bit at the end of the post, from an unspecified source:

"The Kremlin is again saying that Russia is only interested in those negotiations that will ensure the fulfillment of all tasks in the context of Ukraine and Ryabkov's 2021 ultimatum about NATO's withdrawal to the border of Germany. Everything else is of no concern, as is the change of faces in the White House. There will be no deal."

Have any of you heard this supposed demand for "NATO's withdrawal to the border of Germany" before, and do you understand what it means in this context? It sounds to me like it means Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, etc. actually leaving NATO, but I must be misunderstanding.
 
scary_robot_music said:
Vox Day's latest post is entitled "Zelensky on the Way Out." This would not surprise me. What did surprise me was this bit at the end of the post, from an unspecified source:

"The Kremlin is again saying that Russia is only interested in those negotiations that will ensure the fulfillment of all tasks in the context of Ukraine and Ryabkov's 2021 ultimatum about NATO's withdrawal to the border of Germany. Everything else is of no concern, as is the change of faces in the White House. There will be no deal."

Have any of you heard this supposed demand for "NATO's withdrawal to the border of Germany" before, and do you understand what it means in this context? It sounds to me like it means Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, etc. actually leaving NATO, but I must be misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
The idea of NATO returning to 1997 boundaries has been mentioned before in Putin's speeches, going back many years.

I don't expect Russian forces will invade these areas unless NATO attacks him first. Of course NATO has been attacking indirectly these past three years, so they only need to go a little farther to trigger a response.

That being said, I doubt Russian forces will continue moving west. However, I can see Putin refusing any empty peace deals with the west. The west can't be trusted to keep a deal.

What I expect is that Russia will continue to focus on BRICS, Europe's economy will suffer from lack of cheap Russian energy, and NATO will be shamed and embarrassed by it's impotence.

In this setting, NATO could easily dissolve, with European countries seeking to restore access to Russian energy and BRICS markets. This would solve Putin's NATO problem very nicely.
 
Last edited:
Thomas More said:
Trump needs to launch investigations on every member of congress to find out how they got rich in office, then blackmail or prosecute all of them, Repugs and Dems both, to force them to do what he wants. He needs to burn the current uniparty to the ground.

Use his own funds to hire the investigators, find the dirt that all of them are hiding, and then blow them out.
Click to expand...
I am firmly in the “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” camp regarding Trump, but even with his resilience and honey badger-style personality, there are large limits on what he can do.

Stalwarts like Hawley and generally reliable politicians like Cruz voted for Thune/Cornyn, for example. Hawley may excoriate stock insider trading in Congress, as he should, but he is not immune from realizing the game is played a certain scummy way and he has to work in that environment. Or, he’s in on it in some way, which is sad given his record.

Republicans would need to win 80-85% of the House and Senate to offset the large percentage of Republicans who jump ship each time something needs to be done.
 
This is bad. Very bad. I hope Trump can still leverage some power over this, even though he's not in office yet.

www.disclose.tv

Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range US missiles

Breaking news from around the world.
www.disclose.tv www.disclose.tv

www.rt.com

Biden approves Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia with US missiles – NYT

President Biden has reportedly approved Ukraine’s first use of US-provided ATACMS missiles for strikes deep within Russia, the NYT claims
www.rt.com www.rt.com

By RT

Nov 17, 2024 07:41 PM

2 min. read
View original
US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized Ukraine to use long-range American missiles to strike targets inside Russia’s pre-2014 borders, according to a New York Times report on Sunday citing anonymous American officials.

The decision, if accurately conveyed by the newspaper, marks a major shift in Washington’s policy and will raise the stakes in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

The White House has yet to comment publicly on the matter.

The report states that Ukraine is expected to deploy the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against Russian and alleged North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk region, where fierce fighting is ongoing. The supposed presence of North Korean forces has been used as part of the justification for the policy change, though there is no verified proof of Pyongyang’s troops operating in Russia.

While Biden had previously allowed the use of shorter-range HIMARS systems, granting access to ATACMS, which have a range of approximately 190 miles (300 kilometers), signals a new level of escalation.

“The move is a significant escalation and may provoke a direct response from Moscow,” the report notes. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that any attacks on Russia’s internationally recogised territory with American-supplied weaponry would be viewed as NATO entering the conflict directly. Such actions, he has suggested, could lead to severe repercussions, including retaliation against Western interests.

The reported US. policy shift has also divided Biden’s advisors, the newspaper claims. While some argue the change is necessary to counter Moscow’s supposed military moves, others fear it could further escalate tensions and risk a broader conflict.

Supporters of arming Ukraine more aggressively believe that previous hesitation by the US has emboldened Moscow, while critics warn of potential Russian retaliation against American and Western European assets.

The Times report also highlights that while the Ukrainian military may first target Russian and alleged North Korean forces in Kursk, the strikes could potentially be expanded to other regions.

The long-range capabilities of ATACMS would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, potentially disrupting supply lines and troop concentrations.

Kiev’s desire for long-range capabilities has been a longstanding request. With Biden’s reported authorization, the geopolitical dynamics of the conflict could now shift dramatically.

The reported decision by the outgoing American president would signify a major policy change
FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik/Valery Melnikov
 
Let God Arise said:
This is bad. Very bad. I hope Trump can still leverage some power over this, even though he's not in office yet.

www.disclose.tv

Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range US missiles

Breaking news from around the world.
www.disclose.tv www.disclose.tv

www.rt.com

Biden approves Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia with US missiles – NYT

President Biden has reportedly approved Ukraine’s first use of US-provided ATACMS missiles for strikes deep within Russia, the NYT claims
www.rt.com www.rt.com

By RT

Nov 17, 2024 07:41 PM

2 min. read
View original
US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized Ukraine to use long-range American missiles to strike targets inside Russia’s pre-2014 borders, according to a New York Times report on Sunday citing anonymous American officials.

The decision, if accurately conveyed by the newspaper, marks a major shift in Washington’s policy and will raise the stakes in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

The White House has yet to comment publicly on the matter.

The report states that Ukraine is expected to deploy the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against Russian and alleged North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk region, where fierce fighting is ongoing. The supposed presence of North Korean forces has been used as part of the justification for the policy change, though there is no verified proof of Pyongyang’s troops operating in Russia.

While Biden had previously allowed the use of shorter-range HIMARS systems, granting access to ATACMS, which have a range of approximately 190 miles (300 kilometers), signals a new level of escalation.

“The move is a significant escalation and may provoke a direct response from Moscow,” the report notes. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that any attacks on Russia’s internationally recogised territory with American-supplied weaponry would be viewed as NATO entering the conflict directly. Such actions, he has suggested, could lead to severe repercussions, including retaliation against Western interests.

The reported US. policy shift has also divided Biden’s advisors, the newspaper claims. While some argue the change is necessary to counter Moscow’s supposed military moves, others fear it could further escalate tensions and risk a broader conflict.

Supporters of arming Ukraine more aggressively believe that previous hesitation by the US has emboldened Moscow, while critics warn of potential Russian retaliation against American and Western European assets.

The Times report also highlights that while the Ukrainian military may first target Russian and alleged North Korean forces in Kursk, the strikes could potentially be expanded to other regions.

The long-range capabilities of ATACMS would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, potentially disrupting supply lines and troop concentrations.

Kiev’s desire for long-range capabilities has been a longstanding request. With Biden’s reported authorization, the geopolitical dynamics of the conflict could now shift dramatically.

The reported decision by the outgoing American president would signify a major policy change
FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik/Valery Melnikov
Click to expand...

I yawned because it's too little, too late to have any meaningful impact on the conflict.
We're months into ukrainian long range drone strikes, where swarms of, often more than 100, drones strike targets more than 1000km deep inside Russia; so the idea that a handful of missiles with a fraction of that range can tip the scales isn't very realistic. Don't get me wrong, that's a proper military hardware so they'll do some damage - the payload alone will alow them to strike hard targets, which drones could barely scratch - but it'll be nothing more than just a drop in a bucket.
The reason why these strikes were approved is political - they'll meant to Trump-proof the conflict.
 
Last edited:
WaveMechanic said:
www.bloomberg.com

Ukraine Fires UK Cruise Missiles at Russia for First Time

Ukrainian forces fired British cruise missiles at military targets inside Russia for the first time, expanding the use of Western-provided long-range weapons as the 1,000-day conflict enters a new phase.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
Click to expand...

They've been throwing these missiles at Crimea for over a year now, but I guess that doesn't count.
Anyway, here's the footage from both sides.




Allegedly it was a command/communication post in the Kursk region.
 
Last edited:
TruckDriver9 said:
They've been throwing these missiles at Crimea for over a year now, but I guess that doesn't count.
Anyway, here's the footage from both sides.




Allegedly it was a command/communication post in the Kursk region.
Click to expand...

From that aerial shot, I'd say if one of those explosions hit a house, you might still be able to salvage the house and rebuild it, rather than it being a full tear down. They're not very big.

I can't see that even 12 of those missiles is any kind of a big deal.
 
Thomas More said:
I saw a claim they used a zircon already a couple days ago. If it isn't launched over intercontinental distances, it's not an ICBM.

For all intents and purposes, if it's not carrying a bunch of nuclear MIRV warheads, it's also not an ICBM. It's just a big conventional missile.
Click to expand...
I agree. A lot of these "reports" seem to be propaganda, from both sides. Besides, why waste an ICBM by launching into basically into your neighbor's backyard? It makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top