Sigh…
update today on the million mobilized…but only 300K at the frontline soap opera;
Quote:
Yes, the article seems to imply that 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers have simply vanished or are missingat least that's what the pro-Russian commentariat is extracting from it.
And it's true, recently Ukrainian officials have continued to claim that there are upwards of 700k to 1 million Ukrainians in the armed forces, but have also specified that about 250-300k or less are 'on the actual frontlines'. This is precisely the number I gave long ago, for those who may recall, by way of my own calculations of different combat zones cross-checked with the Pentagon leaks from early 2023.
But allow me to say that I don't think it necessarily means 700k are missing or dead as most are implying, though it could be. You see, in any army the ratio of bayonet strength to noncombat forces is generally in that 3:1 or more rangeU.S. army for instance being even more. That means it would technically make sense for Ukraine to have 200-300k frontline capable combat troops, with the remaining 700k+ in the rear as part of logistics units or reserves undergoing further training, as well as border guards, etc.
However, the WaPo article clearly seems to suggest that no one even amongst Ukrainian officials knows where those 700k are, which would imply something more sinister.
After all, suppose they had those 700k in the rearwouldn't those be much easier to train into combat troops and send to the front, since the already have military experience? Why, then, the mad scramble and desperation for fresh meat off the streets? Recall, Ukraine previously admitted requiring 20-30k monthly mobilizations just to break evenpresumably with losses.
So: was the WaPo slipup a look behind the curtain to Ukraine's true losses? I'll let you decide, but it certainly seems to suggest something very fishy going on with their numbers such that even top mainstream outlets like WaPo are now openly questioning Zelensky's official figures. In the best case scenario, it may be lies meant to conceal the true severity of Ukraine's current troop and mobilization problem; and in the worst case, it may be a revealing clue as to Ukraine's total losses.
It's pretty tough to take them seriously though when they lie so brazenly as to claim to have had only 31K KIA so far.
I guess the ol' diaper user last night had to focus first and foremost on his proxy war with Russia.
On the ship loss (long discussion in the update);
Quote:
Ultimately, while it's true the naval losses have no real bearing on the Ukrainian conflict itself, because it in no way helps Ukraine in the fight on the ground, it does put some wind in the sails of the propaganda effort, as the recent Black Sea successes have become the only holdfast for the pro-UA side to cling to as putative 'evidence' of its winning posture:
The cognitive dissonance of needing Kiev in Nato so it will receive inviolable Article 5 protection, yet also assuming Putin will somehow lose his mind and invade Poland next really is quite a mental feat.
Russian speculation
Nuland resigned in disgust at not being chosen for a post/enough focus on her hatred of Russia; Quote:
The main task that Nuland has been working on in recent years, he said, was the "strategic defeat" of Russia and helping Ukraine "to stand on its own feet democratically, economically and militarily." But despite all her experience and influence, it seems Blinken didn't try to dissuade her from resigning.
The news triggered an avalanche of reactions from leading Russian politicians, diplomats, experts and the media.
According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Nuland was forced to resign because of the failure of Biden's course on Russia.
"This is a failure of the policy associated with Nuland, because she was the central figure who pursued a Russophobic policy towards our country, the whole story was tied to Nuland,"Zakharova said. According to her, the outgoing US deputy secretary of state was "not just a high-ranking representative of the State Department, but a key figure in US interagency cooperation."
"She was a coordinator of anti-Russian sentiment and anti-Russian policy by the United States, especially in the context of Ukraine. I can't say that she was an ideologue. There are people out there who hate us more, but she really was a coordinator, she is associated with that policy. And that is how they said goodbye to her," the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said.
Meanwhile, a theory has emerged in Washington that Nuland's resignation was the result of a power struggle in which she lost the race for the post of first deputy foreign policy chief.
Some pundits see a battle of narratives, with behind-the-scenes jockeying of personalities. All part of a dispute over the long-term shape of US foreign policy and its priorities.
It should be recalled that after Wendy Sherman resigned last summer as US deputy secretary of state, her duties were carried out for six months by Nuland. At the end of last year, however, the White House made the unexpected decision to nominate Campbell, another veteran of American diplomacy, for the second post in the diplomatic service. Campbell, who does not have as big a name in the diplomatic world as Nuland, has made his career not in the Euro-Atlantic but in the Indo-Pacific region.
"Ms. Nuland was considered the natural candidate to replace Ms. Sherman on a permanent basis. But Mr Blinken nominated Kurt Campbell, the former National Security Council representative for Asia," the New York Times commented on the reshuffle. James Carden, a former US State Department official, told RIA Novosti: "I was actually surprised that she lasted as long as she did. I realised her time was up when Kurt Campbell got the second-ranked job at the department." In a Senate vote on 6 February, his nomination received broad bipartisan support: 92 senators voted in favour, with five voting against.
From a comment at simplicius' update this is a sad story that sounds about believable regarding the pathetic state of Ukrainians sent to the front;
Quote:
This is really bothering me. If you look at the 2010 election, Yanukovych won with 49% of the popular vote vs. 45.5% for Tymoshenko, and yet according to the Ukrainian census, only 17.5% of Ukrainians identify as ethnic Russians, which presumably includes minors who can't vote.
What that tells me is that roughly 50% of the adult population wanted nothing to do with Tymoshenko's brand of Ukrainian nationalism, a number that no doubt increased after 2014. So in effect, at least half the guys fighting for Ukraine have no dog in this fight and would probably give it up if there was a safe way to do so. I know Russia drops leaflets and has a frequency you can dial up to surrender, but surely there must be some other way to save these guys? This is just ****ing awful. I have a friend who recently got back from serving 6 months at the front and he told me the command structure is almost non-existent, as is the supply of ammunition. He actually bought a small bus so they could move around as his mobile unit had no assigned vehicle. In the 6 months he was there half his guys were killed, and all they did was sit in bunkers getting fired on. The whole time he was there he never even saw the enemy. This is just outrageous. These guys aren't Nazis. The Nazis are mostly dead by now, or hiding out in the rear, too cowardly to go to the front. Please, is there no way these guys can be saved? This is breaking my heart.
Zelensky needs to be toppled, imho. Here's
another long take on Russia's posture/outlook.
