(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Ukraine Invasion Day 257: How many Russians will die before Putin stops [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-11-06
More Russian combat casualties reported. "The Institute for the Study of War said in its latest assessment that Iran is likely already using Russia’s dependence on the supply of kamikaze drones to request Russian assistance with its nuclear program. Also, Ukrainian partisans have conducted dozens of attacks in occupied areas and have killed at least 11 Russian occupation officials and collaborators since the start of the invasion."
Putin has lost his illegal war in Ukraine. He doesn’t have the means to break the will of the Ukrainian people to continue fighting. He doesn’t have the means to break the will of the west supporting Ukraine. The only question is how many Russian soldiers die before he stops?
The Kremlin may conduct future rhetorical nuclear brinksmanship in an effort to prompt the United States and its allies to pressure Ukraine to negotiate; the Kremlin will be unable to directly force Kyiv to negotiate through nuclear threats. ISW continues to assess that Russian nuclear use in Ukraine remains unlikely and that the Kremlin is currently taking steps to deescalate its nuclear rhetoric. The Kremlin’s nuclear threats failed to undermine Ukrainian political and societal will to continue to oppose Russia’s invasion. As ISW wrote on September 30, “Ukraine and its international backers have made clear that they will not accept negotiations at gunpoint and will not renounce Ukraine’s sovereign right to its territories.” [17] The United States and its allies should not undermine Ukraine’s continued dedication to recapturing all Russian-occupied territory and halting Russia's genocidal invasion.
x According to The Insider, over 500 recruited convicts died in the past two months with overall Wagner losses of 800-1,000 mercenaries indicating convicts comprise a large proportion of Wagner’s forces in Ukraine. — Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) November 6, 2022
x Russian Losses in Ukraine by Region of Origin. Sample taken from Russian local/regional media sources with confirmed deaths. Update at c. 3800 06.11.22 Still lots of backlog and additional sources to check. #Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar pic.twitter.com/UXS4o8qPsW — Arcade Atticus (@d13567412) November 6, 2022
x Ukrainian forces conducted a pinpoint strike on a Russian base in Nova Kakhovka the losses are quite substantial rumoured to be 150+ soldiers staying there at the time of the strike. — WarMonitor🇺🇦 (@WarMonitor3) November 6, 2022
x A Russian marine brigade reportedly lost 63 troops in a doomed assault on Ukrainian positions in eastern Ukraine around Nov. 4. It apparently was one of the worst single-operation losses for the Russian marine corps since the 1990s. @Forbes #Ukraine
https://t.co/1A9dhMxT5k — David Axe (@daxe) November 6, 2022
x Interesting analysis, how many tanks Russia could draw from storage after heavy losses in Ukraine. In June US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin said West had supplied Ukraine with 97.000 (!) anti-tank weapons, more than the no. of tanks on planet earth.
https://t.co/cDhG3WcaWn — Andreas Knapp (@_A_Knapp) November 5, 2022
According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.
However, according to estimates by the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent Russian online armed conflicts monitor, the Oryx database covers nearly 70% of the total equipment lost in combat by both sides, as it includes only fully-verified losses -- not every single captured or destroyed vehicle is pictured and documented.
Based on these estimates, Russia has lost nearly 1,300 tanks – an impressive 40% of its total operational tank fleet.
This figure coincides with that provided by CNN in May, citing an unnamed senior U.S. defense official, which reported that Russia has lost “nearly 1,000 tanks” in Ukraine.
Official figures provided by Ukraine’s military are higher. As of Sept. 1, six months into Russia’s full-scale war, Ukraine has reportedly knocked out 1,997 Russian tanks, which is nearly 60% of Russia’s operational tank fleet.
On the other hand, Oryx suggests Ukraine’s military has lost 244 tanks, 125 of which were destroyed in combat, and the rest abandoned or seized by Russian forces.
If Conflict Intelligence Team’s 70% rule is applied, Ukraine has likely lost over 300 of the nearly 800 tanks it had before Feb. 24. But Ukraine also has tanks recently acquired from abroad, especially Poland, or captured from Russia.
[...]
Given ongoing Western sanctions targeting hi-tech components, Russia will likely have difficulties repairing and modernizing its machines. So it is possible that if Russia continues waging a large-scale war in Ukraine we're going to see a lot of older machines, such as early T-72 or T-80 versions.
In all, Russia has at least 2,000 potentially restorable tanks, meaning it will not run out during its war in Ukraine – even if it has to roll back its relics from the early 1960s.
But Russia also has alternative sources: Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko’s regime possesses over 500 modernized T-72 tanks.
kyivindependent.com/...
x These pieces treat Putin as someone who’s been chastened, and who’s willing to settle for less than effective control of Ukraine’s trajectory. There’s zero evidence of either.
It’s all just warmed-over realism, rather than seeing Putin’s Kremlin for what it is. — Casey Michel 🇰🇿 (@cjcmichel) November 6, 2022
Sooner rather than later, the West needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table, brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war down and arrive at a territorial settlement. A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but it brings to bear aggregate military power that Moscow understandably does not want parked near its territory. Ukraine would continue to receive arms and economic support from the West and work toward membership in the European Union, but it would formally embrace the neutral status that it adopted after separation from the Soviet Union in 1991. Earlier in the war, Mr. Zelensky himself suggested that Ukrainian neutrality could be part of a peace deal with Russia. Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land. Although such negotiations might fail to readily produce a peace deal, transitioning from war to diplomacy provides hope of ending the killing and destruction, containing the mounting risk of a wider war between Russia and NATO, and reducing harm to the global economy and democratic resilience on both sides of the Atlantic. Washington’s efforts to broker such a deal would also open up a channel of communication with Moscow, reversing the dangerous fall-off in direct U.S.-Russia contact since the invasion of Ukraine began in February.
The mounting risks that the West faces in Ukraine necessitate that the United States and its NATO partners get more involved in managing the war and in setting the table for an endgame. From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the United States has gotten in over its head, taking on strategic commitments not warranted by the interests at stake. Helping Ukraine defend itself is worth a quite significant effort, but not one that leads to World War III or fractures Western democracy. www.nytimes.com/...
x WEDNESDAY, 9:00AM | As Russia's power in Central Asia erodes, will prospects for the region’s gas exports improve? Amb. Richard Morningstar moderates this @AtlanticCouncil conversation with @Dr_Ariel_Cohen, Erica Downs, & @BrucePannier.
Register ⤵️
https://t.co/cuEjjDtOiI — Eurasia Center (@ACEurasia) November 6, 2022
Rallying around the flag at times of war is not unique to Russia, of course. The uniqueness of Russia today is in the symbolic merger of its national identity with the figure of Vladimir Putin. This strange conflation is the fruit of a two-decade-long process of depoliticization, in which the Kremlin encouraged people to trust Mr. Putin — conceived as a uniquely heroic figure who saved the country from the wild and painful 1990s — while sowing a deep distrust of all other politicians. In the 2000s, this largely successful strategy depended on rising living standards. In the past decade, as economic growth stalled and discontent broke out, it has taken the form of national identity politics. Patriotism, veneration of state symbols and admiration for the glories of Russian history and the country’s recent successes have become a burnished mirror in which citizens see themselves. At the center of this national idea sits Mr. Putin, the embodiment of a stronger and more successful Russia. Awakening from this illusion will be nothing if not painful and prolonged. As of now, like their leader, many Russian citizens are invested in victory in Ukraine — whatever that is deemed to mean. Yet this fall, though it may take some time for Russians to admit it, has been similarly revelatory. It marks the point at which Mr. Putin started to slide, slowly but surely, from Russia’s national pedestal. www.nytimes.com/...
x Please raise your hand if your country voted for admission of the russian federation to the UN...
Anyone? Should I put my glasses?
[No raised hands]
Brilliant move by @SergiyKyslytsya 👏 pic.twitter.com/WWxYGxHUsK — ✙BenFessor Fella Snape🪄🇺🇦 (@rom_over) November 6, 2022
x I have been hearing the idea from some Republicans that Ukrainian resistance comes at a cost to Americans. Nothing could be more wrong. Ukrainian resistance provides extraordinary security benefits to Americans. 1/ — Timothy Snyder (@TimothyDSnyder) November 6, 2022
In fact, Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s genocidal invasion does more for American security than any American policy does – or could do. It has changed the global balance in a way that makes peace more likely in decades to come. 2/
Republicans present China as America’s real, long-term rival. Democrats agree. The scenario for a U.S.-China war is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. By resisting a Russian invasion, Ukrainians have shown the difficulty of such operations, making this scenario less likely. 3/
By fighting in self-defense, Ukrainians have thus reduced the risk of a major war and of a nuclear war. This extraordinary achievement is due to the courage and skill of Ukrainians. They do not get much credit for it. They should get more credit, and more support. 4/
For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have failed to formulate a policy that could prevent Russia from weakening and undoing the international order. Russia serves as a cat’s paw, doing what China would not wish to be seen doing. 5/
In defeating Russia’s armed forces and exposing Russia’s weakness, the Ukrainians have both made a larger war in Europe far less likely, and gotten China’s cat’s paw under control. 6/
The Ukrainians have reduced the possibility of Chinese aggression through Russia, and made direct Chinese aggression less likely. They have done all of this just by defending themselves, without making any move against China. 7/
Without the Ukrainians, the United States would lack the policy instruments for this. By resisting, Ukrainians created an opportunity for U.S. policy that would not otherwise have existed. 8/
No American lives have been placed at risk. U.S. assistance to Ukraine amounts to a rounding error in the defense budget. 9/
The gains Ukrainian resistance brings to American security are so enormous that the US national security establishment is embarrassed to speak of them directly. 10/
It is awkward to say that another country is doing so much for us. It is awkward to say that Ukrainian resistance has done more for the safety of Americans than any U.S. policy since the end of the cold war. But it is true and must be said. 11/
Reversing the U.S. policy of aiding Ukraine will undo all of these gains. There is still time to revive Russia and reassure China, which is what ending support of Ukraine will mean. Such a policy reversal would make Americans far less safe and secure. 12/
My concerns about the Russian invasion of Ukraine are the prevention of genocide and the defense of democracy. But those who think first of U.S. interests should acknowledge what Ukrainians are doing for American security. The least we can do is be on our own side 13/13
• • •
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/11/6/2134082/-Ukraine-Invasion-Day-257-How-many-Russians-will-die-before-Putin-stops
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
