Russia is taking significant losses. But the Ukraine side is, also. You won't see that plastered in Western news.
Just a few examples of Ukrainian losses plastered in Western in media. This stuff is easy to find.
In MSM, Ukraine civilian losses are trumpeted - and certainly exaggerated.
Conversely, Ukraine military casualties and losses are grossly under-reported and receive disproportionate prominence.
Russian war crimes and civilian casualties are atrocities. Ukraine war crimes and civilian casualties are negligible and excusable.
These are common examples of biased reporting in MSM. And on this message board.
The Russian side and people are de-humanized, vilified, and presented as incompetent.
The Ukraine side is glorified. Victories attributed to valor and prowess. But surely have more to do with tens of billions in high-tech weaponry, assistance, and intelligence provided.
You see spurious allegation routinely selectively presented as fact. "The UDF reports..." "A Ukraine spokesperson said... " and with that disclaimer, any manner of unverified and suspect claim follows. Overtime, propaganda condenses to accepted canon.
Or deliberately misleading reporting. For example, claims are frequently made Russians used banned cluster or phosphor munitions. But it is worth noting, and not noted, that Russia, the Ukraine, and the United States are not signatories to these conventions and possess and use these weapons.
You could fill volumes.
Instead a link to a destroyed plane and a surrender refusal in Mariupol as posted as if these explain it away.
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[4][6][14] Through the work of the PNAC, from 1998, Kagan was an early and strong advocate of military action in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan as well as to "remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power".[15][16] In January 2002, Kagan and Kristol falsely claimed in a Weekly Standard article that Saddam Hussein was supporting the "existence of a terrorist training camp in Iraq, complete with a Boeing 707 for practicing hijackings, and filled with non-Iraqi radical Muslims". Kagan and Kristol further alleged that the September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before the attacks.[17] The allegations were later shown to be false.[18]
What exactly do you think a female middle-aged diplomat was doing at the protests?
Read the transcript.
The US backed the violent overthrow of the elected govt.
It's not in doubt except here on letsrun.
Do you know who she is married to?
Bonus points
'
And "backing" a regime change is not the same thing as picking and installing the next leader, but you have made that assertion numerous times. I have "backed" and "supported" the winner in many political contests. I haven't picked or installed any of them. And if Nuland really instigated the original violence she would have avoided being present for the phot op. Simple tradecraft.
And you have mentioned Nuland's husband many times here. But not all of us are chauvinistic enough to conclude that means Nuland's husband directs her actions or that they think alike on any specific issues.
What exactly do you think a female middle-aged diplomat was doing at the protests?
Read the transcript.
The US backed the violent overthrow of the elected govt.
It's not in doubt except here on letsrun.
Do you know who she is married to?
Bonus points
'
There was no violent overthrown of the Ukrainian government. Yanukovych turned his back on the overwhelming will of the Ukrainian people and rejected a deal to move Ukraine closer to joining the EU in favor of a deal with Russia. The EU deal had been overwhelmingly approved by the parliament. Yanukovych was massively corrupt. He stole billions from the Ukraine treasury and filled his government with cronies from Donbas. They in turn sent almost half of the federal economic development budget to Donbas. The Yanukovych family would launch economic attacks on Ukraine businesses. The businesses would either have to pay a "tribute" or face corporate raider attacks. Over 7000 businesses faces such attacks with Yanukovych coming away from it all worth over 10 billion.
At the height of the Euromaidan protests, Yanukovych signed a deal with the opposition for early elections and to appoint an interim government to resolve the crisis. Yanukovych fled to Kharkiv the next day claiming that someone shot at his vehicle. He then fled to Crimea and left the country for Russia. The Ukraine parliament was going to pursue impeachment. Yanukovych left the country to avoid arrest and trial for his crimes. With Yanukovych absent from Ukraine, the parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove him as president and hold new elections.
There was no coup. Yanukovych could only control Ukraine through violent oppression of the Euromaidan protests and in doing so completely lost the support of parliament and the people of Ukraine.
I don't think you understand what "jumped the shark" means.
You jumped the shark on the Kramatorsk train bombing by reciting ridiculous, specious and unsupportable speculation and arguments in a failed attempt to pretend it was clear that Ukraine had decided to deliberately bomb its own citizens in a Ukrainian train station to gather sympathy from the West. It was demented, and you know it. You jumped the shark, and landed in Bad Wigins territory.
Anyway, I've never picked any side - except that of reason and as best fits facts available.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the whole "I'm just a neutral observer" pretense. Demonstrably untrue (see above), no one buys it, and the only interesting psychological question is why you keep pretending. Have the courage of your convictions, man!
You still have not shown understanding of what "jump the shark" means.
Regarding the Karamatorsk train bombing, what I stated at the time, within a day or so of the event, as information was beginning to trickle out, was allowing for the possibility of the missile being from the Ukraine side.
Either an errant Ukraine missile, of which there have been documented examples, or improbable as it seemed, a false-flag operation.
These possibilities were made more plausible as the type of missile used was one known to be in Ukraine armaments and, until that time, was commonly-acknowledged to have been discontinued by the Russian side.
Allowing for a possibility it is not the same thing as a claim of fact, despite what bogus assertions to the contrary.
AFAIK, regarding the train bombing, no one has accepted responsibility - each sides claims what suits them. Absent forensic data, telemetry, or reliable first-hand report, there's support and lack of support for more than one view.
But, on balance of probability, I'd now assign greater probability to the Karamatorsk bombing as being from the Russian side. There have been many examples of Russians striking train stations since - ostensibly to slow delivery of Western-supplied arms.
For arguments, sake, if I got that wrong - what does that prove?
Being wrong about one thing does not make you wrong about everything. Or make you right about anything.
If you're going to lecture about objectivity, you might display some.
Have you been wrong about anything? And admitted it?
This comes from Zelensky and the Western media reports it with no skepticism.
And you guys actually believe it.
Amazing
Please find a recent (within the last week or so would be best) mainstream western media agency reporting these numbers without putting a bunch of qualifiers like, "Ukraine says they have lost 3k soldiers, but the real number is probably much higher."
What exactly do you think a female middle-aged diplomat was doing at the protests?
Read the transcript.
The US backed the violent overthrow of the elected govt.
It's not in doubt except here on letsrun.
Do you know who she is married to?
Bonus points
'
We've read the transcript. We've linked to analysis that disagrees with your analysis. This point has been debunked and then beaten to death. The US did NOT install a new PM in Ukraine. The US did not instigate the Maidan protests. I have family that was at the Maidan protests. They and their friends were there because they saw Yanukovych for who he really was, a spineless Russian puppet that was going to hold back Ukraine's progress.
Says the person who has posted multiple links in this thread with no commentary of your own, and then uses four consecutive posts to a video and three plagiarized sections of somebody else's analysis. Talk about being unable to think (for yourself)!
So, if you want to think for yourself, you can start by showing where in the Nuland transcript she installs a new PM and then end by answering a simple question: do you think Russia was right to invade Ukraine?
My god carmine, your trolling is becoming increasingly pathetic. At this point, you make the Russia navy look competent and they lost their flagship in a land invasion to a country without a navy!
There's plenty of Russian incompetency to go around, but competent forces take losses, too.
Russian battlefield losses are better characterized as Nato victories than testimony to Ukraine pluck.
Much of the targeting of Russian assets is from Nato/US Intelligence, Satellite and Reconnaissance data, being fed in real-time and then struck with NATO supplied high-tech weaponry. This is a NATO/Russia proxy war, plain and simple.
Russia is taking significant losses. But the Ukraine side is, also. You won't see that plastered in Western news. An extended war of attrition does not favour Ukraine.
In the case of the sinking of the Moskva, the United States admits they alerted and provided targeting data to the Ukraine. Claims are it was struck with two Ukraine Neptune missiles - which is possible, even though Neptune batteries were thought mostly destroyed. But the sinking also follows just one day after Britain announced it was supplying Ukraine with anti-ship missiles.
Are you talking attrition of people or attrition of equipment? The US and NATO are likely to be able to supply far more ATGMs than Russia is able to supply tanks. More importantly, Russia will (if they haven't already) start running out of experienced tank crews, which are expensive and time-consuming to train, which is why Russian tank crews are often less well trained than their NATO counterparts.
I hadn't seen claims that Ukraine's neptune battery(ies) were destroyed, nor I have seen any evidence that Ukraine did not use neptunes. But, from my understanding they did use a drone as a decoy, which does show Ukrainian pluck and ingenuity.
I don't think it's fully accurate to claim this is "just" a NATO / Russia proxy war - the Ukrainians are really fighting for their survival and the existence of their country. They're just doing it with NATO weaponry and the open secret that the US and NATO are also supplying intelligence.
To the person who thinks all MSM reporting is biased against Russia, which media outlets should we trust please? Provide links to media, not article, we should trust please. Media you trust, links:
I hadn't seen claims that Ukraine's neptune battery(ies) were destroyed, nor I have seen any evidence that Ukraine did not use neptunes.
"But the pre-war Ukrainian navy probably possessed just one Neptune battery out of the half-dozen or so it planned to induct this spring.
If the Ukrainians really did hit Moskva with a Neptune or two, it means they first managed to cobble together, man and deploy at least one complete battery with all its supporting systems—all in the middle of a devastating war.
It also means they fed accurate targeting data to the battery, via a drone, land-based radar or some other sensor. None of this is easy, but it’s certainly possible."
-Forbes
"Many experts, however, have questioned whether the Neptune anti-ship cruise missile was employed at all. These views are based on a few factors.
Initially, it was thought that the rocket had been destroyed during the early phase of the invasion. Second, according to recent reports, Ukraine is yet to receive the Neptune ASMs.
The delivery was scheduled for April 2022.
In March 2021, Ukraine’s navy received the first units of the RK-360MC Neptune cruise missile system. These, however, are prototype batteries provided to the Ukrainian military.
Ukraine did not appear to be able to completely employ its new Neptune anti-ship missile before the war stopped production."
To the person who thinks all MSM reporting is biased against Russia, which media outlets should we trust please? Provide links to media, not article, we should trust please. Media you trust, links:
The mistake here is thinking media exists without bias. All media is biased.
When the source of your "facts" is from government, particularly a combatant one, that speaks unfavourably to reliability.
We don't trust Russian Times. Similarly, it's folly to blindly trust VOA, Radio Free Europe, or Think-Tanks funded by the Military Complex. They're all grinding axes.
To paraphrase, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
An objective reader is tasked with piecing together something approximating real events from a sea of half-truths.
