Alleged Russian Soldiers-Οperatives In Ukraine

deleted

deleted

deleted

sweartome123 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Oh no... the western media has to say a million times that Russian military forces are in the eastern ukraine before it becomes true... don't you know anything about propaganda?

The real amusing thing is that the so called peace agreement said no foreign troops... the US has troops there training the illegal government forces, yet no one complains about that.

Perhaps Russia should demand all EU military forces withdraw from the Ukraine or they will send in their own troops...  

At no point have I relied on western media for information regarding Russia's involvement in the war. Nor am I complaining about Russia's involvement. I actually support it to an extent. And it is absolutely criminal for the US and NATO to be training the Ukrainian military. They are training an army of incompetents who seem to find joy causing mass civilian casualties in Donbass.

And what are your sources for hundreds of dead russian soldiers? Nemzovs numbers he digged up out of his own rear to envile russia and to assure payment from US(P)AID?

Werewolf wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Oh no... the western media has to say a million times that Russian military forces are in the eastern ukraine before it becomes true... don't you know anything about propaganda?

The real amusing thing is that the so called peace agreement said no foreign troops... the US has troops there training the illegal government forces, yet no one complains about that.

Perhaps Russia should demand all EU military forces withdraw from the Ukraine or they will send in their own troops...  

At no point have I relied on western media for information regarding Russia's involvement in the war. Nor am I complaining about Russia's involvement. I actually support it to an extent. And it is absolutely criminal for the US and NATO to be training the Ukrainian military. They are training an army of incompetents who seem to find joy causing mass civilian casualties in Donbass.

And what are your sources for hundreds of dead russian soldiers? Nemzovs numbers he digged up out of his own rear to envile russia and to assure payment from US(P)AID?

Two inquiries made by far more experienced journalists around September spotted roughly 60/70 people on memory walls in various pinpointed Russian units in Ukropia. This doesn't mean all 60/70 people were killed in Ukraine, but basically that much was very credible.

On another level, IF there were no regular troops, but formerly active servicemen, proposed an early release for a specific task, this also means, that the level of Russian training is so effective that you can pool together all types of service members and form battalions out of thin air and still have a very effective task force. So yeah, no matter how you put, the Russian Army is showing a very good capability in terms of formation and leadership.

I'm going to put this piece of Black July here so you can understand what was going on. This is professionals at work, former or actual, this was textbook area interdiction/

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/07/16/ukrainian-soldiers-cry-for-help/

Why do we even have this bullshit tread?

If Russian soldiers (real ones) show up in Ukraine, trust me, it will be very painfully obvious for ukrops and plain to see for rest of us...

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:It should be common knowledge by now that Russia is a participant in this war. It doesn't take much to find photos, stories (non-MSM), and information that points to Russian involvement. That being said, their performance against the Ukrainians has been quite good. Looking at the estimated casualties, Russia has lost only a couple hundred men since August of last year while the Ukrainians have lost well over 4,000 troops (military/volunteer battalions) since the start of the conflict. Russia has probably inflicted 75% of Ukraine's casualties given that Russian troops played a large part in the major Ukrainian defeats at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve, in which we all know thousands of Ukrainian troops were killed. This is just my opinion, but I'm basing it on my own research, not the "Russia invades Ukraine with 20,000,000 Ukrainian baby killer super soldiers" bullshit.

Russia could not hide a couple hundred in loses. Field hospitals could not handle that and it would be extremely difficult to keep everybody quiet. It be very hard to cover up that many WIAs let alone KIAs nowadays with social media and everything, Western MSM keeps trying to do just that while making some impressive logical leaps along the way. Russia sent in a small amount of troops to begin with and they lost very few men. Their ability to inflict such devastating losses comes from their vastly superior technology, training, and their uniformity. A modern army well versed in conventional warfare would have little trouble bulldozing the Ukrops at Ilovaisk, only ones really capable of that is Russia and the US, most other modern armies are too focused on asymmetric warfare.

I disagree. First of all, Russia's casualties have been low throughout the conflict (less than one a day). Secondly, soldiers and their families are likely receiving cash to not disclose their deployments and experiences. Yet, information detailing such can be found in interviews and on VK accounts. Regarding the remainder of your post, I undoubtedly agree. Simply put, Russian troops are leaps and bounds better than anything the Ukrainians can produce. No American or NATO training will help the Ukrainians become an effective fighting force. Such training did not help the Georgians back in 2008.

I said that the losses have been extremely low? I don't agree with Russian losses numbering in the hundreds, the real total must be significantly smaller. I am also not sure that I agree with your second point. Money can't replace people's lives and to buy the silence of a someone when they lost somebody very close to them would be extremely expensive. Soldiers are much easier to keep quiet because they have sworn to protect the secrecy.

Since Russian troops are only used as a failsafe for the NAF, they have fought for small periods of time and with a small number of troops. The amount of damage that they bring to the Ukrops is incredible.

deleted

deleted

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:It should be common knowledge by now that Russia is a participant in this war. It doesn't take much to find photos, stories (non-MSM), and information that points to Russian involvement. That being said, their performance against the Ukrainians has been quite good. Looking at the estimated casualties, Russia has lost only a couple hundred men since August of last year while the Ukrainians have lost well over 4,000 troops (military/volunteer battalions) since the start of the conflict. Russia has probably inflicted 75% of Ukraine's casualties given that Russian troops played a large part in the major Ukrainian defeats at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve, in which we all know thousands of Ukrainian troops were killed. This is just my opinion, but I'm basing it on my own research, not the "Russia invades Ukraine with 20,000,000 Ukrainian baby killer super soldiers" bullshit.

Russia could not hide a couple hundred in loses. Field hospitals could not handle that and it would be extremely difficult to keep everybody quiet. It be very hard to cover up that many WIAs let alone KIAs nowadays with social media and everything, Western MSM keeps trying to do just that while making some impressive logical leaps along the way. Russia sent in a small amount of troops to begin with and they lost very few men. Their ability to inflict such devastating losses comes from their vastly superior technology, training, and their uniformity. A modern army well versed in conventional warfare would have little trouble bulldozing the Ukrops at Ilovaisk, only ones really capable of that is Russia and the US, most other modern armies are too focused on asymmetric warfare.

I disagree. First of all, Russia's casualties have been low throughout the conflict (less than one a day). Secondly, soldiers and their families are likely receiving cash to not disclose their deployments and experiences. Yet, information detailing such can be found in interviews and on VK accounts. Regarding the remainder of your post, I undoubtedly agree. Simply put, Russian troops are leaps and bounds better than anything the Ukrainians can produce. No American or NATO training will help the Ukrainians become an effective fighting force. Such training did not help the Georgians back in 2008.

I said that the losses have been extremely low? I don't agree with Russian losses numbering in the hundreds, the real total must be significantly smaller. I am also not sure that I agree with your second point. Money can't replace people's lives and to buy the silence of a someone when they lost somebody very close to them would be extremely expensive. Soldiers are much easier to keep quiet because they have sworn to protect the secrecy.

Since Russian troops are only used as a failsafe for the NAF, they have fought for small periods of time and with a small number of troops. The amount of damage that they bring to the Ukrops is incredible.

I don't think that Russia has lost hundreds of men either. I think that number is hugely overestimated. Personally, I believe the number is lower than 200. How much lower? I don't know. Still researching.

Failsafe has been the word I've been trying to find to describe the role of Russian troops. Thank you.

200 is very high, in my opinion. I still have distant relatives close to those border regions and while everybody knows those operations took place, nobody can find anyone who lost loved ones during the operations. So they are all keeping their silence extremely well or they didn't lose anybody that should have not been in Ukraine save for a few families.

I'm leaning towards the second option. I read the information that Kotemore has posted before and I do think that the 60/70 figure in all of Ukraine is probably the most accurate we will get. But the death toll is probably less than that even during the battles. Covering up the death of some many servicemen and keeping friends and family quiet would require a lot of effort. Extra money often in that case does not work too.

The only credibly documented battles that the Russian forces took part in were the North Wind Operation (including Ilovaisk) and the closing of the Debaltsevo cauldron. During the North Wind, Russia lost some troops and some equipment, but very few (read not even close to the 60/70 figure). No credible media source has found evidence of dead Russian troops during the operation either. I have yet to find any losses that the tank crews took in Debaltsevo, only evidence is multiple eyewitnesses and a few videos of T-72B3s.

Those other deceased servicemen likely volunteered to go into Ukraine on their own will in the meantime. They were Russian servicemen on vacation but not be attached to a Russian unit there. At the time of their deaths, they would still officially be Russian servicemen.

Those are the explanations I see for the number of deceased servicemen in Ukraine. I am not buying that Russia lost 60/70 men during the only two battles where the Russian Military was a faction.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:It should be common knowledge by now that Russia is a participant in this war. It doesn't take much to find photos, stories (non-MSM), and information that points to Russian involvement. That being said, their performance against the Ukrainians has been quite good. Looking at the estimated casualties, Russia has lost only a couple hundred men since August of last year while the Ukrainians have lost well over 4,000 troops (military/volunteer battalions) since the start of the conflict. Russia has probably inflicted 75% of Ukraine's casualties given that Russian troops played a large part in the major Ukrainian defeats at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve, in which we all know thousands of Ukrainian troops were killed. This is just my opinion, but I'm basing it on my own research, not the "Russia invades Ukraine with 20,000,000 Ukrainian baby killer super soldiers" bullshit.

Russia could not hide a couple hundred in loses. Field hospitals could not handle that and it would be extremely difficult to keep everybody quiet. It be very hard to cover up that many WIAs let alone KIAs nowadays with social media and everything, Western MSM keeps trying to do just that while making some impressive logical leaps along the way. Russia sent in a small amount of troops to begin with and they lost very few men. Their ability to inflict such devastating losses comes from their vastly superior technology, training, and their uniformity. A modern army well versed in conventional warfare would have little trouble bulldozing the Ukrops at Ilovaisk, only ones really capable of that is Russia and the US, most other modern armies are too focused on asymmetric warfare.

I disagree. First of all, Russia's casualties have been low throughout the conflict (less than one a day). Secondly, soldiers and their families are likely receiving cash to not disclose their deployments and experiences. Yet, information detailing such can be found in interviews and on VK accounts. Regarding the remainder of your post, I undoubtedly agree. Simply put, Russian troops are leaps and bounds better than anything the Ukrainians can produce. No American or NATO training will help the Ukrainians become an effective fighting force. Such training did not help the Georgians back in 2008.

I said that the losses have been extremely low? I don't agree with Russian losses numbering in the hundreds, the real total must be significantly smaller. I am also not sure that I agree with your second point. Money can't replace people's lives and to buy the silence of a someone when they lost somebody very close to them would be extremely expensive. Soldiers are much easier to keep quiet because they have sworn to protect the secrecy.

Since Russian troops are only used as a failsafe for the NAF, they have fought for small periods of time and with a small number of troops. The amount of damage that they bring to the Ukrops is incredible.

I don't think that Russia has lost hundreds of men either. I think that number is hugely overestimated. Personally, I believe the number is lower than 200. How much lower? I don't know. Still researching.

Failsafe has been the word I've been trying to find to describe the role of Russian troops. Thank you.

200 is very high, in my opinion. I still have distant relatives close to those border regions and while everybody knows those operations took place, nobody can find anyone who lost loved ones during the operations. So they are all keeping their silence extremely well or they didn't lose anybody that should have not been in Ukraine save for a few families.

I'm leaning towards the second option. I read the information that Kotemore has posted before and I do think that the 60/70 figure in all of Ukraine is probably the most accurate we will get. But the death toll is probably less than that even during the battles. Covering up the death of some many servicemen and keeping friends and family quiet would require a lot of effort. Extra money often in that case does not work too.

The only credibly documented battles that the Russian forces took part in were the North Wind Operation (including Ilovaisk) and the closing of the Debaltsevo cauldron. During the North Wind, Russia lost some troops and some equipment, but very few (read not even close to the 60/70 figure). No credible media source has found evidence of dead Russian troops during the operation either. I have yet to find any losses that the tank crews took in Debaltsevo, only evidence is multiple eyewitnesses and a few videos of T-72B3s.

Those other deceased servicemen likely volunteered to go into Ukraine on their own will in the meantime. They were Russian servicemen on vacation but not be attached to a Russian unit there. At the time of their deaths, they would still officially be Russian servicemen.

Those are the explanations I see for the number of deceased servicemen in Ukraine. I am not buying that Russia lost 60/70 men during the only two battles where the Russian Military was a faction.

Once again the 60/70 people dead was what figured on memory walls. The other side is that about 50 different units have been lending hardware to NAF. From MotoLigas (MTLB) to outright MSTA-S (there's very nice video of 3 MSAT-S crossing from Ukraine to Russia the 30th of August around Luhansk...).

Not all of them were KIA "in Ukraine". I'll try to find the damn articles again.

Losing 60/70 people while fighting in equal terms (read no air-cover or CAS and no SEAD) is a bloody bargain when one recalls how the push towards Tskhinvali cost and unlike the battles we're speaking, Tskhinvali was a a blocking battle turned punitive action.

So stop thinking that 60/70 is huge I personally think it's more or less sound for both pin point operations. You could lose people on a day to day basis to carelessness, personal issues, NAF stupidity...that's also what we've all read until now regarding NAF early operations up to Debaltsevo.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:It should be common knowledge by now that Russia is a participant in this war. It doesn't take much to find photos, stories (non-MSM), and information that points to Russian involvement. That being said, their performance against the Ukrainians has been quite good. Looking at the estimated casualties, Russia has lost only a couple hundred men since August of last year while the Ukrainians have lost well over 4,000 troops (military/volunteer battalions) since the start of the conflict. Russia has probably inflicted 75% of Ukraine's casualties given that Russian troops played a large part in the major Ukrainian defeats at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve, in which we all know thousands of Ukrainian troops were killed. This is just my opinion, but I'm basing it on my own research, not the "Russia invades Ukraine with 20,000,000 Ukrainian baby killer super soldiers" bullshit.

Russia could not hide a couple hundred in loses. Field hospitals could not handle that and it would be extremely difficult to keep everybody quiet. It be very hard to cover up that many WIAs let alone KIAs nowadays with social media and everything, Western MSM keeps trying to do just that while making some impressive logical leaps along the way. Russia sent in a small amount of troops to begin with and they lost very few men. Their ability to inflict such devastating losses comes from their vastly superior technology, training, and their uniformity. A modern army well versed in conventional warfare would have little trouble bulldozing the Ukrops at Ilovaisk, only ones really capable of that is Russia and the US, most other modern armies are too focused on asymmetric warfare.

I disagree. First of all, Russia's casualties have been low throughout the conflict (less than one a day). Secondly, soldiers and their families are likely receiving cash to not disclose their deployments and experiences. Yet, information detailing such can be found in interviews and on VK accounts. Regarding the remainder of your post, I undoubtedly agree. Simply put, Russian troops are leaps and bounds better than anything the Ukrainians can produce. No American or NATO training will help the Ukrainians become an effective fighting force. Such training did not help the Georgians back in 2008.

I said that the losses have been extremely low? I don't agree with Russian losses numbering in the hundreds, the real total must be significantly smaller. I am also not sure that I agree with your second point. Money can't replace people's lives and to buy the silence of a someone when they lost somebody very close to them would be extremely expensive. Soldiers are much easier to keep quiet because they have sworn to protect the secrecy.

Since Russian troops are only used as a failsafe for the NAF, they have fought for small periods of time and with a small number of troops. The amount of damage that they bring to the Ukrops is incredible.

I don't think that Russia has lost hundreds of men either. I think that number is hugely overestimated. Personally, I believe the number is lower than 200. How much lower? I don't know. Still researching.

Failsafe has been the word I've been trying to find to describe the role of Russian troops. Thank you.

200 is very high, in my opinion. I still have distant relatives close to those border regions and while everybody knows those operations took place, nobody can find anyone who lost loved ones during the operations. So they are all keeping their silence extremely well or they didn't lose anybody that should have not been in Ukraine save for a few families.

I'm leaning towards the second option. I read the information that Kotemore has posted before and I do think that the 60/70 figure in all of Ukraine is probably the most accurate we will get. But the death toll is probably less than that even during the battles. Covering up the death of some many servicemen and keeping friends and family quiet would require a lot of effort. Extra money often in that case does not work too.

The only credibly documented battles that the Russian forces took part in were the North Wind Operation (including Ilovaisk) and the closing of the Debaltsevo cauldron. During the North Wind, Russia lost some troops and some equipment, but very few (read not even close to the 60/70 figure). No credible media source has found evidence of dead Russian troops during the operation either. I have yet to find any losses that the tank crews took in Debaltsevo, only evidence is multiple eyewitnesses and a few videos of T-72B3s.

Those other deceased servicemen likely volunteered to go into Ukraine on their own will in the meantime. They were Russian servicemen on vacation but not be attached to a Russian unit there. At the time of their deaths, they would still officially be Russian servicemen.

Those are the explanations I see for the number of deceased servicemen in Ukraine. I am not buying that Russia lost 60/70 men during the only two battles where the Russian Military was a faction.

Once again the 60/70 people dead was what figured on memory walls. The other side is that about 50 different units have been lending hardware to NAF. From MotoLigas (MTLB) to outright MSTA-S (there's very nice video of 3 MSAT-S crossing from Ukraine to Russia the 30th of August around Luhansk...).

Not all of them were KIA "in Ukraine". I'll try to find the damn articles again.

Losing 60/70 people while fighting in equal terms (read no air-cover or CAS and no SEAD) is a bloody bargain when one recalls how the push towards Tskhinvali cost and unlike the battles we're speaking, Tskhinvali was a a blocking battle turned punitive action.

So stop thinking that 60/70 is huge I personally think it's more or less sound for both pin point operations. You could lose people on a day to day basis to carelessness, personal issues, NAF stupidity...that's also what we've all read until now regarding NAF early operations up to Debaltsevo.

The only battles that the Russian Military (not NAF) was a part of are the North Wind and Debaltsevo. Only at Ilovaisk were there documented Russian losses and there were very few pieces of evidence. Only a few destroyed vehicles plus some personnel equipment like a helmet. Russian forces obviously didn't have time to hide their tracks. It still doesn't look like 60 or 70 troops died there. As for Debaltsevo, I have yet to see any record of Russian losses there and I have been looking hard, very hard. The only thing that is known is that Russian tank crews appeared there in their T-72B3s after the NAF had a lot of trouble closing the cauldron. Even without air support, the Russian Military has come a long way since Tskhinvali and only 60/70 losses is incredible. However, I haven't seen evidence for that many dead from the only two operations where Russia took part in separately from the NAF and there is no indication that there was any cleanup either.

Again, those battles are the only ones where the Russian Military was working alongside the NAF. There are Russian soldiers embedded within the NAF not taking orders from Russia, be them vacationers or whatnot. There are of course former Russian soldiers within th NAF as well but they can't be considered Russian servicemen anymore. The losses that they have suffered are higher and thanks to all the reasons you have listed mostly stemming from idiocy in the NAF command not from Russian command.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

sweartome123 wrote:It should be common knowledge by now that Russia is a participant in this war. It doesn't take much to find photos, stories (non-MSM), and information that points to Russian involvement. That being said, their performance against the Ukrainians has been quite good. Looking at the estimated casualties, Russia has lost only a couple hundred men since August of last year while the Ukrainians have lost well over 4,000 troops (military/volunteer battalions) since the start of the conflict. Russia has probably inflicted 75% of Ukraine's casualties given that Russian troops played a large part in the major Ukrainian defeats at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve, in which we all know thousands of Ukrainian troops were killed. This is just my opinion, but I'm basing it on my own research, not the "Russia invades Ukraine with 20,000,000 Ukrainian baby killer super soldiers" bullshit.

Russia could not hide a couple hundred in loses. Field hospitals could not handle that and it would be extremely difficult to keep everybody quiet. It be very hard to cover up that many WIAs let alone KIAs nowadays with social media and everything, Western MSM keeps trying to do just that while making some impressive logical leaps along the way. Russia sent in a small amount of troops to begin with and they lost very few men. Their ability to inflict such devastating losses comes from their vastly superior technology, training, and their uniformity. A modern army well versed in conventional warfare would have little trouble bulldozing the Ukrops at Ilovaisk, only ones really capable of that is Russia and the US, most other modern armies are too focused on asymmetric warfare.

I disagree. First of all, Russia's casualties have been low throughout the conflict (less than one a day). Secondly, soldiers and their families are likely receiving cash to not disclose their deployments and experiences. Yet, information detailing such can be found in interviews and on VK accounts. Regarding the remainder of your post, I undoubtedly agree. Simply put, Russian troops are leaps and bounds better than anything the Ukrainians can produce. No American or NATO training will help the Ukrainians become an effective fighting force. Such training did not help the Georgians back in 2008.

I said that the losses have been extremely low? I don't agree with Russian losses numbering in the hundreds, the real total must be significantly smaller. I am also not sure that I agree with your second point. Money can't replace people's lives and to buy the silence of a someone when they lost somebody very close to them would be extremely expensive. Soldiers are much easier to keep quiet because they have sworn to protect the secrecy.

Since Russian troops are only used as a failsafe for the NAF, they have fought for small periods of time and with a small number of troops. The amount of damage that they bring to the Ukrops is incredible.

I don't think that Russia has lost hundreds of men either. I think that number is hugely overestimated. Personally, I believe the number is lower than 200. How much lower? I don't know. Still researching.

Failsafe has been the word I've been trying to find to describe the role of Russian troops. Thank you.

200 is very high, in my opinion. I still have distant relatives close to those border regions and while everybody knows those operations took place, nobody can find anyone who lost loved ones during the operations. So they are all keeping their silence extremely well or they didn't lose anybody that should have not been in Ukraine save for a few families.

I'm leaning towards the second option. I read the information that Kotemore has posted before and I do think that the 60/70 figure in all of Ukraine is probably the most accurate we will get. But the death toll is probably less than that even during the battles. Covering up the death of some many servicemen and keeping friends and family quiet would require a lot of effort. Extra money often in that case does not work too.

The only credibly documented battles that the Russian forces took part in were the North Wind Operation (including Ilovaisk) and the closing of the Debaltsevo cauldron. During the North Wind, Russia lost some troops and some equipment, but very few (read not even close to the 60/70 figure). No credible media source has found evidence of dead Russian troops during the operation either. I have yet to find any losses that the tank crews took in Debaltsevo, only evidence is multiple eyewitnesses and a few videos of T-72B3s.

Those other deceased servicemen likely volunteered to go into Ukraine on their own will in the meantime. They were Russian servicemen on vacation but not be attached to a Russian unit there. At the time of their deaths, they would still officially be Russian servicemen.

Those are the explanations I see for the number of deceased servicemen in Ukraine. I am not buying that Russia lost 60/70 men during the only two battles where the Russian Military was a faction.

Once again the 60/70 people dead was what figured on memory walls. The other side is that about 50 different units have been lending hardware to NAF. From MotoLigas (MTLB) to outright MSTA-S (there's very nice video of 3 MSAT-S crossing from Ukraine to Russia the 30th of August around Luhansk...).

Not all of them were KIA "in Ukraine". I'll try to find the damn articles again.

Losing 60/70 people while fighting in equal terms (read no air-cover or CAS and no SEAD) is a bloody bargain when one recalls how the push towards Tskhinvali cost and unlike the battles we're speaking, Tskhinvali was a a blocking battle turned punitive action.

So stop thinking that 60/70 is huge I personally think it's more or less sound for both pin point operations. You could lose people on a day to day basis to carelessness, personal issues, NAF stupidity...that's also what we've all read until now regarding NAF early operations up to Debaltsevo.

The only battles that the Russian Military (not NAF) was a part of are the North Wind and Debaltsevo. Only at Ilovaisk were there documented Russian losses and there were very few pieces of evidence. Only a few destroyed vehicles plus some personnel equipment like a helmet. Russian forces obviously didn't have time to hide their tracks. It still doesn't look like 60 or 70 troops died there. As for Debaltsevo, I have yet to see any record of Russian losses there and I have been looking hard, very hard. The only thing that is known is that Russian tank crews appeared there in their T-72B3s after the NAF had a lot of trouble closing the cauldron. Even without air support, the Russian Military has come a long way since Tskhinvali and only 60/70 losses is incredible. However, I haven't seen evidence for that many dead from the only two operations where Russia took part in separately from the NAF and there is no indication that there was any cleanup either.

Again, those battles are the only ones where the Russian Military was working alongside the NAF. There are Russian soldiers embedded within the NAF not taking orders from Russia, be them vacationers or whatnot. There are of course former Russian soldiers within th NAF as well but they can't be considered Russian servicemen anymore. The losses that they have suffered are higher and thanks to all the reasons you have listed mostly stemming from idiocy in the NAF command not from Russian command.

I concur mostly, for the rest, especially Debal, there's a total fog of war, with people being former soldiers (Buryat tanker) and other being active personnel as "pointed" by other russian sources/.

The problem I have with the suggestion that the Russians are feeding in forces to maintain the stalemate ignores the elephant in the room.

Russia would prefer this conflict to be over as quickly as possible... no matter what the solution.

The Ukraines internal politics is no business of Russia, but what is Russias business is that the EU and US are inflicting sanctions and economic punishments on Russia while the conflict continues.

If the Russians really had troops there why would they not be in Kiev right now?

Is Kiev shelling the Donbass any different from Tiblisi shelling the capital of South Ossetia?

Does anybody have an estimate about how many special forces are active from the russian side in the conflict? I heard today a researcher who said that the number of special forces in the russian military are 120 000. He also added that the kremlin can not afford to continue the involvement in the conflict as it is "bleeding out" its special forces due to high losses.

What are your thoughts?

tdobai wrote:Does anybody have an estimate about how many special forces are active from the russian side in the conflict?  I heard today a researcher who said that the number of special forces in the russian military are 120 000. He also added that the kremlin can not afford to continue the involvement in the conflict as it is "bleeding out" its special forces due to high losses.

What are your thoughts?

stop hearing such bull .

tdobai wrote:Does anybody have an estimate about how many special forces are active from the russian side in the conflict?  I heard today a researcher who said that the number of special forces in the russian military are 120 000. He also added that the kremlin can not afford to continue the involvement in the conflict as it is "bleeding out" its special forces due to high losses.

What are your thoughts?

Figure is way too high and even if you included the Airborne and Naval Infantry not even close.
Who is this researcher...Mark G?

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2014/item4/article2/

tdobai wrote:Does anybody have an estimate about how many special forces are active from the russian side in the conflict?  I heard today a researcher who said that the number of special forces in the russian military are 120 000. He also added that the kremlin can not afford to continue the involvement in the conflict as it is "bleeding out" its special forces due to high losses.

What are your thoughts?

We've been over this quite a few times now. You are looking at propaganda, no way to whitewash that. Russian Spetsnaz operatives in Ukraine are nowhere near those numbers in Donbass. The Spetsnaz operatives are there unofficially to provide training and serve as advisors. Similar to how elite US units do for the Iraqis in their war against ISIS. Neither Russian or American Spetsnaz operatives are seeing any real combat on their respective fronts.

Spetsnaz operatives operating in Novorossiya is different than recently retired and grunts on vacation embedded within the NAF. That is also different from the actual Russian Military being behind the Hohol massacres at Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, former saw only around a dozen or so in Russian losses and the latter battle doesn't appear to have any Russian losses.

The estimated number of losses of those who had a recent affiliation with the Russian Military in Donbass is best estimated to be around 60 to 70 men as mentioned above. These losses mostly came from stupidity in the NAF ranks. Russia looks like it was going to lose more special force operatives in the anti-terror operations in Dagestan.




To GarryB, I respectfully disagree. Russia wants to make sure this conflict ends with how they want it to end. That means Novorossiya surviving. But fighting only draws unnecessary attention to the conflict through the form of economic warfare from the West.

If Russian troops had entered and stayed the fight back in late August they could have very well burned Lemburg to the ground in early September if they wanted to. The problem with that is that may trigger a military response from the West and we all know that would probably put an end to humanity as we know it.

Ukraine is not economically or politically stable right now. It is the classic ticking time-bomb. Once someone's money and/or patience runs out, the country will likely implode and likely in a violent manner as well. Why did the IMF give them all the loans earlier? Russia is well aware that Ukraine cannot continue to fund a war against their own people, especially if they are backed by Russia. Russia can weather the political economic crisis and will probably come out even stronger and Ukraine cannot.

Porkchop and his cronies sitting comfortably in Kiev have realized this too and it looks like they are preparing their endgame. They have been busy moving all the equipment that may work and gathering anyone who can hold a gun and been moving them to the front. Novorossiya is now a very capable foe and Putin himself stated that he shall not let Novorossiya fall. Kiev is fighting a losing battle and they know this. They must be thinking that reigniting the conflict soon will result in aid for Ukraine and additional sanctions on Russia. The timing on this is perfect too. Next year the Executive and Legislative branches of the US Governments will be lame ducks as the elections will pick up the pace.

Sorry I have to make a correction. What he said was exactly that Russia sends its "best forces" (still BS in my opinion). He is a hungarian researcher for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

tdobai wrote:Sorry I have to make a correction. What he said was exactly that Russia sends its "best forces" (still BS in my opinion). He is a hungarian researcher for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

Finish, you can stop right there...

Thank you for the replies !

"Finish, you can stop right there..."

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SOYKcoF01KbERJUm1HaTJiUWs/view?pli=1

 IMO, below is "enough evidence to make it more likely than not" that the Russian Army troops were, & probably still r in Donbass:
https://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/36035.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/ukraine-soldier-youre-better-clueless-because-truth-horrible-moscow-ilovaysk
http://gruz200.zzz.com.ua/  https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/06/21/russias-200th-motorized-infantry-brigade-in-the-donbass-part-2/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-tanks-exclusive/exclusive-charred-tanks-in-ukraine-point-to-russian-involvement-idUSKCN0IC1GE20141023
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/moscow-stifles-dissent-as-soldiers-return-from-ukraine-in-coffins-39354
http://podrobnosti.ua/2029738-spetsnazovets-iz-tambova-kak-rossijskaja-armija-pereodevaetsja-pered-donbassom.html
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/03/02/63264-171-my-vse-znali-na-chto-idem-i-chto-mozhet-byt-187
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-live-day-378-severely-injured-russian-soldier-describes-deployment-to-ukraine/#7227
https://meduza.io/news/2015/03/25/putin-sdelal-gvardeyskimi-dve-desantnye-brigady-za-geroizm-v-boevyh-deystviyah
https://web.archive.org/web/20141016232436/http://eurasianintelligence.org/news.php?new=108&num
https://tvrain.ru/articles/spch_poprosil_minoborony_proverit_zhaloby_kontraktnikov_na_ustnyj_prikaz_o_komandirovke_k_ukrainskoj_granitse-381929/
https://web.archive.org/web/20141114002023/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/11/13/russian_tanks_ukraine_battlefield_radar_reinforcements_putin_donetsk
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-casualties/exclusive-over-100-russian-soldiers-killed-in-single-ukraine-battle-russian-rights-activists-idUKKBN0GS20H20140828
https://globalvoices.org/2014/12/13/ukrainian-hackers-leak-russian-interior-ministry-docs-with-evidence-of-russian-invasion/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/elena-racheva_n_5774138.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-fighters/men-in-green-raise-suspicions-of-east-ukrainian-villagers-idUSKBN0GQ1X520140826?irpc=932
https://web.archive.org/web/20140828041143/http://www.cnbc.com/id/101951821
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/witnesses-tell-about-attacks-on-ukrainian-soldiers-trying-to-leave-ilovaisk-at-least-100-killed-363204.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28949582
https://republic.ru/fast/russia/v-pskove-proshli-zakrytye-pokhorony-mestnykh-desantnikov-1147710.xhtml
https://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/battle-ilovaisk-details-massacre-inside-rebel-held-eastern-ukraine-282003.html

How many NATO military and Intelligence personnel are there in Ukraine?

NATO was estimating 300-600 Russian military and intelligence personnel in the Donbas. Not sure how many there are now, but there was 3 advisors attached to all units of a battalion or more. (Command-Operations-Technical). Plus training units etc.

There were also Russian volunteers especially during the heavy fighting and in the beginning. They would all have had military experience and there were also a number of conscripts being recruited as their service in the Russian Military ended.

There was also 2-3 camps of around 1500 men each or 2 BTG's, apparently regular Russian military on "leave" from their units. Suspect this would have been the mysterious "Northern Wind" that appeared whenever the NAF needed assistance.

How many NATO military and Intelligence personnel are there in Ukraine?

How many are in that wall of links... the Guardian... bellingcat... where is the washington post or the Israeli gazette... those articles would smell better if they came out of my bottom...

IMO, below is "enough evidence to make it more likely than not" that the Russian Army troops were, & probably still r in Donbass:

The Americans admit to spending 5 billion dollars to overthrow the legitimate government of the Ukraine.

The legitimate government of the Ukraine was not pro Russian... they were anti Russian.

Their mistake was taking Russian and Chinese offers of 15 billion dollars of investment over the EU LOANS for half that... only a retard would have gone with the EU... the Ukrainian government was pro EU till they double crossed them and paid for them to be overthrown... wonder if Gaddafi or Assad or Saddam recognise that little pattern of criminal activity. If you go the way of the EU you have to follow their rules, which basically stripmine your country of anything of value and then leave you in debt you can't repay... and if you say no... it is civil war and they pick the bones anyway...

There are large parts of what was the Ukraine that are not pro Russian but really don't see as legitimate the current regime in Kiev that the US has basically imposed on their country... even wanted criminal Sakashvili got a job within the government... the largely russian Crimea was able to hold order with the help of the Russian military personnel based there legally at Sevastopol long enough to hold a referendum and get off the USS Ukraine...

The people in Ukraine proper were not so lucky but the chances of them joining the Russian Federation are pretty limited anyway.

At the end of the day this is a Ukrainian problem and their current method of dealing with it is a war crime, but the west does not care because they control Kiev, so it is not a war crime when they do it.

The accusation that Russia is interfering is bullshit... if Russia was interfering it would already be over.

The US and EU are definitely interfering... they admit that openly.

One of the things the eastern ukrainians are objecting to is the law that no language other than ukrainian can be taught in schools... something the Polish and Hungarian minorities are also objecting to....

The so called rebels are kicking government ass because they are motivated and most of them likely served in the armed forces under conscription and know what they are doing... just like the Chechens...
The only question at hand is what will the lolly king do when he loses the election...another coup because obviously russian hackers were to blame, or actually declare a dictatorship and military rule until "Fair" elections can be redone... you know.... in 50-60 years time...

By the way.... no amount of circumstantial or made up facts repeated so that they sound true can amount to enough evidence to assume it is true.

You make an accusation you present hard facts that are irrefutable or you STFU.

Most likely has never stood up in a real court of law... except in the US where... he is black is often the equivalent of highly likely guilty...

..the largely russian Crimea was able to hold order with the help of the Russian military personnel based there legally at Sevastopol long enough to hold a referendum and get off the USS Ukraine...

They flew in more troops- the capital Simferopol & few other big towns had no Russian bases nearby.
Romanians r now also concerned: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2505474.html
Ukraine is losing people: https://iz.ru/803000/igor-karmazin/skazku-sdelat-ubyliu-kak-i-pochemu-vymiraet-ukraina

Low intensity border/civil war will keep this dying out & exodus going, with only the most destitute remaining. Russia (& others) will have less of a problem re-absorbing it back, & welcome those S. African farmers as the Germans were welcomed there 200 years ago.