Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Corvus]

I mean, this is basically the only realistic stranglehold Russia has left on the majority of the rest of the world cutting ties with it.

I will profess a lack of in-depth knowledge of EU power infrastructure, but I get the impression that they are heavily reliant upon Russia for fulfilling their energy needs, particularly in winter.

Russia supplies 40% of Europe's gas. Some countries are more reliant than others. Lithuania has announced a total ban on Russian gas, the first EU country to do so, so well done to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck you Russia. Now they are saying that they were 'provoked by Ukrainian radicals in Bucha.'

[PhaelixWW]

Fuck you Russia. Now they are saying that they were 'provoked by Ukrainian radicals in Bucha.'

I see Russia has moved straight from the first step to the last step, here.

[cubby]

Let’s ask @cubby, he’s a pretty big Musk fan.

Of his accomplishments, most specifically with SpaceX. Not really the rest of him, lol.

This thing with Putin/Ukraine - just more of his need for attention. Just more of him being his own personal asshole.

[Rasulis]

In the short term that's not realistic. Europe can't entirely replace Russian resources for its energy needs and while I don't really doubt its population's solidarity RE Ukraine, it's definitely not strong enough to swallow the ballooning gas/electricity prices, if not shortages, that would happen in case of an outright ban.

Medium-term, absolutely, Europe needs to decouple itself. But let us not pretend it's a realistic outcome anytime soon.

As for Yuppie, guys, just ignore him if the moderation can't be bothered. He's very obviously not a poster to be taken seriously at all and responding is merely feeding either his trolling or ignorance.

Russia exports around 200 billion cubic meter (bcm) of gas to EU per year. It is true that EU can't replace that overnight. But then, what is Russia going to do with the gas it usually supplies to Europe? There is no pipeline that allows Russia to send the gas supplied to Europe to Asia. There is no interconnector to re-route the gas to the Siberian pipeline between Russia and China. Which is already at capacity anyway. Russia has the option of pumping that gas into domestic storage (approximately 72 bcm) which is already half-full. Once those storage facilities are full, in about 2 - 3 months, Russia will need to shut down production completely. A nightmare scenario. Once shut down, without foreign expertise, they may not be able to restart the operations. On top of that they'll be losing around $35 billion in annual revenue.

[Corvus]

Russia's confirmed losses are now at 2400 vehicles (including 410 tanks). Oryx have said they actually have a backlog which itself has 3 backlogs of lost Russian equipment to get through. I'm guessing a lot of that is from the rapid retreat in the north.

[PhaelixWW]

Russia's confirmed losses are now at 2400 vehicles (including 410 tanks). Oryx have said they actually have a backlog which itself has 3 backlogs of lost Russian equipment to get through. I'm guessing a lot of that is from the rapid retreat in the north.

The breakdown:

• Russia - 2394, of which: destroyed: 1207, damaged: 41, abandoned: 232, captured: 913
• Ukraine - 674, of which: destroyed: 296, damaged: 19, abandoned: 37, captured: 322

[Iphie]

The breakdown:

• Russia - 2394, of which: destroyed: 1207, damaged: 41, abandoned: 232, captured: 913
• Ukraine - 674, of which: destroyed: 296, damaged: 19, abandoned: 37, captured: 322

And what were the starting numbers? In terms of percentages how big are the losses?

[Xyonai]

And what were the starting numbers? In terms of percentages how big are the losses?

The numbers are also weird when you realize that Ukraine' captured 239 more tanks then they lost, putting them at a net Gain of tanks during this conflict.

[PhaelixWW]

The numbers are also weird when you realize that Ukraine' captured 239 more tanks then they lost, putting them at a net Gain of tanks during this conflict.

Keep in mind that those are not all tanks. Just for tanks, it's:

• Russian Tanks (410, of which destroyed: 194, damaged: 6, abandoned: 42, captured: 168)
• Ukrainian Tanks (92, of which destroyed: 35, damaged: 2, abandoned: 9, captured: 44)

The point remains true, however, though we're likely seeing much more data come out from the Ukrainian side, which means more data about lost Russian equipment than Ukrainian equipment.

And what were the starting numbers? In terms of percentages how big are the losses?

It's almost impossible to know. Just in terms of tanks, it's estimated that Russia started off with 120 BTGs with some 7-10 tanks per BTG, or 840-1200 tanks. Russia supposedly has a huge reserve of extra tanks, though, with estimates of 12k+ total. A large number of those are older tanks that they're less likely to use, but they've been bringing in replacement tanks by train, so who knows how many that has affected the numbers. Additionally, some tanks that were damaged may have been repaired and returned to service.

[Iphie]

It's almost impossible to know. Just in terms of tanks, it's estimated that Russia started off with 120 BTGs with some 7-10 tanks per BTG, or 840-1200 tanks. Russia supposedly has a huge reserve of extra tanks, though, with estimates of 12k+ total. A large number of those are older tanks that they're less likely to use, but they've been bringing in replacement tanks by train, so who knows how many that has affected the numbers. Additionally, some tanks that were damaged may have been repaired and returned to service.

Right, but wasn't it reported that in at least one depot the commander discovered that 90% of the tanks in storage were non functional, as in would need extensive repairs and refurbishments to work, like no optics, no engines and that kinda stuff? I mean I'm sure there's a reserve, but with the level of corruption going on I can't help but wonder. Also, bringing tanks up is all fine and dandy but if you don't have the crews to man them it's not very useful is it?

edit: so 840-1200 tanks initially, with losing 410, that would mean roughly 30-50% lost of the initial force, that's insane.

[PhaelixWW]

Right, but wasn't it reported that in at least one depot the commander discovered that 90% of the tanks in storage were non functional, as in would need extensive repairs and refurbishments to work, like no optics, no engines and that kinda stuff? I mean I'm sure there's a reserve, but with the level of corruption going on I can't help but wonder. Also, bringing tanks up is all fine and dandy but if you don't have the crews to man them it's not very useful is it?

All very true. That's part of why it's so impossible to know.

edit: so 840-1200 tanks initially, with losing 410, that would mean roughly 30-50% lost of the initial force, that's insane.

It is. Those are heavy losses. And that's hardly a complete list, as was mentioned in the first post.

I mean, there's evidence that Russia was throwing some older/prototype tanks at this, and people have wondered whether that was done (along with sending in a lot of conscripts) so that their loss wouldn't be as much of a blow to Russia's overall combat capability... or whether or not it's because that's all that Russia really had and they wanted to pad those numbers as much as possible.

Given the state of corruption in Russia's military leadership, it could very well be either...

...or even some of both.

[Zaydin]

It's almost impossible to know. Just in terms of tanks, it's estimated that Russia started off with 120 BTGs with some 7-10 tanks per BTG, or 840-1200 tanks. Russia supposedly has a huge reserve of extra tanks, though, with estimates of 12k+ total. A large number of those are older tanks that they're less likely to use, but they've been bringing in replacement tanks by train, so who knows how many that has affected the numbers. Additionally, some tanks that were damaged may have been repaired and returned to service.

I thought I had heard rumors that in some reserve depots for Russian tanks like 9 out of 10 had been stripped of parts that were sold on the black market and were thus inoperable.

Impossible to prove, though, so I treat those with a massive grain of salt. Normally rumors like that would be impossible to believe and it's not like Russia would admit that their army is so corrupt most of their armor reserves are inoperable, but with what we've seen in Ukraine so far, it's not entirely unbelievable. Still feels far fetched but not outright impossible.

[Corvus]

Right, but wasn't it reported that in at least one depot the commander discovered that 90% of the tanks in storage were non functional, as in would need extensive repairs and refurbishments to work, like no optics, no engines and that kinda stuff? I mean I'm sure there's a reserve, but with the level of corruption going on I can't help but wonder. Also, bringing tanks up is all fine and dandy but if you don't have the crews to man them it's not very useful is it?

edit: so 840-1200 tanks initially, with losing 410, that would mean roughly 30-50% lost of the initial force, that's insane.

Probably not quite that high. The separatists were given a whole pile of tanks to use though they are older models. For the actual Russian army, the infantry BTGs were meant to have 10 tanks each while the armoured BTGs were 40-50 tanks. Probably more than 1200 tanks to start with, but 410 confirmed is still a huge chunk.

The Russians are meant to have 2-2.4K tanks in active service. Not all were assigned to Ukraine though. But they keep stripping them from elsewhere to feed into the war. And they are meant to have 20k+ in storage. Except, as pointed out, those are older models, poorly stored with little to no maintenance and parts stripped due to corruption. it would take a long time to bring back any meaningful number back to service.

[PhaelixWW]

Paper tiger. Yeesh.

- - - Updated - - -

So, Fortnite pledged all of its proceeds from 3/20 to 4/3 to support Ukraine with humanitarian aid through various charities.

There's no final total, but through 3/29, about 2/3 of the total stretch, they'd already raised over $100 million.

[Veggie50]

Paper tiger. Yeesh.

Now… you see… I have a problem with that term…

Let’s dissect it.

First; Paper. Paper is useful. Besides its uses for communication, layered paper is actually pretty damn strong. Therefore a single sheet may be worthless in combat, but throw enough at it and it becomes stronk.

Second; Tiger. This animal is much too fierce and revered to describe Russians. Also there are no tigers in Russia.

So let’s come up with a more apt description.

First, their national animal is the bear. A percieved strong animal. This won’t do for obvious reasons, but we can look at its little cousin, the raccoon. Raccoons are mostly just an annoyance, but when threatened they make a lot of noise, and leave destruction in their wake.

So now let’s find a proper adjective. My first thought goes to pudding. Usually quite appetising to look at, and highly disappointing to consume. It’s just never quite what you expect it to be.

So, my proposal for reference to the Russians would be the “Pudding Badgers”.

[Kaleredar]

Paper tiger. Yeesh.

- - - Updated - - -

So, Fortnite pledged all of its proceeds from 3/20 to 4/3 to support Ukraine with humanitarian aid through various charities.

There's no final total, but through 3/29, about 2/3 of the total stretch, they'd already raised over $100 million.

Well, at least Fortnite has proven itself useful for something more than just the game that gets the kiddies out of all the other games adults wanna play.

[Edge-]

So, my proposal for reference to the Russians would be the “Pudding Badgers”.

We'll have to check with honey badgers to make sure they're cool with this addition, but I imagine they will be. Honey badgers don't care, usually.

[Kaleredar]

Now… you see… I have a problem with that term…

Let’s dissect it.

First; Paper. Paper is useful. Besides its uses for communication, layered paper is actually pretty damn strong. Therefore a single sheet may be worthless in combat, but throw enough at it and it becomes stronk.

Second; Tiger. This animal is much too fierce and revered to describe Russians. Also there are no tigers in Russia.

So let’s come up with a more apt description.

First, their national animal is the bear. A percieved strong animal. This won’t do for obvious reasons, but we can look at its little cousin, the raccoon. Raccoons are mostly just an annoyance, but when threatened they make a lot of noise, and leave destruction in their wake.

So now let’s find a proper adjective. My first thought goes to pudding. Usually quite appetising to look at, and highly disappointing to consume. It’s just never quite what you expect it to be.

So, my proposal for reference to the Russians would be the “Pudding Badgers”.

Minor point of order, there are indeed Tigers in Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_tiger

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We'll have to check with honey badgers to make sure they're cool with this addition, but I imagine they will be. Honey badgers don't care, usually.

"Usually". But '"usually" they aren't being put in the same barrel as Russians. They might have a stronger opinion regarding that.

[PhaelixWW]

We'll have to check with honey badgers to make sure they're cool with this addition, but I imagine they will be. Honey badgers don't care, usually.

I totally didn't get this reference.

Now I do.

Good one.


Edit: 99.2 million watches on the video. Jeeze.