How many troops does Ukraine have on frontline with Donbass?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
How many troops does Ukraine have on frontline with Donbass?
Dunno off the top of my head.
So the reality is that its pretty darn hard to make up a correct assumption from public info on numbers alone. All I see is that Ukraine moved a decent force to border, Russia followed suit in 2 weeks - likely moved even larger force as an act of saying dont mess around.
We'll see in future, if Russia does pull back and does not attack Ukraine - that seems to have been correct analysis.
Lastly, I think it would be silly to assume in full out invasion that the west and Ukraine emply Russia is/was preparing to do would be done straight through Donbass. I mean come on. Russians love creating their encirclements.
The major attack would come from Belarus and North, encircling and cutting off huge chunk of Ukraines forces at donbass front line. Moreover, they'd be focued on cutting off UA borders with NATO countries and the sea as priority.
In the unlikely event they did go for a full invasion it would most likely kick off sometime between 4th and 9th of May, by the 11-12th at the latest. (Which gives them the peak window for conditions, etc.).
In terms of any kind of offence the only way the current configuration makes sense (without more substantial build up) is if the intention was in some way to draw Ukraine's military away for a rapid advance to either destroy and then retreat or capture some objective they thought they could hold - neither of which really makes sense currently unless they thought Ukraine would just roll over again.
Pretty sure Russia invaded the Ukraine.
Well Russians believe the US/EU supported a government Coup in Ukraine. Which is partly true actually. There was an agreement signed between all parties that Yanukovich was to resign and hold elections in 6 months. The far right proceeded to storm the government building shortly afterwards. The US/EU recognized that as a legitimate government, the gov officials were literally voting on laws with far right militia outside their chambers. Russians saw this as a kick in the face from all parties and saw Ukraine as a rogue state ran by nationalistic militia. It was not a good look at all especially for internal russian public. Especially after they started bombing Donbass - remember all those pictures of Russian ethnic civilians trying to stop tanks in Donbass? Even Ukranians at that point do not deny that these were indeed Ukranian citizens and not covert russian babushkas.
If you want to truly understand situation you have to look beyond good/bad and black and white. The bottom line is that situation escalated so much that if Putin did not take action to get involved in Ukraine - he'd literally be taken out by the Russian public, his ratings were already on the ropes at the time. Losing Ukraine in 6 months to 'democratic' elections to pro western government was fine - it happened before. Storming of parliament by far right who tried passing first law to ban Russian language, then signed EU association and then proceeded to declare anti-terrorist operation on Donbass was a bit too much for Putin to roll over to - considering each of that was extremely widely broadcasted in russia for internal public. Ukraine is not Baltics where Russians are truly a minority. Literally just under half of nation was against EU and NATO at the time. Russian as language was more popular than Ukrainian quite literally. And yet the 'new' government that stormed the parliament was enacting policies without elections that did not represent almost 50% of population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine
This part is always forgotten.
I do not disagree about Russia invading Ukraine. I am just saying the context is important. Blockading Cuba can be presented just because of no reason or due to soviet nuclear missiles being there. The context is important.
Last edited:
Soldato
Absolutely, but context is messy and complicated where as a simplistic Black/White message is far easier for the vast majority of people to be given and, as in this case, the simple "US/UK/EU good, Russia Bad" message is far easier for people to understand even though the more complex truth is that no-one here is an innocent blameless party, other than the poor civilians caught-up between the geo-political grinding wheels currently in motion.
I agree with this. I just find it frustrating that in 2021 we still as society cant move past good/bad. Moreover we make massive judgements of high moral standing on simple good/bad knee jerk response. Well not the government, they know what they are doing - the people I mean.
Russia is bad for sure, I just wish the EU/US were truly the 'good guys'.
I'm sorry...but Russia invaded and enexed land to big himself up, he is a bloody loony tune, he had no right no matter what to invade Ukraine, it's not Russia, it's not part of the USSR and no window dressing will prove it was anything other than a land grab, if he was so bothered about showing to the Russian public he's doing something then why all the little green men, the denial about shooting down flight mh-17never any Russians involved etc?
Because everyone knew very clearly who green men were. It was just to avoid international law issues immediately. Do you think Russians themselves shot down MH-17? Or it was most likely shot down by un-trained rebels using Russian equipment.
Putin does not admit to anything due to legal repercussions, everyone damn well knows inside and out that Russians are the only reason the rebels exist.
Ukraine is territory of Russian interest. America gets angry at Russian bombers landing in south america because its 'US sphere of influence'. US literally ilegally blockaded Cuba because a free nation decided to host nuclear missiles. While doing exactly same in Turkey.
America and NATO attacked dozens of countries because they were a threat to their security. Literally on false evidence (Iraq).
Ukraine and Crimea are absolutely huge strategic areas to Russia. No one can deny that for Russia a NATO Ukraine is a direct threat to their national security. If Nato was actually a defensive alliance as it claims be - I dont think putin would be able to claim that. However, in past decade we've shown that NATO members are extremely trigger happy.
All I'm trying to say is that Russia is bad beyond doubt. All I wish is that we in the west did not take similar actions now or in last 10-20 years. Because that sets a precedent and 'rules' of the world and normalizes such actions.
Last edited:
A picture that plays out all over the globe sadly :|
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,644
Are they really the bad guys ? I do wonder how the present would be if the West had let Russia win its war in Afghanistan and not arm and train the Mujahideen who would in turn become Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, just like I wonder if the West hadn't created a power vacuum in Iraq and tried to create one in Syria leading to the rise an even greater evil in ISIS
Yes they are. They are not any better than some western actors like USA.
The only difference is that everyone sees Russia for what it is - meanwhile US does same stuff and seen as an angel of democracy.
Russia has just gone weak and limp, during cold war they were stirring the pot no less than the US. They would do so again if they had the muscle.
They provided the missile, they removed the missile and they covered it all up, they might as well have pressed the button.
They use nuclear grade material to poison people in other countries!
I'm sorry but having a neighbour in your ' sphere of influence ' doesn't mean you can annex part of thier country for the lols, sound like you would have agreed with Hitler's early moves? Same thing.
Like I said you can dress it up however you want but at the end of the day they are in the wrong and no amount of ' but whataboutism ' will change that.
Edit: also if they do have a problem with the Ukraine becoming pro EU/western etc then Russia/USSR at the time as well only has itself to blame for that and annexing and invading is not going to do any good for them or a valid reason just because they used to be in thier sphere.
Last edited:
Soldato
@alchal Maybe spend the time to actually read what @Enkore actually wrote because he's agreeing with you, yet you're still attacking his view (the same view you have) as being wrong.
Again, thats just factually wrong. The Ukraine democratically & legally voted for a pro-Russian government back in 2010, that is an undisputed fact. In 2013 this pro-Russian Government changed it's mind about closer integration with the EU which caused protests & riots amongst the small minority of pro-EU supporters. It was subsequently overthrown in 2014 by a "bloodless" coup (which killed hundreds) carried out by the pro-Western side who lost the 2010 election after they forced the elected President to flee for his own safety. After the coup new elections were held where the pro-EU parties won despite the elections being widely touted as being fraudulent due to voter returns from the pro-Russian enclaves of Crimea and Donbass dropping by over 80% from the 2010 election.
All that happened before any conflict, so to say that Russia had "a problem with the Ukraine becoming pro EU/western" is ignoring the reality of the Ukraine's political leaning from 2010 to 2014, when it was happily pro-Russian.
@Enkore I apologise if I read your post wrong.
Still no excuse for an invasion, or the build up or any of the other crap Putin attempts.
He invaded to stop the threats on Russian lives in Ukraine, that was his reason, not sure where these lives were being lost however?
The overthrowing came about due to an EU trade deal I believe etc being blocked as the the then government was unsure of how Russia would take it or maybe they did tell the government no to any pro EU moves and delayed/cancelled any signings, thus they, the Russian gov helped tip it over the edge.
So yes, Russian politics backfired and now they use force.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,644
I think they fall in the grey zone neither good nor bad a mix of both, just like the West
I personally believe both are bad in that sense. My biggest problem is that West by its actions has normalized violence on international arena and propaganda but at the same time keeps reserved rights on those actions. So we have a situation where A could do whatever they want, if B tries to do same, emboldened by A - they get punished.
A and B are both ultimately bad because they only care about their own goals - at expense of 3rd party.
This perception that neither are good or bad comes from Western normalization of violence and advantage taking of 3rd world countries for its own benefit.
We are the 'pod boss' in American prison essentially. We push violence on other people when we see fit for our gains and everyone supports us. When someone else tries to exert violence for their own gain - we put them down. There are no good/bad guys in this scenario.
Its hard to claim that Russia is the good guy when given an opportunity, they'd use monopoly on force themselves. They are not offering anything better or new - simply to change the person/country that exerts monopolistic power for its own benefit at expense of others.
Last edited:
Soldato
It is impressive that Russia is still able to deploy mass forces in no time, seems like the red army only changed its colors not its capabilities! Bear in mind that all the European powers have at least 60 years to do such large scale drills with the exception of the British Army in the early 80's, operation "Lionheart". This is the message Russia sent the last days.
Soldato
Might not be on the same scale, but then neither are our forces. However there is an exercise run regularly by the UK forces call EX TRACTABLE, where we practice forward loading troops and kit, 2019 saw it end in Estonia, very much a show of force.
- Status