1) 40,000 casualties is over 20% of the Russian invasion force in #Ukraine. I'm not saying that #Russia can't win--things can always change--but right now Russia is not winning.
2) It's hard to see how Russia can lose this many troops and this much equipment without serious military degradation. I guess that Russia could find more troops through conscription or a draft, but that would present very tricky political problems for Putin. #UkraineInvasion
3) And the level of skill of those conscripts would be even poorer than the low level that now exists in the current force. #UkraineInvasion
4) U.S. and other military analysts generally peg the ratio of Russian casualties to Ukrainian casualties at 3:1. This is also not a positive for Russia.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@DAlperovitch 1) "Lost": that's not what most military analysts I read are saying. I would say that the predominant word I see is "stalemate" (e.g. ISW and many others).
@DAlperovitch 2) Now I guess one could argue that a stalemate is effectively a loss for Russia. And probably it is in many ways, but that's more a product of expectations than an objective description.
@DAlperovitch 3) It really looks like a loss if you compare it to the predominant analysis before the #RussiaInvasion of Ukraine. Virtually everyone (except for e.g. @MarkHertling ) thought that Russia would finish Ukraine off in 2 days or maybe a week at most.
1) This article represents the predominant view of military analysts of Russia's invasion of #Ukraine: a #STALEMATE, likely to last for months absent a negotiated settlement. It's also one of the best summaries of the military situations I've seen.
2) Of course circumstances could change, and the Russians could find a way to win. At the same time, it's also possible that the Russian force could collapse, and the Ukrainians could defeat them. But these are less likely scenarios than a long-term stalemate. #UkraineInvasion
3) That said, military analysis of this war has fallen short since the get-go. Almost all the "experts" predicted a quick victory for the Russians, but they were thoroughly wrong. #UkraineInvasion
1) Hey, #MESA, it's not #antisemitism, huh? Well, I'm sure then you must be endorsing boycotts of Saudi Arabia for running a police state, treating women like chattel, and giving capital punishment to LGBTQ folks.
2) And I'm sure you endorsing boycotts of Iran for imprisoning&murdering LGBTQ, Bahai, and others, treating its Arab population as 2nd-class citizens, destroying democracy, and threatening to wipe lsrael off the map.
3) And, of you course, you endorse boycotts of Syria whose president also runs a vicious police regime, helped murder 200,000 of his own citizens, used chemical weapons on his own people, and runs massive torture chambers.
1) The author has a point here, but is also fundamentally mistaken IMHO on "#genocide." What follows is a somewhat extensive thread: tinyurl.com/5f738ch7
2) The term, "genocide," is specific and refers to the mass murder of a particular group of people with the goal of erasing them from existence. "Genocide" and mass murder are not the same, and that distinction means something.
3) But how is what's going on genocide if the Russians are killing Russian speakers, as well as Ukrainian speakers. Isn't that mass murder generally rather than genocide specifically, as in the Shoah?