This is all from the Washington Post who normally does everything that they can to back up the broken #Ukraine narrative:

DNIPROPETROVSK REGION, Ukraine — The quality of Ukraine’s military force, once considered a substantial advantage over Russia, has been degraded by a year of casualties that have taken many of the most experienced fighters off the battlefield, leading some Ukrainian officials to question Kyiv’s readiness to mount a much-anticipated spring offensive.

U.S. and European officials have estimated that as many as 120,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or wounded since the start of Russia’s invasion early last year, compared with about 200,000 on the Russian side, which has a much larger military and roughly triple the population from which to draw conscripts. Ukraine keeps its running casualty numbers secret, even from its staunchest Western supporters.

I actually do not endorse the numbers that the US/EU officials are putting forward here, with a 1.2 to 2 ratio that favors the Ukrainians. I think that even when they are trying to be honest about painting the dismal picture, they will still lie to us. I would be surprised if the ratio is anywhere near favorable to the Ukrainians -- I would be ecstatic if I was a Hohol to hear that the ratio is even 1:1.

Statistics aside, an influx of inexperienced draftees, brought in to plug the losses, has changed the profile of the Ukrainian force, which is also suffering from basic shortages of ammunition, including artillery shells and mortar bombs, according to military personnel in the field.


“And there are only a few soldiers with combat experience,” Kupol added. “Unfortunately, they are all already dead or wounded.”

For some even tastier tears:

Such grim assessments have spread a palpable, if mostly unspoken, pessimism from the front lines to the corridors of power in Kyiv, the capital. An inability by Ukraine to execute a much-hyped counteroffensive would fuel new criticism that the United States and its European allies waited too long, until the force had already deteriorated, to deepen training programs and provide armored fighting vehicles, including Bradleys and Leopard battle tanks.

It's interesting to think that even the experts here posit that the great opportunity for the Ukraine was to win with a strong counteroffensive... But no such counteroffensvie could ever exist meaningfully against the Russians who predictably just brought to bear their far superior numbers.

From this point there are some funny statements in the article - for instance, the idea that Russia is experiencing WWI levels of casualties, but you still get glimpses of the real picture behind the paragraphs inserted to shore up the pro-Kiev narrative:

Ukraine has also faced an acute shortage of artillery shells, which Washington and its allies have scrambled to address, with discussions about how to shore up Ukrainian stocks dominating daily meetings on the war at the White House National Security Council. Washington’s efforts have kept Ukraine fighting, but use rates are very high, and scarcity persists.

“You’re on the front line,” Kupol said. “They’re coming toward you, and there’s nothing to shoot with.”

This is normally something that they would ever publish about Russia.

There might be real change on the horizon for the US policy towards the Ukraine - the state media apparatus is warming people up to the idea of cutting their losses and moving on.
Later posts Earlier posts

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.