politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Reality =
To quote TopWar,
“In 1929, a new Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was concluded, which provided prisoners with an even greater degree of protection than previous agreements. Germany, like most European countries, signed this document. Moscow did not sign the convention, but ratified the convention on the treatment of the wounded and sick in war that was concluded at the same time. The USSR demonstrated that it intended to act within the framework of international law. Thus, this meant that the USSR and Germany were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, which were binding on all states, regardless of whether they had joined the relevant agreements or not. Even without any conventions, it was unacceptable to exterminate prisoners of war, as the Nazis did. The USSR's agreement and refusal to ratify the Geneva Convention did not change the situation.”
“It should also be noted that the rights of Soviet soldiers were guaranteed not only by general international legal norms, but also fell under the Hague Convention, which Russia signed. The provisions of this convention remained in force after the signing of the Geneva Convention, which all parties, including German lawyers, were aware of. The German collection of international legal acts of 1940 indicated that the Hague Agreement on the Laws and Rules of War was valid even without the Geneva Convention. In addition, it should be noted that the states that signed the Geneva Convention assumed the obligation to treat prisoners normally, regardless of whether their countries signed the convention or not. In the case of a German-Soviet war, the situation of German prisoners of war should have been a concern - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention.”
“Moscow also tried to provide its prisoners with maximum legal protection. Already 27 June 1941 of the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross. On July 1, the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved, which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. German prisoners of war were guaranteed decent treatment, personal safety and medical assistance. This "Regulations" acted throughout the war, its violators were prosecuted in disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Moscow, recognizing the Geneva Convention, apparently hoped for an adequate response from Berlin. However, the military and political leadership of the Third Reich had already crossed the line between good and evil and was not going to apply to the Soviet "subhumans" neither the Hague nor the Geneva Convention, nor the generally accepted norms and customs of war.”
The USSR claimed that they did not sign it because the conventions at the time demanded them to separate prisoners by race which went against the USSR’s anti-racist beliefs.
Reality= Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary.
To quote, Alexei Isaev
"The first myth that is repeated by the film industry in particular is that the Red Army went into battle with one rifle for every 3, 5, even 10 men, fill in the blank yourself. This myth maintains that in the USSR, near Moscow, militiamen with one rifle per 10 had to stop German tanks, even though that is madness, that is not possible. The Red Army never had big problems, specifically big problems, with small arms. This was because there were large stockpiles from the Tsarist army and then the trophies from the Polish campaign. You'll laugh, but the source of this myth is the German Volkssturm. They really had one rifle with one clip of ammunition per 3 or 5 men. In the Red Army, in the worst case scenario, had its auxiliary troops go unarmed: drivers or artillerymen that fire guns from the rear at map squares. They don't really need a rifle. When there was not enough guns, such as in the summer of 1941, the guns were taken from these rear line units, from the horse handlers and such. On the front line the troops were armed well. The claim that soldiers would go into battle and would have to find a weapon there is nonsense. This is a very resilient myth. There are scarier things in war than having to go into battle to get a rifle, but this myth persists. "
It is based on a small grain of truth
I don’t report any comments.
Rather unfortunate that censorship is disrupting our conversation.
I am not unaware of Putin's crimes.
My opinions regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine come from the 2014-2022 era.
People conscripted into the Russian Armed Forces aren't sent into the Special Military Operation Zone.
This has been the case in previous conflicts involving Russia including when Russian troops were sent into Ukraine in 2014 and 2015 during Donbas War with only contractors being sent in.
Heck, Most of Russian Armed Forces aren’t even in Ukraine, majority of forces in Ukraine are from irregular volunteer formations recruited from regions across Russia.
Hence why casualties amongst Russian regulars are low:
Motorized Rifles: 6,457
VDV: 3,257
Naval Infantry: 1,305
Tank Crew: 1,806
Artillery: 851
Special Forces: 736
Engineering: 291
Navy: 291
VVS: 265
Other: 957
Total: 16,216
Source: MediaZona
For comparison:
US losses from 2003-2005 mainly against insurgents: 5175
Source: Defense Casualty Analysis System
Neither can Ukrainians really without receiving a visit from the SBU.
You aren't even allowed to flip off TCC enlistment officers in Ukraine.
You only get substantially higher numbers if you include PMCs, irregular volunteer formations, etc.
Even your own wikipedia source uses Mediazona and shows this LOL:
According to BBC News Russian and the Mediazona news website, out of 97,994 Russian soldiers and contractors whose deaths they had documented by 13 March 2025, 4.9 percent (4,794) were officers, while 6.8 percent (6,636) were Motorized Rifle Troops and 3.3 percent (3,275) were members of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV). In addition, 11.5 percent (11,265) of Russian soldiers whose deaths had been confirmed were people who were mobilized, while 16.4 percent (16,075) were convicts.
I don't include 'mobilized' (which means BARS not conscripts btw) nor do I include convicts. My death totals only include the professionals.
My numbers is a little older than March 15:
hence: Motorized Rifles: 6,457 VDV: 3,257
Yeah, the death toll is likely higher, but the professional death rate likely not so much higher as they are better documented than those from irregulars.
I mean Mediazona also admits that irregular volunteer formations and convicts make up larger portions of losses than professionals:
"From early summer and into the mid-fall season of 2022, volunteers bore the brunt of the losses, which is strikingly different from the situation in the initial stage of the war: in winter and early spring, the Airborne Forces suffered the greatest damage, followed by the Motorised Rifle troops.
By the end of 2022 and the beginning of the next year, losses among prisoners recruited into the Wagner PMC increased markedly. They were formed into “assault groups” to overwhelm Ukrainian positions near Bakhmut.
By March 2023, prisoners became the largest category of war losses. After the capture of Bakhmut, there have been no cases of mass use of prisoners so far.
By September 2024, volunteers once again emerged as the largest category among the KIA. This shift reflects a cumulative effect: prison recruitment had significantly waned, no new mobilisation had been announced, yet the stream of volunteers continued unabated.
By March 14, the death of over 4,800 officers of the Russian army and other security agencies had been confirmed.
The proportion of officer deaths among overall casualties has steadily declined since the conflict began. In the early stages, when professional contract soldiers formed the main invasion force, officers accounted for up to 10% of fatalities. By November 2024, this figure had dropped to between 2–3%—a shift that reflects both evolving combat tactics and the intensive recruitment of volunteer infantry, who suffer casualty rates many times higher than their commanding officers."
The only time when professionals bore the brunt of the losses amongst Russian forces was in winter and early spring of 2022, they were quickly beaten by the blood that was shed from irregular volunteer formations in mid-fall, the death toll amongst irregular volunteer formations were eventually surpassed by prisoners in 2023 before irregular volunteer formations again emerged as highest category among the KIA.
Again, Russian casualties are only significantly more higher (in the hundreds of thousands range) If you include PMCs, irregular volunteer formations, etc.
I am only including Russian professionals.
From your wikipedia link "Men from the poverty-stricken regions of Russia's Far North, Far East and Siberia were overrepresented among Russian war casualties."
Yeah, because irregular volunteer formations rely on their local regional government to supply them with weapons and equipment not the federal government. This is well shown by the Tuvan volunteers who come from the poorest region in Russia which shows in their equipment:
Link
So they rely heavily on donations:
Link
Link
Link
Thankfully Chechnya has recently taken on the burden of training and equipping them (why you see them being shipped from Chechnya) as shown here:
Link
Link
Link
Chechnya training and sending more batches of volunteers from across Russia to the SMO zone:
Link
Link
Link
Link
It was US General Mark Milley who said that it would be 3 days/72 hours to Kyiv.
That does not mean that Putin thought that this war would last for years as he expected Ukraine to capitulate to his demands (which was almost accomplished) which is why the SMO was so half-assed.
Russia did not expect any resistance during the initial invasion of Ukraine. Russia had 170 BTGs fully composed of professional soldiers at the start of the war. Only 64-69 of these BTGs took part according to Ukraine and at half strength. Since these forces did not expect any resistance, they went in without their material technical support brigades which meant they had to rely on ad hoc supply units and looting. The material technical support brigades were only sent into Ukraine around a month after the invasion but Russian units had already sustained heavy losses by then due to the lack of ammunition and supplies. This was too little too late which eventually led to the Russian Armed Forces withdrawing from Ukraine and mostly being replaced by irregulars. For example, when Russian forces withdrew from the Kharkov region, they got replaced by 3rd Army Corps which was thrown into enemy lines to stem the tide.
If it was not half assed, Russia would likely have utilized lessons learned from when they sent in units during the Donbas War, meaning that they would have sent in drones to map out positions, bomb said positions to hell destroying entire Ukrainian brigades in minutes like what happened in 2014, then send forward units with their material technical support brigades actually attached and they would locate surviving Ukrainian units, and smash them into pieces forcing Ukraine to send in their reserves to the front to seal up openings which without reservists back at Kiev, would allow the Hostomel operation to succeed in its entirety by giving the VDV time to prepare the airfield in order to create an air bridge. Ukraine then quickly capitulates to Russia's demands.
Putin in my opinion, probably regrets half assing the initial invasion. Now it has turned into a war of attrition. This means that Russia has to look for alternatives outside of the military such as private military contractors or volunteers to fight in Ukraine. This is because preparing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight in Ukraine would cause a large amount of unrest at home and would destabalize the economy. This is also why I think that Russia might be preparing to use a larger portion of its military this year in the spring. Zelenskyy seems to agree as he has been talking about Russia launching an offensive into Sumy from Russia and another one into Kyiv from Belarus. The economy has since adapted to the Special Military Operation meaning it would be less destabilized from a full-scale war. The population is suffering from war exhaustion despite attempts by Russia to prevent war exhaustion by using private military contractors and volunteers but Kursk might have increased public support for a full-scale war.
Not as desperately as you tried to rewrite history regarding WW2 above using the same nonsense that neo-nazis used.
If it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the invasion was particularly stellar. But without action, it would only embolden Zelenskyy to keep stamping down on the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s right to self determination.
Was invasion the best choice? No.
No you don't, that is obvious since you spouted the viagra nonsense which is easily debunked, the two gun 1 man myth which is debunked by many western historians, etc.
How do you know? You yourself admit to not even looking at anything I send.
Nope that is indeed true.
I however was referring to this: Stalin wouldn’t sign the agreements for reciprocal good treatment of prisoners.
Which is propagated by post-war Nazis: "After the war, the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Soviet leadership, which has not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of prisoners of war"
And is shown as nonsense here:
“In 1929, a new Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was concluded, which provided prisoners with an even greater degree of protection than previous agreements. Germany, like most European countries, signed this document. Moscow did not sign the convention, but ratified the convention on the treatment of the wounded and sick in war that was concluded at the same time. The USSR demonstrated that it intended to act within the framework of international law. Thus, this meant that the USSR and Germany were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, which were binding on all states, regardless of whether they had joined the relevant agreements or not. Even without any conventions, it was unacceptable to exterminate prisoners of war, as the Nazis did. The USSR’s agreement and refusal to ratify the Geneva Convention did not change the situation.”
“It should also be noted that the rights of Soviet soldiers were guaranteed not only by general international legal norms, but also fell under the Hague Convention, which Russia signed. The provisions of this convention remained in force after the signing of the Geneva Convention, which all parties, including German lawyers, were aware of. The German collection of international legal acts of 1940 indicated that the Hague Agreement on the Laws and Rules of War was valid even without the Geneva Convention. In addition, it should be noted that the states that signed the Geneva Convention assumed the obligation to treat prisoners normally, regardless of whether their countries signed the convention or not. In the case of a German-Soviet war, the situation of German prisoners of war should have been a concern - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention.”
“Moscow also tried to provide its prisoners with maximum legal protection. Already 27 June 1941 of the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross. On July 1, the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved, which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. German prisoners of war were guaranteed decent treatment, personal safety and medical assistance. This “Regulations” acted throughout the war, its violators were prosecuted in disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Moscow, recognizing the Geneva Convention, apparently hoped for an adequate response from Berlin. However, the military and political leadership of the Third Reich had already crossed the line between good and evil and was not going to apply to the Soviet “subhumans” neither the Hague nor the Geneva Convention, nor the generally accepted norms and customs of war.”
A bit shorter: the Soviets did not sign Geneva as it would require them to separate prisoners by race which went against the USSR’s anti-racist beliefs but that didn't matter as they signed Hague convention which acts as a agreement for reciprocal good treatment of prisoners, were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
It is clear that continued conversation won't convince anyone of anything, we are clearly at an impasse.