Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Observations and Collectables -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alanrs who wrote (783)	2/13/2023 7:57:52 AM
From: skinowski	3 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs Hoa Hao Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17476

Going back to the first months of the war - especially, after the action moved from Kiev towards the East and the South - the word was that the Russians were very sensitive to casualties. People like Ritter, MacGregor and others estimate the casualties ratio to be higher than 4:1. More like 6-8. Considering that Russia fires up to 60K of artillery shell and rockets daily, against Ukrainian 6-6.5K — and that about 75% of casualties in this war are being inflicted by artillery - this crazy ratio appears to make sense. It’s horrible.

To: alanrs who wrote (783)	2/13/2023 8:15:41 AM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Recommended By alanrs Respond to of 17476

It occurs to me that you can go back to the Napoleonic wars to find the best example just how far the Russians will go to protect their army. In that war, Russia defeated the army of the Napoleon's Empire - which included most of Europe. It could be legitimately called the 1st world war. Back in 1812, the Russians managed to inflict heavy damage on the enemy in a battle near Moscow, near a village called Borodino. Still, there was a possibility that the next battle would not go so well. Russian generals made the decision to surrender Moscow. Napoleon victoriously entered the city - which started having heavy fires all over the place. The Russians burned down the city. Some time later, Napoleon left the useless, evacuated and burnt city. The rest is history - during a disastrous retreat the emperor’s army was largely destroyed - and the Russians celebrated victory in Paris. The point of the story is - if they were willing to surrender their capital in order to preserve their soldiers - WHY be surprised if they left the difficult to defend Kherson?? I still think that having a serious military history means something. True - Ukraine shares this history. But, they did it as part of the Russian empire. Doing it as part of the West is different. During WWII, Stalin and his generals did not do much to protect the lives of their soldiers. Industrial warfare was still a relatively new thing.