News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

Mediaite

Bombshell Report Finds Putin Lost Twice the Number of Troops In January as the Soviets Lost In 10 Years Fighting In Afghanistan​

Alex Griffing / Fri, February 13, 2026 at 6:14 PM EST·2 min read

Russia’s Vladimir Putin lost twice as many soldiers in January of 2026 as the Soviet Union lost during its entire campaign in Afghanistan in the 1980s, pointed out CNN’s Jim Sciutto this week.
Bloomberg reported on the stunning numbers in a Thursday article, noting that Russia is now losing more men than it is able to recruit.
Alex Wickham, the UK Political Editor for Bloomberg, shared the report on X and noted, “ Russia sustained around 9,000 more battlefield losses than it was able to replace in January, according to assessments from Western officials.”
news.yahoo.com

Bombshell Report Finds Putin Lost Twice the Number of Troops In January as the Soviets Lost In 10 Years Fighting In Afghanistan

Bloomberg reported on the stunning numbers in a Thursday article, noting that Russia is now losing more men than it is able to recruit.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
sear said:
Mediaite

Bombshell Report Finds Putin Lost Twice the Number of Troops In January as the Soviets Lost In 10 Years Fighting In Afghanistan​

Alex Griffing / Fri, February 13, 2026 at 6:14 PM EST·2 min read

Russia’s Vladimir Putin lost twice as many soldiers in January of 2026 as the Soviet Union lost during its entire campaign in Afghanistan in the 1980s, pointed out CNN’s Jim Sciutto this week.
Bloomberg reported on the stunning numbers in a Thursday article, noting that Russia is now losing more men than it is able to recruit.
Alex Wickham, the UK Political Editor for Bloomberg, shared the report on X and noted, “ Russia sustained around 9,000 more battlefield losses than it was able to replace in January, according to assessments from Western officials.”
news.yahoo.com

Bombshell Report Finds Putin Lost Twice the Number of Troops In January as the Soviets Lost In 10 Years Fighting In Afghanistan

Bloomberg reported on the stunning numbers in a Thursday article, noting that Russia is now losing more men than it is able to recruit.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

The similarities between 1980s Afghanistan and the Ukraine now are obvious.
They are both wars created by the US, using entities we paid and armed.
In Afghanistan it was the Mujahideen being given the latest US Stinger missiles.
While in the Ukraine Hunter Biden was the bagman for the bribed to the ethnic Polish generals for the Maidan Coup in 2014, and clearly we are sending hundreds of billions worth of our latest weapons there.
In fact, I doubt we could have trained Ukrainians in time, so I believe it is US soldiers who are actually guiding US missiles and drones, to fight the Russians, and not Ukrainians.

The difference is that almost half if the Ukraine are still ethnic Russian natives, since the Old Polish invasion was defeated around 1700.
And that unlike Afghanistan which Russia could just close off from, the Ukraine is inside the Russian defense grid, so can never be abandoned to the west.
So we easily won in Afghanistan, but it should be obvious we can not possibly win in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is a life or death struggle to Russia that would force the use of nuclear weapons before Russia could give up the Ukraine.
 
Rigby5 said:
"The Ukraine is a life or death struggle to Russia that would force the use of nuclear weapons before Russia could give up the Ukraine." R5 #262
Click to expand...
Perhaps.
BUT !
According to my monitoring of the news on this topic from numerous sources including Pravda, al Jazeera, and more familiar venues,
the view you offer in #262 is an extreme minority view not shared by m/any of our NATO allies, or m/any of our trade partners in Western Europe or elsewhere.

Russia is a basket case. Her economy is substantially 3rd world, meaning natural resource exploitation (Gazprom), and industrially significant mining,
leaving value add / 1st world economy to Asia and elsewhere.

Putin is a troglodyte, lacking even rudimentary understanding of economics.
Putin's world view reveals only what Putin can glimpse through his Cold War peephole. He has no practical grasp of how to advance Russia, other than by primitive previous millennium standards, bloodshed on the battlefield.

I will tell you R5, Russia has very little to offer any military power with the ability to plunder Russia, simply not worth the effort.
So your portrayal of Russian vulnerability in superlative terms, "would force the use of nuclear weapons" does not seem to be a position presented at the bargaining table by anyone except perhaps for Russia.
And even if that, not persuasively so.
 
sear said:
Perhaps.
BUT !
According to my monitoring of the news on this topic from numerous sources including Pravda, al Jazeera, and more familiar venues,
the view you offer in #262 is an extreme minority view not shared by m/any of our NATO allies, or m/any of our trade partners in Western Europe or elsewhere.

Russia is a basket case. Her economy is substantially 3rd world, meaning natural resource exploitation (Gazprom), and industrially significant mining,
leaving value add / 1st world economy to Asia and elsewhere.

Putin is a troglodyte, lacking even rudimentary understanding of economics.
Putin's world view reveals only what Putin can glimpse through his Cold War peephole. He has no practical grasp of how to advance Russia, other than by primitive previous millennium standards, bloodshed on the battlefield.

I will tell you R5, Russia has very little to offer any military power with the ability to plunder Russia, simply not worth the effort.
So your portrayal of Russian vulnerability in superlative terms, "would force the use of nuclear weapons" does not seem to be a position presented at the bargaining table by anyone except perhaps for Russia.
And even if that, not persuasively so.
Click to expand...

But the main reasons Russia is such a "basket case" are the illegal economic sanctions the US imposes.
That is more reason to resort to the nuclear option, when nothing else is available.
It makes anything else impossible to even remotely consider.
Since these US economic sanctions violate all the principles of defending individual human rights of the Geneva Conventions, there really is no option.
The nuclear option at least would prevent US dominance over Russia.

It is the US that has constantly resorted to "bloodshed on the battlefield"
In the past we bribed the Mujahideen to attack Russians in Afghanistan.
Now we are bribing the generals in Kyiv to attack Russians in the Ukraine.
This is all our doing.

Remember who NATO really is.
It started from the Allies who started WWI, so are England, France, and the US, the three worst colonial imperialists in the whole world.
It was the awful Treaty of Versailles imposed by the Allies in WWI, that took half of Germany and caused WWII, in my opinion.
So NATO are not the "good guys", but the war mongers who are behind all the world suffering, as I see it.
If we really wanted world peace, we would have to first have world justice.
And that would require a world constitution, rule of law, and a world judiciary.
But the US instead enforces a veto system of the Security Counsil members to prevent justice, prevent rule of law, and we ignore the world court.
 
Rigby5 said:
"But the US instead enforces a veto system of the Security Counsil members to prevent justice, prevent rule of law, and we ignore the world court." R5 #264
Click to expand...
I don't know of any federal employee earning a U.S. federal paycheck that hasn't sworn an oath of fidelity to the United States Constitution.
That fidelity oath binds each of them to the Constitution including Art. 6 Sect. 2:
ARTICLE 6. 2This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Even if the U.N. established a global government (hasn't it already?) its constitution would be subordinated to the United States Constitution, because of the supremacy clause quoted above.
 
sear said:
I don't know of any federal employee earning a U.S. federal paycheck that hasn't sworn an oath of fidelity to the United States Constitution.
That fidelity oath binds each of them to the Constitution including Art. 6 Sect. 2:

Even if the U.N. established a global government (hasn't it already?) its constitution would be subordinated to the United States Constitution, because of the supremacy clause quoted above.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
The US constitution does not give supremacy to a particular government body, but to basic principles of justice, rights, and law.
Which means that there would be no problem with a global government, as long as it also was based on those same principles of justice, rights, and law.

I believe the idea of supremacy is that when both larger and smaller jurisdictions both apply, that you give priority to one that is larger, so there is uniformity.
So then that would allow for a global government to have supremacy over countries, if jurisdiction overlapped.
 
Last edited:
Rigby5 said:
"The US constitution does not give supremacy to a particular government body " R5 #266
Click to expand...
They're often referred to as "co-equal" branches of government. BUT !!
Though Article 3 powers may not all ways be the last word, they can be the latest word, as the recent ruling against Trump's executive trade tariffs.

The multiple levels of government within the United States, including:
- federal
- regional
- State
- county
- local
are hierarchical.
The United States Constitution's Article 6 Section 2 addresses this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ...
Click to expand...
The latter expression traces all the way down to local ordinances regarding litter and dogs. BUT !!

NONE of these subordinate levels of government has the authority to over-rule the Constitution.
If a statute violates the Constitution, it is the statute, not the Constitution which must fall.


Shiftless2 said:

Russian soldiers tell BBC they saw fellow troops executed on commanders' orders #267​

Click to expand...

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has asserted Russia's Putin is waging WW3.

The West disgraces human civilization. We have the ability to end this Russian atrocity.
We haven't.
And now we are in year 5.

At the peace negotiation table, Russia has demonstrated little if any serious interest in ending the War.
Perhaps if the West dropped as much ordnance on the Kremlin as the Kremlin has dropped on Kyiv Putin might be a little less unreasonable.
 
sear said:
They're often referred to as "co-equal" branches of government. BUT !!
Though Article 3 powers may not all ways be the last word, they can be the latest word, as the recent ruling against Trump's executive trade tariffs.

The multiple levels of government within the United States, including:
- federal
- regional
- State
- county
- local
are hierarchical.
The United States Constitution's Article 6 Section 2 addresses this:

The latter expression traces all the way down to local ordinances regarding litter and dogs. BUT !!

NONE of these subordinate levels of government has the authority to over-rule the Constitution.
If a statute violates the Constitution, it is the statute, not the Constitution which must fall.




Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has asserted Russia's Putin is waging WW3.

The West disgraces human civilization. We have the ability to end this Russian atrocity.
We haven't.
And now we are in year 5.

At the peace negotiation table, Russia has demonstrated little if any serious interest in ending the War.
Perhaps if the West dropped as much ordnance on the Kremlin as the Kremlin has dropped on Kyiv Putin might be a little less unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The point of the Constitution is mostly to divide up jurisdiction between the different levels of government, not to make one supreme over smaller ones beneath it.
Almost never is there a conflict, and it is only when they both have equal jurisdiction that the supremacy clause breaks the tie to the larger level of government.

We obviously need something larger than a national government.
We need international laws, like ships passing on the rights, how far out countries can claim fishing rights, etc.
Since there are wars, we also need laws governing conflicts between nations.

So what is wrong with the UN?
The problem with the UN is it does not use the Rule of Law by codifying laws ahead of time, allowing for Blind Justice.
But just voting on each decision, and giving the Security Council veto powers, it is instead the worst possible monarchy.
 
sear said:
They're often referred to as "co-equal" branches of government. BUT !!
Though Article 3 powers may not all ways be the last word, they can be the latest word, as the recent ruling against Trump's executive trade tariffs.

The multiple levels of government within the United States, including:
- federal
- regional
- State
- county
- local
are hierarchical.
The United States Constitution's Article 6 Section 2 addresses this:

The latter expression traces all the way down to local ordinances regarding litter and dogs. BUT !!

NONE of these subordinate levels of government has the authority to over-rule the Constitution.
If a statute violates the Constitution, it is the statute, not the Constitution which must fall.




Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has asserted Russia's Putin is waging WW3.

The West disgraces human civilization. We have the ability to end this Russian atrocity.
We haven't.
And now we are in year 5.

At the peace negotiation table, Russia has demonstrated little if any serious interest in ending the War.
Perhaps if the West dropped as much ordnance on the Kremlin as the Kremlin has dropped on Kyiv Putin might be a little less unreasonable.
Click to expand...

With the Ukraine, in order to determine a solution, we have to examine who is at fault.
And it was in 2014 that the Ukraine started being at fault, by massacring, imprisoning, or expelling tens of thousands of native Ukrainians of Russian descent.
Kyiv then also tried to stop Russian use of Sevastopol, and tried to join NATO.
But the actual invasion of the Ukraine did not start until 2022, when Zelensky deliberately started the war by cutting off all negotiations with Moscow.
So all the fault is with Kyiv.
All the problems that can not be allowed, were done by Kyiv.
And Moscow is not the problem, since they had no other choice, given the actions by Kyiv.

To end the war, all we have to do is step back from what started the actual conflict in 2022, which is to restore negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow.
Which means Zelensky has to go most likely.
He was elected in 2018, but is very unpopular now, and could never win another election.
The war is entirely his fault.
 
Shiftless2 said:

Russian soldiers tell BBC they saw fellow troops executed on commanders' orders​


www.bbc.com

Russia soldiers tell BBC they saw fellow troops in Ukraine war executed on commanders' orders

Four men expose the horror and brutality of conditions in the Ukraine war, with two saying they saw soldiers being shot for refusing orders.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

Tough call, but I think I support shooting those who refuse to follow orders.
The reason why is because this war between the Kyiv and Moscow is actually about Zelensky trying to put NATO nukes on Russia's border, inside the Russian defense grid.
That not only is something that can never be allowed, but anyone who would facilitate that should die.
It does not matter if they are traitors or just unable to grasp the severity of the situation.
They still are an unacceptable problem and must die.
 
The Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They gave it up because of guarantees from the US, Britain, and Russia. But as soon as it was confirmed that they were gone, Russia invaded.
 
Shiftless2 said:
The Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They gave it up because of guarantees from the US, Britain, and Russia. But as soon as it was confirmed that they were gone, Russia invaded.
Click to expand...

That is totally false.
First of all, the Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons at all, and it was Russian that made, installed, and controlled those nukes stationed in the Ukraine.
And it was Russia who removed those nukes from the Ukraine in 1992.
And they had nothing at all to do with why the Ukraine cut off negotiations with Moscow in 2022 and started the war.
That was 30 years later.
 
Rigby5 said:
"That is totally false.
First of all, the Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons at all, and it was Russian that made, installed, and controlled those nukes stationed in the Ukraine." R5 #273
Click to expand...
Reminiscent of The Princess Bride, "inconceivable!"

It is a feeble argument to assert Ukraine never had what in the same sentence you admit was located within Ukraine's own borders.

The decisive factor is disclosed in S2 #272, Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons custody on the condition that Ukraine would receive external protections as if it retained the nukes, and self-protected internally with them.

Ukraine was betrayed.
And the consequent carnage is horrific.

Lesson learned.
And we are reinforcing that lesson again and again,
in Libya,
and now in Iran, with Trump teetering the U.S. on an extensive military operation which may at least impose regime change there.
What a pity Iran can't return the favor here.
 
Shiftless2 said:
You really gotta learn a little bit about history

Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
Click to expand...

The fact these Russian nuclear devices were IN the Ukraine, does not mean that the Ukraine made, owned, controlled, or had launch codes for them ever.
They were always built by, owned, controlled, and removed by Russia.
And it was Russia who sacrificed by their removal, since it reduced the retaliatory capability of Russia.
The Ukraine was advantaged by their removal, since then the Ukraine would no longer be targeted by the US.
 
sear said:
Reminiscent of The Princess Bride, "inconceivable!"

It is a feeble argument to assert Ukraine never had what in the same sentence you admit was located within Ukraine's own borders.

The decisive factor is disclosed in S2 #272, Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons custody on the condition that Ukraine would receive external protections as if it retained the nukes, and self-protected internally with them.

Ukraine was betrayed.
And the consequent carnage is horrific.

Lesson learned.
And we are reinforcing that lesson again and again,
in Libya,
and now in Iran, with Trump teetering the U.S. on an extensive military operation which may at least impose regime change there.
What a pity Iran can't return the favor here.
Click to expand...

That is backwards.
The Russian nukes in the Ukraine were not an advantage to the Ukraine, but instead caused the Ukraine to be target by the US.
Russia removing those nukes from the Ukraine made the Ukraine safer, but made Russia less safe.
It was only Russia that was sacrificing anything when they removed those Russian nukes from the Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top