re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.

Regarding the damaged Russian submarine "limping" back to Russia on the surface from the Mediterranean because it can't submerge, did I read it right that this withdrawal means that Russia now does not have a single submarine patrolling the Mediterranean?

If true, that seems like a big deal to me...

quote:

---

Not that I know of, just reacting to those maps showing established Russian positions around the north and south sides of the city with some claimed positions starting to wrap around further to the west.

---

OK, I’ve been watching that too.
It’s hard to tell who controls what, but all reports have Russia slowly advancing around Poktovsk.

quote:

---

Yes, I think that Trump is done messing around with Putin. Friday is going to feature some big announcements.

---

I hope that Trump crew doesn't broadcast every detail of arms to Ukraine like Biden's gaggle did. Somethings need to be kept in quiet confidence.

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/russia-ukraine-casualties/2025/10/15/id/1230447/

quote:

---

Russian Casualties Pass 1.1M in Ukraine Invasion

Russia has likely suffered some 332,000 casualties in 2025 alone, pushing its total to more than 1.1 million since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a new assessment from the British Ministry of Defense.

In an update posted on social media, the U.K. MoD said that in September 2025, Russian forces sustained an average of 950 casualties per day, marking a modest uptick from August but representing the second-lowest monthly average since April 2024.

Despite this, the assessment warns that casualties again surged in early October, with daily losses exceeding 1,000 from Oct. 5-12.

From March through August, the daily casualty rate had declined steadily, but the U.K. report notes that Russia's fall offensive triggered a renewed rise.

At the war's height in spring, the Russians averaged around 1,300 daily casualties, with April alone accounting for approximately 36,000 losses, which is about 27% higher than current levels.

---

quote:

---

Russian advances continue.



Slowly but surely.

---

I'm reminded of the scene in the WWII movie Enemy at the Gates, which was based on a true story of the Russians fighting to free Stalingrad from the Nazis.

There is one scene which depicted the famous Russian tactic of throwing young recruits into the meat grinder.

Every other recruit was issued a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition when they were first thrown into the battle.

The Russian officer issuing the weapons told the recruits who didn't get a rifle to pick up a rifle and ammunition when the recruit who had the rifle was shot and killed.

quote:

---

I'm reminded of the scene in the WWII movie Enemy at the Gates, which was based on a true story of the Russians fighting to free Stalingrad from the Nazis.

There is one scene which depicted the famous Russian tactic of throwing young recruits into the meat grinder.

Every other recruit was issued a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition when they were first thrown into the battle.

The Russian officer issuing the weapons told the recruits who didn't get a rifle to pick up a rifle and ammunition when the recruit who had the rifle was shot and killed.

---

By the time the battle for Stalingrad happened the Soviets didn't really have a shortage of guns anymore. They were poorly trained, probably not well-fed, but they all of the equipment they needed by that point.

In fact, the scene your referencing is actually completely exaggerated based on a story from earlier in the war, where unarmed soldiers were at the back of the line and supposed to basically threaten, and if needed beat the shite out, of any potential deserters.

I always thought that scene was accurate (or at least close to accurate) too, because that is how its portrayed in at least a couple of forms of media depicting it.

quote:

---

Why would that be?

Surely not because he is actively fighting against a force that is dependent on NATO supply currently.

---

Putin is smart enough to know that logistics and resources win wars. It's believed by many that the single biggest indicator of who would win in a force-on-force war is a country's GDP. How much stuff can you build? Repair? Replace? Develop? Maintain? How many soldiers can you, yourself, actually arm, equip, feed, and provide for? I mean, hell, it's the biggest reason that everyone that Russia was going to run roughshod over Ukraine in the first place, right? Just simply because they had so much more that the Ukrainians when this war began. They shared the same models of tanks, planes, artillery, etc., it was just the Russians had more and the (perceived) ability to replace it. We just didn't factor in the Russians overwhelming stupidity, greed, incompetence, and so forth - turns out those get a say, too.

quote:

---

Actual military analysts have talked at length about why you would use donkeys (or mules, horses, etc) in certain situations here

---

Okay, well, I'm an actual military analysist and while I understand why donkeys would work if you have nothing else it's not exactly ideal in a world of trucks, rail, planes, and anything with an engine.

But hey, I'm also just some random dude on the internet that you've never met and could just be BS'ing you, so let's take a verified expert who knows exactly what he was talking about. Here was General Patton back in the 1940's:

"I understand the situation. Their [the Soviet] supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof--that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you."

Granted, it's almost a century ago and he was talking about the Soviets, not the Russians, but the situation is the same. Their logistics suck and while donkeys might be the correct answer in a mountainous insurgency such as one would find in Afghanistan it isn't the correct answer in flat-as-a-pancake force-on-force conflict with the opposing side having drones and possibly superior air power.

Trump gets it. Putin is the root cause of all the war related death and destruction.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Russian advances continue.

---

If your house burns down really slowly it actually never really burnt down. Or so I’ve been told