Russia will win this conflict and take a seizable chunk of territory from Ukraine. They haven't even committed a large portion of their troops or declared war on Ukraine. If they declared war, they could draft millions of men to fight and steamroll Ukraine. If Russia was on serious jeopardy of "losing" this conflict, I'd expect them to drop a small tactical nuke on Kyiv to finish the conflict. They know the West is too afraid of nuclear war to do anything about it. Ukraine is punching above it's weight, but it's experienced fighters are being slaughtered in the east. They are being replaced with green recruits from the west. Russia is winning the slow grind.

(06-07-2022 08:44 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Russia will win this conflict and take a seizable chunk of territory from Ukraine. They haven't even committed a large portion of their troops or declared war on Ukraine. If they declared war, they could draft millions of men to fight and steamroll Ukraine. If Russia was on serious jeopardy of "losing" this conflict, I'd expect them to drop a small tactical nuke on Kyiv to finish the conflict. They know the West is too afraid of nuclear war to do anything about it. Ukraine is punching above it's weight, but it's experienced fighters are being slaughtered in the east. They are being replaced with green recruits from the west. Russia is winning the slow grind.

Russia has already committed the vast majority of its active combat troops. Early estimates were that Russia committed 190,000 troops to Ukraine, and there are currently 110 battalion tactical groups in Ukraine.

The entire Russian Army (including conscripts) is about 280,000 combat troops, formed into 168 battalion tactical groups. Of that, about 50,000-60,000 are absolutely required elsewhere:
20,000 - Chechnya
12,000 - Kaliningrad (a Russian exclave on the Baltic that is completely surrounded by Lithuania and Poland).
10,000 - Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia)
5,000 - Armenia / Azerbaijan
5,000 - Tajikistan
4,000 - Syria
1,000 - Moldova (Transnistria)

Even if they had zero combat losses (unlikely), Russia doesn't have a lot of trained reserves left to throw into the fight.


However, I agree with you that Ukraine is unlikely to "win." Russia is a far larger country and their leaders are committed to this fight. And it will be very difficult to dislodge Russia from the gains they have already made, particularly in areas where they have some popular support from the people.

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Depends on what its compared to. Had we not propped up Ukraine and the Russians rolled through it in few weeks---I suspect Russia would immediately be looking at using those successful forces to militarily enforce Putins demand that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders. That direct NATO vs Russia conflict is one we would by treaty have no option to "sit out". Based on the trillions we spent fighting the crappy little Taliban forces---we'd be looking at peer level European war costing trillions more than the value of the Ukrainian aid we are sending (not the mention that not a single American soldier has to die in Europe if a little Ukrainian aid can prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine).

That said---Im pretty certain when all this over---likely in a settlement (because I no longer think the Rusisans will achieve their goals)--we will be on the hook long term as the key protectorate for Ukraine's future security (possible in a coalition of the willing---maybe including the UK, Poland, and perhaps Germany or France).

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Well there's a good chance some of the seized Russian billions will go to rebuild Ukraine. Some countries (Canada and one other) are already planning to do this.

(06-07-2022 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Depends on what its compared to. Had we not propped up Ukraine and the Russians rolled through it in few weeks---I suspect Russia would immediately be looking at using those successful forces to militarily enforce Putins demand that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders. That direct NATO vs Russia conflict is one we would by treaty have no option to "sit out". Based on the trillions we spent fighting the crappy little Taliban forces---we'd be looking at peer level European war costing trillions more than the value of the Ukrainian aid we are sending (not the mention that not a single American soldier has to die in Europe if a little Ukrainian aid can prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine).

That said---Im pretty certain when all this over---likely in a settlement (because I no longer think the Rusisans will achieve their goals)--we will be on the hook long term as the key protectorate for Ukraine's future security (possible in a coalition of the willing---maybe including UK, Poland, and perhaps Germany or France).

There's no doubt Moldova was next on the list. Then would they go after the Baltics? Poland? Hungary?

(06-07-2022 02:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Depends on what its compared to. Had we not propped up Ukraine and the Russians rolled through it in few weeks---I suspect Russia would immediately be looking at using those successful forces to militarily enforce Putins demand that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders. That direct NATO vs Russia conflict is one we would by treaty have no option to "sit out". Based on the trillions we spent fighting the crappy little Taliban forces---we'd be looking at peer level European war costing trillions more than the value of the Ukrainian aid we are sending (not the mention that not a single American soldier has to die in Europe if a little Ukrainian aid can prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine).

That said---Im pretty certain when all this over---likely in a settlement (because I no longer think the Rusisans will achieve their goals)--we will be on the hook long term as the key protectorate for Ukraine's future security (possible in a coalition of the willing---maybe including UK, Poland, and perhaps Germany or France).

There's no doubt Moldova was next on the list. Then would they go after the Baltics? Poland? Hungary?

Thats what Putin said---and I believe him.

Ukraine is far from getting its ass kicked. Even western estimates are as many as 30,000 Russians dead already. They are very poorly trained and poorly equipped in actuality. Add that to a real lack of motivation and you have a very suspect fighting force. A couple of days ago the Ukrainians killed another Russian general. That’s 13 generals so far. Not exactly sounding like Russia is winning. They also have raised the enlistment age to 55 and plan to have those in theatre in 3 weeks. No way to train someone for battle in 3 weeks. They’ll be cannon fodder for trained motivated troops. Not to mention Russian claims of air superiority are a joke. Nearly 700 aircraft shot down and the Ukrainians are still flying missions.

Excuse me, TWO generals killed in one day. That goes along with 49 colonels. What an inept excuse for an army. All they can do is shell and kill civilians. All they have to claim is Mariupol and they have laid it to waste.

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Your premise is sound. But I generally multiple provided figures by about 10 to get the true cost to us. Look at our Middle East adventures that ram into many trillions. Add in the fact that we are borrowing all if that money and paying internet on it forever and it just keeps multiplying.

One could argue that the Middle East wars were a different ball game, that they had a different objective, and so on. But they didn’t necessarily start out that way. They started out as “just” a certain amount. But then it’s more, a new crisis, a changed objective, a new reality… Whatever the reason provided, it never stops at just the first round of fleecing.

The fact is that none of this would be happening if Mr Potato Head had not been cheated into office.

No
Good
Guys

(06-07-2022 07:02 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Excuse me, TWO generals killed in one day. That goes along with 49 colonels. What an inept excuse for an army. All they can do is shell and kill civilians. All they have to claim is Mariupol and they have laid it to waste.

Can you imagine if Russia sets off Japan over those islands? That would be a royal azz kicking from a real high tech military. Russian Navy in the Pacific would be no more.

No, Russia knows its place is playing in the kiddie pool with Ukraine.

(06-07-2022 09:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

No
Good
Guys

I fail to understand your logic here. Are you directly comparing Trump and Zelinsky or Putin and Zelinsky? Only one is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths to feed his ego. Trump put America first. Zelinsky was trying to bring a fledgling democracy out of Soviet corruption. Putin meanwhile is running a corrupt dictatorship that has stolen a trillion dollars from its people and started a war so he could steal more. President Potato Head offered Zelinsky a way out to serve Ukraine up to Putin on a silver platter. One thing we know, president Potato Head is the real bad guy here. He is Putin’s Dick holster.

(06-07-2022 10:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 09:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

No
Good
Guys

I fail to understand your logic here. Are you directly comparing Trump and Zelinsky or Putin and Zelinsky? Only one is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths to feed his ego. Trump put America first. Zelinsky was trying to bring a fledgling democracy out of Soviet corruption. Putin meanwhile is running a corrupt dictatorship that has stolen a trillion dollars from its people and started a war so he could steal more. President Potato Head offered Zelinsky a way out to serve Ukraine up to Putin on a silver platter. One thing we know, president Potato Head is the real bad guy here. He is Putin’s Dick holster.

FFS you cant hojestly believe this
George Soros acknowledged in an interview with CNN that he actively contributed to the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. “I created a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. The foundation has functioned since then and has played an important role in current events,” explains the financier who established the International Renaissance Foundation, in Ukraine, as part of the Open Society Foundations, in April 1990.

The foundation, put in Ukraine by the granddad of the New World Order globalist movement to allegedly assist in the country’s transition to a democratic, free-market society actually became more like a parallel government, Kloss noted. The foundation immediately began several projects in different parts of the country that did not really provide any benefit to the government or the people. Ultimately, the foundation helped usher in Zelenskyy (May 2019), “a comedian/clown” who got rich doing a Ukrainian political satire comedy TV series, though he was secretly financed by Soros friend and Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.

https://miamistandard.news/2022/03/03/ge...installed/

(06-08-2022 08:09 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 09:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

No
Good
Guys

I fail to understand your logic here. Are you directly comparing Trump and Zelinsky or Putin and Zelinsky? Only one is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths to feed his ego. Trump put America first. Zelinsky was trying to bring a fledgling democracy out of Soviet corruption. Putin meanwhile is running a corrupt dictatorship that has stolen a trillion dollars from its people and started a war so he could steal more. President Potato Head offered Zelinsky a way out to serve Ukraine up to Putin on a silver platter. One thing we know, president Potato Head is the real bad guy here. He is Putin’s Dick holster.

FFS you cant hojestly believe this
George Soros acknowledged in an interview with CNN that he actively contributed to the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. “I created a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. The foundation has functioned since then and has played an important role in current events,” explains the financier who established the International Renaissance Foundation, in Ukraine, as part of the Open Society Foundations, in April 1990.

The foundation, put in Ukraine by the granddad of the New World Order globalist movement to allegedly assist in the country’s transition to a democratic, free-market society actually became more like a parallel government, Kloss noted. The foundation immediately began several projects in different parts of the country that did not really provide any benefit to the government or the people. Ultimately, the foundation helped usher in Zelenskyy (May 2019), “a comedian/clown” who got rich doing a Ukrainian political satire comedy TV series, though he was secretly financed by Soros friend and Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.

https://miamistandard.news/2022/03/03/ge...installed/

Hell, Russia tries to influence our elections---you really think they arent hip deep involved in Ukraines? So its more like Putins mad that his underhanded manipulation was offset by Soros--and no doubt others. In the end, none of these outside interests are capable of electing candidates with 75%+ landslide victories. Landslide winning percentages have been the rule for Ukrainian pro-western candidates in the elections since the last pro-Russian stooge was thrown out by a popular uprising. The popular uprising occurred because the Russian stooge president rejected the publicly popular EU offer and instead announced that he intended to accept Putins bribe to become a largely impotent Russian vassal state. In democracies---the population generally gets the government the population wants---for better or worse.

(06-08-2022 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 08:09 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 09:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

No
Good
Guys

I fail to understand your logic here. Are you directly comparing Trump and Zelinsky or Putin and Zelinsky? Only one is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths to feed his ego. Trump put America first. Zelinsky was trying to bring a fledgling democracy out of Soviet corruption. Putin meanwhile is running a corrupt dictatorship that has stolen a trillion dollars from its people and started a war so he could steal more. President Potato Head offered Zelinsky a way out to serve Ukraine up to Putin on a silver platter. One thing we know, president Potato Head is the real bad guy here. He is Putin’s Dick holster.

FFS you cant hojestly believe this
George Soros acknowledged in an interview with CNN that he actively contributed to the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. “I created a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. The foundation has functioned since then and has played an important role in current events,” explains the financier who established the International Renaissance Foundation, in Ukraine, as part of the Open Society Foundations, in April 1990.

The foundation, put in Ukraine by the granddad of the New World Order globalist movement to allegedly assist in the country’s transition to a democratic, free-market society actually became more like a parallel government, Kloss noted. The foundation immediately began several projects in different parts of the country that did not really provide any benefit to the government or the people. Ultimately, the foundation helped usher in Zelenskyy (May 2019), “a comedian/clown” who got rich doing a Ukrainian political satire comedy TV series, though he was secretly financed by Soros friend and Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.

https://miamistandard.news/2022/03/03/ge...installed/

Hell, Russia tries to influence our elections---you really think they arent hip deep involved in Ukraines? So its more like Putins mad that his underhanded manipulation was offset by Soros--and no doubt others. In the end, none of these outside interests are capable of electing candidates with 75%+ landslide victories. Landslide winning percentages have been the rule for Ukrainian pro-western candidates in the elections since the last pro-Russian stooge was thrown out by a popular uprising. The popular uprising occurred because the Russian stooge president rejected the publicly popular EU offer and instead announced that he intended to accept Putins bribe to become a largely impotent Russian vassal state. In democracies---the population generally gets the government the population wants---for better or worse.

He also started shooting protestors. That's when his own party abandoned him.

Yall need to get off teh facebook and work out your man crush on zelinsky.

You believe everything they want you to believe.

Muh russia bad. Ukraine good

Gtfoh.

Ridiculous

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ent-june-7

From the Institute of the Study of War:

"...The Kremlin’s efforts to censor information about deceased military personnel and ongoing forced mobilization within the DNR and LNR are reportedly exacerbating domestic tensions and opposition to the war in Russia. The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that the Kremlin assigned lawyers and psychologists to convince families of personnel of the sunken cruiser Moskva to refrain from disclosing any information regarding the deaths of their relatives in an effort to crush rising social tensions in Russia.[8] The GUR stated that the Kremlin is threatening to nullify financial compensation to the families of Moskva crew members if they publicly discuss the sinking of the cruiser, resulting in some relatives refusing to meet with Black Sea Fleet commanders in Sevastopol in protest. Ukrainian media sources separately reported that the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) altered mobilization protocols and is now promising compensation for wounded and deceased personnel due to DNR servicemen rioting at the frontlines.[9]

Domestic Russian complaints about the maltreatment and lack of preparation among Russian combat forces are likely prompting the Kremlin to take rhetorical steps to curb discontent. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu stated that new conscripts during the summer training period will be trained with specific attention to lessons learned so far in Ukraine during a meeting with the National Defense Management Center (NDCC) (the supreme command center of the Russian Armed Forces and Defense Ministry) on June 7. Shoigu added that summer conscripts will learn battlefield first aid, likely responding to criticisms by members of the Russian military community of poor tactics and lack of first aid acumen among Russian soldiers.[10] However, the Russian military is unlikely to properly train and equip Russian conscripts rushed to the front as replacements and likely primarily seeks to mollify public discontent. Former DNR Security Minister and milblogger Alexander Khodakovsky claimed that he asked the DNR military command to move exhausted and demoralized proxy conscripts to auxiliary tasks away from the line of contact but to no avail.[11]..."