Russia 'lost 220 troops' in Ukraine - Nemtsov report

An investigation by Russian opposition activists has concluded that 220 Russian soldiers died in two major battles in eastern Ukraine.

The report includes data compiled by the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, who was shot dead in February.

Russia denies Western accusations that it has sent regular troops and armour to help the rebels in eastern Ukraine.

The cost of Russia's military involvement and of annexing Crimea is said to run into billions of dollars.

Source

So the opposition in Russia has released th report Nemtsov was working on before his assassination. So far at least 220 soldiers have died in Ukraine while the Kremlin continue to deny their existence all the while denying their families compensation. On top of that Russia's actions in Ukraine have cost the Russian people over 1 billion dollars.

Unfortunately I don't see this report changing much. They're having a hard time finding anyone to publish the report. And after what happened to Nemtsov who can blame them? Plus I'm sure the media network Putin has under his control will either ignore the story or spin it in a way to benefit himself.

Probably true, but I ask how does the US do things any differently? How many countries is the US occupying? We have all seen the navy commercials the show the navy is all around the world and says "in defense of all we hold dear back home " what are defending against?

a reply to: JHumm

More smoke and mirrors in your reply.

The US routinely gets called out for their actions on this site. But when Russia is called out swarms come to Putin's defense. And many of the reasons is like yours. The US does it so why can't Russia?

Is that really a honest defense?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: JHumm

More smoke and mirrors in your reply.

The US routinely gets called out for their actions on this site. But when Russia is called out swarms come to Putin's defense. And many of the reasons is like yours. The US does it so why can't Russia?

Is that really a honest defense?

It may not be an honest defense (nor even a logical one) but how can any Western nation be critical of Russia when we either do the same, or are helping the same happen?
I don't think Russia has gotten worse, I just think public perception (aided by the media and Western Governments) has swayed because they are no longer falling in line with what we want to happen.

Think of it this way.
You pray for an angel to kill your enemy, the angel does. Do you think your enemy saw an angel, or a demon? It's all in perception.

On topic: I think all countries should stay out of every other country unless its population votes for them to come help in whatever capacity they need help with.

a reply to: JHumm

For one the US doesn't have a habit of covertly annexing land from sovereign nations. In any country that has a US base those troops are there are the request of the host country. If they want us gone we'll leave.

More importantly though is that a man was most likely killed under orders from his own government over this information. That right there should make this report worth you time.

a reply to: superman2012

That's my point neither policy is good. But the people that use the policy to condone Russian actions should probably talk to people in Georgia, Chechnya, the Ukraine and Moldavia.

Everybody seems to forget about those countries when claiming Russia isn't that bad.

We got tons (at least in Europe) people going to Syria fighting Assad.
Pretty much the same, where some people feel such great ''love'' for something or country they willing to go over there.
Hard to stop that.

a reply to: Plugin

Then why did the Russian government pay compensation to some of the families that lost loved ones in Ukraine? If they were simply volunteers there would be no need to do that.

a reply to: Greathouse
Every country is horrible in its own way. The people that claim Russia isn't bad, either don't know the history or don't care to know. The annexation of Crimea is a very complicated manner though, and people don't have all the facts (unlikely we ever will). I believed in the beginning that there were no Russian troops there either, now, well I don't think I can deny facts. Has it changed my opinion about the legality of the annexation? Not really. It just showed me that all governments are the same and will do whatever is in their own best interest (personal as well as political).

a reply to: Xcalibur254
They may not annex lands from sovereign nations, but they do support other countries that have.

a reply to: superman2012

On the other hand I had no doubt whatsoever who the little green men were the moment they appeared. And to me the greatest irony of Russian intentions is. That they seized the majority of the oil production and refinement facilities in the Ukraine plus they acquired a massive rights to newly found and old offshore oil and gas deposits. I did not hear one of the protester anywhere mention a war for oil which is exactly what it was.

To further the irony, after seizing all of their assets Putin sent them a bill for gas.

originally posted by: JHumm
Probably true, but I ask how does the US do things any differently? How many countries is the US occupying?

None, at the last count. And they tend not to annex territory even if they do send in the troops which is, more often than not, with the consent of the international community and the UN.

So, not really comparable to what Russia did/is doing.

As for the OP - 220 dead is a lot and that doesn't even count those wounded/crippled which I suspect is far higher. This is exactly how dissent started with regards to the USSR campaign in Afghanistan.

a reply to: Greathouse
Right. The US was supporting the Ukrainian replacement for the Russian backed Prime Minister. Both sides want the gas deposits, it looks like Russia won this round.

Every government move is about money.

Edit: to be fair, Russia was already selling the Ukraine most of it's gas and oil. With this "new" discovery of gas though, and the Ukraine signing agreements with Western countries, the US was trying to make sure that Ukraine would keep it.

a reply to: superman2012

I agree all nations are empire builders. But I prefer the US capture and release policy as opposed to Russia's annex and incorporate policy.

a reply to: Greathouse
I think both policies, while the public might feel better about the US one, are horrible for the people that live there. Either live under Russian rule, or be left to sort things out for yourself after the US leaves. Neither scenario ever plays out well.

a reply to: superman2012

Well said

I have seen you involved in several debates with other members I believe you are greatly misunderstood.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Plugin

Then why did the Russian government pay compensation to some of the families that lost loved ones in Ukraine? If they were simply volunteers there would be no need to do that.

Wouldn't it be the other way around? To get volunteers, you'd need to promise them benefits to the family.

Do you think Russians can successfully sue the Kremlin?

a reply to: mbkennel

Aren't you just arguing semantics then? If the government is offering compensation to fight in a war on foreign land doesn't that make the individual a soldier of the government even if they aren't officially listed as active duty?

Regardless of that though the practice the world over, including Russia, is for the government to offer compensation to your family should you fall in the line of duty. On top of that we have people from Russia saying they're loved ones were forced to "volunteer" in Ukraine and when they were killed they saw no compensation.

a reply to: mbkennel

Do you think Russians can successfully sue the Kremlin?

Now that would be worth watching.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: superman2012

Well said

I have seen you involved in several debates with other members I believe you are greatly misunderstood.

Thanks for that. It greatly depends on my mood and whether someone starts off being civil or not and how passionate I am about my stance. You seem like you are open to thinking about both sides instead of refusing to see other than black and white, that is a great quality.