1. #35681
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    We need to be clear about something.

    The West is playing a delicate game with russia where we are trying to undermine its military capabilities without pushing it into a clear defeat. We're letting putin cling to hope of victory even though the war is clearly doomed to fail. This strategic ambiguity allows us to maintain an elusive position where we don't crack down too hard on countries like China that are helping russia with some things and we sometimes make it seem like financial support for Ukraine is up in the air: "look over here!"-approach while slipping Ukraine something through other channels. It's important to realize that most aid to Ukraine is fungible - supporting them with non-lethal aid makes them able to focus more of their economy on lethal stuff, and vice versa. This strategy also works for the people in the West who oppose helping them, making them feel impactful and have political agency. "At leazt we don'ts help themz with lethalz stuffz #PeaceNotWar"
    And it is morally reprehensible. The unmarked RUSSIAN TROOPS should have been blown to hell by joint EU+USA campaign the moment they set foot in Ukraine in 2014.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    This approach keeps putin under the illusion that he has some control over the situation. It's also why the West delays promised deliveries to Ukraine, creating a sense of uncertainty but also changes the pace of the war. Despite these general delays, we have been very good at supplying air defense systems: it protects civilians but doesn't influence the battlefield that much. This may even bait putin into escalating missile attacks, which further drains russia's coffers and offers us a window into the capabilities and flaws of their military tech.
    You know what would have protected more civilians? Giving Ukraine better weapons to more effectively kill invaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    Don't be fooled by Hungary, putin's 'ally' - they haven't actually effectively threatened support for Ukraine; they simply act depending on what suits them best but won't truly challenge things in practice. Órban knows he wouldn't 'survive' true opposition to the West.

    At the heart of this strategy is the goal of weakening russia enough to prevent it from repeating its aggressive actions for a very long time, which Lloyd Austin was very open about at the very start of the conflict. We're not necessarily aiming for Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, Donbas, or get reparations - maximum "win." The key is for Ukraine to simply hold its ground, and that in itself means russia hasn't won. This does not mean that Ukraine can't win, just that we in the West are only committed to their survival.

    The United States with its advanced war gaming capabilities, knows very well how much they can provide for this purpose. Their expertise in designing and implementing these complex strategies is evident in the very calibrated support provided to Ukraine - enough to keep them afloat, but not enough for a decisive victory (nor defeat).

    Managing the situation so that putin doesn't see it as completely hopeless is crucial; we want to avoid him retreating to regroup or, in the worst-case scenario, resorting to nuclear weapons. It's a delicate walk, but the West is determined to keep russia in check through this and the sanctions. We need to internalize this better and also realize that this is the strategy that helps in the long run for most people - including Ukrainians. Yes, one can argue it's unfair to Ukrainians, but that's all on putin in the end. He is a threat and russia needs to be put back a few decades. Usually, sanctions take quite a bit of time to work well, but the zugzwang putin put himself in is accelerating it. Look at how North Korea bloomed for a while, and was even better than the South, until it couldn't keep up. Look at the difference between them and South Korea today. Sanctions take time to set in and are extremely powerful.
    At this point, fuck it. Lets find out how many of their nukes actually work.

  2. #35682
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    And it is morally reprehensible. The unmarked RUSSIAN TROOPS should have been blown to hell by joint EU+USA campaign the moment they set foot in Ukraine in 2014.




    You know what would have protected more civilians? Giving Ukraine better weapons to more effectively kill invaders.



    At this point, fuck it. Lets find out how many of their nukes actually work.
    Well, I agree that we should have done way more historically. It's on us to correct it now, especially since the West is the target of putin's wrath in the end - he intends to challenge article 5 at some future point.

    Nuclear escalation management is a real thing and not something our top folks take lightly. Yes, sometimes it might feel a bit too cautious I agree but even if there is a 0.1 % chance - that's about the end of humanity basically. 1 in 1000 chance to end humanity is nothing to play around with. At least, the ones in charge don't think so. Fortunately.

  3. #35683
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    Well, I agree that we should have done way more historically. It's on us to correct it now, especially since the West is the target of putin's wrath in the end - he intends to challenge article 5 at some future point.

    Nuclear escalation management is a real thing and not something our top folks take lightly. Yes, sometimes it might feel a bit too cautious I agree but even if there is a 0.1 % chance - that's about the end of humanity basically. 1 in 1000 chance to end humanity is nothing to play around with. At least, the ones in charge don't think so. Fortunately.
    No, and I'm not going to through that discussion for the nth time.

  4. #35684
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    We need to be clear about something.

    The West is playing a delicate game with russia where we are trying to undermine its military capabilities without pushing it into a clear defeat. We're letting putin cling to hope of victory even though the war is clearly doomed to fail. This strategic ambiguity allows us to maintain an elusive position where we don't crack down too hard on countries like China that are helping russia with some things and we sometimes make it seem like financial support for Ukraine is up in the air: "look over here!"-approach while slipping Ukraine something through other channels. It's important to realize that most aid to Ukraine is fungible - supporting them with non-lethal aid makes them able to focus more of their economy on lethal stuff, and vice versa. This strategy also works for the people in the West who oppose helping them, making them feel impactful and have political agency. "At leazt we don'ts help themz with lethalz stuffz #PeaceNotWar"

    This approach keeps putin under the illusion that he has some control over the situation. It's also why the West delays promised deliveries to Ukraine, creating a sense of uncertainty but also changes the pace of the war. Despite these general delays, we have been very good at supplying air defense systems: it protects civilians but doesn't influence the battlefield that much (I mean, they don't really aim at anything other than civilians...). This may even bait putin into escalating missile attacks, which further drains russia's coffers and offers us a window into the capabilities and flaws of their military tech.

    Don't be fooled by Hungary, putin's 'ally' - they haven't actually effectively threatened support for Ukraine; they simply act depending on what suits them best but won't truly challenge things in practice. Órban knows he wouldn't 'survive' true opposition to the West. It's mainly us regular folks who thinks in "omg, Órban is SUCH a putin lover... he totally hates Biden because he is progressive!!!"-terms. Meanwhile, the top folk don't really have true ideological personas behind their actions, nor feelings in that way towards other top folks.

    At the heart of this strategy is the goal of weakening russia enough to prevent it from repeating its aggressive actions for a very long time, which Lloyd Austin was very open about at the very start of the conflict. We're not necessarily aiming for Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, Donbas, or get reparations - maximum "win." The key is for Ukraine to simply hold its ground, and that in itself means russia hasn't won. This does not mean that Ukraine can't win, just that we in the West are only committed to their survival.

    The United States with its advanced war gaming capabilities, knows very well how much they can provide for this purpose. Their expertise in designing and implementing these complex strategies is evident in the very calibrated support provided to Ukraine - enough to keep them afloat, but not enough for a decisive victory (nor defeat).

    Managing the situation so that putin doesn't see it as completely hopeless is crucial; we want to avoid him retreating to regroup or, in the worst-case scenario, resorting to nuclear weapons. It's a delicate walk, but the West is determined to keep russia in check through this and the sanctions. We need to internalize this better and also realize that this is the strategy that helps in the long run for most people - including Ukrainians. Yes, one can argue it's unfair to Ukrainians, but that's all on putin in the end. He is a threat and russia needs to be put back a few decades. Usually, sanctions take quite a bit of time to work well, but the zugzwang putin put himself in is accelerating it. Look at how North Korea bloomed for a while, and was even better than the South, until it couldn't keep up. Look at the difference between them and South Korea today. Sanctions take time to set in and are extremely powerful.
    Wow, sounds like massive Kissinger cope here. In the dozens of interviews I've heard with American officials via Podcasts from the DoD, ISW and American Senators Including Victoria Spartz and Mitt Romney, none have ever outlined this as the strategy in Ukraine.

    Got a source?

  5. #35685
    Thanks to the government and the media, the regular russian people all believe they are fighting a war against all of Nato, the US, and Europe.
    Should really start giving Ukraine some more modern weapons to make it partially believable.

  6. #35686
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    No, and I'm not going to through that discussion for the nth time.
    I understand and respect that. It is what the higher ups DO worry about, maybe not as the main thing but enough to manage. Again, not as the main thing nor is my whole post about that. It was one of the many things I mentioned. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kronik85 View Post
    Wow, sounds like massive Kissinger cope here. In the dozens of interviews I've heard with American officials via Podcasts from the DoD, ISW and American Senators Including Victoria Spartz and Mitt Romney, none have ever outlined this as the strategy in Ukraine.

    Got a source?
    Your request for sources is reasonable but my analysis is not drawn from a single source or from some official strategic outline (other than what Lloyd Austin explicitly stated at the start), but an interpretation of many tiny bits of information from many sources that builds a larger picture. You are welcome to challenge my analysis, and provide your perspective on this, please. I have not found anything other than what I wrote to fit with all the pieces on the "board" so to speak but again I am interested in your analysis of the war and our response.

    The views of American officials and senators during interviews and podcasts are valuable but they often represent a part of the larger picture mainly aimed for the public to consume. It’s not a conspiracy or trying to sound important – it is how it works, simply. Otherwise there would be no need for secrecy and all plans would be readily available. The details of the strategy in a fluid and complex conflict like this are rarely laid out in black and white in public by officials. In fact, in some cases the officials talking to media might not even know the larger picture.

    My post were my views (as all my posts are) based on what I can read between the lines of what is known and what facts there are. We can observe that:

    1. We are slow with deliveries, even the ones we have promised. Except air defense.

    2. No one among the allies have actually threatened help to Ukraine in practice that would make russia defeat them, regardless of rhetoric or actions that might suggest otherwise.

    3. Despite what some think, nuclear escalation management is indeed something that officials worry about, albeit not as the main thing nor did I want that to be the sole focus of my post.

    4. We want russia to never be able to do anything like this for the foreseeable future.

    5. It aligns with historical patterns in international relations. Consider the Cold War:

    The United States and its allies employed a strategy aimed at gradually limit the Soviet Union's influence and power. This shows how complex geopolitical strategies often plays out over time through a combination of direct actions and subtle maneuvers. However, the current conflict is a bit like this on speed, necessitating even quicker and dynamic response. Note that we’re only at the end of the beginning of a long conflict, though, and things like sanctions will wither away at russia more and more.

    That said, I understand that this style of analysis doesn’t resonate with everyone. It’s definitely not the only way to look at the situation but I feel it provides another perspective that is lacking – instead of only relying on the straightforward narratives we often hear.

  7. #35687
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    4. Russia's military production is ever increasing and pumping out large amount of materiel, as per people like Stoltenberg himself.
    The Russian production numbers are absolute horseshit.

    While they really are still putting gear in the field, and they definitely dug deep in the treasury to fund this, and have managed to scrap together domestically built replacements for things like electronics (mostly by using non military grade commercially available and by cannibalizing consumer electronics) the reported numbers are misrepresentations of what is actually happening.

    Here's an article claiming that Russian tank production of T90 variants has tripled (most modern tank they can realistically build, it's still just an upgraded T72, with some T80 elements).

    https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/0...ction-tripled/

    Another one noting that more modern tanks like the T90s are starting to show up more on the front lines.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=3abed132496f

    But here's the catch.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidha...h=8c140793923c

    Russia on paper is supposed to have a fleet of hundreds of T90A's that could have been used in Ukraine. But hardly any of them showed up. Suggested explanations ranged from "they don't actually exist" to "they are being held to defend Moscow" and everything in between.

    But suddenly, all out of the blue "Russian tank production is up" and a more modern T90M starts showing up in Ukraine. The Russians of course, loudly report that Tank production is up.

    What is most likely happening in reality, is that the Russians never sent the T90A's to Ukraine because part of the existing fleet was in deep storage and part was just never upgraded and were still running the optics and fire control systems Russia cobbled together or sourced from Belarus in the early 2000's and which had significant technical problems which were discovered on the T90S variants which were exported to India.

    So instead of deploying them, they sent T72s, T80s, and much of the old deep storage stuff, and they took the T90A fleet and started retooling and modernizing them into the T90M variant. Also note here, a brand new T90 costs somewhere around 4 to 5 million USD to build. Turning an existing T90A into a T90M probably costs a fraction of that.

    Once the Russians burned through their stocks of unused T90A to modernize, tank production will once again take a nose a dive. The Russians aren't building that many new tanks from scratch. They are just slapping a fresh coat of paint and some new bits and bobs onto their previously existing hoarder level stockpiles.

    And this is the case with pretty much everything they are making.

  8. #35688
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    The Russian production numbers are absolute horseshit.

    While they really are still putting gear in the field, and they definitely dug deep in the treasury to fund this, and have managed to scrap together domestically built replacements for things like electronics (mostly by using non military grade commercially available and by cannibalizing consumer electronics) the reported numbers are misrepresentations of what is actually happening.

    Here's an article claiming that Russian tank production of T90 variants has tripled (most modern tank they can realistically build, it's still just an upgraded T72, with some T80 elements).

    https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/0...ction-tripled/

    Another one noting that more modern tanks like the T90s are starting to show up more on the front lines.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=3abed132496f

    But here's the catch.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidha...h=8c140793923c

    Russia on paper is supposed to have a fleet of hundreds of T90A's that could have been used in Ukraine. But hardly any of them showed up. Suggested explanations ranged from "they don't actually exist" to "they are being held to defend Moscow" and everything in between.

    But suddenly, all out of the blue "Russian tank production is up" and a more modern T90M starts showing up in Ukraine. The Russians of course, loudly report that Tank production is up.

    What is most likely happening in reality, is that the Russians never sent the T90A's to Ukraine because part of the existing fleet was in deep storage and part was just never upgraded and were still running the optics and fire control systems Russia cobbled together or sourced from Belarus in the early 2000's and which had significant technical problems which were discovered on the T90S variants which were exported to India.

    So instead of deploying them, they sent T72s, T80s, and much of the old deep storage stuff, and they took the T90A fleet and started retooling and modernizing them into the T90M variant. Also note here, a brand new T90 costs somewhere around 4 to 5 million USD to build. Turning an existing T90A into a T90M probably costs a fraction of that.

    Once the Russians burned through their stocks of unused T90A to modernize, tank production will once again take a nose a dive. The Russians aren't building that many new tanks from scratch. They are just slapping a fresh coat of paint and some new bits and bobs onto their previously existing hoarder level stockpiles.

    And this is the case with pretty much everything they are making.
    Yeah, after seeing the absolute state of their logistics early in the war I'd be very, very dubious of any claim that says Russia is effectively cranking out modern equipment at an unrivaled pace all of a sudden now. The culture of corruption that handicapped them then is still more than alive and well now, as is the need to maintain the facade that everything is going according to plan.

    They probably focus much more on easily producible, defensive assets like artillery, because their goal is now to weather Ukrainian attacks and force a stalemate through sheer attrition. Russia's movements and behavior don't align with the kind of offensive that you actually need tanks for. Those T-90s are glorified gun emplacements if you're on the defense.

    But hey, maybe it's all fog of war and we're all idiots. That sounds about as realistic as the other fifty times around.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  9. #35689
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    They probably focus much more on easily producible, defensive assets like artillery, because their goal is now to weather Ukrainian attacks and force a stalemate through sheer attrition. Russia's movements and behavior don't align with the kind of offensive that you actually need tanks for. Those T-90s are glorified gun emplacements if you're on the defense.
    Defense often involves elements of offense. Like maneuver and counter attacks etc. This was one of the HUGE mistakes western powers kept making again and again and again early in the war with the whole "defensive weapons" routine bullshit.

    Despite the drones, the artillery, the MANPADS etc, a tank is a tank and having a tank is always better than not having one, even a shitty tank is a tank, which is more tank than no tank.

    Tho tactics have changed, we absolutely not going to see another Russian traffic jam. The one thing about tanks and armored vehicles in general this war puts into question, is the viability of the "armored spearhead" concept. It's highly questionable ANYONE (including NATO, US, China etc) could put together an armored assault, even one that's well executed with air cover and all, that could just like smash through enemy lines "Blitzkrieg" or "Desert Storm" style without taking absolutely atrocious loses for very little gain.

    Like, I wouldn't even want to imagine what a "drive to Baghdad" would look like today...with an Iraqi style army armed with suicide drones, Manpads and Iranian style drones.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2023-12-03 at 04:13 PM.

  10. #35690
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    This approach keeps putin under the illusion that he has some control over the situation. It's also why the West delays promised deliveries to Ukraine, creating a sense of uncertainty but also changes the pace of the war. Despite these general delays, we have been very good at supplying air defense systems: it protects civilians but doesn't influence the battlefield that much (I mean, they don't really aim at anything other than civilians...). This may even bait putin into escalating missile attacks, which further drains russia's coffers and offers us a window into the capabilities and flaws of their military tech.
    I don't disagree with your overall analysis, but you're a little behind here. Russia has finally gotten their domestic equivalent of JDAMs (Joint Directed Attack Munitions - the kits that transform dumb bombs into "smart" glide bombs, which the US developed in the late-90s) both working and in production in significant numbers. They are now able to lob bombs from 60km out - beyond the range of existing Ukrainian air defense and get a 100m or so CEP (meaning most of the bombs hit within 200m of their aim point, where previously they had a CEP of around 1km for such attacks, if not more).

    It's not a war-winning wunderweapon, but it's a major shift with the only real possible counter being longer-ranged Ukrainian air defense, which is distinctly non-trivial.
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

  11. #35691
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    Your request for sources is reasonable but my analysis is not drawn from a single source or from some official strategic outline (other than what Lloyd Austin explicitly stated at the start), but an interpretation of many tiny bits of information from many sources that builds a larger picture. You are welcome to challenge my analysis, and provide your perspective on this, please. I have not found anything other than what I wrote to fit with all the pieces on the "board" so to speak but again I am interested in your analysis of the war and our response.

    The views of American officials and senators during interviews and podcasts are valuable but they often represent a part of the larger picture mainly aimed for the public to consume. It’s not a conspiracy or trying to sound important – it is how it works, simply. Otherwise there would be no need for secrecy and all plans would be readily available. The details of the strategy in a fluid and complex conflict like this are rarely laid out in black and white in public by officials. In fact, in some cases the officials talking to media might not even know the larger picture.

    My post were my views (as all my posts are) based on what I can read between the lines of what is known and what facts there are. We can observe that:

    1. We are slow with deliveries, even the ones we have promised. Except air defense.

    2. No one among the allies have actually threatened help to Ukraine in practice that would make russia defeat them, regardless of rhetoric or actions that might suggest otherwise.

    3. Despite what some think, nuclear escalation management is indeed something that officials worry about, albeit not as the main thing nor did I want that to be the sole focus of my post.

    4. We want russia to never be able to do anything like this for the foreseeable future.

    5. It aligns with historical patterns in international relations. Consider the Cold War:

    The United States and its allies employed a strategy aimed at gradually limit the Soviet Union's influence and power. This shows how complex geopolitical strategies often plays out over time through a combination of direct actions and subtle maneuvers. However, the current conflict is a bit like this on speed, necessitating even quicker and dynamic response. Note that we’re only at the end of the beginning of a long conflict, though, and things like sanctions will wither away at russia more and more.

    That said, I understand that this style of analysis doesn’t resonate with everyone. It’s definitely not the only way to look at the situation but I feel it provides another perspective that is lacking – instead of only relying on the straightforward narratives we often hear.
    My only issue was that you stated this with absolute confidence, so I was assuming you would have something beyond your own analysis to be that confident.

    However it's a plausible theory, I am not saying otherwise and I can't disprove it beyond pointing out that no one has openly said it. It will take me some time to research Lloyd Austin but they seem very credible so I'll try and find the time to see what their opinions are.

    If I was to try and change your mind I'd point out that what you seem to be suggesting looks like a really bad strategy long term. If your opinion is that the US is pulling a Star Wars V.2 and under supplying Ukraine to maximise damage to Russia then even if we assume that Ukraine has infinite access to weapons and tech it has a very finite supply of men, it cannot fight indefinitely and any territorial gains made by Russia are unacceptable to broader US foreign policy positions, namely the "rules based order".

    The Russia Ukraine conflict is important because we can't have Russia set the precedent that Nuclear Powers can just annex shit, Russia MUST lose this conflict, or we will see a global race for Nuclear armament.

    This conflict isn't in a place where the US can just put it hands on the scales and roll Russia over once it thinks Russia has suffered enough, so I disagree with the premise of your analysis.

    What I find more plausible is that The West isn't doing enough, quick enough is because The West is in a place where it would rather do anything other than throw money into a war with Russia. Globalisation is collapsing, European economies are stuttering and Populism is gaining momentum. It isn't an easy political landscape for governments to throw billions at anything, nevermind a foreign policy issue. Biden is posting 5% quarterly growth figures and he might still lose in 2024, this isn't a good environment for governments to go balls deep in Ukraine.

    That's my 2 cents anyway, sorry that's it's not particularly sexy.

    /Edit: Forgot to insert my position on Putin's long term strat and again I'm very boring and think that he's hoping the truly massive amount of elections around the EU and most importantly the US brings more sympathetic leaders into play. His biggest win condition is a Trump win and US pull out. Smaller gains would be EU right wing Populists gaining power and pulling support.
    Last edited by Kronik85; 2023-12-03 at 06:44 PM.

  12. #35692
    Quote Originally Posted by Saradain View Post
    And what if Ukraine indeed ends up losing, doing massive crippling concessions? You will come here to laugh about genocided ukrainians, crippled, ravaged, decimated country that might never recover?

    Tells more about you than us when you so desperately want to be right in this matter, cheering for a terrorist nazi Russia because "you were right".
    No. I will maybe have a small sad laugh about you and others, though. It's not like you really care what exactly are my views, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    .............
    Well at least someone gave an actual answer, even if without an idea how to stop the stalemate.
    P.S.
    8. Not a replacement, but increase in size. A very different thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Yes the EU fucked up the response majorly and I will never forgive any of our politicians for how we nickel and dimed the support for Ukraine.

    We fucked it up from day 1... in 2014.
    That would be correct. The overhyped sanctions would have had a much larger impact, if nothing else. Russia spent 8 years to improve it's situation instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    At this point, fuck it. Lets find out how many of their nukes actually work.
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    The Russian production numbers are absolute horseshit.
    Are you one of those who made grand maths on the internet which showed how they will be out of tanks by the end of 2024 (no, but feel free to check one year later), how they will be out of missiles multiple times (no) or how there are only enough Lancet drones for one month this summer (LOL)?

    Stoltenberg lied, eh? I mean, he is a high ranking Western official, they do lie as well xD

  13. #35693
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    The people here were seriously discussing if the meatcube was real. That alone says enough about who exactly believes in an insane propaganda and stereotypes.

    Yet still the question stands - where is the discussion about recent events and "discoveries"? Nothing but the usual memeposting and cherrypicking. No, not even recent - last few months already by this point, if not more.
    Where are the fucking guns? Where is the fucking ammo? Where's the damn money from the OUR GDP IS SO MUCH BIGGER countries?

    Existing deliveries were not enough for the counteroffensive. So far nothing even similar in size has been announced much less delivered and even if it were why would it work second time?
    How, exactly, can Ukraine win in the current situation?

    You do not have to have answers but if you actually care you should at least ask the questions.
    The whole thing was weird from the beginning, not just the counteroffensive. The west should had given Ukraine everything from the first 2-3 months, but instead we gradually gave more advanced weaponry and greater quantity.

    My guess is that everyone is afraid of a full out RU-West war and for good reasons. Yep there are weapons that haven't been used yet, yep Russia (edit) has performed very limited mobilization (vs population that can be mobilized), yep CN most probably won't stand idle in such war and risk having RU broken up to multiple nuclear armed countries with some of them being with western appointed governments (aka have NATO on their 12)

    This war is obviously turned into attrition. Time is on the side of Russia.


    Also on other news, there is some public opinion massaging going on lately from high political and military figures.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/nato...-from-ukraine/
    Last edited by Ulmita; 2023-12-04 at 12:51 AM.

  14. #35694
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    No. I will maybe have a small sad laugh about you and others, though. It's not like you really care what exactly are my views, anyway.
    Poor me, not caring about a russian fog of war specialist's "views". Glad to hear me having a possibility of being wrong on the internet is worth the genocided adults and kidnapped kids alike

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    The whole thing was weird from the beginning, not just the counteroffensive. The west should had given Ukraine everything from the first 2-3 months, but instead we gradually gave more advanced weaponry and greater quantity.

    My guess is that everyone is afraid of a full out RU-West war and for good reasons. Yep there are weapons that haven't been used yet, yep Russia hasn't even mobilized yet, yep CN most probably won't stand idle in such war and risk having RU broken up to multiple nuclear armed countries with some of them being with western appointed governments (aka have NATO on their 12)

    This war is obviously turned into attrition. Time is on the side of Russia.


    Also on other news, there is some public opinion massaging going on lately from high political and military figures.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/nato...-from-ukraine/
    The clearest, most shameless propaganda from you so far.

  15. #35695
    Quote Originally Posted by Saradain View Post
    Poor me, not caring about a russian fog of war specialist's "views". Glad to hear me having a possibility of being wrong on the internet is worth the genocided adults and kidnapped kids alike

    - - - Updated - - -



    The clearest, most shameless propaganda from you so far.
    Sorry, what i ment was a full out country wide, mandatoty 18-60 mobilization (what happens during wars). I've edited the post to reflect that.
    Last edited by Ulmita; 2023-12-04 at 12:49 AM.

  16. #35696
    russia already has a major shortage of workers, to the point business are closing because everyone is being sucked into the war machine, either to die or to build. A mobilisation of that level would crash the economy.

  17. #35697
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    russia already has a major shortage of workers, to the point business are closing because everyone is being sucked into the war machine, either to die or to build. A mobilisation of that level would crash the economy.

    I am not sure about it. The only thing i could find on the matter is the following piece:

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-d...ilization-mean

    "Some have speculated that this will severely disrupt the Russian economy, but that is unlikely. Even if 300,000 troops are mobilized, that represents only .4 percent of the Russian labor force."

    Mind you that this article is from 2022. However, i doubt that they have mobilized 1% of their total labour force in total.

    On the previous subject. I feel that Ukraine is getting thrown under the bus. If only Europe / US had sent everything from first two months (tanks, airplanes, etc) in adequate quantities, this war would've been history. The question is why haven't we already?
    Last edited by Ulmita; 2023-12-04 at 07:12 AM.

  18. #35698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    I am not sure about it. The only thing i could find on the matter is the following piece:

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-d...ilization-mean

    "Some have speculated that this will severely disrupt the Russian economy, but that is unlikely. Even if 300,000 troops are mobilized, that represents only .4 percent of the Russian labor force."

    Mind you that this article is from 2022. However, i doubt that they have mobilized 1% of their total labour force in total.

    On the previous subject. I feel that Ukraine is getting thrown under the bus. If only Europe / US had sent everything from first two months (tanks, airplanes, etc) in adequate quantities, this war would've been history. The question is why haven't we already?

    I'm certainly not an expert, but some points in this article sound really stupid to me.


    "It is important to keep in mind just how small the Russian forces are. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union maintained a military of about 3.5 million. That military is long gone. Today, Russia maintains a total military of about 900,000, of which 280,000 are in the army.

    To put the Russian force into perspective, the United States has an active-duty force of 1.3 million and organized, trained reserves of 800,000. Thus, the United States has about twice the readily available trained personnel that Russia does."



    That alone is stupid.
    US has more than twice the population and it's known to have an extremely large force. So if Russia has half of that, it means it has %-wise, more people in the military than the US. (not to mention how freaking *poor* Russia is GDP wise compared to the US.)
    And it compares Soviet Union military with Russia military?
    You know, the Soviet Union which also had more than twice the amount of people in them? Does the writer of that article believe that the soviet union is todays Russia in terms of population and war effort?

    It's also weird, considering that when I google Russias force, I get vastly different numbers.

    Let me tell you, when any european country, *all of a sudden*, lost 100-150.000 (1/3 or 1/2 of that 300.000, because the population is 1/3 or 1/2) people you'd feel that in the economy.
    And does the guy who wrote this even realize how much money this costs?
    Some "advisors" are kinda weird.
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-12-04 at 09:26 AM.

  19. #35699
    Quote Originally Posted by TrueNeutral View Post
    It's not as simple as 'Oh one day Putin suddenly has imperial ambitions and decided to invade Ukraine.'
    Putin has always had imperial ambitions. He ha just gotten old enough to act on them in desperate attempt to leave his name in history books as the Great Russian Emperor he thinks he is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TrueNeutral View Post
    One of main points is that NATO has been continuously expanding into Eastern Europe, incorporating several countries that were once part of the USSR. This is a point of contention between the US and Russia, dating back to the 1990s when Boris Yeltsin clashed with Bill Clinton over it after USSR collapsed.
    NATO doesn't forcibly recruit anyone. Former USSR countries wanted to join NATO because they didn't want to be invaded my Russia. Russia's actions has since proven their fears legit.

  20. #35700
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    5,923
    It's all fine and dandy to give Putin the option to save face and convince his people that victory still is within Russia's grasp, but it would yield to absolutely nothing if, under the table, away from the public eye, US diplomats wouldn't have an open dialog with to Russian diplomats.

    And what needs to be said (that the public may never know) is that Russia will never win this war, that Russia needs to find an exit strategy right now, the greater the delay, the worst it's gonna be for Russia.

    But the Ukraine will not lose, this has to be made crystal clear to Russian diplomats still willing to save their country, so they can convince Putin.
    Last edited by Vankrys; 2023-12-04 at 04:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •