Things are heating up in the Donbass

[spat]

You said it all right there. the ability to strike with no warning . You cant see the chess board from Putins seat? Its not what you think that matters, its what the Russians think. The perceptions of the Russians are that Europe and the US want to break Russia up .

On its face, yes. But Cubas location also had strategic geographic value to the Russians , Same as Ukraine's location is of strategic value to the west . it wouldnt take much for Ukraine to place nukes in their country after joining NATO, it would be very reasonable for them to do it . Once that happens, Russia is fucked to the wall sideways , theres no possible way of getting them out. Russias back was to the wall in 22, Win lose or draw they had to act or live with the consequences including loseing the entire Black sea fleet and shipping lanes to NATO.

If NATO was putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine, you would have a point.

It was a big deal when we put then in Turkey for instance.

But there was no attempt to do that, and it's extremely unlikely NATO would expand its nuclear footprint even if Russia had no objection and Ukraine was a NATO member.

Honestly, the place to put them would be Finland anyway. Only about 250 miles to st Petersburg and 500 to Moscow. Both cities would cease to exist before anyone in Russia knew there was a launch.

That's way closer than Ukraine.

 

[GOPerfect]

So, no Nukes yet from Russia??

C'mon man!

 

[GOPerfect]

Russia isn't an enemy for the west. That is China. Russia is really just a pest.

Russia isn't a major player anymore. Their inability to conquer Ukraine is proof of that.

It's like if Italy was trying to pretend they still run the world and they were upset that France was getting too friendly with the Brits and claimed that justified an invasion.

We were unable to fully win in Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan.... Does that make the US a Non-player as well?

 

[spat]

We were unable to fully win in Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan.... Does that make the US a Non-player as well?

The difference is that those were gorilla wars that we just didn't have the will to prosecute fully.

We won almost every battle in both of those, and just weren't willing to kill enough of the enemy to achieve a real victory.

That is not the case for Russia in Ukraine. Russia is fighting a conventional war with clearly identified troops and lines.

We haven't fought one of those since Korea, because nobody can stand up and fight us. All they can do is harass our troops and hope we get tired and leave.

 

[holdover]

The difference is that those were gorilla wars that we just didn't have the will to prosecute fully.

Total nonsense! there are no ""gorillas"" in Iran , Iraq or Afganistan

 

[ManualF150]

 

[spat]

Total nonsense! there are no ""gorillas"" in Iran , Iraq or Afganistan

View attachment 250775

Autocorrect is a bitch.

But you knew I meant guerrillas....

 

[holdover]

We won almost every battle in both of those, and just weren't willing to kill enough of the enemy to achieve a real victory.

We killed millions of people in Vietnam. Westmorelands strategy, was to win by attrition. Draw the enemy out and destroy him with superior firepower . The Vietnamese were non compliant. the over all strategy was wrong

We haven't fought one of those since Korea, because nobody can stand up and fight us. All they can do is harass our troops and hope we get tired and leave.

Actually the first gulf war We lined up against Saddam's entire army . But the thing is we never fought a near peer adversary since WW2.

 

[spat]

We killed millions of people in Vietnam. Westmorelands strategy, was to win by attrition. Draw the enemy out and destroy him with superior firepower . The Vietnamese were non compliant. the over all strategy was wrong

Actually the first gulf war We lined up against Saddam's entire army . But the thing is we never fought a near peer adversary since WW2.

Yep, we killed a lot of Vietnamese. But we weren't willing to kill enough to win. We were certainly capable, just not willing.

In desert storm the 4th largest army in the world tried to fight a stand up fight against us, how'd that go for them.

We haven't fought a near peer enemy since WWII because there hasn't *been* a near peer enemy for us since WWII.

 

[GOPerfect]

The difference is that those were gorilla wars that we just didn't have the will to prosecute fully.

We won almost every battle in both of those, and just weren't willing to kill enough of the enemy to achieve a real victory.

That is not the case for Russia in Ukraine. Russia is fighting a conventional war with clearly identified troops and lines.

We haven't fought one of those since Korea, because nobody can stand up and fight us. All they can do is harass our troops and hope we get tired and leav

Russia has not won yet for two reasons, they decided to be far too nice in their actions, and 2...

The amount of aid, supplies and men that the Ukraine has been given. My gods man, they are kidnapping their own people and sending them to fight, some as young as 15.

If the US and Europe were to stop feeding the weakness, the war would have been over a few weeks after it began.

If Russia would engage in war, Kiev would no longer be a city.

 

[Mosinitis]

Russia is only partially mobilized. Their strategy is not to overrun and occupy Ukraine, but to slowly absorb and integrate territory town by town.

 

[spat]

Russia has not won yet for two reasons, they decided to be far too nice in their actions, and 2...

The amount of aid, supplies and men that the Ukraine has been given. My gods man, they are kidnapping their own people and sending them to fight, some as young as 15.

If the US and Europe were to stop feeding the weakness, the war would have been over a few weeks after it began.

If Russia would engage in war, Kiev would no longer be a city.

You're not wrong about the aid, but I disagree that Russia isn't putting everything they can spare into this.

They *did* try a decapitation strike in Kiev in the early days, and failed miserably.

Russia is using everything at their disposal short of nuclear weapons. If they weren't at the end of their rope there wouldn't be North Koreans fighting for them.

And while Ukraine is certainly throwing everything they've got at it, conscription isn't proof of anything. As odious a process as it is, every country practices it.

We did it in Vietnam, and there was absolutely no chance that was ever going to be a threat to the United States.

Imagine the level of conscription we would have if China occupied California and half of Nevada.

 

[holdover]

Russia is using everything at their disposal short of nuclear weapons. If they weren't at the end of their rope there wouldn't be North Koreans fighting for them.

Thats one way to look at it. I believe around 10K troops were sent to fight in the Kursk region of Russia . They did that because they did not want to complicate the war in Ukraine any further , so they kept them withen the borders of Russia.

Russian brigades have around 2-3K troops, So were looking at 3-4 brigades , Ukraine has roughly 100 brigades, Russia around 114 ,
Putin called for another 130 ,000 more conscripts in Sept. Mathematically the numbers of NK troops are insignificant in the overall battle , Now If you consider the population of Russia is over 5 times that Of Ukraine You can see they are not desperate for a handfull of troops .

Even if Russia suffered twice the casualties of Ukraine , they would not be in such terrible shape that they would have to replace them with foreign troops .Your math doesn't work. Thats not the reason the NK are there.

Say we took those 3 brigades away, do you think the entire Russian front would stop advancing and begin to retreat? Of course not .
Not sure if you have been following the war lately, but Ukraine is doing pretty bad. Its getting real ugly, They are falling back across the entire front. Troops are retreating for lack of food ammo and weapons they are surrendering in larger and larger numbers ,Ciy after city is falling , Large numbers of soldiers are trapped in several pockets as a I write this . Most of Ukraine right now is without power. They have minimal numbers of air defense missiles which is why the Russian airforce is pounding them into the ground

Considering the situation, I dont see how you think the Russians are at the end of thier rope. Like I always say, watch the maps, The maps are saying Ukraine is in a lot of trouble

 

[GOPerfect]

I just looked....

No Nukes yet/

 

[Robin]

Do I think Vlad the Mad will use nukes? No. Do I think the Pentagon and NATO should be making up plans on what to do if Vlad the Mad unleashes nukes? Yes.
Robin

 

[holdover]

I just looked....

No Nukes yet/

 

[spat]

Thats one way to look at it. I believe around 10K troops wukrainere sent to fight in the Kursk region of Russia . They did that because they did not want to complicate the war in Ukraine any further , so they kept them withen the borders of Russia.

Russian brigades have around 2-3K troops, So were looking at 3-4 brigades , Ukraine has roughly 100 brigades, Russia around 114 ,
Putin called for another 130 ,000 more conscripts in Sept. Mathematically the numbers of NK troops are insignificant in the overall battle , Now If you consider the population of Russia is over 5 times that Of Ukraine You can see they are not desperate for a handfull of troops .

Even if Russia suffered twice the casualties of Ukraine , they would not be in such terrible shape that they would have to replace them with foreign troops .Your math doesn't work. Thats not the reason the NK are there.

Say we took those 3 brigades away, do you think the entire Russian front would stop advancing and begin to retreat? Of course not .
Not sure if you have been following the war lately, but Ukraine is doing pretty bad. Its getting real ugly, They are falling back across the entire front. Troops are retreating for lack of food ammo and weapons they are surrendering in larger and larger numbers ,Ciy after city is falling , Large numbers of soldiers are trapped in several pockets as a I write this . Most of Ukraine right now is without power. They have minimal numbers of air defense missiles which is why the Russian airforce is pounding them into the ground

Considering the situation, I dont see how you think the Russians are at the end of thier rope. Like I always say, watch the maps, The maps are saying Ukraine is in a lot of trouble

Ukraine has been in a lot of trouble since the first Russian crossed the border.

The Russians should have steamrolled them. Russia was considered the 2nd most powerful military on earth and Ukraine was a backwater by European standards.

It would be like us invading Mexico and still being stuck in Sonora 3 years later.

When you initiate a war of conquest and it boggs down for years, you are in trouble.

Maybe Trump will cut off the aid.

Maybe Europe will pick up the slack, or maybe not.

But even if Putin is dining in Kiev by February, this has been an unmitigated disaster for them.

Not sure *what* the Norks are doing there, maybe Kim just wanted to get some actual combat experience, since none of his troops grandparents have ever seen combat.

 

[Bigfoot]

The Russian military has reportedly captured a British national fighting with Ukrainian forces. If confirmed, it would be the first publicly known case of a Western national captured on Russian soil.

5:20 video

 

[ManualF150]

NATO official urges businesses to prepare their supply chains for war

A top NATO military official is telling businesses in the U.S. and Europe to prepare their supply chains for a wartime scenario.

san.com

I'm confident GE, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are kicking their feet up for some $$$ right now.

 

[Mosinitis]

The Russian military has reportedly captured a British national fighting with Ukrainian forces. If confirmed, it would be the first publicly known case of a Western national captured on Russian soil.

5:20 video

I hope they torture and kill him. Fuck the British.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I just looked....

No Nukes yet/

Keep checking.... You might yet get what you are hoping for.

Sounds like there was another very recent ATACMS strike deep into Russia on an airfield and S400 battery.

I would imagine Russia doesn't let that go without a response. Something is going to happen.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

The Russian military has reportedly captured a British national fighting with Ukrainian forces. If confirmed, it would be the first publicly known case of a Western national captured on Russian soil.

5:20 video

Wouldn't want to be that guy. No Bueno for him.

 

[holdover]

Wouldn't want to be that guy. No Bueno for him.

Hes pretty lucky, they usually just execute them in place.

 

[holdover]

The Russians should have steamrolled them. Russia was considered the 2nd most powerful military on earth and Ukraine was a backwater by European standards.

It would be like us invading Mexico and still being stuck in Sonora 3 years later.

When you initiate a war of conquest and it boggs down for years, you are in trouble.

Your information is off. 1st Ukraine was not a back water military , It happened to be one of the larger and best trained armys in Europe , the reason being NATO knew a war was coming . ( As per Angela Merkle , stating they were buying time to arm Ukraine) At the time of invasion Ukraine had roughly 150K NATO trained troops Russia invaded with roughly 150K to 250K troops ,( depending on sources)

Either number is to low for an invasion , this indicates that The Russians were not Pre planning an invasion of Ukraine and Europe .They also did not enlarge or mobile troops prior to the war, which is another indicator they wernt planning this war . They had to make do with what they had at hand . Their best strategy was a short quick war by decapitation Of Kiev government, and the belief the Ukraine army would come over to thier side as brothers . Obviously that didn't work out for them . but they also knew in the long run they could mobilize and beat them in the long run .

Your premise that a large well trained Russian army had been preparing to go to war, and take Ukraine and Europe doesn't really hold water in light of the facts that the Russian army was not prepared in any way to do so. The failure of the initial invasion demonstrates this point. The leadership and logistics were aweful , Again this speaks to their ill preparedness

What this was , was an ill prepared ad hoc invasion force

 

[spat]

Your information is off. 1st Ukraine was not a back water military , It happened to be one of the larger and best trained armys in Europe , the reason being NATO knew a war was coming . ( As per Angela Merkle , stating they were buying time to arm Ukraine) At the time of invasion Ukraine had roughly 150K NATO trained troops Russia invaded with roughly 150K to 250K troops ,( depending on sources)

Either number is to low for an invasion , this indicates that The Russians were not Pre planning an invasion of Ukraine and Europe .They also did not enlarge or mobile troops prior to the war, which is another indicator they wernt planning this war . They had to make do with what they had at hand . Their best strategy was a short quick war by decapitation Of Kiev government, and the belief the Ukraine army would come over to thier side as brothers . Obviously that didn't work out for them . but they also knew in the long run they could mobilize and beat them in the long run .

Your premise that a large well trained Russian army had been preparing to go to war, and take Ukraine and Europe doesn't really hold water in light of the facts that the Russian army was not prepared in any way to do so. The failure of the initial invasion demonstrates this point. The leadership and logistics were aweful , Again this speaks to their ill preparedness

What this was , was an ill prepared ad hoc invasion force

We can certainly agree it was ill planned and a disaster.

But, the question is "why" ?

And certainly their inability to make any progress for *years* lends credence to the idea that maybe this *is* the best they can manage.

And calling Ukraine "one of the best militaries in Europe" is a bit silly.

Sure, they're better than Greece and Portugal and other countries that barely even *have* a military.

But of the actual European military powers, they're a nobody.

The UK, Germany, Poland, even France are in a fundamentally different class.

 

[holdover]

We can certainly agree it was ill planned and a disaster.

But, the question is "why" ?

And certainly their inability to make any progress for *years* lends credence to the idea that maybe this *is* the best they can manage.

Its understandable , But history is going to show, by the time this war is over, that it was not the best they could manage. It was the best they could manage at that time . I believe it demonstrates that there was never any real planing to invade at all. It was an ad hoc response with what they had and it did not work as intended

If they were planning to invade, they could have mustered a much larger and more capable force and would have , The war in 23 was pretty stagnant as they built up thier army. They also held back thier air force for fear of NATO jumping in. thats what I would have done also. They could not afford Air losses which would expose them to great danger in the event of a NATO attack. they would only a fraction of air force to defend the entire country .

NATO understood that Russia was vulnerable and thier military to weak to invade, Im sure plan A was ""Russia protested strongly "" to Ukraine joining NATO, Plan B was to build up Ukraine forces adequately to repel a Russian response while crippling them economically . The west felt that this work fine as they could out spend the Russians . One problem with that is that the Russians could produce at a far cheaper rate and could negate the economic advantage the West had , Another miscalculation is that most of Ukraine's air force was destroyed on the ground by Missile fire early on , seriously hurting Ukraine 's ability stop the Russians

The parallels to WW2 are stunning. The Germans were better lead, better equipped ,better trained, Better doctrine Than the Russians , and were the better army on paper , No doubt . We see the similarity here .

The Russian strategy of attrition is actually well suited to thier capabilities, and Mass artillery attacks are part of thier military doctrine . Maneuver warfare requires much better trained personnel working in conjunction on a large scale in three dimensions , Something The Russians lacked in early WW2 and today . You see that thier first attempt at this early in the war was a fiasco , thier troops and command were not up to the task . Again you see this in command where they dont seem to operate well above brigade level ( something NATO would exploit). And once again this strategy would not do well in attack on Europe , the costs would be staggering if not not unsustainable

To me, there is no way the Russians intend to invade Europe based on this alone , Nor did they plan to invade Ukraine . This was western propaganda used to create fear and garner support for the war

 

[spat]

Its understandable , But history is going to show, by the time this war is over, that it was not the best they could manage. It was the best they could manage at that time . I believe it demonstrates that there was never any real planing to invade at all. It was an ad hoc response with what they had and it did not work as intended

If they were planning to invade, they could have mustered a much larger and more capable force and would have , The war in 23 was pretty stagnant as they built up thier army. They also held back thier air force for fear of NATO jumping in. thats what I would have done also. They could not afford Air losses which would expose them to great danger in the event of a NATO attack. they would only a fraction of air force to defend the entire country .

NATO understood that Russia was vulnerable and thier military to weak to invade, Im sure plan A was ""Russia protested strongly "" to Ukraine joining NATO, Plan B was to build up Ukraine forces adequately to repel a Russian response while crippling them economically . The west felt that this work fine as they could out spend the Russians . One problem with that is that the Russians could produce at a far cheaper rate and could negate the economic advantage the West had , Another miscalculation is that most of Ukraine's air force was destroyed on the ground by Missile fire early on , seriously hurting Ukraine 's ability stop the Russians

The parallels to WW2 are stunning. The Germans were better lead, better equipped ,better trained, Better doctrine Than the Russians , and were the better army on paper , No doubt . We see the similarity here .

The Russian strategy of attrition is actually well suited to thier capabilities, and Mass artillery attacks are part of thier military doctrine . Maneuver warfare requires much better trained personnel working in conjunction on a large scale in three dimensions , Something The Russians lacked in early WW2 and today . You see that thier first attempt at this early in the war was a fiasco , thier troops and command were not up to the task . Again you see this in command where they dont seem to operate well above brigade level ( something NATO would exploit). And once again this strategy would not do well in attack on Europe , the costs would be staggering if not not unsustainable

To me, there is no way the Russians intend to invade Europe based on this alone , Nor did they plan to invade Ukraine . This was western propaganda used to create fear and garner support for the war

They've had 3 years to muster a much larger and more capable force.

Granted, they do seem to have figured out how to keep fuel in what's left of their tanks by now, so there's that.

But, what did Ukraine do that was so sudden that they needed to go off half cocked ?

I really think that *was* the best they could manage.

 

[GOPerfect]

I have been busy all day....

Still no Nukes from Russia, correct?

 

[FP1201]

Russia has not won yet for two reasons, they decided to be far too nice in their actions, and 2...

The amount of aid, supplies and men that the Ukraine has been given. My gods man, they are kidnapping their own people and sending them to fight, some as young as 15.

If the US and Europe were to stop feeding the weakness, the war would have been over a few weeks after it began.

If Russia would engage in war, Kiev would no longer be a city.

I thought the whole justification for going into Ukraine was the Russians living there?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to destroy the land you're claiming, with your Countrymen settled there, just to eradicate a Government that's made itself independent of your rule....'course that's what the British did to the Colonialist when America declared its Independence from England.

 

[holdover]

They've had 3 years to muster a much larger and more capable force.

It is much larger and more capable

But, what did Ukraine do that was so sudden that they needed to go off half cocked ?

They had to act before Ukraine became a part of NATO , Once that happened , they were fucked. NATO was going to be voteing on it soon. It was do or die for the Russians .