Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[paxmao]

Putin's Palace and bunker nearby.



A modest residence for someone who likes just usual stuff like fishing, riding horses half naked and has the true spartan tastes of the "true Eastern Culture".  BTW... I wonder if this is in the range of a Storm Shadow and if Ukraine could decide to carry a "special military operation" on this.

I do not agree. Ukraine is now fighting at the maximum of its military potential, for Ukraine it is a matter of life and death. Russia has used its military potential, I think by 15%, for Russia this is a military special operation.

Here's what they were saying 2 months ago:

Russia’s army is estimated to have lost nearly 40% of its prewar fleet of tanks after nine months of fighting in Ukraine, according to a count by the specialist thinktank the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).
That rises to as much as 50% for some of the key tanks used in combat, forcing Russia to reach into its still sizeable cold war-era stocks. Ukraine’s tank numbers are estimated to have increased because of the number it has captured and supplies of Soviet-era tanks from its western allies.

Its headline count is that Russia’s number of tanks in its army have reduced by 38% from 2,927 to 1,800, while there have been particularly heavy losses of its workhorse T-72B3, an upgrade first delivered to its army in 2013.
Heavy losses on the battlefield have meant that Russia had lost “around 50% of its pre invasion fleet” of the tank and a related variant
 Ukraine could fight better with more NATO military support, but firstly, NATO military support for Ukraine already has unprecedented volumes, and secondly, it is not profitable for NATO to inflate the conflict too much so that it does not get out of control.
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/russian-army-has-lost-up-to-half-of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine[/url]

At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database.
The database includes all tank types currently employed by Russia’s military, notably T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s, and their modifications.
According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.

The estimated total Russian loss of 1,300 machines in Ukraine roughly corresponds to 14 full-fledged armored brigades or 42 battalion tactical groups (BTGs). This amounts to more tank fleets than the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy combined.

[url]https://kyivindependent.com/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have/[/url]

Saying that Russia has used 15% of its potential is an understatement, unless you count all the scrap tanks from the 50s and 60s, like Russian propagandists do, but most of these tanks will never be restored. Russia is a strange country where on paper there's 10k tanks in reserves, but in reality half of these have been in storage for over 50 years. They don't run, cannot be restored, and even if they are somehow restored, are useless on the modern battlefield.


The reality is, Russia has used maybe 20% of its total tank reserves (on paper), but more than 50% of working, fairly modern tanks. I say fairly modern because t72 has been in use since the 70s and Russians just can't let it go. They're just adding more electronics and reactive armor and calling it a modern tank because it's cheaper than making a new one. So, it's possible a grandfather was using a T72 in the Soviet Union, and now his grandson is using it in Ukraine

It's really easy to prove that they're running out of tanks, since they've started to deploy T-62s. These are tanks that were used by Russia in Afghanistan and were already outdated in the 80s.
[url]https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-military-captured-first-russian-t-62-tank/[/url]



These Russians have a sense of humor. Look at the name of the tank "fury" written on the barrel. Also the state of the tank, as it's a version with no reactive armor.

As much as I would like to agree with you, the RF has still some reserves. We are looking at an army that does not plan strategically too well in term of the doctrines that they use and how they adapt these to the different situation. To put it plainly, if they have a stone, they will throw the stone to the enemy and if they have a shoe... they will throw the shoe at the enemy.

What does the RF have in abundance:
- Artillery. Not state of the art nor modern nor specially far reaching, but plenty of it, even from WW II. It is not accurate, it is not as useful, but they have piles of munitions, so they shell.
- More planes and better than Ukraine's. They cannot really fly them close to the front nor support localised combat operations, but they can still send a glide bomb and do some limited sorties. Ukraine cannot really until the get the F16 (BTW, there in 4 months I recently read).
- Drones an missiles. Not in unlimited quantities, particularly the really good ones and with limited capability to produce more. Still, you cannot stop everything with a Patriot.
- Lots of crappy equipment from the 60s. A tank is a tank and they can refurb much easily than build new ones, so they are doing it.

Attrition of tanks, artillery and shells, IMO is not going to play a defining role. The ability to use combined arms with western equipment on weak spots and zones where the RF soldiers are not well equipped and low on morale is a much better strategy,

[be.open]

I do not agree. Ukraine is now fighting at the maximum of its military potential, for Ukraine it is a matter of life and death. Russia has used its military potential, I think by 15%, for Russia this is a military special operation.

Here's what they were saying 2 months ago:

Russia’s army is estimated to have lost nearly 40% of its prewar fleet of tanks after nine months of fighting in Ukraine, according to a count by the specialist thinktank the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).
That rises to as much as 50% for some of the key tanks used in combat, forcing Russia to reach into its still sizeable cold war-era stocks. Ukraine’s tank numbers are estimated to have increased because of the number it has captured and supplies of Soviet-era tanks from its western allies.

Its headline count is that Russia’s number of tanks in its army have reduced by 38% from 2,927 to 1,800, while there have been particularly heavy losses of its workhorse T-72B3, an upgrade first delivered to its army in 2013.
Heavy losses on the battlefield have meant that Russia had lost “around 50% of its pre invasion fleet” of the tank and a related variant
 Ukraine could fight better with more NATO military support, but firstly, NATO military support for Ukraine already has unprecedented volumes, and secondly, it is not profitable for NATO to inflate the conflict too much so that it does not get out of control.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/russian-army-has-lost-up-to-half-of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine

At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database.
The database includes all tank types currently employed by Russia’s military, notably T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s, and their modifications.
According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.

The estimated total Russian loss of 1,300 machines in Ukraine roughly corresponds to 14 full-fledged armored brigades or 42 battalion tactical groups (BTGs). This amounts to more tank fleets than the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy combined.

https://kyivindependent.com/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have/

Saying that Russia has used 15% of its potential is an understatement, unless you count all the scrap tanks from the 50s and 60s, like Russian propagandists do, but most of these tanks will never be restored. Russia is a strange country where on paper there's 10k tanks in reserves, but in reality half of these have been in storage for over 50 years. They don't run, cannot be restored, and even if they are somehow restored, are useless on the modern battlefield.


The reality is, Russia has used maybe 20% of its total tank reserves (on paper), but more than 50% of working, fairly modern tanks. I say fairly modern because t72 has been in use since the 70s and Russians just can't let it go. They're just adding more electronics and reactive armor and calling it a modern tank because it's cheaper than making a new one. So, it's possible a grandfather was using a T72 in the Soviet Union, and now his grandson is using it in Ukraine

It's really easy to prove that they're running out of tanks, since they've started to deploy T-62s. These are tanks that were used by Russia in Afghanistan and were already outdated in the 80s.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-military-captured-first-russian-t-62-tank/



These Russians have a sense of humor. Look at the name of the tank "fury" written on the barrel. Also the state of the tank, as it's a version with no reactive armor.

I don’t understand why you drag this rotten shit from Ukrainian propaganda here? This is not a tank conflict. The superiority in tanks could have been decisive, but it was not - thanks in large part to the large number of hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers in early NATO deliveries to Ukraine. A couple of hundred Western tanks from late NATO deliveries will not help Ukraine much either.

Russia's superiority in artillery, aviation and missiles plays a much larger role at the current stage of the operation. In the autumn of last year, a temporary superiority in numbers played well into the hands of Ukraine, due to this, it was possible to achieve success near Izyum. Now Ukraine has no significant advantage in any aspect.

[BADecker]

What is a Zelensky? Oh, yes. A mouth. A comedian. A noise, like a howling wind. And the media props it up, like there is something there. Just another form of Beelzebub. What a joke.


NATO runs a KILL LIST naming Tucker Carlson, Scott Ritter, Col. Douglas McGregor and others as targets


https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-05-18-nato-kill-list-tucker-carlson-scott-ritter.html
Volodymyr Zelensky, an actor-slash-president of Ukraine, has been quietly compiling a kill list of targets whom he says are promoting “narratives consonant with Russian propaganda.” On it are names like journalists Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald; former military and intelligence figures like Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas McGregor; Roger Water of Pink Floyd; and even actor Steven Seagal.

Why does Zelensky find these people and many others to be so much of a threat that he wants to kill them? The answer is simple: They refuse to tow the globalist narrative that Zelensky is the good guy in his skirmish with Russia and its “special operation” in Ukraine.

Zelensky formed what is known as the Ukraine Center for Countering Disinformation, a supposedly “independent” watchdog group that has been collecting the names of prominent figures who are accused of spreading a “pro-Russian narrative.”

Mint Press News writer David Miller says his name was added to Zelensky’s kill list because of how he framed the war in Ukraine, calling it “NATO’s proxy war with Russia (that) is taking place in Ukraine.” This is, of course, the truth, but Zelensky does not seem to be all that interested in things like facts.

(Related: In case you missed it, CBS released a documentary showing that only 30 percent of the NATO weapons supposedly being sent to Ukraine are actually making it there.)

Ukraine is run by Nazi collaborators who hate to be exposed for who they really are

In Zelensky’s mind, everyone with a voice should be parroting the lie that Ukraine is an innocent victim of Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Those who refuse to do so, acknowledging instead that Ukrainian leadership is among the most corrupt in the entire world, could find themselves in Zelensky’s crosshairs.

“Anyone who mentions any particular truth is derided for echoing Putin’s ‘talking points,'” Miller wrote in a piece for Mayadeen English called “How disinformation works: Western intelligence agencies’ global war on the left.”
...

[coolcoinz]

Putin's Palace and bunker nearby.



A modest residence for someone who likes just usual stuff like fishing, riding horses half naked and has the true spartan tastes of the "true Eastern Culture".  BTW... I wonder if this is in the range of a Storm Shadow and if Ukraine could decide to carry a "special military operation" on this.

If they had the 500km range version then yes, but there's another one, with shorter range of only 250km and I believe that one was supplied to Ukraine, to prevent them from striking deep into Russia.
In a straight line, there's only 450km between Ukrainian border and Moscow

I don’t understand why you drag this rotten shit from Ukrainian propaganda here?

What is the propaganda you're talking about?

The Russian tactic is not admitting to any losses and when someone actually counts their wrecked machines, it's propaganda.
The pictures of t-62 in Ukraine are also propaganda, just as Iranian drones were propaganda because Iranians said they weren't selling any to Russia and we could keep counting.

This is not a tank conflict.

Tanks are the second most deployed military unit of this war, right after IFVs. That's a fact, not propaganda. Artillery has third place.

The superiority in tanks could have been decisive, but it was not - thanks in large part to the large number of hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers in early NATO deliveries to Ukraine. A couple of hundred Western tanks from late NATO deliveries will not help Ukraine much either.

The problem is Russians barely have any good hand held anti-tank launchers. That's why a Western tank that can take out numerous Cold War era Russian tanks and take a hit from an RPG, or a drone, can make a difference.

Russia's superiority in artillery, aviation and missiles plays a much larger role at the current stage of the operation. In the autumn of last year, a temporary superiority in numbers played well into the hands of Ukraine, due to this, it was possible to achieve success near Izyum. Now Ukraine has no significant advantage in any aspect.

They are slowly running out of cruise and hypersonic missiles. Artillery doesn't take ground, especially the one Russia uses, as it's not mobile and not accurate enough. It can be used to shell defenses or towns and act as a deterrent. It buys time, but doesn't allow Russians to advance.
Sure, Russia has air superiority, but Ukraine doesn't try to fight them in the air. I've read today that Ukrainians shot down an aircraft with a patriot missile. What's going to happen in a year? Will Russia sacrifice it's air defense forces to attack Ukraine and open itself for a possible attack from the East?

[tvbcof]

...
I have said before that DU munitions is not something I would sent to an ally if I were there US, but I am not an "Analyst" so what do I know.  ...

The only reason I waste my time with you is to see if one day you'll recognize that the West is NOT a friend of Ukraine.  Or Poland.  At all.

Ironically, I'm probably more 'friendly' than most of the people in the West because I believe that the world is big enough for a contingent of neooldo-Nazis and inbred chicken-swingers.  I just happen to believe that it is not ethical to use them as tools, but that it proper and ethical to make sure that they don't threaten normal people who are not into their brand of ethics.

The appearance of the DU cloud was spot-on to impact the center-mass of aforementioned miscreants.  As if these groups needed any more genetic misfortunes!  Oh well.

BTW, I found another solid gold animation, but it is attached to a longer bunch of content which is not interesting enough for me to spend time on.  At least it is the first segment:

  Ukraine: Russian Update May 19, 2023
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/EL5wPLvDTsyP/

---

Edit:  Unrelated, except insofar as it's funny.  'Za-Luuu-zhny?!?'

  Wagner and Prigozhin Asked Where General Zaluzhny Is
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/aqCk5XjEywPa/

[paxmao]

Putin's Palace and bunker nearby.



A modest residence for someone who likes just usual stuff like fishing, riding horses half naked and has the true spartan tastes of the "true Eastern Culture".  BTW... I wonder if this is in the range of a Storm Shadow and if Ukraine could decide to carry a "special military operation" on this.

If they had the 500km range version then yes, but there's another one, with shorter range of only 250km and I believe that one was supplied to Ukraine, to prevent them from striking deep into Russia.
In a straight line, there's only 450km between Ukrainian border and Moscow

I don’t understand why you drag this rotten shit from Ukrainian propaganda here?

What is the propaganda you're talking about?

The Russian tactic is not admitting to any losses and when someone actually counts their wrecked machines, it's propaganda.
The pictures of t-62 in Ukraine are also propaganda, just as Iranian drones were propaganda because Iranians said they weren't selling any to Russia and we could keep counting.

This is not a tank conflict.

Tanks are the second most deployed military unit of this war, right after IFVs. That's a fact, not propaganda. Artillery has third place.

The superiority in tanks could have been decisive, but it was not - thanks in large part to the large number of hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers in early NATO deliveries to Ukraine. A couple of hundred Western tanks from late NATO deliveries will not help Ukraine much either.

The problem is Russians barely have any good hand held anti-tank launchers. That's why a Western tank that can take out numerous Cold War era Russian tanks and take a hit from an RPG, or a drone, can make a difference.

Russia's superiority in artillery, aviation and missiles plays a much larger role at the current stage of the operation. In the autumn of last year, a temporary superiority in numbers played well into the hands of Ukraine, due to this, it was possible to achieve success near Izyum. Now Ukraine has no significant advantage in any aspect.

They are slowly running out of cruise and hypersonic missiles. Artillery doesn't take ground, especially the one Russia uses, as it's not mobile and not accurate enough. It can be used to shell defenses or towns and act as a deterrent. It buys time, but doesn't allow Russians to advance.
Sure, Russia has air superiority, but Ukraine doesn't try to fight them in the air. I've read today that Ukrainians shot down an aircraft with a patriot missile. What's going to happen in a year? Will Russia sacrifice it's air defense forces to attack Ukraine and open itself for a possible attack from the East?

As much as I would like to agree, artillery plays a pivotal role in this war, much more than hand-held AT or SAMs and drones. These two get lots of attention, but these systems are more about providing infantry a fighting chance and keeping tanks more concerned and crews more afraid. You will not win the war with any of them, as the RF cannot win the war just launching missiles.

Artillery and properly supported tanks play the main roles, perhaps along the Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) like the RF BMPs and, my guess at this point, the Bradleys and other that have high mobility, speed, a decent gun able to deal with anything except a modern tank and a couple of antitank missiles for anything else crossing their path.

As said, drones, Javelins, missiles and limited air platforms come second, unless you can do a brilliant combined weapons tactic.

...
I have said before that DU munitions is not something I would sent to an ally if I were there US, but I am not an "Analyst" so what do I know.  ...

The only reason I waste my time with you is to see if one day you'll recognize that the West is NOT a friend of Ukraine.  Or Poland.  At all.

Ironically, I'm probably more 'friendly' than most of the people in the West because I believe that the world is big enough for a contingent of neooldo-Nazis and inbred chicken-swingers.  I just happen to believe that it is not ethical to use them as tools, but that it proper and ethical to make sure that they don't threaten normal people who are not into their brand of ethics.

The appearance of the DU cloud was spot-on to impact the center-mass of aforementioned miscreants.  As if these groups needed any more genetic misfortunes!  Oh well.

BTW, I found another solid gold animation, but it is attached to a longer bunch of content which is not interesting enough for me to spend time on.  At least it is the first segment:

  Ukraine: Russian Update May 19, 2023
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/EL5wPLvDTsyP/

---

Edit:  Unrelated, except insofar as it's funny.  'Za-Luuu-zhny?!?'

  Wagner and Prigozhin Asked Where General Zaluzhny Is
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/aqCk5XjEywPa/

"No nation has friends only interests." - Charles de Gaulle,

What you call the West, does not have friends at state level (people can feel friendship or empathy for people in other countries), they do have allies and adversaries, common interests and common objectives. I said that a million posts ago. Thus I repeat, I would not send DU to an ally (not a friend, an ally) , it is just not a good idea.

Oh... regarding your time, that's fine, I really appreciate your dedication and all that... but feel free to use it somehow else. Seriously, no problem at all.

[be.open]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

[swogerino]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

Let's see what happens when F-16 jets will be all over Ukraine,it is just a maneuver to take away attention from the counter offensive which will find as always Russians completely off guard no matter how hard they are trying to defend.By the way they have not taken completely the city,there are still Ukrainians soldier fighting there in the industrial zone,a little zone but nevertheless enough.Another thing to note is funny that Russians claim Bakhmut is taken,so what did they take by the way,no building no nothing at all as the city is destroyed completely by them  .

[paxmao]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

[BADecker]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Why complicate things? Look at it in a simple way... like this.

Russia is much larger than Ukraine. The Russian military is much larger than Ukraine's military. So...

Just to throw out some example figures, imagine that Ukraine's military was 10,000, and Russia's was 100,000. Let's say that they were killing each other off 1 to 1. This means that when Ukraine has killed off 10,000 Russians, there won't be any Ukraine military left... but there will still be 90,000 Russians left.

The fact is more like Russians are killing 6 or 7 Ukrainians for each Russian dead. Get the picture? Ukraine is being played... by the US, Nato, and Russia. The smart Ukrainians left months ago, by the millions.

Blab all you want. The fact of the matter is that there won't be any Ukrainians left in a very short time from now.

[paxmao]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Why complicate things? Look at it in a simple way... like this.

Russia is much larger than Ukraine. The Russian military is much larger than Ukraine's military. So...

Just to throw out some example figures, imagine that Ukraine's military was 10,000, and Russia's was 100,000. Let's say that they were killing each other off 1 to 1. This means that when Ukraine has killed off 10,000 Russians, there won't be any Ukraine military left... but there will still be 90,000 Russians left.

The fact is more like Russians are killing 6 or 7 Ukrainians for each Russian dead. Get the picture? Ukraine is being played... by the US, Nato, and Russia. The smart Ukrainians left months ago, by the millions.

Blab all you want. The fact of the matter is that there won't be any Ukrainians left in a very short time from now.

Your numbers are incorrect and the concepts on which it is based are incorrect and your conclusion do not match anything remotely close to reality. Your approach is not simple, it is simplistic because you are someone who likes simple yet wrong answers to real but complex to solve problems.

You want also a simplistic yet wrong argument? Here it goes: It took the RF 1 year to conquer a 17.000 pre-war population city. Thus it will take around 500 years to conquer Ukraine. As stupid as your calculation, see.

You want another simple yet wrong answer: Here it goes: The military budget of the RF is not even 1/10 of all the countries supporting Ukraine. Thus the RF has 1 in 10 chances of achieving a military "victory".

Russian was larger a year ago and had, in theory, a larger army, yet here we are. The RF and Ukraine are not even close to a full mobilisation, being the RF on an offensive imperial war and Ukraine simply defending their homeland, the political will to accept losses is very different. Thus, the ratios you mention are meaningless.

Let me educate you: nearly 99% of wars are economic, and this is not exception. The governments tend to say other things (religion, rightful government, revolutions, and for Putin "Nazis and Zionists, etc...) The war in Ukraine only works for the RF if it is economically beneficial, and that is no longer the case no matter what they do, unless they basically take all the territory of Ukraine and install a puppet. (e.g. you cannot be waging war for 500 years).

If Ukraine losses it ceases to exist. If the RF looses (whatever "loosing" means") it is likely that nothing will change (except if it is such a defeat that leaves the country in shambles, which is not going to happen). The RF is being played, Europe is being played and Ukraine has been left with no option but to fight thanks to Putin's clumsiness. I know who the winners, no matter what, are on this one: US, Saudis, Turkey, Israel and all weapons producers.

The "smart Ukrainians who left" and nothing compared to the "smart Russians who left" and are actually willing to go back - not the case for Russians, who probably can't anyway without risking jail.

[be.open]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

Verdun is also a small city, but a serious battle broke out there a century ago. Wagner took Bakhmut for 9 and a half months, which is a long time, but there was no goal to take the city quickly, the goal of the "Bakhmut meat grinder" was to deplete the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the conditions imposed by Russia. Now Ukraine says that the position in Bakhmut is unfavorable, but who forced it to defend a disadvantageous position for so long?

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Pleases your optimism and faith in magic by the next Western wunderwaffe. Russia also did not sit idle during these 9 and a half months:
- carried out partial mobilization, eliminated the numerical superiority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, carried out a rotation and gave rest to the most combat-ready units.
- erected many defensive structures, including a 70-kilometer trench in Zaporozhye, in all directions except for Bakhmut, several rows of layered defense with dense mining.
- launched the mass production of planning and control kits that turn ordinary high-explosive bombs into guided bombs - this has become a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- launched the mass production of loitering ammunition Lancet, which became a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- Too lazy to type.

[paxmao]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

Verdun is also a small city, but a serious battle broke out there a century ago. Wagner took Bakhmut for 9 and a half months, which is a long time, but there was no goal to take the city quickly, the goal of the "Bakhmut meat grinder" was to deplete the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the conditions imposed by Russia. Now Ukraine says that the position in Bakhmut is unfavorable, but who forced it to defend a disadvantageous position for so long?

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Pleases your optimism and faith in magic by the next Western wunderwaffe. Russia also did not sit idle during these 9 and a half months:
- carried out partial mobilization, eliminated the numerical superiority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, carried out a rotation and gave rest to the most combat-ready units.
- erected many defensive structures, including a 70-kilometer trench in Zaporozhye, in all directions except for Bakhmut, several rows of layered defense with dense mining.
- launched the mass production of planning and control kits that turn ordinary high-explosive bombs into guided bombs - this has become a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- launched the mass production of loitering ammunition Lancet, which became a real headache for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for which there is still no cure.
- Too lazy to type.

Have you heard about the Maginot line? It was not a 70 kilometre trench, it was an "impregnable" line of defence of bunkers, fortifications, artillery positions and concentrations of troops that the French built to defend against the possible attack from the Nazi regime of Hitler. You know how long did it take for the German army to run past it? Zero days, they did not, they went through Belgium.

Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference in 1925 gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts believed the line would deter German aggression because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilise and counterattack.

It is said that "generals are always fighting the previous war", your Psychos have taken this to a new level by fighting wars that took place 75 years ago.

The cure to gliding bombs is the F-16. These bombs are being launched taking advantage of the limited airforce and detection range of Ukrainian planes. That ends when the US decides it end.

Lancets? They are stopped by a simple net you know? But agree, they cause some problems but will not win you the war.

Too Lazy to type... well, too lazy to answer.

Now, I am not downplaying the difficulties of recovering territory, what I am saying is that there are strategies that can deliver that objective with the means that Ukraine has and will have at their disposal.

[be.open]

Have you heard about the Maginot line? It was not a 70 kilometre trench, it was an "impregnable" line of defence of bunkers, fortifications, artillery positions and concentrations of troops that the French built to defend against the possible attack from the Nazi regime of Hitler. You know how long did it take for the German army to run past it? Zero days, they did not, they went through Belgium.

Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference in 1925 gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts believed the line would deter German aggression because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilise and counterattack.

It is said that "generals are always fighting the previous war", your Psychos have taken this to a new level by fighting wars that took place 75 years ago.

I'm glad you know the story too. Okay, let the Ukrainian Armed Forces go around the Zaporozhye Maginot Line, but don't they want to cut the land corridor to Crimea anymore? It seems that they can only try to surround Bakhmut and significantly moderate their ambitions for the return of the Crimea.

The cure to gliding bombs is the F-16. These bombs are being launched taking advantage of the limited airforce and detection range of Ukrainian planes. That ends when the US decides it end.

Lancets? They are stopped by a simple net you know? But agree, they cause some problems but will not win you the war.

Too Lazy to type... well, too lazy to answer.

The cure will appear at best closer to the fall, and the headache is right now. In this conflict, Russia does not need to be the best in the world, it is enough to be one step ahead of Ukraine and the Western coalition supporting it.

Let me educate you: nearly 99% of wars are economic, and this is not exception. The governments tend to say other things (religion, rightful government, revolutions, and for Putin "Nazis and Zionists, etc...) The war in Ukraine only works for the RF if it is economically beneficial, and that is no longer the case no matter what they do, unless they basically take all the territory of Ukraine and install a puppet. (e.g. you cannot be waging war for 500 years).

At the current pace, Russia can continue the special operation for at least another three years, according to the most conservative estimates. The worst-case scenario is calculated based on a budget deficit of 20%, which will have to be repaid exclusively from the National Welfare Fund, without resorting to domestic or foreign borrowing. The current scenario is much better than the worst.

[BADecker]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Why complicate things? Look at it in a simple way... like this.

Russia is much larger than Ukraine. The Russian military is much larger than Ukraine's military. So...

Just to throw out some example figures, imagine that Ukraine's military was 10,000, and Russia's was 100,000. Let's say that they were killing each other off 1 to 1. This means that when Ukraine has killed off 10,000 Russians, there won't be any Ukraine military left... but there will still be 90,000 Russians left.

The fact is more like Russians are killing 6 or 7 Ukrainians for each Russian dead. Get the picture? Ukraine is being played... by the US, Nato, and Russia. The smart Ukrainians left months ago, by the millions.

Blab all you want. The fact of the matter is that there won't be any Ukrainians left in a very short time from now.

Your numbers are incorrect and the concepts on which it is based are incorrect and your conclusion do not match anything remotely close to reality. Your approach is not simple, it is simplistic because you are someone who likes simple yet wrong answers to real but complex to solve problems.

You want also a simplistic yet wrong argument? Here it goes: It took the RF 1 year to conquer a 17.000 pre-war population city. Thus it will take around 500 years to conquer Ukraine. As stupid as your calculation, see.

You want another simple yet wrong answer: Here it goes: The military budget of the RF is not even 1/10 of all the countries supporting Ukraine. Thus the RF has 1 in 10 chances of achieving a military "victory".

Russian was larger a year ago and had, in theory, a larger army, yet here we are. The RF and Ukraine are not even close to a full mobilisation, being the RF on an offensive imperial war and Ukraine simply defending their homeland, the political will to accept losses is very different. Thus, the ratios you mention are meaningless.

Let me educate you: nearly 99% of wars are economic, and this is not exception. The governments tend to say other things (religion, rightful government, revolutions, and for Putin "Nazis and Zionists, etc...) The war in Ukraine only works for the RF if it is economically beneficial, and that is no longer the case no matter what they do, unless they basically take all the territory of Ukraine and install a puppet. (e.g. you cannot be waging war for 500 years).

If Ukraine losses it ceases to exist. If the RF looses (whatever "loosing" means") it is likely that nothing will change (except if it is such a defeat that leaves the country in shambles, which is not going to happen). The RF is being played, Europe is being played and Ukraine has been left with no option but to fight thanks to Putin's clumsiness. I know who the winners, no matter what, are on this one: US, Saudis, Turkey, Israel and all weapons producers.

The "smart Ukrainians who left" and nothing compared to the "smart Russians who left" and are actually willing to go back - not the case for Russians, who probably can't anyway without risking jail.

Actually, it is your numbers that are wrong... as be.open is continually showing you one way or another. be.open has just explained why Wagner didn't simply overrun Bakhmut. Ukrainian solders were ordered to stay and fight to the end. Did they? If they did, they are dead... just reinforcement for the things that I have been saying. If they didn't, an Ukraine loss.

All the while you consider the failing US/Nato banking system as support for Ukraine, we are seeing growth in BRICS and BRICS ideas and nations. At the rate the US and Nato are helping Ukraine win, BRICS will have overcome them long before a Ukraine win can happen.

Half the Ukrainian population left Ukraine. Russia might have lost a small percent of her people, but she gained a whole lot more in Crimea and the whole Donbas area... to say nothing about other lands that have joined Russia.

You can talk about 99% of wars that act this way or that way, but there are other people who explain it all differently. The point is, Ukraine has already lost militarily. And their loss is causing the US and Nato to quietly back off. It can be seen that trade in Russia has gone right around the sanctions; they were a failure. Even trade in Ukraine is starting to act like there isn't any war going on. The war will soon end, and Russia will absorb a whole big bunch of Ukraine... economically if not in formal land acquisition.

[be.open]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

Let's see what happens when F-16 jets will be all over Ukraine,it is just a maneuver to take away attention from the counter offensive which will find as always Russians completely off guard no matter how hard they are trying to defend.By the way they have not taken completely the city,there are still Ukrainians soldier fighting there in the industrial zone,a little zone but nevertheless enough.Another thing to note is funny that Russians claim Bakhmut is taken,so what did they take by the way,no building no nothing at all as the city is destroyed completely by them  .

Yep, after the capture of Soledar, Ukraine defended it for another two weeks in the reports of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Keep believing Ukrainian propaganda.

[paxmao]

Meanwhile, Bakhmut is taken.

By meanwhile you mean that a 17.000 habitants city, not too far from the RF borders, has been flattened to the ground to the point that is no longer a city and that has only taken... 1 week? 1 month? half a year?.... no, it has taken 1 year, since May 2022!

If that is how the Pyschos intend to keep waging war in Ukraine, I forecast what is basically a suicide for the current regime. The amount of money, men, resources and political capital employed make this war an economic suicide for the RF. BTW... watch your flanks... it may take 1 year to get it, but it may take 1 week to run from it.

I am thinking of it. Why would Ukraine choose to defend Bakhmut? Why did Ukraine need one more year to keep the RF busy in what is a not very strategically significant area. What did happen during that year?

- EU and US committed billions in additional aid.
- Ukrainian troops have been trained in a variety of systems. Notably in the Patriot, but not only in the Patriot.
- A number of Ukrainian pilots have been trained in F-16, which are going to be "freed" by the US so that allies can send them to Ukraine.
- A number of MBTs, IFV, artillery and other vehicles have arrived to Ukraine with their crews trained.

It seems to me that the cost of taking Bakhmut is not just the dead and the equipment lost. We will see along the summer.

Why complicate things? Look at it in a simple way... like this.

Russia is much larger than Ukraine. The Russian military is much larger than Ukraine's military. So...

Just to throw out some example figures, imagine that Ukraine's military was 10,000, and Russia's was 100,000. Let's say that they were killing each other off 1 to 1. This means that when Ukraine has killed off 10,000 Russians, there won't be any Ukraine military left... but there will still be 90,000 Russians left.

The fact is more like Russians are killing 6 or 7 Ukrainians for each Russian dead. Get the picture? Ukraine is being played... by the US, Nato, and Russia. The smart Ukrainians left months ago, by the millions.

Blab all you want. The fact of the matter is that there won't be any Ukrainians left in a very short time from now.

Your numbers are incorrect and the concepts on which it is based are incorrect and your conclusion do not match anything remotely close to reality. Your approach is not simple, it is simplistic because you are someone who likes simple yet wrong answers to real but complex to solve problems.

You want also a simplistic yet wrong argument? Here it goes: It took the RF 1 year to conquer a 17.000 pre-war population city. Thus it will take around 500 years to conquer Ukraine. As stupid as your calculation, see.

You want another simple yet wrong answer: Here it goes: The military budget of the RF is not even 1/10 of all the countries supporting Ukraine. Thus the RF has 1 in 10 chances of achieving a military "victory".

Russian was larger a year ago and had, in theory, a larger army, yet here we are. The RF and Ukraine are not even close to a full mobilisation, being the RF on an offensive imperial war and Ukraine simply defending their homeland, the political will to accept losses is very different. Thus, the ratios you mention are meaningless.

Let me educate you: nearly 99% of wars are economic, and this is not exception. The governments tend to say other things (religion, rightful government, revolutions, and for Putin "Nazis and Zionists, etc...) The war in Ukraine only works for the RF if it is economically beneficial, and that is no longer the case no matter what they do, unless they basically take all the territory of Ukraine and install a puppet. (e.g. you cannot be waging war for 500 years).

If Ukraine losses it ceases to exist. If the RF looses (whatever "loosing" means") it is likely that nothing will change (except if it is such a defeat that leaves the country in shambles, which is not going to happen). The RF is being played, Europe is being played and Ukraine has been left with no option but to fight thanks to Putin's clumsiness. I know who the winners, no matter what, are on this one: US, Saudis, Turkey, Israel and all weapons producers.

The "smart Ukrainians who left" and nothing compared to the "smart Russians who left" and are actually willing to go back - not the case for Russians, who probably can't anyway without risking jail.

Actually, it is your numbers that are wrong... as be.open is continually showing you one way or another. be.open has just explained why Wagner didn't simply overrun Bakhmut. Ukrainian solders were ordered to stay and fight to the end. Did they? If they did, they are dead... just reinforcement for the things that I have been saying. If they didn't, an Ukraine loss.

All the while you consider the failing US/Nato banking system as support for Ukraine, we are seeing growth in BRICS and BRICS ideas and nations. At the rate the US and Nato are helping Ukraine win, BRICS will have overcome them long before a Ukraine win can happen.

Half the Ukrainian population left Ukraine. Russia might have lost a small percent of her people, but she gained a whole lot more in Crimea and the whole Donbas area... to say nothing about other lands that have joined Russia.

You can talk about 99% of wars that act this way or that way, but there are other people who explain it all differently. The point is, Ukraine has already lost militarily. And their loss is causing the US and Nato to quietly back off. It can be seen that trade in Russia has gone right around the sanctions; they were a failure. Even trade in Ukraine is starting to act like there isn't any war going on. The war will soon end, and Russia will absorb a whole big bunch of Ukraine... economically if not in formal land acquisition.

This is NATO quietly backing off:

https://www.politico.eu/article/urkaine-war-germany-new-arms-package/

Germany approves new €2.7B package of arms for Ukraine

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/us-allies-f-16-jets-ukraine/index.html

US signals to allies it won’t block their export of F-16 jets to Ukraine

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/16/europe/poland-fighter-jets-ukraine-intl/index.html

Poland becomes first to pledge fighter jets to Ukraine

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-patriot-missile-system-4c79f9110899ca1880a61f2d1f328179

US-made Patriot guided missile systems arrive in Ukraine

You are not offering "the unofficial truth", you are not linking to "an alternative better information", you are simply blurting information that is detached from reality to the point that is basically fake. This might or not change, but NATO does not want the RF to show any kind of credible victory simply because after this war they will wage another, and another,...

[theskillzdatklls]

The amount of Reddit tier cope that's going to justify how losing Bakhmut is actually a good thing.

The reality is, it was a very strategically important city because it now gives them access to a lot of roads a geographically significant areas. Over the coming weeks/months, expect Russia to take a lot of territory pushing up to the next/final cities in the Donbass region.

[BADecker]

~


You are not offering "the unofficial truth", you are not linking to "an alternative better information", you are simply blurting information that is detached from reality to the point that is basically fake. This might or not change, but NATO does not want the RF to show any kind of credible victory simply because after this war they will wage another, and another,...

All the things you talk about in your post that I have partially quoted, are save-face operations for the US and Nato getting out of Ukraine. Of course, they have to back it up a little, just to look good. But they have found that their operations in Ukraine are being strongly resisted by Russia, just like Russia found out the hard way that there was more than they expected to the US/Nato resistance after they entered Ukraine.

The banking/money cabal that is/was backing Ukraine, doesn't know exactly what the various outcomes might be. But they are keeping their options open in every way they can. Presently, things don't look so positive for a continued push against Russian demands. They are quietly backing off the land-heist operation they were working for in Ukraine.

[paxmao]

The amount of Reddit tier cope that's going to justify how losing Bakhmut is actually a good thing.

The reality is, it was a very strategically important city because it now gives them access to a lot of roads a geographically significant areas. Over the coming weeks/months, expect Russia to take a lot of territory pushing up to the next/final cities in the Donbass region.

There is nothing good about loosing Bakhmut, but it does not change much the strategic map nor possibilities.

As of now, the RF fails in all that is not shelling cities and using cannon fodder to take them. It has been months since they cannot make any significant advance outside that type of dirty battle that leaves you with lots of losses and basically a flat land. Now they are trying to make Bakhmut a big thing, like a great victory or the like, but it is not, is in fact a very minimal progress.

~


You are not offering "the unofficial truth", you are not linking to "an alternative better information", you are simply blurting information that is detached from reality to the point that is basically fake. This might or not change, but NATO does not want the RF to show any kind of credible victory simply because after this war they will wage another, and another,...

All the things you talk about in your post that I have partially quoted, are save-face operations for the US and Nato getting out of Ukraine....

No, 2.8 billion and sending fighter jets, latest generation cruise missiles and training thousands of troops is not save-face sorry, it is proper help. In my view, much more could be done, but this is real. You of course will not recognise any of this, but it does not matter - the Storm Shadows and HIMARS destroy depots without your help.

Speaking of which... there seem to be some clouds of smoke in Mariupol. I wonder if the RD recruits are still smoking near weapons depots and using telegram 600 at the time?