October 18, 20222 yr 1 hour ago, Cult Icon said: The military situation appears to be near a short-term draw on both sides, with Ukraine having initiative. However they burned through a lot of their reserves and ammunition stockpiling/expenditure of western weapons. If Ukraine scores another operational victory the Russians may escalate with chemical and biological weapons as currently most of their army is rebuilding in Russia. It would really surprise me if they use tactical nukes as that's not their combat doctrine. All of this is due to Russia's pullback of their army in July. They are preparing for a winter offensive as they integrate 300,000 reservists and gathered tens of thousands of volunteers. If this offensive comes this winter my guess is that it will be late, maybe in 2023. The Russian strategy appears to be that they want to be successful in the defense while deploying the minimum of forces in the Ukraine. They want to wear out the Ukrainian assault reserves and western weapons, and by the time the Russian army returns they will have weakened their enemy while having an army 2- 3 times larger than the one they invaded the year before. So losing the territory they captured is part of their strategy, as is throwing recruits into the battle without training? Okay! I'm still waiting to see their 10000 battle tank reserve in action!
October 18, 20222 yr 19 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: So losing the territory they captured is part of their strategy, as is throwing recruits into the battle without training? Okay! I'm still waiting to see their 10000 battle tank reserve in action! This is basically the Ukrainian propaganda version of military events.
October 18, 20222 yr 3 minutes ago, Cult Icon said: This is basically the Ukrainian propaganda version of military events. It's Ukrainian propaganda to question whether Russia would want to yield some of the terrain they had wasted men and equipment taking? It's pretty clear from everything (like their failure to secure enough winter uniforms for their new recruits) that Russia's supposed vast stores of military supplies are wildly overestimated.
October 18, 20222 yr 7 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: It's Ukrainian propaganda to question whether Russia would want to yield some of the terrain they had wasted men and equipment taking? It's pretty clear from everything (like their failure to secure enough winter uniforms for their new recruits) that Russia's supposed vast stores of military supplies are wildly overestimated. This is what I mean about propaganda and misinformation. The reporting in our media is totally corrupt and unreliable. Russia invaded with an army 3-4 times smaller than their opponent. In July they withdrew much of their army and relied on the separatists. It is actually natural that eventually they would struggle to hold on what they took, and order strategic withdrawals. However they are planning to play 'hardball' in the winter. Neither side is conducting the war rationally, enormous incompetence on both sides. However Russia still has vast material superiority and no serious shortages compared to the Ukrainians/NATO. Basically this war will not end well for anyone.
October 18, 20222 yr 18 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: Zelensky is a charismatic leader. He and his team are communication geniuses, which is a tactical advantage for Ukraine. But he's a novice in the art of war and he seems to be a risk taker. Why not... but some risks he takes are very high (not just for his country). Ukraine went on the strategic offensive for the first time in the beginning of September. So they've been attacking for 7 weeks with reserves and ammunition accumulated for half a year. So far this is their result (the blue colored regions). The Russians suffered 1 operational level defeat (Kharkiv axis) and one tactical defeat (Kherson bridgehead). In both battles the Russians preserved their ground troops with rapid withdrawals so besides for capturing equipment and bases the Ukrainians didn't manage to destroy the Russian units. .: The mystery remains as to how much 'juice' is left with the Ukrainians. The Russians intend to wear them down by remaining on the defensive. Overall Ukrainian offensive performance has been mediocre at best, very slow despite their great numerical superiority. I think it's because while they outnumber the Russians/Separatists/PMC by a factor of around 10, their material situation and logistics are not that good. So they rely on swamping the thinly held Russian positions with swarms of infantrymen. The Russians typically deflect them with their fire support, which they retain superiority. It seems to me that nobody in the public really knows what's going on.
October 18, 20222 yr 12 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: NATO has already said it won't respond with a nuclear strike even if Russia deploys tactical nukes, so I don't get why people always want to lay the blame with NATO for everything. Who "laid the blame with NATO for everything" here? My post is one sentence and it says "both sides". You've started a habit to twist people's words in the past days. Why? What's the point? You weren't like that before Escalation is from both sides and the world is not black and white with the good and bad guys. Putin attacked first and he did lots of wrongdoings, but NATO isn't a virgin either (it goes back to the 90s).
October 19, 20222 yr 10 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: Who "laid the blame with NATO for everything" here? My post is one sentence and it says "both sides". You've started a habit to twist people's words in the past days. Why? What's the point? You weren't like that before Escalation is from both sides and the world is not black and white with the good and bad guys. Putin attacked first and he did lots of wrongdoings, but NATO isn't a virgin either (it goes back to the 90s). Putin is the one who invaded a sovereign country. If NATO made one mistake, it was not to do anything when he took Crimea in 2014. Honestly I am not going to both-sides a conflict in which one side is using the UN charter to wipe his ass with.
October 19, 20222 yr 5 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Putin is the one who invaded a sovereign country. If NATO made one mistake, it was not to do anything when he took Crimea in 2014. Honestly I am not going to both-sides a conflict in which one side is using the UN charter to wipe his ass with. NATO/US was not idle. They provided Ukraine with advisors, equipment and financial backing to rehabilitate their army and refurbish the Soviet arsenal they inherited. This is why they are an actual army in 2022 that isn't reflective of a 3rd world failed state that they are (with a 4,000-1,000 dollar GDP/capita, massive unemployment, organized crime, and overall being very poor ).
October 19, 20222 yr 5 minutes ago, Cult Icon said: NATO/US was not idle. They provided Ukraine with advisors, equipment and financial backing to rehabilitate their army and refurbish the Soviet arsenal they inherited. This is why they are an actual army in 2022 that isn't reflective of a 3rd world failed state that they are (with a 4,000-1,000 dollar GDP/capita, massive unemployment, organized crime, and overall being very poor ). And why did they feel the need to do this after 2014? The response to the illegal annexation of Crimea should have been doing nothing to prevent further Russian aggression? I don't understand the confusion about Europe not craving to find itself under Putin's boot. Well, even more than it already is. This isn't a fucking game if you actually live here.
October 19, 20222 yr 5 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Putin is the one who invaded a sovereign country. If NATO made one mistake, it was not to do anything when he took Crimea in 2014. That's your opinion and I respect it. This does not give you the right to twist my words like you've been doing the past days. No. Just no. 5 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Honestly I am not going to both-sides a conflict in which one side is using the UN charter to wipe his ass with. I don't say Putin is not at fault, I said he as lots of wrongdoings, but this goes way back and NATO is not a virgin. "Both sides" was referring to nukes and missiles (you just have to read back - or just read - to know it) I still think that NATO's objective never was peace (at least since the 2010s), but the destruction of their former cold war's rival, which is a very silly tactic.
October 19, 20222 yr Disagreeing with someone and thinking you hold 'the truth" doesn't give you the right to twist other people's words. No.
October 19, 20222 yr All this proves to me is the success of Putin's propaganda in much of the West that he has so many people arguing against their own interests. I think many of those folks would find it very interesting to live under the rule of such a leader for a few months.
October 19, 20222 yr 16 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: All this proves to me is the success of Putin's propaganda in much of the West that he has so many people arguing against their own interests. You have a black and white vision of the world. Diplomacy and the art of war require a more refined approach. And I think that twisting other people's words like you did doesn't help you in the quest of getting an accurate vision of the world. Putin's propaganda is trash. But CNN (and the neocons)'s propaganda is trash as well. Do you remember Iraq?
October 19, 20222 yr 16 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: I think many of those folks would find it very interesting to live under the rule of such a leader for a few months. Freedom is very important to me. So, I would abhor Putin's rule. Just like I dislike the Woke's rule. But this is a false dichotomy you present here. We can live under our own European rules, we don't have to chose between Putin and Biden. PS: Putin is not going to invade Belgium in the next weeks or years.
October 19, 20222 yr 4 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: You have a black and white vision of the world. Diplomacy and the art of war require a more refined approach. And I think that twisting other people's words like you did doesn't help you in the quest of getting an accurate vision of the world. Putin's propaganda is trash. But CNN (and the neocons)'s propaganda is trash as well. Do you remember Iraq? Explain to me how it is good for Europe if Putin wins this war. I'll wait.
October 19, 20222 yr 3 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: Freedom is very important to me. So, I would abhor Putin's rule. Just like I dislike the Woke's rule. But this is a false dichotomy you present here. We can live under our own European rules, we don't have to chose between Putin and Biden. PS: Putin is not going to invade Belgium in the next weeks or years. Putin has already invaded Belgium, there are clear money ties between some Belgian political parties and Russian sources. If Ukraine falls, the consequences for all of Europe will be substantial. The idea that we go back to business as usual after that is a fantasy. It's not a choice between Biden or Putin for me, it's a choice between Europe living under the influence of Putin (and whoever comes after him) or one free of it. We have already lived with a hostile U.S. president for four years and we have survived that, so I'm not worried about that. But we haven't yet dealt with a truly unleashed Putin who is determined to harm the EU.
October 19, 20222 yr 9 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Explain to me how it is good for Europe if Putin wins this war. I'll wait. I didn't say I want Putin to win this war. You put words in my mouth again! What's happening to you and what's this weird habit? You systematically dismiss people who introduce nuance in your B&W vision. One thing I'm sure of is that nobody will win this war. It's a lose lose situation. Ukraine won't fall. Putin will probably keep the Donbas and Crimea, and so be it. If he's weakened in the process and Europe rebuilds a defence, this is not the nightmare you describe.
October 19, 20222 yr 11 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Putin has already invaded Belgium, there are clear money ties between some Belgian political parties and Russian sources. If that's your definition of invasion, then the USA have already invaded Belgium. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have invaded Belgium. China has invaded most European countries. 12 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: We have already lived with a hostile U.S. president for four years and we have survived that, so I'm not worried about that. But we haven't yet dealt with a truly unleashed Putin who is determined to harm the EU. Biden is more hostile to Europe than Trump. Trump wanted to cut the ties to Europe. You may like or dislike it, but it's not hostile. Biden's goons want to keep European States as vassals and they use their woke cult to keep soft power on us. American entertainment is helping them (like in the cold war). It seems to work on you. And they most probably blew up Nord Stream (though it's difficult to prove) which will harm Europe this winter.
October 19, 20222 yr 32 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Explain to me how it is good for Europe if Putin wins this war. I'll wait. The problem is that it is unlikely that Ukraine/NATO will win the war. They won the war in the area of propaganda but not on the battlefield. It might be better if Russia wins the war. They would inherit a poison chalice (Ukraine) and will be absorbed, dealing with this disaster zone's problems.
October 19, 20222 yr 36 minutes ago, Cult Icon said: The problem is that it is unlikely that Ukraine/NATO will win the war. They won the war in the area of propaganda but not on the battlefield. It might be better if Russia wins the war. They would inherit a poison chalice (Ukraine) and will be absorbed, dealing with this disaster zone's problems. If Russia win they will continue with large scale war crimes and de facto acts of genocide, how is that good for anyone? And why would anyone assume that Putin would be content with just Ukraine or some chunks of Ukraine?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.