Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
If Germany launched the invasion of Poland with an aim of total conquest, and only took a small amount of land linking up with East Prussia then got stopped dead in its tracks with huge losses in a bloody stalemate and a war of attrition it was losing, while losing enormous amounts of equipment and men, yes that's not what "victory" looks like.
At this point in the war, Russia has been effectively stopped and does not appear to have any prospect of taking more than tiny amounts of territory at best. By contrast, Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive of its own, which stands to reverse the meager Russian progress for the past 6 months and take back significant amounts of land.
Also, in the real war Germany DID take enormous amounts of land from the USSR, but still lost. I don't know why you imagine Russia has the power to declare the war over and freeze the front lines whenever it wishes. Ukraine gets a say in that.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Nah, you misremembered. I do agree that Russia wouldn't use nukes if NATO bombed Moscow, though. I think Russia and Putin are extraordinarily afraid of NATO and know they couldn't win against NATO forces in any capacity.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country?
Yes, they wouldn't have a choice. Putin expends tremendous effort on keeping himself in a position of power and control internally. His subordinates would be scapegoated for the humiliation, but he would be fine.
This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
It's a fact that is not contingent on your acceptance.
Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
It's also at the General level, which has always been an American weakness. Its why our army relies so much on NCO's and delegation of command, while Generals have historically made plans little more complicated than "Advance in this direction and kill anything that looks at you funny." Which is why US Generals tend to stand out when they do something other than that (see: Grant, Bradley, Patton, Schwarzkopf, Mattis, etc).
As for the actual soldiers and NCO's, I can say this: I live near a military base. I see soldiers around town all the time. And you want to know what they are? They are still the same corn-fed, beef-eating, "Sounds like something a soy-cuck would say", gun-nut loving Americans they have always been.
Let the Generals become fools. They havent really mattered to our military ability.
If Germany launched the invasion of Poland with an aim of total conquest, and only took a small amount of land linking up with East Prussia then got stopped dead in its tracks with huge losses in a bloody stalemate and a war of attrition it was losing, while losing enormous amounts of equipment and men, yes that's not what "victory" looks like.
This is very interesting. You probably don't remember, but we once discussed this when I told you that the war aims needed to be as limited as possible, if only so that you would come out as a victor regardless of how they turned out. This is also why the US is exaggerating the war aims: if Russia doesn't conquer every last inch, they DID IT, we saved the farms west of Lwow.
Seen objectively, the Winter War was a victory for the USSR.
Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive of its own, which stands to reverse the meager Russian progress for the past 6 months and take back significant amounts of land.
Only times your puppet has gained anything, is when the Russians were woefully undermanned. You're just cheering the prospect of your fellow Orthodox being cut down by artillery. Sad. I guess geopolitical interests run thicker than religion.
Also, in the real war Germany DID take enormous amounts of land from the USSR, but still lost. I don't know why you imagine Russia has the power to declare the war over and freeze the front lines whenever it wishes. Ukraine gets a say in that.
I don't see Russia losing any serious amounts of territory, for reasons I specified earlier. I do support retreating to save manpower when that is necessary though. If you lose your manpower, you will lose the territory, but if you make your opponent bleed, you can use the manpower you saved to take back the terrritory and then some.
Imagine if the USSR hadn't allowed Germany to encircle millions of Red Army soldiers in the first few months.
Nah, you misremembered. I do agree that Russia wouldn't use nukes if NATO bombed Moscow, though. I think Russia and Putin are extraordinarily afraid of NATO and know they couldn't win against NATO forces in any capacity.
I specifically remember a reference to Mussolini. If thye're that afraid, then nukes are far more likely than otherwise.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
You think Russian elites will put up with Putin dismembering and destroying the country, but not with general mobilization? Then you are grievously wrong about who the elites are. It's not the wealthy oligrachs. It's the security elite. They don't mess around. Of course, you want to pretend this ain't the case so you can advocate for MASSIVE ESCALATION and tell yourself that you're going to win, and blame the "libs" when you don't.
Are you from Georgia or Ukraine? Your anti-Russian hysteria doesn't make sense otherwise.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
You know your wishful thinking.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
Not the whole world. Just the Empire. Why does this sort of thing not happen in Russia, China or Hungary?
Seen objectively, the Winter War was a victory for the USSR.
It depends. While the Soviets "won", it suffered such great losses that its "victory" made it lose face and respect internationally. It also directly caused Hitler to have such contempt for the USSR that he embarked on Barbarossa and made his "we only need to kick the door open" comment.
So was the Winter War truly a victory? It brought about the greatest disaster in the history of the Russian people, one which has scarred their psyche to this day, and warped their demographics forever.
You probably don't remember, but we once discussed this when I told you that the war aims needed to be as limited as possible, if only so that you would come out as a victor regardless of how they turned out. This is also why the US is exaggerating the war aims: if Russia doesn't conquer every last inch, they DID IT, we saved the farms west of Lwow.
The truth is somewhere in between. All Russia has now, is the land it grabbed in the first week when Ukraine got caught sleeping (thanks to Zelensky's incompetence). Ukraine took most of that early grab back. If Ukraine made peace on the current line of control, would Russia declare victory? Certainly, but Ukraine isn't going to do that.
Only times your puppet has gained anything, is when the Russians were woefully undermanned.
Russia overextended and got rightfully punished for it. That's military strategy. I was calling for exactly the attack that happened even from the spring. It was an extremely obvious point of vulnerability. Russia was negligent to leave that line of attack weakly held.
Russia also had a lot of troops in the Kherson sector and was forced to pull them out because it was a losing battle for them.
You're just cheering the prospect of your fellow Orthodox being cut down by artillery. Sad. I guess geopolitical interests run thicker than religion.
Huh? Russians are mostly atheist anyway, and you can't play the religion card when (1) Ukraine is orthodox too, and (2) Russia is the aggressor who launched the invasion.
I condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and then turning its back on the Christian Armenians, allowing them to get bullied by Azerbaijan.
I don't see Russia losing any serious amounts of territory, for reasons I specified earlier. I do support retreating to save manpower when that is necessary though. If you lose your manpower, you will lose the territory, but if you make your opponent bleed, you can use the manpower you saved to take back the terrritory and then some.
Russia has been purposely throwing its men into the meat grinder and exhausting its own manpower in failed attacks. It is opening the door wide open for another Ukrainian counter offensive.
Imagine if the USSR hadn't allowed Germany to encircle millions of Red Army soldiers in the first few months.
They didn't "allow" it, they did everything they could to prevent it. The Germans were just far superior doctrinally and were able to close pockets and resist very fierce Soviet counterattacks aimed at breaking through. Some of the pockets were not helped by Stalin stubbornly refusing to authorize retreats early on, but this quickly changed.
You think Russian elites will put up with Putin dismembering and destroying the country, but not with general mobilization? Then you are grievously wrong about who the elites are. It's not the wealthy oligrachs. It's the security elite.
The "security elite" are a bunch of clowns Putin hand-picked as not being a threat to him, and then on top of that he plays them off each other. Sergei Shoigu was picked because as a non-Russian, he could never challenge Putin for power or betray him. Yevgeny Prigozhin the "caterer" was picked because the Russian military hates him and he is a useful tool for Putin to use to play against the Russian military. Putin knows how to maintain internal control and uses old Soviet tactics pioneered by Stalin to keep his subordinates from ever ganging up on him.
One of the big drawbacks of this approach is that while it makes Putin's personal security situation strong in Russia, it means he has to pick incompetent people who are bad at their jobs. Putin doesn't have a "Georgy Zhukov" and if he did, he'd fire his ass quick. Stalin was only able to tolerate Zhukov because Stalin had reached a point where he felt so safe and secure in his total power that he could afford to allow a few skilled professionals like Zhukov to rise and talk back to him, but even then, Stalin did play Zhukov off of others.
So no, Putin has nothing to fear from his lackeys. They are totally under his thumb. The only people he has a looser control over are the ones who are running his economy. They are far more numerous and he doesn't have as tight of a leash on them, and he NEEDS them a lot since he relies on them to fuel his war machine now. The economic elites - oligarchs - can shut down the Russian war machine quite easily if they balk, and Putin has to way to easily replace them since the oligarchs are smart enough to have made themselves irreplaceable enough as a survival mechanism. So a game is being played where Putin and the oligarchs dance and an equilibrium is reached.
Are you from Georgia or Ukraine? Your anti-Russian hysteria doesn't make sense otherwise.
You already know I'm from LA, California. Born and raised. I'm not ethnically from any "Iron Curtain" countries. And if you think I don't like Russia, LOL, you've never met a Democrat or any other NatSec minded Republican.
part 2:
If Germany launched the invasion of Poland with an aim of total conquest, and only took a small amount of land linking up with East Prussia then got stopped dead in its tracks with huge losses in a bloody stalemate and a war of attrition it was losing, while losing enormous amounts of equipment and men, yes that's not what "victory" looks like.
At this point in the war, Russia has been effectively stopped and does not appear to have any prospect of taking more than tiny amounts of territory at best. By contrast, Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive of its own, which stands to reverse the meager Russian progress for the past 6 months and take back significant amounts of land.
Also, in the real war Germany DID take enormous amounts of land from the USSR, but still lost. I don't know why you imagine Russia has the power to declare the war over and freeze the front lines whenever it wishes. Ukraine gets a say in that.
Nah, you misremembered. I do agree that Russia wouldn't use nukes if NATO bombed Moscow, though. I think Russia and Putin are extraordinarily afraid of NATO and know they couldn't win against NATO forces in any capacity.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
Yes, they wouldn't have a choice. Putin expends tremendous effort on keeping himself in a position of power and control internally. His subordinates would be scapegoated for the humiliation, but he would be fine.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
It's a fact that is not contingent on your acceptance.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
It's also at the General level, which has always been an American weakness. Its why our army relies so much on NCO's and delegation of command, while Generals have historically made plans little more complicated than "Advance in this direction and kill anything that looks at you funny." Which is why US Generals tend to stand out when they do something other than that (see: Grant, Bradley, Patton, Schwarzkopf, Mattis, etc).
As for the actual soldiers and NCO's, I can say this: I live near a military base. I see soldiers around town all the time. And you want to know what they are? They are still the same corn-fed, beef-eating, "Sounds like something a soy-cuck would say", gun-nut loving Americans they have always been.
Let the Generals become fools. They havent really mattered to our military ability.
Unfortunately above a certain rank, most people in the US military act more like politicians than anything.
This is very interesting. You probably don't remember, but we once discussed this when I told you that the war aims needed to be as limited as possible, if only so that you would come out as a victor regardless of how they turned out. This is also why the US is exaggerating the war aims: if Russia doesn't conquer every last inch, they DID IT, we saved the farms west of Lwow.
Seen objectively, the Winter War was a victory for the USSR.
Only times your puppet has gained anything, is when the Russians were woefully undermanned. You're just cheering the prospect of your fellow Orthodox being cut down by artillery. Sad. I guess geopolitical interests run thicker than religion.
I don't see Russia losing any serious amounts of territory, for reasons I specified earlier. I do support retreating to save manpower when that is necessary though. If you lose your manpower, you will lose the territory, but if you make your opponent bleed, you can use the manpower you saved to take back the terrritory and then some.
Imagine if the USSR hadn't allowed Germany to encircle millions of Red Army soldiers in the first few months.
I specifically remember a reference to Mussolini. If thye're that afraid, then nukes are far more likely than otherwise.
You think Russian elites will put up with Putin dismembering and destroying the country, but not with general mobilization? Then you are grievously wrong about who the elites are. It's not the wealthy oligrachs. It's the security elite. They don't mess around. Of course, you want to pretend this ain't the case so you can advocate for MASSIVE ESCALATION and tell yourself that you're going to win, and blame the "libs" when you don't.
Are you from Georgia or Ukraine? Your anti-Russian hysteria doesn't make sense otherwise.
You know your wishful thinking.
Not the whole world. Just the Empire. Why does this sort of thing not happen in Russia, China or Hungary?
It depends. While the Soviets "won", it suffered such great losses that its "victory" made it lose face and respect internationally. It also directly caused Hitler to have such contempt for the USSR that he embarked on Barbarossa and made his "we only need to kick the door open" comment.
So was the Winter War truly a victory? It brought about the greatest disaster in the history of the Russian people, one which has scarred their psyche to this day, and warped their demographics forever.
The truth is somewhere in between. All Russia has now, is the land it grabbed in the first week when Ukraine got caught sleeping (thanks to Zelensky's incompetence). Ukraine took most of that early grab back. If Ukraine made peace on the current line of control, would Russia declare victory? Certainly, but Ukraine isn't going to do that.
Russia overextended and got rightfully punished for it. That's military strategy. I was calling for exactly the attack that happened even from the spring. It was an extremely obvious point of vulnerability. Russia was negligent to leave that line of attack weakly held.
Russia also had a lot of troops in the Kherson sector and was forced to pull them out because it was a losing battle for them.
Huh? Russians are mostly atheist anyway, and you can't play the religion card when (1) Ukraine is orthodox too, and (2) Russia is the aggressor who launched the invasion.
I condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and then turning its back on the Christian Armenians, allowing them to get bullied by Azerbaijan.
Russia has been purposely throwing its men into the meat grinder and exhausting its own manpower in failed attacks. It is opening the door wide open for another Ukrainian counter offensive.
They didn't "allow" it, they did everything they could to prevent it. The Germans were just far superior doctrinally and were able to close pockets and resist very fierce Soviet counterattacks aimed at breaking through. Some of the pockets were not helped by Stalin stubbornly refusing to authorize retreats early on, but this quickly changed.
The "security elite" are a bunch of clowns Putin hand-picked as not being a threat to him, and then on top of that he plays them off each other. Sergei Shoigu was picked because as a non-Russian, he could never challenge Putin for power or betray him. Yevgeny Prigozhin the "caterer" was picked because the Russian military hates him and he is a useful tool for Putin to use to play against the Russian military. Putin knows how to maintain internal control and uses old Soviet tactics pioneered by Stalin to keep his subordinates from ever ganging up on him.
One of the big drawbacks of this approach is that while it makes Putin's personal security situation strong in Russia, it means he has to pick incompetent people who are bad at their jobs. Putin doesn't have a "Georgy Zhukov" and if he did, he'd fire his ass quick. Stalin was only able to tolerate Zhukov because Stalin had reached a point where he felt so safe and secure in his total power that he could afford to allow a few skilled professionals like Zhukov to rise and talk back to him, but even then, Stalin did play Zhukov off of others.
So no, Putin has nothing to fear from his lackeys. They are totally under his thumb. The only people he has a looser control over are the ones who are running his economy. They are far more numerous and he doesn't have as tight of a leash on them, and he NEEDS them a lot since he relies on them to fuel his war machine now. The economic elites - oligarchs - can shut down the Russian war machine quite easily if they balk, and Putin has to way to easily replace them since the oligarchs are smart enough to have made themselves irreplaceable enough as a survival mechanism. So a game is being played where Putin and the oligarchs dance and an equilibrium is reached.
You already know I'm from LA, California. Born and raised. I'm not ethnically from any "Iron Curtain" countries. And if you think I don't like Russia, LOL, you've never met a Democrat or any other NatSec minded Republican.