The 'election' was rigged in the normal way Western elections are rigged (through media bias) and then some (rigging of election regulations), but not by massive fraud.
I 100% agree with those points.
The basic reality is that Russia has a massive advantage over Ukraine, in military power, in manpower, in industrial capacity
All true, but it only comes into play if Russia is willing and able to undergo a full mobilization both economically and for conscription. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Ukraine is all-in and under full mobilization, whereas Russia is trying to wage war on the cheap with half measures. Russia not only can't win with half measures, but it has totally squandered decades of stockpiles and is now suffering from shell hunger and tank shortages because it wastefully and inefficiently tried to wage a half-assed war.
regardless of how many European countries' economies
Thing is, that for the US, EU, Commonwealth, and other countries giving aid to Ukraine the aid being given is only a tiny, insignificant fraction of their economies. Not enough to even be felt or make a dent. But because these countries are collectively many, many times bigger economically than Russia, even their tiny spending relative to their economies is more than enough to counter Russia's half-mobilized defense industrial base.
Russia will win, whether you like it or not.
Except Russia is losing right now, and it is losing because it has made stupid choices that are unserious about victory every step of the way:
After suffering initial failures and setbacks, the Russians pivoted to "Hearts of Iron artillery-only challenge" in which they burned through decades of artillery ammunition stockpiles in mere months in order to bully the Ukrainians, and only took a tiny amount of territory in exchange for moonscaping large swaths of Ukraine. Then HIMARS showed up and blew up enough ammo caches that this strategy became unsustainable a few months earlier than otherwise since Russians became ammo-constrained.
Sergey Surovikin was brought in and did the 1 intelligent thing Russia has done the whole war: HE WENT OVER TO THE DEFENSIVE AND STARTED TO REBUILD RUSSIAN STRENGTH. His plan was to build a strong defense, wait for the next Ukrainian offensive, crush it, then go on the counterattack with his eventual manpower advantage from mobilization, likely in late spring to summer 2023.
Dumbass Putin, impatient and not willing to give Surovikin's plan a chance, stepped in again with fucking Wagner & Yevgeny Prigozhin strutting with a bunch of bullshit marketing claims about how they could win the war. Wager got huge favoritism in resources and was allowed to burn through tons of men's lives in order to grind down the flanks of Bahkmut. When this eventually worked in very small ways, Putin fired Surovikin & replaced him with Valery Gerasimov with marching orders to go back on the offensive.
The Russian offensive which began in late January to presented, WASTED ALL THE RESOURCES Surovikin had built up, for NOTHING except a little more land around Bakhmut. This offensive was retarded, and wasted the 1 hope Russia had of making major gains, and instead completely reversed the situation so that Russia is wasting all its strength and opening itself up to a Ukrainian counter-attack JUST LIKE IT DID BEFORE AT KHARKIV. Russia should have been setting up for a Kursk type battle, and instead it just wasted whatever benefits it had from the 1st round of mobilization to set itself up for a Case Blue.
If things continue as they are now, and there is every reason to believe they will, Russia will keep exhausting itself until it completely loses offensive potential. Then Ukraine will counter-attack and likely will break through in at least one area. Whether this break through will be successfully exploited will depend on many factors, but the Russians have put themselves in the worst possible position, all because of emotionally driven and politically driven bungling.
All true, but it only comes into play if Russia is willing and able to undergo a full mobilization both economically and for conscription. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Ukraine is all-in and under full mobilization, whereas Russia is trying to wage war on the cheap with half measures. Russia not only can't win with half measures, but it has totally squandered decades of stockpiles and is now suffering from shell hunger and tank shortages because it wastefully and inefficiently tried to wage a half-assed war.
This is the criticism that I also hear from some pro-Russian sources that I follow, that the kremlins are not taking the war seriously enough. Considering the fog of war, I tend to think that they know stuff that you and I don't know due to the fact that Ukrainian propaganda is rather good, and Western media just echo Ukrainian propaganda. Also they keep switching their story every week or so. One week it's "Ukraine is winning", the next week it's "Ukraine has a shell shortage and its men are desperate". I guess you need that to try to whip up public opinion.
I've heard about this 'shell shortage' for months. It never seems to come to pass. I'd rather see full mobilization, but Putin's excessive caution probably gets in the way there (which is why I don't get the empire's two minutes of hate for him). Actual opposition leader Zyuganov supports full mobilization.
Thing is, that for the US, EU, Commonwealth, and other countries giving aid to Ukraine the aid being given is only a tiny, insignificant fraction of their economies. Not enough to even be felt or make a dent. But because these countries are collectively many, many times bigger economically than Russia, even their tiny spending relative to their economies is more than enough to counter Russia's half-mobilized defense industrial base.
No one but the US has any real interest (as in special interest) in propping up some corrupt shithole constituent republic of the USSR. They do it because you command it. But knowing these countries, and the US, you just have to outlast them, like the Taliban did. They have an attention span that's shorter than that of a teenager on Tiktok, and they want to warmonger against China now.
And even with the collective West pouring absolutely everything into Ukraine and paying its regime's bills, it's still losing. And I don't see any real possibility of gains after partial mobilization.
The result was a debacle with enormous Russian losses
I haven't seen any conformation of 'enormous' losses. People keep making wild claims, but no evidence. Same for the pro-Russia side btw. Col. Macgregor claims that 250,000 Ukrainians are KIA. Which would mean over a million casualties. That would have resulted in state collapse a long time ago.
Then HIMARS showed up and blew up enough ammo caches
I guess they were keeping their ammo beneath the asphalt.
Sergey Surovikin was brought in and did the 1 intelligent thing Russia has done the whole war: HE WENT OVER TO THE DEFENSIVE AND STARTED TO REBUILD RUSSIAN STRENGTH. His plan was to build a strong defense, wait for the next Ukrainian offensive, crush it, then go on the counterattack with his eventual manpower advantage from mobilization, likely in late spring to summer 2023.
Assuming no losses, the Russians are still outnumbered. 170k + 300k = 470k. Ukraine, on the other hand, has 800k regulars and reservists who have spent 8 years terrorizing the people of the Donbas.
Regardless, Putin allowed him to withdraw from Kherson, which seems to have been the smart thing to do militarily. Doesn't seem to me that Putin is allowing political considerations to override military ones. Russia always bungles wars in the beginning. But that doesn't mean that you get to predict that Finland is going to defeat Russia, and in fact, it was about to lose the Mannerheim line when it struck a piece.
Dumbass Putin, impatient and not willing to give Surovikin's plan a chance, stepped in again with fucking Wagner & Yevgeny Prigozhin strutting with a bunch of bullshit marketing claims about how they could win the war. Wager got huge favoritism in resources and was allowed to burn through tons of men's lives in order to grind down the flanks of Bahkmut. When this eventually worked in very small ways, Putin fired Surovikin & replaced him with Valery Gerasimov with marching orders to go back on the offensive.
It's just PMC Wagner advancing and taking losses, not the regular Russian army (as far as I have seen). Also, what I saw was that Surovikin was never fired, and that he was still in command, just under Gerasimov (who was his superior to begin with anyway). Not sure if it's true, but you never know.
The Russian offensive which began in late January to presented, WASTED ALL THE RESOURCES Surovikin had built up, for NOTHING except a little more land around Bakhmut. This offensive was retarded, and wasted the 1 hope Russia had of making major gains, and instead completely reversed the situation so that Russia is wasting all its strength and opening itself up to a Ukrainian counter-attack JUST LIKE IT DID BEFORE AT KHARKIV.
They're not nearly as starved for manpower as at Kharkov, when they had 170k men with a far more vulnerable line than now.
If things continue as they are now, and there is every reason to believe they will, Russia will keep exhausting itself until it completely loses offensive potential. Then Ukraine will counter-attack and likely will break through in at least one area. Whether this break through will be successfully exploited will depend on many factors
A while back, you were bragging about how Ukraine "just kept rolling" - but then it stopped, and we didn't hear anything about it from you again. Now the Russians are advancing. I have no idea who is taking more casualties in Bakhmut. It has to be PMC Wagner, because they're on the offense, but why they do I get propaganda pieces about how dire the situation is for UAF? I hope they get enveloped and surrender so that fewer Russians and Ukrainians have to die for your empire.
all because of emotionally driven and politically driven bungling.
They are politicians. They don't make emotionally driven decisions. You think Putin has emotions?
I've heard about this 'shell shortage' for months. It never seems to come to pass.
We know roughly how many shells each side fires per day. Russia still fires more than Ukraine, but the amount Russia fires per day now is very low compared to last year. There are many public statements from Wagner and other units complaining about the lack of shells, and how their requests are not being filled.
No one but the US has any real interest (as in special interest) in propping up some corrupt shithole constituent republic of the USSR.
It is the EU that cares the most, and within the EU, the UK, Poland, and Baltic states. The US just gets dragged along because the EU expects us to solve all their military problems for them.
But knowing these countries, and the US, you just have to outlast them, like the Taliban did.
The Taliban had to wait 22 years and got lucky getting a cuck president like Biden. Hillary would not have pulled out of Afghanistan, and no Republican would have. At the rate Russia is going, it won't sustain 22 more months.
I haven't seen any conformation of 'enormous' losses.
Russian losses in the first few weeks were much much higher than the losses in the following months, because Russian troops were stretched thin and getting attacked in the rear and along their lines of supply, particularly in the northeast sector.
Assuming no losses, the Russians are still outnumbered. 170k + 300k = 470k. Ukraine, on the other hand, has 800k regulars and reservists
Ukraine is apparently at about 700k, 20% being women, and the large majority are not in significant combat roles but are instead doing other things. In terms of deployed personnel, Russia has more, but apparently that is shifting thanks to the losses of the past 2 months.
who have spent 8 years terrorizing the people of the Donbas.
just stop. it's tiresome seeing this propaganda shit injected into all your comments. unless you're a paid or unpaid shill, idk why you'd even type that dumb shit out.
Russia always bungles wars in the beginning. But that doesn't mean that you get to predict that Finland is going to defeat Russia, and in fact, it was about to lose the Mannerheim line when it struck a piece.
The USSR only won the winter war because it ran the finns out of ammunition. The finns only capitulated because they had no artillery ammo left and no means to keep resisting.
It's just PMC Wagner advancing and taking losses, not the regular Russian army (as far as I have seen).
Wagner claimed that, but the Russian military got into an argument with Prigozhin and posted proof that Russian military units played a large role in taking Soledar.
A while back, you were bragging about how Ukraine "just kept rolling"
It did exactly that for a few months. Basically Aug-Nov when Russia pulled out of Kherson.
Now the Russians are advancing.
A tiny amount, sure. If you look at a zoomed out before and after map, you can't even see the difference.
I hope they get enveloped and surrender so that fewer Russians and Ukrainians have to die for your empire.
very unlikely they'll get completely cut off. if their situation gets bad enough, they'll pull back.
We know roughly how many shells each side fires per day. Russia still fires more than Ukraine, but the amount Russia fires per day now is very low compared to last year. There are many public statements from Wagner and other units complaining about the lack of shells, and how their requests are not being filled.
Obviously, you can be more profligate with shells if you have them in abundance, but can you really speak of a 'shortage' in this case? In any war, people will want more, more, more of everything. Russians are not exactly renowned for efficient use of resources. Let necessity force them.
It is the EU that cares the most, and within the EU, the UK, Poland, and Baltic states. The US just gets dragged along because the EU expects us to solve all their military problems for them.
There is absolutely no reason for the EU to care about a dispute between two constituent republics of the USSR. Maybe Poland cares because it doesn't want Russia on its borders. The US cares because it is obsessed with its empire.
The Taliban had to wait 22 years and got lucky getting a cuck president like Biden. Hillary would not have pulled out of Afghanistan, and no Republican would have. At the rate Russia is going, it won't sustain 22 more months.
You could not defeat the Taliban, despite spending trillions, losing thousands, killing hundreds of thousands. The Taliban ended up with more territory and $21 billion worth (priced rather) of your military equipment.
Russian losses in the first few weeks were much much higher than the losses in the following months, because Russian troops were stretched thin and getting attacked in the rear and along their lines of supply, particularly in the northeast sector.
They may have been 'higher' in a relative sense, but what were they in absolute terms?
Ukraine is apparently at about 700k, 20% being women, and the large majority are not in significant combat roles but are instead doing other things. In terms of deployed personnel, Russia has more, but apparently that is shifting thanks to the losses of the past 2 months.
Then Russia should be able to gain easy manpower superiority, because not all Ukrainian personnel will even be deployed at the frontlines. Belarus can also stage demonstrations at the border to sap men from the frontlines.
just stop. it's tiresome seeing this propaganda shit injected into all your comments. unless you're a paid or unpaid shill, idk why you'd even type that dumb shit out.
It's funny how "propaganda" just means something that is inconvenient to you. All your pretensions about "invading Kosovo" and "human rights" go out the window when it's your buddies doing it. This is why the world despises you and your puppets in the EU.
The USSR only won the winter war because it ran the finns out of ammunition. The finns only capitulated because they had no artillery ammo left and no means to keep resisting.
Don't know about that. They were only able to hold because they had a solid defensive line. Once that had been broken, they'd be in huge trouble.
Wagner claimed that, but the Russian military got into an argument with Prigozhin and posted proof that Russian military units played a large role in taking Soledar.
Right, but where are they taking the greatest number of losses? Bakhmut I assume.
It did exactly that for a few months. Basically Aug-Nov when Russia pulled out of Kherson.
You've been overly optimistic (from your POV) way too often. You also predicted that the Kiev front would "collapse", which you now cite as somtehing you got right, when the Russians just staged an orderly withdrawal.
A tiny amount, sure. If you look at a zoomed out before and after map, you can't even see the difference.
As with Barbarossa, the goal is not to gain (or should not be) to gain territory, but to disable the UAF and its fascist paramilitary forces. It makes little sense to allow your army to be destroyed to keep territory, because the territory will fall anyway once your army is gone.
very unlikely they'll get completely cut off. if their situation gets bad enough, they'll pull back.
They can't pull back now, because all their escape routes can be hit by Russian artillery. I've seen video purporting to be an attempt for some vehicles to sneak out, and they got absolutely wrecked.
Of course we did. We defeated them consistently for 22 years. There was no single year in that 22 years where we were ever losing. Contrast this with the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which went very poorly for Russia and included a number of battles Russia lost, and much higher attrition for Russia.
The United States left in Afghanistan not because it was militarily defeated, because it never was, but because liberal Democrats are dominated by doves, and agitated to cut and run for a long time, which Biden delivered on because it was early in his admin and he did as his paymasters commanded.
You can be a little shithead and be like "haaa haaa you loOOoooost!" like a taunting little schoolchild, but we both know that the US could have easily sat on the Taliban for another 20 years at minimal cost. There had been no US combat deaths in YEARS by 2021.
$21 billion worth (priced rather) of your military equipment.
Nope. They got more than they should, but it was nowhere near that much. Almost all the valuable stuff - the aircraft, flew out of country to places like Kazakstan. Total equipment spending over 20 years only came to $24 billion, and obviously most of that equipment was not still around by 2021 thanks to use, wear and tear, maintenance, etc and probably some losses/breakdowns.
Anyway Congress did an investigation, and the number was $7.12 billion in equipment remained. Of this, several billion in aircraft flew out of country as well, so not much was left for the Taliban.
Don't know about that. They were only able to hold because they had a solid defensive line. Once that had been broken, they'd be in huge trouble.
The Soviets greatly exaggerated the Line to downplay their bungling. The vast majority of the Mannerheim Line simply comprised trenches and other field fortifications. Bunkers along the line were mostly small and thinly spread out. The Finns had funds and resources for only 101 concrete bunkers; the equivalent length of the Maginot Line had 5,800 of these structures which were also linked by underground railway connections.
The war continued for another month after the line was overcome. Resistance was still fierce and only waned when they ran out of ammunition.
Right, but where are they taking the greatest number of losses? Bakhmut I assume.
Vuhledar. Total shitshow for Russia. Very heavy losses for no gains. Hundreds of tanks lost there alone. The reason for this is that the Russians are attacking across open terrain into high ground, and Ukrainian artillery is just massacring
them. On top of that, the area is heavily mined and Ukraine is firing US-supplied artillery mines behind the Russian armored columns so that if they try to retreat, they hit mines. Vuhledar has basically established that Russian armored doctrine is completely obsolete and incapable of maintaining an offensive under any observation and artillery fire. By contrast, in Bakhmut, attacks are entirely by small units of infantry.
You also predicted that the Kiev front would "collapse", which you now cite as somtehing you got right, when the Russians just staged an orderly withdrawal.
Don't lie about what I said. I said that Russia would have to flee or risk being cut off and encircled by the end of March. And what did Russia do? They fled before the end of March. I predicted it exactly, and the Russian high command could see what I saw and reacted appropriately.
As with Barbarossa, the goal is not to gain (or should not be) to gain territory
Barbarossa was 100% about gaining territory. The German army was advancing at breakneck speed the whole time to the point where outrunning their supply lines was a constant problem.
They can't pull back now, because all their escape routes can be hit by Russian artillery. I've seen video purporting to be an attempt for some vehicles to sneak out, and they got absolutely wrecked.
Yes they can. The exact same situation was true in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk and yet the defenders still had no problem getting out.
I 100% agree with those points.
All true, but it only comes into play if Russia is willing and able to undergo a full mobilization both economically and for conscription. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Ukraine is all-in and under full mobilization, whereas Russia is trying to wage war on the cheap with half measures. Russia not only can't win with half measures, but it has totally squandered decades of stockpiles and is now suffering from shell hunger and tank shortages because it wastefully and inefficiently tried to wage a half-assed war.
Thing is, that for the US, EU, Commonwealth, and other countries giving aid to Ukraine the aid being given is only a tiny, insignificant fraction of their economies. Not enough to even be felt or make a dent. But because these countries are collectively many, many times bigger economically than Russia, even their tiny spending relative to their economies is more than enough to counter Russia's half-mobilized defense industrial base.
Except Russia is losing right now, and it is losing because it has made stupid choices that are unserious about victory every step of the way:
Russia tried an initial blitz strategy that assumed Ukraine would not seriously resist, when Russian intelligence told Putin Ukraine would resist, but he chose to believe his sycophants instead. The result was a debacle with enormous Russian losses and two embarrassing retreats from the North. My alternative warplan would have guaranteed Russian victory within months by pocketing and capturing the bulk of Ukraine's veteran forces.
After suffering initial failures and setbacks, the Russians pivoted to "Hearts of Iron artillery-only challenge" in which they burned through decades of artillery ammunition stockpiles in mere months in order to bully the Ukrainians, and only took a tiny amount of territory in exchange for moonscaping large swaths of Ukraine. Then HIMARS showed up and blew up enough ammo caches that this strategy became unsustainable a few months earlier than otherwise since Russians became ammo-constrained.
Sergey Surovikin was brought in and did the 1 intelligent thing Russia has done the whole war: HE WENT OVER TO THE DEFENSIVE AND STARTED TO REBUILD RUSSIAN STRENGTH. His plan was to build a strong defense, wait for the next Ukrainian offensive, crush it, then go on the counterattack with his eventual manpower advantage from mobilization, likely in late spring to summer 2023.
Dumbass Putin, impatient and not willing to give Surovikin's plan a chance, stepped in again with fucking Wagner & Yevgeny Prigozhin strutting with a bunch of bullshit marketing claims about how they could win the war. Wager got huge favoritism in resources and was allowed to burn through tons of men's lives in order to grind down the flanks of Bahkmut. When this eventually worked in very small ways, Putin fired Surovikin & replaced him with Valery Gerasimov with marching orders to go back on the offensive.
The Russian offensive which began in late January to presented, WASTED ALL THE RESOURCES Surovikin had built up, for NOTHING except a little more land around Bakhmut. This offensive was retarded, and wasted the 1 hope Russia had of making major gains, and instead completely reversed the situation so that Russia is wasting all its strength and opening itself up to a Ukrainian counter-attack JUST LIKE IT DID BEFORE AT KHARKIV. Russia should have been setting up for a Kursk type battle, and instead it just wasted whatever benefits it had from the 1st round of mobilization to set itself up for a Case Blue.
If things continue as they are now, and there is every reason to believe they will, Russia will keep exhausting itself until it completely loses offensive potential. Then Ukraine will counter-attack and likely will break through in at least one area. Whether this break through will be successfully exploited will depend on many factors, but the Russians have put themselves in the worst possible position, all because of emotionally driven and politically driven bungling.
This is the criticism that I also hear from some pro-Russian sources that I follow, that the kremlins are not taking the war seriously enough. Considering the fog of war, I tend to think that they know stuff that you and I don't know due to the fact that Ukrainian propaganda is rather good, and Western media just echo Ukrainian propaganda. Also they keep switching their story every week or so. One week it's "Ukraine is winning", the next week it's "Ukraine has a shell shortage and its men are desperate". I guess you need that to try to whip up public opinion.
I've heard about this 'shell shortage' for months. It never seems to come to pass. I'd rather see full mobilization, but Putin's excessive caution probably gets in the way there (which is why I don't get the empire's two minutes of hate for him). Actual opposition leader Zyuganov supports full mobilization.
No one but the US has any real interest (as in special interest) in propping up some corrupt shithole constituent republic of the USSR. They do it because you command it. But knowing these countries, and the US, you just have to outlast them, like the Taliban did. They have an attention span that's shorter than that of a teenager on Tiktok, and they want to warmonger against China now.
And even with the collective West pouring absolutely everything into Ukraine and paying its regime's bills, it's still losing. And I don't see any real possibility of gains after partial mobilization.
I haven't seen any conformation of 'enormous' losses. People keep making wild claims, but no evidence. Same for the pro-Russia side btw. Col. Macgregor claims that 250,000 Ukrainians are KIA. Which would mean over a million casualties. That would have resulted in state collapse a long time ago.
I guess they were keeping their ammo beneath the asphalt.
Assuming no losses, the Russians are still outnumbered. 170k + 300k = 470k. Ukraine, on the other hand, has 800k regulars and reservists who have spent 8 years terrorizing the people of the Donbas.
Regardless, Putin allowed him to withdraw from Kherson, which seems to have been the smart thing to do militarily. Doesn't seem to me that Putin is allowing political considerations to override military ones. Russia always bungles wars in the beginning. But that doesn't mean that you get to predict that Finland is going to defeat Russia, and in fact, it was about to lose the Mannerheim line when it struck a piece.
It's just PMC Wagner advancing and taking losses, not the regular Russian army (as far as I have seen). Also, what I saw was that Surovikin was never fired, and that he was still in command, just under Gerasimov (who was his superior to begin with anyway). Not sure if it's true, but you never know.
They're not nearly as starved for manpower as at Kharkov, when they had 170k men with a far more vulnerable line than now.
A while back, you were bragging about how Ukraine "just kept rolling" - but then it stopped, and we didn't hear anything about it from you again. Now the Russians are advancing. I have no idea who is taking more casualties in Bakhmut. It has to be PMC Wagner, because they're on the offense, but why they do I get propaganda pieces about how dire the situation is for UAF? I hope they get enveloped and surrender so that fewer Russians and Ukrainians have to die for your empire.
They are politicians. They don't make emotionally driven decisions. You think Putin has emotions?
We know roughly how many shells each side fires per day. Russia still fires more than Ukraine, but the amount Russia fires per day now is very low compared to last year. There are many public statements from Wagner and other units complaining about the lack of shells, and how their requests are not being filled.
It is the EU that cares the most, and within the EU, the UK, Poland, and Baltic states. The US just gets dragged along because the EU expects us to solve all their military problems for them.
The Taliban had to wait 22 years and got lucky getting a cuck president like Biden. Hillary would not have pulled out of Afghanistan, and no Republican would have. At the rate Russia is going, it won't sustain 22 more months.
Russian losses in the first few weeks were much much higher than the losses in the following months, because Russian troops were stretched thin and getting attacked in the rear and along their lines of supply, particularly in the northeast sector.
Ukraine is apparently at about 700k, 20% being women, and the large majority are not in significant combat roles but are instead doing other things. In terms of deployed personnel, Russia has more, but apparently that is shifting thanks to the losses of the past 2 months.
just stop. it's tiresome seeing this propaganda shit injected into all your comments. unless you're a paid or unpaid shill, idk why you'd even type that dumb shit out.
The USSR only won the winter war because it ran the finns out of ammunition. The finns only capitulated because they had no artillery ammo left and no means to keep resisting.
Wagner claimed that, but the Russian military got into an argument with Prigozhin and posted proof that Russian military units played a large role in taking Soledar.
It did exactly that for a few months. Basically Aug-Nov when Russia pulled out of Kherson.
A tiny amount, sure. If you look at a zoomed out before and after map, you can't even see the difference.
very unlikely they'll get completely cut off. if their situation gets bad enough, they'll pull back.
Obviously, you can be more profligate with shells if you have them in abundance, but can you really speak of a 'shortage' in this case? In any war, people will want more, more, more of everything. Russians are not exactly renowned for efficient use of resources. Let necessity force them.
There is absolutely no reason for the EU to care about a dispute between two constituent republics of the USSR. Maybe Poland cares because it doesn't want Russia on its borders. The US cares because it is obsessed with its empire.
You could not defeat the Taliban, despite spending trillions, losing thousands, killing hundreds of thousands. The Taliban ended up with more territory and $21 billion worth (priced rather) of your military equipment.
They may have been 'higher' in a relative sense, but what were they in absolute terms?
Then Russia should be able to gain easy manpower superiority, because not all Ukrainian personnel will even be deployed at the frontlines. Belarus can also stage demonstrations at the border to sap men from the frontlines.
It's funny how "propaganda" just means something that is inconvenient to you. All your pretensions about "invading Kosovo" and "human rights" go out the window when it's your buddies doing it. This is why the world despises you and your puppets in the EU.
Don't know about that. They were only able to hold because they had a solid defensive line. Once that had been broken, they'd be in huge trouble.
Right, but where are they taking the greatest number of losses? Bakhmut I assume.
You've been overly optimistic (from your POV) way too often. You also predicted that the Kiev front would "collapse", which you now cite as somtehing you got right, when the Russians just staged an orderly withdrawal.
As with Barbarossa, the goal is not to gain (or should not be) to gain territory, but to disable the UAF and its fascist paramilitary forces. It makes little sense to allow your army to be destroyed to keep territory, because the territory will fall anyway once your army is gone.
They can't pull back now, because all their escape routes can be hit by Russian artillery. I've seen video purporting to be an attempt for some vehicles to sneak out, and they got absolutely wrecked.
And yet they do.
Of course we did. We defeated them consistently for 22 years. There was no single year in that 22 years where we were ever losing. Contrast this with the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which went very poorly for Russia and included a number of battles Russia lost, and much higher attrition for Russia.
The United States left in Afghanistan not because it was militarily defeated, because it never was, but because liberal Democrats are dominated by doves, and agitated to cut and run for a long time, which Biden delivered on because it was early in his admin and he did as his paymasters commanded.
You can be a little shithead and be like "haaa haaa you loOOoooost!" like a taunting little schoolchild, but we both know that the US could have easily sat on the Taliban for another 20 years at minimal cost. There had been no US combat deaths in YEARS by 2021.
Nope. They got more than they should, but it was nowhere near that much. Almost all the valuable stuff - the aircraft, flew out of country to places like Kazakstan. Total equipment spending over 20 years only came to $24 billion, and obviously most of that equipment was not still around by 2021 thanks to use, wear and tear, maintenance, etc and probably some losses/breakdowns.
Anyway Congress did an investigation, and the number was $7.12 billion in equipment remained. Of this, several billion in aircraft flew out of country as well, so not much was left for the Taliban.
The Soviets greatly exaggerated the Line to downplay their bungling. The vast majority of the Mannerheim Line simply comprised trenches and other field fortifications. Bunkers along the line were mostly small and thinly spread out. The Finns had funds and resources for only 101 concrete bunkers; the equivalent length of the Maginot Line had 5,800 of these structures which were also linked by underground railway connections.
The war continued for another month after the line was overcome. Resistance was still fierce and only waned when they ran out of ammunition.
Vuhledar. Total shitshow for Russia. Very heavy losses for no gains. Hundreds of tanks lost there alone. The reason for this is that the Russians are attacking across open terrain into high ground, and Ukrainian artillery is just massacring them. On top of that, the area is heavily mined and Ukraine is firing US-supplied artillery mines behind the Russian armored columns so that if they try to retreat, they hit mines. Vuhledar has basically established that Russian armored doctrine is completely obsolete and incapable of maintaining an offensive under any observation and artillery fire. By contrast, in Bakhmut, attacks are entirely by small units of infantry.
Don't lie about what I said. I said that Russia would have to flee or risk being cut off and encircled by the end of March. And what did Russia do? They fled before the end of March. I predicted it exactly, and the Russian high command could see what I saw and reacted appropriately.
Barbarossa was 100% about gaining territory. The German army was advancing at breakneck speed the whole time to the point where outrunning their supply lines was a constant problem.
Yes they can. The exact same situation was true in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk and yet the defenders still had no problem getting out.