Fuck Russia

[ll74]

Instead of making people revolt against Putin (whom they used to see as a dictator), the sanctions triggered their national vanity and patriotism, and made them rally behind Putin.

Sanctions aren't meant to make the people revolt, they are meant to make the elites revolt. They are meant to starve a group of people who are used to a lavish lifestyle of that lifestyle, so that their stamina wears out and they pressure Putin to cave on demands.

It's the reason why they are typically targeted rather than broad.

 

[mayfly13]

Sanctions aren't meant to make the people revolt, they are meant to make the elites revolt. They are meant to starve a group of people who are used to a lavish lifestyle of that lifestyle, so that their stamina wears out and they pressure Putin to cave on demands.

It's the reason why they are typically targeted rather than broad.

starve Elites and billionaires ?? more likely laypeople

and you're probably referring to what someone, in your worldview mght do in the same situations
Russians (laypeople and billionaires) don't think like Americans

 

[ll74]

starve Elites and billionaires ?? more likely laypeople

and you're probably referring to what someone, in your worldview mght do in the same situations
Russias don't think like you guys

Whether you agree with the practice or not and whether they are effective or not doesnt change why they are enacted. That's their purpose.

 

[mayfly13]

ETA
The only result of the sanctions will be to weaken -in the long term- Russia.They WON'T stop the war

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, it's obvious to most that, tragically, Ukraine is losing the ground war AND the sanctions war.

Sanctions are Sanctions. They are not a war in themselves.

Americans are saying otherwise to save face but also because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND RUSSIANS.
When Americans talk about Russians, they describe either what some cartoonish monster would do, or the opposite - what an American would do.

So you have a direct line into America and Russia, and know better? Care to back that up with some factual evidence>?

Re sanctions:
They don;t understand that the sanctions were doomed from the start.

Putin prepared for 7 years to have enough cash on hand to ward off the effects of sanctions. He knew full well NATO would use that tool, over a military option ( and he was correct). However 4 months in, and he has now ran through that cash.

Instead of making people revolt against Putin (whom they used to see as a dictator), the sanctions triggered their national vanity and patriotism, and made them rally behind Putin.

What does it matter what the average Russian does? Back Putin, call out for his demise...Putin controls the levers, not the Russian people. The sanctions are aimed at him, to prevent him from being able to sustain the war, and more important, a future war.

When you look at the logistics, Russia has burned though roughly a third of their equipment, and weapons. What do they have to show for it>? No major gain in Ukraine. Inability to source or pay for raw materials, electronics, and even overseas's equipment, now stuck in transit.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

ETA
The only result of the sanctions will be to weaken -in the long term- Russia.They WON'T stop the war

No shit Sherlock....given Russia's current behaviour, what do you think we should be doing? Helping Russia get stronger....fuck you're an idiot.

 

[mayfly13]

No shit Sherlock....given Russia's current behaviour, what do you think we should be doing? Helping Russia get stronger....fuck you're an idiot.

you WILL weaken Russia, eventually.

But until then, Ukraine will either disappear as a nation state, with bits included in Polland and Russia,
or will lose (as in russified, not occupied) a good chunk of it's Eastern territory.

It all depends on what the Russian Military Establishment (who planned this, not just Putin ) decides.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

you WILL weaken Russia, eventually.

But until then, Ukraine will either disappear as a nation state, with bits included in Polland and Russia,
or will lose (as in russified, not occupied) a good chunk of it's Eastern territory.

It all depends on what the Russian Military Establishment (who planned this, not just Putin ) decides.

Poland is how it is spelled, and Poland is a member of NATO. Russia attacks NATO, and we are all fucked....damn you are stupid.

 

[Dribble]

If the World wanted to live without the threat of war in the future, they should have gone in force to help Ukraine. What's really the purpose of living afraid? A coward dies a thousand deaths each day. Oh....nuclear war....oh my. So what? Humans aren't worthy of this World if they don't stand up against Fascism and tyranny. But Americans won't even fight for their own country. We have become soft.

 

[mayfly13]

If the World wanted to live without the threat of war in the future, they should have gone in force to help Ukraine. What's really the purpose of living afraid? A coward dies a thousand deaths each day.

Oh....nuclear war....oh my. So what? Humans aren't worthy of this World if they don't stand up against Fascism and tyranny. But Americans won't even fight for their own country. We have become soft.

Дякую тобі, Tavarsha!

Now I feel so much more inspired to send my husband to be killed in battle
and to wait to be raped by a Russian

 

[mayfly13]

you guys speak in the same retard from American ww2 movies

 

[LupusDei]

I wanted to reply to the poster who said that Ukraine is losing the war,
but I think he deleted that post

Yes, it's obvious to most that, tragically, Ukraine is losing the ground war AND the sanctions war.

In Donbas Ukraine is losing ground. [There's a period there] Russia is losing ability to wage war. Both are happening much slower than most expected, and not as linear as most expected.

The initial assumption was that Ukraine will lose all or most of territory quickly and will have to wage long (possibly decades long) underground resistance war until Russia would break down. We may have legitimate discussion on feasibility of such, but that was what West prepared for before the war. What happens now is slow adaptation to new, unexpected reality where Ukraine is wildly more successful in holding off Russian advances.

Ukraine is certainly not losing the war, yet. Neither are they winning, yet, but despite Russians still having limited initiative, Ukrainians still ultimately control the battlefield. Ukraine retains ability to mostly retreat when, and where they choose to, although some of such choices may be more forced than others, and even retain freedom to mount limited counteroffensive action where and when they choose to. That's not losing a war. That's waging war using deep defense designed to wear out much stronger opponent's continous advance.

Success of such action can't be measured in territory alone, or even primarily. Although it isn't exactly irrelevant, giving up territory is expected and deliberate when moving from destroyed defense line to the next built behind. It must be measured in trajectories of force.

Russian overall force trajectory is undoubtedly on downward slope. Russian force availability within Ukraine isn't falling as fast as we would like or even expect, but exactly because Russians are choosing to expend far more strategic resources, more than it would seem wise. While that boosts their in-theater force regeneration abilities short term, it damage their long term strength even more. The war is unsustainable to them, there are no effective efforts to change that, and they have no coalition.

Speaking about Ukraine, even the direction of force trajectory is open to discussion. Depending on what parameters are chosen and what data points believed, it's still possible to claim or expect Ukraine strength to continue to grow. Either way, it's rather clear they are failing slower than Russians, and that's all that counts, actually. Ukrainian mobilization and training efforts are solid (in stark contrast to Russian), and while the technical side more and more depends on international allies, and it's replacement rate is arguably insufficient, there is so far no signs of imminent failure.

Ukrainian problem is that they may not have sufficient heavy weaponry concentration to attack as soon as they might want. Slowly weakening Ukraine had, can, and likely will increasingly successfully hold back Russians. Will Russian Donbas drive be ultimately stopped at Bahmut-Siversk line after fortress of Lysychansk will likely be abandoned sometime in coming weeks, or indeed at the extensive fortifications of Slavyansk-Kramatork fortresses behind that is not at all that critical for Ukraine. For Ukraine southern front is more critical, and however slow and small, they even have current gains in those directions.

 

[ll74]

In Donbas Ukraine is losing ground. [There's a period there] Russia is losing ability to wage war. Both are happening much slower than most expected, and not as linear as most expected.

The initial assumption was that Ukraine will lose all or most of territory quickly and will have to wage long (possibly decades long) underground resistance war until Russia would break down. We may have legitimate discussion on feasibility of such, but that was what West prepared for before the war. What happens now is slow adaptation to new, unexpected reality where Ukraine is wildly more successful in holding off Russian advances.

Ukraine is certainly not losing the war, yet. Neither are they winning, yet, but despite Russians still having limited initiative, Ukrainians still ultimately control the battlefield. Ukraine retains ability to mostly retreat when, and where they choose to, although some of such choices may be more forced than others, and even retain freedom to mount limited counteroffensive action where and when they choose to. That's not losing a war. That's waging war using deep defense designed to wear out much stronger opponent's continous advance.

Success of such action can't be measured in territory alone, or even primarily. Although it isn't exactly irrelevant, giving up territory is expected and deliberate when moving from destroyed defense line to the next built behind. It must be measured in trajectories of force.

Russian overall force trajectory is undoubtedly on downward slope. Russian force availability within Ukraine isn't falling as fast as we would like or even expect, but exactly because Russians are choosing to expend far more strategic resources, more than it would seem wise. While that boosts their in-theater force regeneration abilities short term, it damage their long term strength even more. The war is unsustainable to them, there are no effective efforts to change that, and they have no coalition.

Speaking about Ukraine, even the direction of force trajectory is open to discussion. Depending on what parameters are chosen and what data points believed, it's still possible to claim or expect Ukraine strength to continue to grow. Either way, it's rather clear they are failing slower than Russians, and that's all that counts, actually. Ukrainian mobilization and training efforts are solid (in stark contrast to Russian), and while the technical side more and more depends on international allies, and it's replacement rate is arguably insufficient, there is so far no signs of imminent failure.

Ukrainian problem is that they may not have sufficient heavy weaponry concentration to attack as soon as they might want. Slowly weakening Ukraine had, can, and likely will increasingly successfully hold back Russians. Will Russian Donbas drive be ultimately stopped at Bahmut-Siversk line after fortress of Lysychansk will likely be abandoned sometime in coming weeks, or indeed at the extensive fortifications of Slavyansk-Kramatork fortresses behind that is not at all that critical for Ukraine. For Ukraine southern front is more critical, and however slow and small, they even have current gains in those directions.

I appreciate your analysis. As much as I hate this war, the view on this is much more granular than most of the conflicts we have view of in the US.

 

[jaF0]

Russia is losing ability to wage war.

Are they though? I've seen that said for weeks now, yet they seem to keep on keepin' on, wreking more havoc.

What about the requests to expel Vlad's fifedom from the UN and declare it a terrorist state?

 

[LupusDei]

Are they though? I've seen that said for weeks now, yet they seem to keep on keepin' on, wreking more havoc.

Can't happen fast, unfortunately. Although military collapses are rather unpredictable, Russia doesn't seem near one. The perspective is currently more long term.

Scenario of the short war (decisive Ukrainian victory version) included such scenes as surrender of Russian Irpin-Butha pocket, and complete loss of First Tank Army somewhere between Sumi and Kyiv. Neither happened, out of lack of Ukrainian forces and fires, but also, the extraction of that failed drive was Russian most successful operation of this war so far. While still strategic victory and great relief for Ukraine, that Russian retreat turned this into a long war.

However, Russians didn't send those defeated armys home to reassess what the hell happened and train spring draft to fight better in the autumn, no, they reconstituted them in field camps and sent back to frontlines asap. Well, it did allow them to build the overmatch in Donbas that power the slow, grinding advance they are sustaining.

(Altough, the total gains of last two weeks are only roughly 20 on 20 kilometers square at the very depth of the Severodonetsk salient, and previous two weeks weren't much better, there hadn't been anything that could be characterized as major breakthroughs.)

Meanwhile they have burned through no less than a third of their total of modern equipment so far, with no current or near future ability to replace any of it. They still have enormous storage, on paper, but of mostly obsolete systems and only small part of those can be possibly made operational. And if or rather when they will start to see ammunition shortages... may not happen this year though. Still, expense of up to 50k artillery shells a day even Russia cannot sustain for very long.

And as been said already, not only Russian manpower mobilization efforts are inadequate, their already less than stellar personal quality will likely degrade further, and much sharper than Ukrainian (who can have similar problem to some extent). But unlike Ukraine, for Russia this can easily turn into long term problem as their instructors die on battlefield.

What about the requests to expel Vlad's fifedom from the UN and declare it a terrorist state?

Can't happen without effectively disbanding and reconstructing the UN as it is set up. The permanent membership of Security Council holds extreme privilege. There's argument that Russia may have usurped the USSR seat, but no much options to do anything about it anyway as I understand.

 

[icanhelp1]

Can't happen fast, unfortunately. Although military collapses are rather unpredictable, Russia doesn't seem near one. The perspective is currently more long term.

Scenario of the short war (decisive Ukrainian victory version) included such scenes as surrender of Russian Irpin-Butha pocket, and complete loss of First Tank Army somewhere between Sumi and Kyiv. Neither happened, out of lack of Ukrainian forces and fires, but also, the extraction of that failed drive was Russian most successful operation of this war so far. While still strategic victory and great relief for Ukraine, that Russian retreat turned this into a long war.

However, Russians didn't send those defeated armys home to reassess what the hell happened and train spring draft to fight better in the autumn, no, they reconstituted them in field camps and sent back to frontlines asap. Well, it did allow them to build the overmatch in Donbas that power the slow, grinding advance they are sustaining.

(Altough, the total gains of last two weeks are only roughly 20 on 20 kilometers square at the very depth of the Severodonetsk salient, and previous two weeks weren't much better, there hadn't been anything that could be characterized as major breakthroughs.)

Meanwhile they have burned through no less than a third of their total of modern equipment so far, with no current or near future ability to replace any of it. They still have enormous storage, on paper, but of mostly obsolete systems and only small part of those can be possibly made operational. And if or rather when they will start to see ammunition shortages... may not happen this year though. Still, expense of up to 50k artillery shells a day even Russia cannot sustain for very long.

And as been said already, not only Russian manpower mobilization efforts are inadequate, their already less than stellar personal quality will likely degrade further, and much sharper than Ukrainian (who can have similar problem to some extent). But unlike Ukraine, for Russia this can easily turn into long term problem as their instructors die on battlefield.



Can't happen without effectively disbanding and reconstructing the UN as it is set up. The permanent membership of Security Council holds extreme privilege. There's argument that Russia may have usurped the USSR seat, but no much options to do anything about it anyway as I understand.

The rapid buildup of NATO forces, especially the high tech equipment, has to be driving Putin crazy. Poland will have a US ARMY command headquarters with 100,000 forward deployed troops, I believe two enhanced brigades in Poland and the deployment of two additional f-35 squadrons. That, along with main battle tanks from the UK, France and the US. Advanced artillery from all NATO nations. 4 CARRIER GROUPS. All that military capability has to be weighing heavy on Putin's mind.

 

[jaF0]

Pathetic? Wither?

I dunno Mattie, them seem to be doing rather well .....

Former defense secretary James Mattis rips Putin's 'pathetic' military performance in Ukraine: 'We're watching Russia wither before our eyes'​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.businessinsider.com.icoBusiness Insider|52 minutes ago
James Mattis condemned "the immoral, the tactically incompetent, operationally stupid and strategically foolish effort" of Russia's war with Ukraine.