If God wanted Ukraine to win he would have helped them.

Russia is getting its ass kicked by a small piss ant country led by a comedian and American aid directed by a senile old man in the White House.

God is probably laughing at the Russians just like the rest of us.

I have long suspected the Ukrainians are blackmailing certain US officials, and clearly have compromising information on the Biden crime family, glad to see this being publicly discussed now, at least outside of the propaganda MSM press:

Quote:

---

Peter Schweizer: We've been at this since 2018.
** They initially said there were no foreign deals.
** Then they shifted and said there were. There might have been foreign deals, but the Bidens made no money.
** Then it became Joe Biden didn't know about any of the deals.
** Then it became Joe Biden didn't participate in any of the deals.
** And now it's that he was not in business with his son.

Look, the implications for this are huge, Jesse.

If you look at that 1023 form that the FBI released, if that document is true, that document reveals that one of the people that was at those meetings that heard the conversations about bribing the Bidens worked for President Zelensky. Who really wants to believe, if that meeting took place and that document is accurate, that that individual did not go and report to President Zelensky what he heard?

And again, if that document is true, who wants to believe that President Zelensky and his administration have not used that as leverage over Joe Biden when it comes to negotiations on Ukraine policy?

We may all have to start learning the Ukrainian word for compromise because this is a very clear indication of how this has shaped this administration's policy towards Ukraine and also towards China.

---

Jim Rickards is fairly boring to listen to but if you can stay with him he provides some solid insights.

"It's A Way To Destroy The Dollar" Jim Rickards Warns Of Supply Chain Fragility & BRICS Currency Plan

https://rumble.com/v31mszk-new-brics-currency-boosts-gold-and-destroys-dollar-jim-rickards.html

For an example of the supply chain still being in fragile shape, look no further than the failed grain deal between Ukraine and Russia last week. Rickards points out,

Quote:

---

"Putin has been very patient about this. He had a deal. Ukraine was not living up to their end of the deal. Putin says we are the ones getting attacked, so, screw the deal. What's that going to do to the price of grain? It's going to send grain prices up, and it's already up 10% just in a matter of days."

---

This brings us the new BRICS gold-weighted currency (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) that might be announced in the middle to the end of next month. Rickards calls one unit of currency a "BRIC." This is a competitor to the U.S. dollar, but Rickards says, "It's not a reserve currency..."

Quote:

---

"...I think it may be 8 grams of gold to one "BRIC" (currency), but I don't know. What I do know is it does not matter. What does matter is they are going to anchor it to a weight of gold... It's NOT redeemable in gold, it is anchored to it...
Let's says a "BRIC" is worth one ounce of gold. Today that is $1,970 per ounce, except the "BRIC" is NOT anchored to the dollar. It is anchored to gold, which stands in the middle of this equation. So, the dollar price of gold is going to be going up and down all the time, which means the dollar/"BRIC" exchange rate is going to be going up and down all the time. They don't have to defend the "BRIC." They have gold, but they don't have to back it up with gold. . . . They actually don't need any gold...
If you have made your currency anchored to gold... do you want the price to go up or down? You want the price of gold to go up because that means the "BRIC" is worth more dollars, and the dollar is crashing. It's a way to destroy the dollar.
You don't need dollars and you don't need gold. You just need to be smart enough to anchor your currency to gold, and when dollar inflation starts to go up, your currency is going to be worth more because of how you pegged it, not to dollars, but how you pegged it to gold."

---

Rickards goes on to say,

Quote:

---

"So, if I were a BRICS member, and I were Russia in particular, and I had this currency tied to gold, and I wanted my currency to be more valuable and your currency (U.S. dollar) less valuable, one of the ways to do that is mess with the supply chain and drive up the price of oil, gasoline, grain... which drives up pork prices and chicken prices, and the list goes on. That's one way to do it."

---

Rickards also talks about deflation this year and big inflation coming after that. Rickards is predicting big inflation coming for people using dollars, and with his track record, you would be a fool to bet against his analysis.

The difference between Strategy and Tactics. pic.twitter.com/FkCdclQLtG

— Figen (@TheFigen_) July 24, 2023

Excellent, thx! Joe Biden would call her a dog face pony soldier.

nortex97 said:

---

Excellent, thx! Joe Biden would call her a dog face pony soldier.

---

Do that solider ride on a one-horse pony? Asking for my friend Peter…

Caution; some heads may explode over posting this but it's an interesting/current discussion.



Please note: this video is not approved by the Uke cheerleader section.

Teslag said:

---

Russia is getting its ass kicked by a small piss ant country led by a comedian and American aid directed by a senile old man in the White House.

God is probably laughing at the Russians just like the rest of us.

---

If you have been kicking ass and stacking bodies for 18 months, then why do you travel the globe saying you are doomed if you don't give x, y and $ to Z?

Seems like more pretzel logic to me.

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Russia is getting its ass kicked by a small piss ant country led by a comedian and American aid directed by a senile old man in the White House.

God is probably laughing at the Russians just like the rest of us.

---

If you have been kicking ass and stacking bodies for 18 months, then why do you travel the globe saying you are doomed if you don't give x, y and $ to Z?

Seems like more pretzel logic to me.

---

For the same reason you don't put your team on the bus at halftime.

And when there's a peace deal in place Ukraine will need to continue arming themselves with defensive capabilities. Russian has shown time and time again that peace for them is simply a delay to re-arm.

Teslag said:

---

Russia is getting its ass kicked by a small piss ant country led by a comedian and American aid directed by a senile old man in the White House.

God is probably laughing at the Russians just like the rest of us.

---

So if Russia is getting their "ass kicked" why would Ukraine want a peace deal that cedes half their country? Either you don't believe the stupidity you spew or you spew so much you just reveal you don't actually think.

Tesla committed to the bit long ago. He is not a serious poster and this thread would improve if it ignored him.

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Russia is getting its ass kicked by a small piss ant country led by a comedian and American aid directed by a senile old man in the White House.

God is probably laughing at the Russians just like the rest of us.

---

So if Russia is getting their "ass kicked" why would Ukraine want a peace deal that cedes half their country? Either you don't believe the stupidity you spew or you spew so much you just reveal you don't actually think.

---

Half? Russia currently occupies 18% of Ukrainian territory that includes Crimea. This is down from a high of 27% after March 2022.

So no, Ukraine would not be ceding close to half their country. And I'm not sure that Ukraine would agree to any deal since they are under no threat to lose more at the moment. That was my proposal for a deal remember? You were too gutless to put one forward.

Oh gutless. I'm so hurt. You are a great keyboard warrior. Your momma would be so proud.
Why would you propose a deal when Ukraine is about to have the entire country back? Oh because they aren't actually kicking ass.

texagbeliever said:

---

Oh gutless. I'm so hurt. You are a great keyboard warrior. Your momma would be so proud.
Why would you propose a deal when Ukraine is about to have the entire country back? Oh because they aren't actually kicking ass.

---

What exactly would you call Russia losing 62% of it's gains since April 2022?

And I would propose a deal because I don't believe they will ever get Crimea back and any further gains would be incremental. But I'm also not Ukrainian and it's not my country. That dynamic changes when it's your home you're fighting for.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

---

I rest my case. This one is still cooking. He'll come around.

---

Could you give me an update on how the Russian occupation is going in Chernihiv, Kyiv, Sumy, Zhytomyr and Mykolaiv?

---

Russian officials announced they are raising the maximum age that men can be conscripted into military service from 27 to 30 years old. I guess to pilot those 100 tanks per month they are cranking out.

It was actually raised to age 60 and for reserve officers it's age 65. Definitely the actions of an army that's "clearly" winning.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

---

I rest my case. This one is still cooking. He'll come around.

---

Could you give me an update on how the Russian occupation is going in Chernihiv, Kyiv, Sumy, Zhytomyr and Mykolaiv?

---

Russian officials announced they are raising the maximum age that men can be conscripted into military service from 27 to 30 years old. I guess to pilot those 100 tanks per month they are cranking out.

---

It's actually to 60, and their actual output is around 70/month including refurbs/different plants.

Ukraine has been forcibly conscripting folks up to 60 since the war started. Supposedly, one of the guys they had in training in Germany or Poland to be on an Abrams crew was 71 last week (I'm too lazy to go look it up). The Russian reserve army is what gives them a 'cushion' right now in the theater.

Quote:

---

But what I wanted to add to the ongoing calculations, was that Ukrainian presidential advisor Podolyak had recently stated that according to Ukraine's internal data, Russia currently has 360,000 total forces as part of the SMO. This is an interesting number given that is close to my own estimate as well, not counting the newly raised 150-180k being mostly reserved for Shoigu's new reserve armies. Though admittedly, this is a low conservative estimate, with 450k+ being also possibleit all depends on a few things we don't have data on, such as how many total servicemen left the service last year.

---

Tanks, ultimately, aren't proving to be real important to either side though, keyboard warrior hero's aside. The massive strikes at UFA ammo depots in the East, and then as well growing pace of lancet/drone strikes on their artillery systems is the 'big deal' tactically, because neither we, nor any other 'partner' country has a stash of FA systems and ammo to ship right over right now, even if we have a capacity to get it into the theater without port access:

Quote:

---

Though truth be told, the tanks are the least of the concerns. Most important by far is the artillery, and that's been suffering massive attrition. I'm not sure how much NATO has left to scrabble in that department, though recently I continue to see new shipments of Italian M109Ls. But this new Lancet graph of confirmed Lancet kills tells a story:

---

Quality post

texagbeliever said:

---

Quality post

---

Especially with all the quality lack of citations

Also still waiting on what you'd call Russia losing 62% of the gains they made in this war. Take your time.

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Quality post

---

Especially with all the quality lack of citations

---

sde

As I said back in the winter, compressing an army back into their line of reinforcements is not a military gain. All it does is strengthen the retreating army and strain the aggressor. An army often acts like a spring. It's efforts are strongest closer to its supply sources.

The difference between Russia is that when they push out they destroy economic targets and thus hit the moral of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine just takes back and further destroys their own economy.

Now I know the above requires some basic military strategy understanding and thus went over your head, but didn't want you and your posse to ask the question over and over again.

So Russia was actually winning when they lost 62% of their gains, including the loss of Kherson and Kharkiv and being completely pushed from 5 Ukrainian regions.

Master strategists indeed.

Teslag said:

---

So Russia was actually winning when they lost 62% of their gains, including the loss of Kherson and Kharkiv and being completely pushed from 5 Ukrainian regions.

Master strategists indeed.

---

Your armchair military experience is that land = victory.

We took control of all Iraqi lands in 72 hrs and fought the war for another 8 years. Shock&awe was a mistake. The loyal military (al-tikriti) was driven underground, it would have been better to have had a protracted conventional war where the belligerents had a flag on their shoulder.

War means you have to defeat the enemy, not capture territory. Territory is largely meaningless during an age of mobilized Infantry.

Goes back to the American Civil War. Sherman sought to burn the south to destroy the will of the confederate soldier more so then take the land. A strategy that worked because the armies surrendered rather than attempting a prolonged guerrilla war effort. Similar blue print is happening in Ukraine.

If Russia does succeed in taking Ukraine I hope they follow the strategy of Grant and Sherman of assimilation and rehabilitation. Aim to want Ukranians want to be a part of Russia which would serve the long term interests of holding the territory.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So Russia was actually winning when they lost 62% of their gains, including the loss of Kherson and Kharkiv and being completely pushed from 5 Ukrainian regions.

Master strategists indeed.

---

Your armchair military experience is that land = victory.

We took control of all Iraqi lands in 72 hrs and fought the war for another 8 years. Shock&awe was a mistake. The loyal military (al-tikriti) was driven underground, it would have been better to have had a protracted conventional war where the belligerents had a flag on their shoulder.

War means you have to defeat the enemy, not capture territory. Territory is largely meaningless during an age of mobilized Infantry.

---

You have to capture territory if your goal is to capture and annex territory. Russia isn't there to "nation build" or prop up the Bush circle's industries. They are there because they want Ukraine. Their goal wasn't to push and spring back. Their goal was to quickly capture Kiev, and then either outright annex Ukraine or install a puppet regime. They failed. Massively.

Yes, 'crumple zones' are how I have seen the Russian media/military portray the strategy. I've linked/quoted discussion on those from simplicius as well over the past month.

Anyway, UFA losses are not sustainable, in either manpower or materiel.

Quote:

---

Similar blue print is happening in Ukraine.

---

For this blue print to work Russia needs to actually gain more than one town like Bakhmut as their entire military accomplishment for a year.

General Sherman indeed. Except this time Sherman was stopped just across the Tennessee border.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, 'crumple zones' are how I have seen the Russian media/military portray the strategy. I've linked/quoted discussion on those from simplicius as well over the past month.

Anyway, UFA losses are not sustainable, in either manpower or materiel.

---

A link to Ukrainian losses cited by...



The Russian Ministry of Defense.



I do have to commend you. This time you just bypassed Russian propaganda and went straight to the source.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So Russia was actually winning when they lost 62% of their gains, including the loss of Kherson and Kharkiv and being completely pushed from 5 Ukrainian regions.

Master strategists indeed.

---

Your armchair military experience is that land = victory.

We took control of all Iraqi lands in 72 hrs and fought the war for another 8 years. Shock&awe was a mistake. The loyal military (al-tikriti) was driven underground, it would have been better to have had a protracted conventional war where the belligerents had a flag on their shoulder.

War means you have to defeat the enemy, not capture territory. Territory is largely meaningless during an age of mobilized Infantry.

---

Russia is totally fine with a prolonged occupation because they have no problem with the torture, rape, murder, etc of civilians while trying to control an insurgency or resistance. Make no mistake, they want the territory and don't care what it takes to maintain it after they take it.

Quote:

---

Russia is totally fine with a prolonged occupation because they have no problem with the torture, rape, murder, etc of civilians while trying to control an insurgency or resistance.

---

And some here just think the Ukrainians will welcome their Russian overlords and be "assimilated".

A Bradley IFV gets blasted and burned by a Lancet-3 attack drone:

2/2 pic.twitter.com/rk9xCKLTc9

— Will Schryver (@imetatronink) July 25, 2023

They are pumping out a crap ton of these cheap drones, as stated above.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Similar blue print is happening in Ukraine.

---

For this blue print to work Russia needs to actually gain more than one town like Bakhmut as their entire military accomplishment for a year.

General Sherman indeed. Except this time Sherman was stopped just across the Tennessee border.

---

Again your ignorance is showing. Sherman had great military success because he put his enemy in a position where he had to attack him. Scipio did the same thing to Hannibal in North Africa. By choosing where to fight the Russians will only engage on advantageous conditions. The Ukranians, desperate for "victories" are fighting bad battles.

Russia has put Ukraine on the horns of a dilemma: see a prolonged war destroy the economic and working adult population or seek a decisive military victory by attacking a defensive opponent.

The fate is largely decided outside of some major blunder the only question is how much more death and destruction must be sustained till even the most stubborn change their tune.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So Russia was actually winning when they lost 62% of their gains, including the loss of Kherson and Kharkiv and being completely pushed from 5 Ukrainian regions.

Master strategists indeed.

---

Your armchair military experience is that land = victory.

We took control of all Iraqi lands in 72 hrs and fought the war for another 8 years. Shock&awe was a mistake. The loyal military (al-tikriti) was driven underground, it would have been better to have had a protracted conventional war where the belligerents had a flag on their shoulder.

War means you have to defeat the enemy, not capture territory. Territory is largely meaningless during an age of mobilized Infantry.

---

Russia is totally fine with a prolonged occupation because they have no problem with the torture, rape, murder, etc of civilians while trying to control an insurgency or resistance. Make no mistake, they want the territory and don't care what it takes to maintain it after they take it.

---

Welcome to war. It isn't a video game. Ukraine either has the means of stopping it or they don't. Your feelings about the morale injustices are not valuable insight into the best strategy to be taken.