texagbeliever said:

---

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.

---

Shall we call this the mythological Russian war of attrition?

Quote:

---

By choosing where to fight the Russians will only engage on advantageous conditions.

---

Like when they tried to advance through the Chernobyl area and nearly killed off many of their troops? Or when they tried to take the Ukrainian airfield outside Kiev and got their **** dropped? Or when they attacked from Belarus and lost literally every single thing they gained and were completely pushed all the way back to Belarus (the spring must have broke). There's numerous others.

Those type of advantageous conditions?

texagbeliever said:

---

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.

---

Do you think raping and torturing Ukraine citizens is the best strategy to be taken? That part of your "assimilation" strategy?

The assimilation strategy i stated would be in Russias best interest. As well as not raping, torturing or murdering civilians. Whether that is the path Russia takes or not is outside of my control.

texagbeliever said:

---

The assimilation strategy i stated would be in Russias best interest. As well as not raping, torturing or murdering civilians. Whether that is the path Russia takes or not is outside of my control.

---

But it IS the path Russia will take. That's part of what makes them Russians...

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

The assimilation strategy i stated would be in Russias best interest. As well as not raping, torturing or murdering civilians. Whether that is the path Russia takes or not is outside of my control.

---

But it IS the path Russia will take. That's part of what makes them Russians...

---

You do realize that is a part of every country's history don't you. And yes USSR was extremely bad but Russia is not USSR despite how much you believe that to be the case.

Yes but it's part of Russias recent history and I saw it with my own eyes in syria. Modern Russian forces are just as brutal as the Soviets ever were.

And the chechens and Georgians would echo the same

You just don't understand war

Russkies suck, but they are not capable of taking more than a chunk of a former soviet state, which said chunk happens to be home to a lot of russians. Forgive me for not wanting to spend billions getting entangled in this mess or unnecessarily expanding NATO when the risk of doing so far exceeds the benefit

A state that was soviet for 70 years may be partially russkie again at massive cost to said russkies. We'll be fine.

GAC06 said:

---

You just don't understand war

---

I am a keyboard warrior that thinks it's a video game.

Teslag 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.

---

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.

---

How many people did they send to Kiev? Seriously, give us the numbers. Its all a matter of record at this point. If Kiev was the target, why even bother in the Donbass?

Kiev was 3mil souls in 2021, do you know how many soldiers it would take to capture or occupy a city of that size? So again riddle me this, Batman, how many soldiers did Russia commit to Kiev?

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.

---

Weird to assign Ukrainian SOP to the Russians...perhaps you are unaware of Ukraine's human rights violations against its Russian citizenry for the last decade.

Back to your "point" you think Russia would prefer to deal with a decade-long insurgency rather than a 2 year conflict that depletes all the military-aged ukrainians? FFS that makes zero sense.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag 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.

---

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.

---

How many people did they send to Kiev? Seriously, give us the numbers. Its all a matter of record at this point. If Kiev was the target, why even bother in the Donbass?

Kiev was 3mil souls in 2021, do you know how many soldiers it would take to capture or occupy a city of that size? So again riddle me this, Batman, how many soldiers did Russia commit to Kiev?

---

Baghdad had about six million in 2003. We sent 160k into Iraq for the initial invasion

GAC06 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag 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.

---

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.

---

How many people did they send to Kiev? Seriously, give us the numbers. Its all a matter of record at this point. If Kiev was the target, why even bother in the Donbass?

Kiev was 3mil souls in 2021, do you know how many soldiers it would take to capture or occupy a city of that size? So again riddle me this, Batman, how many soldiers did Russia commit to Kiev?

---

Baghdad had about six million in 2003. We sent 160k into Iraq for the initial invasion

---

aaaaaaaand it wasnt enough.

Lets get back to Kiev. How many Russians were committed to the capturing of Kiev?

The russians amassed a 30,000 member force in Belarus that was intended to roll into Kiev and take the city. The Russians assembled all in a single convoy of vehicles and armored columns with air support coordinated with a spetsnaz attack on airfields. The Russians assumed Kiev would quickly fold, and they'd roll into the city basically unopposed.


That didn't happen. And your attempt at a gotcha only shows the stupidity of the Russian thought process and the absurdity that they are some exceptional strategists and only attack when "advantageous".

Quote:

---

perhaps you are unaware of Ukraine's human rights violations against its Russian citizenry for the last decade.

---

Yes, we are aware that most of those happened under a previous government heavily influenced by Russia. A government that has now since been replaced by a comedian with his foot 12 inches up Putin's ass.

Do go on...

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag 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.

---

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.

---

How many people did they send to Kiev? Seriously, give us the numbers. Its all a matter of record at this point. If Kiev was the target, why even bother in the Donbass?

Kiev was 3mil souls in 2021, do you know how many soldiers it would take to capture or occupy a city of that size? So again riddle me this, Batman, how many soldiers did Russia commit to Kiev?

---

Baghdad had about six million in 2003. We sent 160k into Iraq for the initial invasion

---

aaaaaaaand it wasnt enough.

Lets get back to Kiev. How many Russians were committed to the capturing of Kiev?

---

Uh, we captured Baghdad and occupied the country for quite a while.

But I guess maybe you're on board with the idea that Russia sacrificed thousands from their best units as an elaborate feint to capture part of the Donbas

Funny that a certain poster was pushing for Ukraine to join the EU and another poster was all pretzeled up on whether the EU meant shared sovereignty or was more like a US state but then not like a US state and whether they had borders or common currency and such.

Read an article this morning that laid out pretty clearly that the EU is likely going the way of the dodo bird over the next few years. Nationalism is beginning to thrive across multiple member states and their ability to manage inflation is hugely undercut by out of control spending that continues in places like Greece.

Adding Ukraine is a complete non-starter for the EU. Aint happening. It is also not happening for NATO. No one wants corrupt Ukraine in their group. Imagine that.

I would like to read this article that says the EU is going away over the next few years. Please link for the class. I'm also curious that Ukraine joining the EU is a non-starter less than a month after the EU gave ukriane candidate status.

GAC06 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Teslag 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.

---

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.

---

How many people did they send to Kiev? Seriously, give us the numbers. Its all a matter of record at this point. If Kiev was the target, why even bother in the Donbass?

Kiev was 3mil souls in 2021, do you know how many soldiers it would take to capture or occupy a city of that size? So again riddle me this, Batman, how many soldiers did Russia commit to Kiev?

---

Baghdad had about six million in 2003. We sent 160k into Iraq for the initial invasion

---

aaaaaaaand it wasnt enough.

Lets get back to Kiev. How many Russians were committed to the capturing of Kiev?

---

Uh, we captured Baghdad and occupied the country for quite a while.

But I guess maybe you're on board with the idea that Russia sacrificed thousands from their best units as an elaborate feint to capture part of the Donbas

---

"Captured Bagdad" by having the Iraqi military throw off their uniforms and turn to insurgency. 32,000 wounded and 4,500 dead american soldiers thanks to the quick approach. (And those numbers DO NOT include the pivot to veterans-turned-contractors, the Pentagon realized the public doesnt like flag-draped coffins but is apathetic toward contractor deaths, thus the major shift to using veterans instead of active duty soldiers.)

Iraq was a major f-k up and you can high-five about capturing territory. But the Triangle was not secured and you are a liar if you say otherwise.

Glad you agree with the undisputed fact that we captured a much larger city with a comparable number of troops. Didn't need the irrelevant extra info though.

Teslag said:

---

I would like to read this article that says the EU is going away over the next few years. Please link for the class.

---

I will have to see if the info is something that can be shared, but I imagine it is.

Or you could actually source your own info for once.

Same article is also very negative on Russia and China so you can leave your incoming Russian propaganda **** at the door.

BTW - One needs to only pay attention to Brexit fallout and current economic conditions in the EU followed by growing sentiment amongst EU members that there are haves and have nots and the split is becoming clearer.

Sorry your globalist agenda is losing.

Quote:

---

BTW - One needs to only pay attention to Brexit fallout and current economic conditions in the EU followed by growing sentiment amongst EU members that there are haves and have nots and the split is becoming clearer.

---

Is that why they granted candidate status to Ukraine less than a month ago?

"Guys I totally read this article that supports what I'm saying but if you want to read it you'll have to find it yourself"

Teslag said:

---

"Guys I totally read this article that supports what I'm saying but if you want to read it you'll have to find it yourself"

---

Cause I am ****ing busy at the moment and I have not had time to ask the person who handed it to me if it was from a private or public source. I assume public but I check before I post on TexAgs.

I don't play by your schedule or rules. Again, sorry your globalist agenda is fading... and fast.

GAC06 said:

---

Glad you agree with the undisputed fact that we captured a much larger city with a comparable number of troops. Didn't need the irrelevant extra info though.

---

Again. Apples to oranges, and you still refuse to give numbers on how many Russians actually maneuvered for Kiev.

Its your returded assertation that capturing the capitol was 1) Russia's aim, 2) an American victory.

You would rather have your blood split in a lengthy (failed) occupation than face the enemy conventionally. The speed at which America ran through the country resulted in almost no resistance in major cities for the initial 72 hrs, in fact we had air supremacy in under an hour. "Wow that was easy" while not realizing the real conflict was just starting.

FFS go read the writings of Ho Chi Mein...Russia is avoiding this by destroying the Ukrainian men. There will come a day where there arent enough Ukrainians to hold lines, be a valid insurgency, or replenish the losses. A complete demographic collapse is coming unless those who fled repatriate, and thats not looking likely, especially if Russia wins.

It's obvious to the entire world and the Russians themselves that they intended to capture Kiev. Would they have faced an insurgency after capturing it? I guess we'll never know because they were turned back with heavy losses.

Excellent strategy to avoid an insurgency that could cost them 4,821 men over 8+ years. Instead they have elected to expend 20,000 men fighting for one ruined city in the east.

GAC06 said:

---

It's obvious to the entire world and the Russians themselves that they intended to capture Kiev. Would they have faced an insurgency after capturing it? I guess we'll never know because they were turned back with heavy losses.

Excellent strategy to avoid an insurgency that could cost them 4,821 men over 8+ years. Instead they have elected to expend 20,000 men fighting for one ruined city in the east.

---

Putin remains a master strategist

Good talk with Mark Sledoba.

Russian Forces along this Section of the Frontline have now managed to Advance between 15-18km and are slowly pushing towards the Oskil River.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 25, 2023

If I/others are right, the Ukrainians are likely to be low on artillery (and fuel) over the coming weeks. I expect the Russians to gradually push back.

Quote:

---

I expect the Russians to gradually push back

---

With those 60 year old conscripts I presume?

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Guys I totally read this article that supports what I'm saying but if you want to read it you'll have to find it yourself"

---

Cause I am ****ing busy at the moment and I have not had time to ask the person who handed it to me if it was from a private or public source. I assume public but I check before I post on TexAgs.

I don't play by your schedule or rules. Again, sorry your globalist agenda is fading... and fast.

---

The "article" is the 2023 The World Explained in Maps from Geopolitical Futures (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/) which is a subscription site so I will not be sharing the full document. This is my first introduction to this group and the full document was provided from a friend who regards George Friedman and his group to insightful and decidedly non-partisan.

From the write-up, "Nationalism is on the rise as the EU fails to deliver on its promise of universal prosperity. The struggle to keep the EU relevant, let alone intact, will define the continent for years to come" and followed later by "The European Union has lost popularity as anti-establishment and Eurosceptic parties gain ground in Northern Europe."

Other points include " The EU's fragmentation has intensified divisions within the EU, with western and eastern members of blocs espousing different priorities" and concluding with "As the EU weakens, regional and local interests are coming to the fore, and divisions are deepening".

I have not finished the other regions of the globe but thus far I have found their takes to be well-sourced, unbiased and quite frank which allows for digestion of large, complex issues in a succinct format.

With all your savings from the EV and subsidies you receive from my tax dollars, you can afford your own subscription and do some learning yourself. Hell, the even have focus articles on Russia and Ukraine. Enjoy.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

I expect the Russians to gradually push back

---

With those 60 year old conscripts I presume?

---

And ignore the fact they train their adolescents at summer camp each year (or at least used to). But go on...

So your article is subscription only and you cherry pick the points you agree with? And you don't provide a quote that says the EU won't exist in a few years as claimed?

And won't address the EU accepting Ukraine with candidate status despite it being a "non starter"?

That sounds very good/correct. Glad more outfits are analyzing this stuff. Thx for the share.

Teslag said:

---

So your article is subscription only and you cherry pick the points you agree with? And you don't provide a quote that says the EU won't exist in a few years as claimed?

And won't address the EU accepting Ukraine with candidate status despite it being a "non starter"?

---

God, you are tireless, dense and poor at reading.

Quote:

---

"The struggle to keep the EU relevant, let alone intact, will define the continent for years to come"

---

Are you trying to imply the European UNION not being intact but still existing? Time for that pretzel logic again.

Buy a subscription and read the context and report back on my "cherry picking". You going to be real sad when they are not full of Russia propaganda as you would like to think.

You have a HORRIBLE problem trying to understand things "from another perspective", which is why many others have suggested this thread would be better if you just chose not to participate.

Quit your trolling.