Very few on this thread are trolls. We have just divided ourselves into teams, and there seems to be no goodwill offered on either side that allows people to receive information and process in a way that is favorable to the "other team".

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Because someone asked what a negotiated peace plan would look like...

---

So their idea of a good peace plan was illogical when put up against their perception of how the war is going. So either the peace plan is stupid bringing into question the poster's mental acumen or the poster doesn't really believe the rah rah Ukraine stuff like he posts which makes him a troll. That was my point.

---

Many posters on this board keep whining about wanting the war to end. And droning on and on about "negotiated peace" yet when pressed for what they think would be a workable plan it's radio silence.

So the only assumption that one can make is that they don't want deal for peace. They want Ukrainian capitulation.

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Because someone asked what a negotiated peace plan would look like...

---

So their idea of a good peace plan was illogical when put up against their perception of how the war is going. So either the peace plan is stupid bringing into question the poster's mental acumen or the poster doesn't really believe the rah rah Ukraine stuff like he posts which makes him a troll. That was my point.

---

Many posters on this board keep whining about wanting the war to end. And droning on and on about "negotiated peace" yet when pressed for what they think would be a workable plan it's radio silence.

So the only assumption that one can make is that they don't want deal for peace. They want Ukrainian capitulation.

---

Well capitulation might happen one way or another. It's war. And a "workable plan" is very much depends on what you think the ultimate outcome will be. What do you think the outcome will be Tesla? That will give us a starting point for discussion.

I think that Ukraine takes a bit more land and towns by the onset of winter. I don't see them ever taking Donbas or Crimea back. Many lines will remain as they are now. Russia won't have any ability to push forward into Ukraine. Basically Ukraine will get a little more back and what Russia has today is the best they'll ever get.

Teslag said:

---

I think that Ukraine takes a bit more land and towns by the onset of winter. I don't see them ever taking Donbas or Crimea back. Many lines will remain as they are now. Russia won't have any ability to push forward into Ukraine. Basically Ukraine will get a little more back and what Russia has today is the best they'll ever get.

---

So that sounds like a stalemate. How do you negotiate a workable plan for a stalemate? Keeping in mind during a stalemate people from both sides will continue to die, Ukraine's economy will not be allowed to recover, and more mines will be deployed further deepening the humanitarian crisis.

Do we say everyone keeps what they have? What is your take?

Teslag said:

---

I don't see them ever taking Donbas or Crimea back.

---

Yet you also think Uke is winning the war? Make it make sense. Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles. If you're not here to troll, than help us understand.

Russia attempted to conquer Ukraine. They have been largely driven back and every day that Ukraine exists is a victory. HTH

American middle class is losing the war either way

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

So we agree now the spring offensive has failed ?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia also had victory conditions. They wanted a pro Russian puppet government installed in Kiev' or an outright take over of the country. Russia believes that Ukraine is a part of Russia. So that would be a major failure on their part. They at the very least wanted total control of their "annexed" regions and they won't even get that at this point. Some but not all. And last they wanted to reduce NATO's presence near their borders. At this point they grew NATO with them adding countries, and in all likelihood any peace will involve a NATO presence in Ukraine.

When you fail to achieve any of your war objectives they have a name for that. I'll let you ponder on what that is.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia's goal - take over all Ukraine.
Likely result - they end up with about 20-25% of it plus what they already had in Crimea

Ukraine's goal - keep all of their country except Crimea, which they seemed to have accepted as a loss pre-invasion
Likely result - they keep about 75-80% of their country.

And, speculating here, but as a bonus, they may join NATO when all of this is over, guaranteeing Russia won't be able to break whatever agreement they come to and invade for no reason again.

Which side do you think is happier with the end result?

Simplicius again with some mailbag answers/discussion that is pretty good yesterday/on point with what some are discussing re: motivation/future peace etc:

Quote:

---

The U.S. is drowning in scandalsas we speak, big developments are happening with the Hunter/Biden situation which can lead to Joe's impeachment. There are many other factors we can list to the West's detriment rather than Russia's which would allow us to conversely argue that for Russia to continue the pace of the campaign would result in increasingly negative consequences for the West.

In reality, we can argue who has the advantage here, and it may even be close, as both sides have pros and cons from the conflict prolonging.

Another thing to consider is that, just like how from the Western viewpoint they believe the Ukrainian conflict offers the unique ability to fight and degrade Russia without having to fight them directly, similarly from Russia's viewpoint you can say that the conflict can be a big deterrent against the West's future, much bigger war plans against Russia itself. Meaning, if Russia knows or senses that the West had planned to eventually provoke a large war against Russia, then the extension of the conflict could be viewed by Russian planners as a deterrence to this because the conflict is emptying the West's stockpiles of weaponry in a way that's far easier for Russia to destroy than it would be if it was the West themselves using the weaponry. i.e. it's much easier for Russia to destroy all the Leopards, Bradleys, F-16s of the world when they're in Ukrainian hands than if they were being used against Russia by Germany and the U.S. themselves.

Similarly, it's best that Ukraine's inaccurate downgraded artillery systems fire the West's 155mm shells at Russia rather than the West's own much more upgraded systems like M777A2s with the GDU computers on them which the U.S. itself uses, etc.

In short, Russia's rationale might be: it's best to destroy these weapons here in Ukraine so that the West has nothing with which to even 'think about' waging war against Russia in the future.

Ultimately, I myself wish the war can be ended sooner, so this isn't an argument for my own sake. And there are reasons to believe that Russia may in fact be shifting to the same stance, as there are now rumors that Russia may conduct a huge new mobilization to put a big finish on the AFU, of which I'm going to write about in the next report this week.

---

Their further new/advanced mobilization of people/draft this month is interesting in that they pretty clearly have a nearby 'reserve' army of around 120-150K, beyond the units in theater/near the fronts. With Wagner being reconstituted to a degree up north (I think as a distraction/empty threat), they may be tempted to push before it all freezes over this winter.

Note: he's not right about all of that, the UFA has gotten a lot of our 'top tier' 155 ammo, and good fire control systems, not just outdated stuff. We certainly don't just employ/train/use 'smart' rounds.

He then also goes through some of the industrial stuff and BRICS cheerleading which, while a threat, is a little under-informed/propaganda-ish imho. Again the BRICS markets/alliance are helping Russia/China, without doubt, but it is primarily a 'win' for China, in conjunction with their OBOR stuff and other efforts to win/spread influence and economic alignment/control in Africa/Asia/South America.

This part is clearly true as shown in this very thread though:

Quote:

---

In the U.S., the rural and conservative types are the ones most likely to descend from the spirit of the wild west, frontiersmanship, independence and self-reliancethe complete opposite of the dirigisme-style governance represented by the bogeyman specter of Russia with its 'Soviet legacy', at least as presented by Western politicians and media.

So my point is that, a certain image of Russia is so ingrained in the people of America's heartland, that it would seem to me to be very difficult to disabuse them of it and make them see the actual truth of the situation. Sure, the enlightened ones who did the extra legwork like BAP himself have broken through the programming, but I'm not sure how many others of the 'heartland' can do so without severe effort. Most Americans of all stripes are so programmed by those decades of the Cold War that all you have to do is utter a few key words like 'Gulag', 'Oligarch', or the big scary 'C word' and they're ready to take up arms for Ukraine.

It's a classic case of emotional and psychic manipulation. The media is very good at it. They know which emotional chords to strike, and know how self-righteous but also selfless Americans can be, and thus how easy it is to manipulate them into supporting a perceived David vs. Goliath cause. Ukrainians are portrayed as 'freedom loving' people just at the brink of nearly being Americans themselves. While Russians are dehumanized as non-human 'Orcs' from a cold and unforgiving place full of gulags, oligarchs, and that dreaded unspeakable C word. Ukraine is about progress while Russia is about barbarism and 'might means right'. And Americans love a good black and white moralizing story with a clear-cut good guy and easy to hate villain. Just look at Zelensky, young and hale, likable with his Hollywood smile while Putin is depicted as a stone-cold mafia boss intent on taking people's freedums by force.

---

Russia has pulled out of the grain deal brokered by Turkey and the UN, and the countdown on Ukrainian agriculture has officially started.

Full Video and Newsletter: https://t.co/hgBV4bSWl8 pic.twitter.com/MwPsLTonXj

— Peter Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) July 28, 2023

GAC06 said:

---

Russia attempted to conquer Ukraine. They have been largely driven back and every day that Ukraine exists is a victory. HTH

---

Ukraine would have "existed" under Russian occupation. It has done so in the past. Now they are seeing a population problem that puts a quick timer on their existence. Congrats.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia's goal - take over all Ukraine.
Likely result - they end up with about 20-25% of it plus what they already had in Crimea

Ukraine's goal - keep all of their country except Crimea, which they seemed to have accepted as a loss pre-invasion
Likely result - they keep about 75-80% of their country.

And, speculating here, but as a bonus, they may join NATO when all of this is over, guaranteeing Russia won't be able to break whatever agreement they come to and invade for no reason again.

Which side do you think is happier with the end result?

---

Can we assume by this scholarly take that Crimea is not strategically important?

Seems to be Russia is getting what it wants and Ukraine is being forced to accept that. If that's victory, that explains a lot about battered Aggie syndrome and football season.

fka ftc said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia's goal - take over all Ukraine.
Likely result - they end up with about 20-25% of it plus what they already had in Crimea

Ukraine's goal - keep all of their country except Crimea, which they seemed to have accepted as a loss pre-invasion
Likely result - they keep about 75-80% of their country.

And, speculating here, but as a bonus, they may join NATO when all of this is over, guaranteeing Russia won't be able to break whatever agreement they come to and invade for no reason again.

Which side do you think is happier with the end result?

---

Can we assume by this scholarly take that Crimea is not strategically important?

Seems to be Russia is getting what it wants and Ukraine is being forced to accept that. If that's victory, that explains a lot about battered Aggie syndrome and football season.

---

What? Russia wanted all of Ukraine. They're going to likely settle with about 20-25% of it despite having a giant manpower advantage. Ukraine seemed like they were fine with not having Crimea since they never really attempted to take it back in the last decade before Russia launched their unprovoked invasion.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia's goal - take over all Ukraine.
Likely result - they end up with about 20-25% of it plus what they already had in Crimea

Ukraine's goal - keep all of their country except Crimea, which they seemed to have accepted as a loss pre-invasion
Likely result - they keep about 75-80% of their country.

And, speculating here, but as a bonus, they may join NATO when all of this is over, guaranteeing Russia won't be able to break whatever agreement they come to and invade for no reason again.

Which side do you think is happier with the end result?

---

Can we assume by this scholarly take that Crimea is not strategically important?

Seems to be Russia is getting what it wants and Ukraine is being forced to accept that. If that's victory, that explains a lot about battered Aggie syndrome and football season.

---

What? Russia wanted all of Ukraine. They're going to likely settle with about 20-25% of it despite having a giant manpower advantage. Ukraine seemed like they were fine with not having Crimea since they never really attempted to take it back in the last decade before Russia launched their unprovoked invasion.

---

The plantif sued for $10 MM but was only awarded $2MM and in 30 years will have the ability to get the other 8. What a great victory for the defendant who spent everything to stop that $8MM.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Countries don't win a war and then shrink when the dust settles.

---

But I repeat myself. And I propose that belief in something else is belief in propaganda. Conquest doesn't care about your feelings.

From where I sit, banging the "Existence is victory" drum just confirms the denial stage of grief is ongoing. "We're still here, but smaller" is at best a moral victory for a loser to take solace in. What am I missing besides a propensity to accept a narrative??? Dumbfounded by this new line of defense for our support.

---

Russia's goal - take over all Ukraine.
Likely result - they end up with about 20-25% of it plus what they already had in Crimea

Ukraine's goal - keep all of their country except Crimea, which they seemed to have accepted as a loss pre-invasion
Likely result - they keep about 75-80% of their country.

And, speculating here, but as a bonus, they may join NATO when all of this is over, guaranteeing Russia won't be able to break whatever agreement they come to and invade for no reason again.

Which side do you think is happier with the end result?

---

Can we assume by this scholarly take that Crimea is not strategically important?

Seems to be Russia is getting what it wants and Ukraine is being forced to accept that. If that's victory, that explains a lot about battered Aggie syndrome and football season.

---

What? Russia wanted all of Ukraine. They're going to likely settle with about 20-25% of it despite having a giant manpower advantage. Ukraine seemed like they were fine with not having Crimea since they never really attempted to take it back in the last decade before Russia launched their unprovoked invasion.

---

Russia wanted western Ukraine? Evidence?

That's solid Ukrainian territory, filled with Bandera zealots. No foreign nation, no matter how imperialist they are, would want to deal with that.

It seems Russia was looking to prop up the Luhansk and Donestk "republics", and take everything east of the Dnieper. The ukrainian "rump" theory seems most likely, Russia would landlock it and control the river. Then it would be a useless chunk of land that would be fully dependent on Russia and the EU for the future. It would be neutralized in that state.

It's hard to take anyone serious if they say Russia would give up Crimea for any reason. It is probably more important to Russia than the entire Ukrainian land mass:



Energy finds, so far:



From 2021
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-the-black-sea-could-emerge-as-the-worlds-next-great-energy-battleground/

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

It's hard to take anyone serious if they say Russia would give up Crimea for any reason. It is probably more important to Russia than the entire Ukrainian land mass:



Energy finds, so far:



From 2021
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-the-black-sea-could-emerge-as-the-worlds-next-great-energy-battleground/

---

Judging from that map it looks like most of the finds west of Crimea would be Moldovan, but I agree that Russia would never give up Crimea. Additionally, why would Ukraine WANT Crimea as part of a negotiation. They will be weakened militarily and unable to enforce their new claim against regional insurgents in that area.

Sorry that map is from 2002 and this is the legend for it:

Quote:

---

Map of gas and fluid discharge in the Black Sea. Triangles and dots represent locations of submarine mud volcanoes and areas of intense fluid discharge, respectively. Red areas represent regions of gas seepage and seabed pockmarks.

---

I found this from 2020

Quote:

---

Seafloor degassing in the Black and Azov seas. 1: gas seep locations; 2: oil seep locations; 3: submarine mud volcanoes; 4: gas hydrates; 5: state borders; 6: location of the section of suitable temperature and water salinity

---

If you are asking "what is a submarine mud volcano?" It's basically a methane spout.

10thYrSr said:

---

Judging from that map it looks like most of the finds west of Crimea would be Moldovan, but I agree that Russia would never give up Crimea. Additionally, why would Ukraine WANT Crimea as part of a negotiation. They will be weakened militarily and unable to enforce their new claim against regional insurgents in that area.

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

chickencoupe16 said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Judging from that map it looks like most of the finds west of Crimea would be Moldovan, but I agree that Russia would never give up Crimea. Additionally, why would Ukraine WANT Crimea as part of a negotiation. They will be weakened militarily and unable to enforce their new claim against regional insurgents in that area.

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

---

An egregious error on my part. Ukraine controls those resources. Still, they would not be controlled by Russian interest in Crimea.

10thYrSr said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Judging from that map it looks like most of the finds west of Crimea would be Moldovan, but I agree that Russia would never give up Crimea. Additionally, why would Ukraine WANT Crimea as part of a negotiation. They will be weakened militarily and unable to enforce their new claim against regional insurgents in that area.

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

---

An egregious error on my part. Ukraine controls those resources. Still, they would not be controlled by Russian interest in Crimea.

---

Resources controlled by man with bigger gun. Turkey would be the only real rival for future of hydrocarbons would be Turkey.

Another consequence of this conflict will be strengthening of Eastern European and Asian alliances at the expense of Eastern European / Western European alliances.

Those countries will ultimately run back to Mother Russia's milk when push comes to shove.

I don't see Poland making ANY moves to support Russia. So I think you are wrong. No idea where eastern Europe goes from here but it isn't Russia.

Maybe a new alliance with western Europe after revolutions have taken place?

10thYrSr said:

---

I don't see Poland making ANY moves to support Russia. So I think you are wrong. No idea where eastern Europe goes from here but it isn't Russia.

Maybe a new alliance with western Europe after revolutions have taken place?

---

Western Europe has its own problems to sort.

Again, many of those countries have a long history of loyalty to this or that but not always and forever this and not always forever that.

I may be wrong, fine with that. Just sharing how I see things.

You really think the eastern European countries would ever "run back to" Russia? They HATE Russia for being put under the Soviet thumb.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

You really think the eastern European countries would ever "run back to" Russia? They HATE Russia for being put under the Soviet thumb.

---

Think it likely…? Not as much. Think it has more potential as economic conditions worsen, US power weakens, Western Europe focuses on itself, and other things… yeah, I think likelihood went from no ****in way to it being something to pay attention to.

The world does not exist in absolutes.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

---

Moldova has a seaport on the Danube at Giurgiulesti.
[img][/img]

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

You really think the eastern European countries would ever "run back to" Russia? They HATE Russia for being put under the Soviet thumb.

---

Think it likely…? Not as much. Think it has more potential as economic conditions worsen, US power weakens, Western Europe focuses on itself, and other things… yeah, I think likelihood went from no ****in way to it being something to pay attention to.

The world does not exist in absolutes.

---

I agree that there are few absolutes, but Poland going in with Russia is just ridiculous. It would be more likely that all of America would abandon their Russian hate than Poland doing the same. You can look on the Ukraine war strategy board and see for yourself how unwilling people in America are to discard their cold war hate for Russia. Poland would be ten times more difficult.

Speedbird087 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

---

Moldova has a seaport on the Danube at Giurgiulesti.
[img][/img]

---

This looks like a small bulk carrier about to start loading grain.

With only two cargo holds this is probably half the size of a Panamax vessel.

This vessel may not ever leave the Strait of Gibraltar during its service life.

This is the type of vessel typically used to carry grain bound for North Africa and the Mediterranean ports.

So to the extent there is a humanitarian crisis in the near future because Ukranian grain exports were disrupted, this is the type of vessel that will be sitting idle at anchor due to lack of cargo.

Disruption to agriculture in Ukraine may have a trickle down effect on the transportation industry.

If there is no cargo to move for an extended period of time, shipowners and ship operators typically go bankrupt.

Keep in mind that these vessels are typically leveraged to the hilt. Or topped-up as they say.

So we may be looking at the potential for significant bank liability on these ship mortgages if the owner can't service that debt.

Normally the bank would have a priority lien on the vessel but this may be less than anticipated in cash value due to this being a special purpose vessel that is now unmarketable in the region it was designed to operate in.

So the reality is that that the bank might be on the hook for everything above scrap value.

So you've got the potential for banks to take losses as a result, further exacerbating the impending global economic crisis.

The point of all this is, the war in Ukraine will have a trickle down effect, the results of which have not yet been seen.

So it's important for us to keep that in mind as we go through our day-to-day business here on this thread.

fka ftc said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Judging from that map it looks like most of the finds west of Crimea would be Moldovan, but I agree that Russia would never give up Crimea. Additionally, why would Ukraine WANT Crimea as part of a negotiation. They will be weakened militarily and unable to enforce their new claim against regional insurgents in that area.

---

Moldova is landlocked; how would they have any claims to anything in the Black Sea?

---

An egregious error on my part. Ukraine controls those resources. Still, they would not be controlled by Russian interest in Crimea.

---

Resources controlled by man with bigger gun. Turkey would be the only real rival for future of hydrocarbons would be Turkey.

Another consequence of this conflict will be strengthening of Eastern European and Asian alliances at the expense of Eastern European / Western European alliances.

Those countries will ultimately run back to Mother Russia's milk when push comes to shove.

---

You're thinking some sort of Warsaw Pact redux because it fits your domestic political view. Best not tell all the Eastern European countries who leapt at the chance to join NATO/EU once they escaped the soviet thumb and are now contentedly sucking on the Western European tit.

For all Hungary's intransigence Orban wouldn't trade places with Lukashenko for the world, and Belarus is what passes for a sexy Russian satellite country, which admittedly isn't a high bar since we're mainly talking about the 'Stans.

Then again maybe Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are secretly pining for Russia and poorer days.

Upon reflection "for the world" is a terrible saying. Of course he'd take Belarus if it meant he had the world.

Podolyak just requested 10-12 Patriot batteries to cover Ukraine. There are only around 80 Patriot batteries on the face of the earth I think. Again, the drones are only going to deplete whatever fraction of ADA assets the US/others agrees to send relative to the UFA demands.

Quote:

---

'Russia's tactics are clear: they use mass drone attacks to undermine our defense systems from airstrikes and then have the opportunity to use ballistic missiles to attack our infrastructure in parallel. We lack modern zenit systems such as the Patriot to shoot down a new generation of Russian missiles such as the Oniks and the Dagger. Because of the lack of these systems, we are unable to protect all regions of the country."

According to Podolyak, Ukraine needs 10 to 12 "Patriots" or a similar system to be able to protect the whole country.
He added that recent strikes on Odessa have shown that strengthening defense systems from airstrikes is the right step both economically and morally.

"Rebuilding all this later will be more expensive than providing a Patriot system to protect the South," Podolyak said.

'We understand that if you are far from war and your constituents say internal prices are more important, then it's hard to think about war. But you can simply take a piece of paper and work out which one is cheaper: helping Ukraine win or a conflict frozen with all the risks and instability that war will bring for years to come? We explain this to our partners, but the speed of decision-making is not as high as we would like. I believe it should be a hub, a center where allies can decide what is needed at any moment and coordinate delivery schedules," Podolyak added.

---

The messaging is so great: "you better get us these systems or you will have to pay even more to rebuild our cities after the war. Your decision making is way too slow, just ship me my stuff."

But this is just equipment we wouldn't need in a fight with China, right? Like Taiwan which is wrong about needing 155MM artillery and armor too?

More from Simplicius: clearing up some of the confusion about mobilization/conscription in Russia and changes:

Quote:

---

What concerned everyone was his urgent statement that this bill was written for a much larger war which is already 'on the air', so to speak. There are many interpretations of this, with some assuming he's referring to a wider Ukrainian escalation. But it's clear he's referring to the more long term potential for a war with NATO which inches closer each day, as evidenced by the recent Polish developments, etc.

The issue is confusing at first glance, because he's referring to conscription not 'mobilization' in terms of what happened in September 2022. How it works in Russia is that anyone aged 18-27 has to serve their compulsory one year of service, but you get deferments for being in school, grad school, etc. So if you finish grad school at age 25, you still have to serve because you're under 27. This new bill is changing the limit to 30.

But the compulsory conscript service has nothing to do with mobilization for Ukraine, directly speaking. The way it's connected is that in Russia, anyone who's served as a conscript automatically gets put on the 'reserves' list. The mobilization pool is taken from the reserves. However, the 300k mobilized last year during the official 'partial mobilization' specifically chose people from the pool who already had previous combat experience or were ex-contract soldiers (who served under contract and retired or simply left after the contract expiration, etc.).

The reason for this is because, since almost every male in Russia ends up on the reserves list, there is a giant pool of 25 million reservists. And to mobilize 300k from that, they don't need to tap into all the ones who merely served the 1 year compulsory conscription but had no further experience beyond that. There were plenty other reservists who had much more experience and willingness, and those were the ones called up.

So at first glance, Kartapolov's bill doesn't appear related to mobilization but rather annual conscription. However, the way it's related is that it creates a larger conscription pool which further creates a larger trained reserves in general, from which future members can be mobilized.

Little known is the fact that Kartapolov addressed and clarified his comments in an interview days later:

Quote:

---

Quesion: - Andrey Valerievich, the Internet is actively discussing your words about yesterday's amendments when you said that they were "written for a big war, and this war already smells like". Please explain what was meant?

Answer: - What was meant was that we now have to provide for, let's say, an unfavorable scenario for the development of the situation. We see how the collective West is actively rearming, starting to deploy the military industry. These are some of the factors that indicate their preparation for a big war. And even if this is not the case, we still have to respond to these potential threats. That is, we are talking about preventive measures. Because if we ignore all these alarm signals we may end up with a new year in 1941.

---

---

I love his term 'schizopatriots' referring to Strelkov etc. on the pro-Russia side, we clearly have our own flavor as well:

Quote:

---

The one thing I'll add, is that schizopatriots are quite adept at exploiting the small fissures to turn them into large craters in the eyes of the gullible or uninformed. They're masters of finding actual systemic issues, which may be real but fixable, and certainly not gravely intractable problemsin fact in most cases, they're already fixed or in the process of being so at the time of the schizopatriot's antagonismand they fixate on these to grow a mountain out of a mole hill. They turn up the dial to exaggerate the problem into something unimaginably large, which threatens to overturn the whole order, or crash the entire country.

In times of high stress, disarray, and the confusion intrinsic to a major conflict like the SMO, their false exaggerations read as frighteningly true because they play to our most fundamental instincts of fear and worry. These people are like psychological vampires who know how to manipulate their uninformed flock.

The problem is, one thing I noticed about the conflict which was eye opening to me, is that since the early days of 2014, this conflict has attracted a certain stripe of people which can only be described as utopian idealists, even romantics. Take Strelkov as an example, he's clearly the dreamer archetypehe spent his early life playing at war re-enactment, constructing a romantic fantasy around himself. He became a monarchist who idealized the Tsars and wanted Russia to revert back to the Empire days.

In the early days of the conflict, there were many such characters in the DPR. Several early Donbass personalities wanted to transform the fledgling republic into some kind of ancient utopian state ruled by the old laws, or fulfill some other romanticized vision of a bygone era. There's nothing necessarily wrong with thatthe same goes for Strelkov's ideations. But it's simply to point out that in today's day and age, where all inhabitable land has long been claimed and accounted for, on the rare occasion when conflict creates a sort of primordial land briefly suspended in that liminal state between order and chaos, it stokes the imaginations of a certain sect of people. They flock there in the hopes they can reform it in their own utopian visions, turn it into something resembling the story books, or their romanticized ideals of some ancient 'noble' and heroic civilization.

Such idealists flocked to Donbass in the early days. For those who may be younger and weren't around back then, they might have missed the zealotry of that nascent early period, the wild governance ideas which flew around at the time, like Strelkov and Mozgovoy's ascetic Spartanism. But once Russia began to take Donbass under its wing into a more status quo protectorate, a lot of people became disillusioned and resentful toward the Kremlin for daring to steal their precious Promethean fire, their rare chance to reform this prototypical land from chaos into some virtuous ideal; they knew it was a historic opportunity they'd never see again.

Like I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the issue is the types of personalities attracted to such flights are often unhinged or corruptible, exhibiting dark triad traits and apt to lose their footing, before turning on those who don't support their outlandish visions.

---

Democracy, freedom, sovereignty! Liberte Egalite fraternite! Until victory, always!