fka ftc said:

---

If you think that helps your cause that may explain a lot about why you keep thinking the Ukes are winning...

---

A graphic that shows Russia steadily losing ground for 18 months in a row. I cant imagine why that helps my argument.

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

If you think that helps your cause that may explain a lot about why you keep thinking the Ukes are winning...

---

A graphic that shows Russia steadily losing ground for 18 months in a row. I cant imagine why that helps my argument.

---

Looks to me like they changed strategy to take the area they wanted anyways.

I am not going to argue their push for Kiev in 3 days didn't work out. But if you look at that map and think Uke victory is imminent, you don't read maps very well.

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

If you think that helps your cause that may explain a lot about why you keep thinking the Ukes are winning...

---

A graphic that shows Russia steadily losing ground for 18 months in a row. I cant imagine why that helps my argument.

---

Looks to me like they changed strategy to take the area they wanted anyways.

I am not going to argue their push for Kiev in 3 days didn't work out. But if you look at that map and think Uke victory is imminent, you don't read maps very well.

---

If they got the area they wanted why aren't they pushing for peace?

She's still right:



Strangely, even F Chuck Todd (CCP) almost asked a couple good questions;

[All of what you wrote is just another way of calling a user an idiot without saying it. That is out of bounds. Just make arguments for your perspective without the insults. - Staff]

Thinking about recent history, I think the Biden Ukraine war fits a pattern well. There is a cycle of alternating parties in DC running appropriations/the executive branch since at least Carter/2nd term Reagan. I think/posit that this Ukraine fiasco is an attempt to make sure whoever is sworn in, in early 2025, has to deal with a huge outlay to 'rebuilding' Ukraine.

The WEF/Biden/CCP/uniparty folks know this. The economy will be a mess, Bidenflation for 4 years, and then a trillion dollar plus commitment to Blackrock/Chinese/German/Russian oligarch partners to 'rebuild' the remnants after. (With appropriate typical Ukraine-kickbacks to the swamp all over).

The point is, EVEN IF darth Vader Trump wins they want him fully handicapped by this **** show. DeSantis or anyone else would be less a threat, but still face the same over-commitment problems.

Only the CCP wins. Slavic casualties, hamlets trading sides in some sort of battlefield shifts, cost in money/treasure, sovereignty or freedom etc., all of that is just a side show to the WEF crowd.

I think you make some very astute observations. More and more folks are seeing the layers of both government manipulation but also MSM and academia manipulation being pulled back.

Hell, Gutfeld! racked up a fine or two for Fox a bit ago going off about Jimmy Fallon's recent troubles... and he was defending Fallon!

People are worn with the cancel culture, muh climate change, muh endless wars, COVID, masks, lockdowns, government overreach and DOJ weaponization.

Sucks Ukes have to die for Biden and friends to keep the manipulation going. Sucks immigrants have to die under false inducements that the border is open and free stuff and prosperity awaits. Sucks we are ruining the climate in the name of climate change.

Progressivism, liberalism and hell most CMs / RINOs simply... suck.

fka ftc said:

---

You realize your last two questions make zero sense at all.

I recommend some time over on the HIstory board and maybe ask for some help with books on military strategy.

I know I learn a lot by reading and studying history. Could help you as well.

---

Again, if they are winning why change strategy when they could just take the whole country? And if they have the lands they want why not push to make those borders permanent now with a peace deal?

fka ftc said:

---

I think you make some very astute observations. More and more folks are seeing the layers of both government manipulation but also MSM and academia manipulation being pulled back.

Hell, Gutfeld! racked up a fine or two for Fox a bit ago going off about Jimmy Fallon's recent troubles... and he was defending Fallon!

People are worn with the cancel culture, muh climate change, muh endless wars, COVID, masks, lockdowns, government overreach and DOJ weaponization.

Sucks Ukes have to die for Biden and friends to keep the manipulation going. Sucks immigrants have to die under false inducements that the border is open and free stuff and prosperity awaits. Sucks we are ruining the climate in the name of climate change.

Progressivism, liberalism and hell most CMs / RINOs simply... suck.

---

Ukes are dying because Putin invaded. Ukes would stop dying if Putin sent his army home. Not much more complicated than that, and blaming anyone else is just forcing a way to shift the blame to the political party you don't like.

Not to mention, the ukes would still die and fight even if Biden stopped every cent of aid tomorrow.

How many Ukes dies when Trump was in charge? How many countries / areas did Putin invade when Trump was in charge?

Yea, but I am just blaming Bide causes it's convenient.

Sorry, but Biden and his policies are to blame. Sorry that doesn't fit your Putin Hate woobie but Biden and NATO ****ed the pooch on preventing this.

The choice to invade fell on one person and one person alone. Anything else is just deflection.

fka ftc said:

---

How many Ukes dies when Trump was in charge? How many countries / areas did Putin invade when Trump was in charge?

Yea, but I am just blaming Bide causes it's convenient.

Sorry, but Biden and his policies are to blame. Sorry that doesn't fit your Putin Hate woobie but Biden and NATO ****ed the pooch on preventing this.

---

If Putin has invaded under Trump, then Trump's hand would have been forced to do exactly what we are doing now, only it would have very high public backing and almost unanimous backing from congress.

By waiting Putin got sheep in the American public and congress on his side.

Manhattan said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

How many Ukes dies when Trump was in charge? How many countries / areas did Putin invade when Trump was in charge?

Yea, but I am just blaming Bide causes it's convenient.

Sorry, but Biden and his policies are to blame. Sorry that doesn't fit your Putin Hate woobie but Biden and NATO ****ed the pooch on preventing this.

---

If Putin has invaded under Trump, then Trump's hand would have been forced to do exactly what we are doing now, only it would have very high public backing and almost unanimous backing from congress.

By waiting Putin got sheep in the American public and congress on his side.

---

Did Putin threaten seriously to invade under Trump's presidency?

Do you hold Obama/Biden's actions/inactions in 2014 partially responsible for Putin's analyses/calculus?

Do you think Putin really cares about the deaths of Russian conscripts/soldiers?

Do you think Biden cares about the Slavic casualties on either side, and if so on what basis?

What events/statements in November-December 2021, through January 2022 do you attribute the decision to invade, on Putin's part, to?

Why do you think 'sheep' in the American public matter to Putin's calculus, and when did that opinion block start to impact his decision making/calculus?

What month/year did you decide you cared about who controlled the Donbas?

Just a few questions I don't expect serious/honest answers to.

Ukraine's government was significantly more corrupt when Russia invaded Crimea we could not have done what we are doing now. As for the presidential election that year, that is just Putin being pissy.

None of Biden's actions influenced Putin, he was going to do it regardless, he was just waiting for when people like Tucker Carlson to essentially support him, Tucker could not have done that while Trump was still president.

Manhattan said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

How many Ukes dies when Trump was in charge? How many countries / areas did Putin invade when Trump was in charge?

Yea, but I am just blaming Bide causes it's convenient.

Sorry, but Biden and his policies are to blame. Sorry that doesn't fit your Putin Hate woobie but Biden and NATO ****ed the pooch on preventing this.

---

If Putin has invaded under Trump, then Trump's hand would have been forced to do exactly what we are doing now, only it would have very high public backing and almost unanimous backing from congress.

By waiting Putin got sheep in the American public and congress on his side.

---

Me thinks you don't understand why Putin didn't press his luck with Trump.

Putin evidently was not keen on the idea of an EMP being popped over Moscow.

That's the truth, though they don't post that on CNN.

Manhattan said:

---

Ukraine's government was significantly more corrupt when Russia invaded Crimea we could not have done what we are doing now. As for the presidential election that year, that is just Putin being pissy.

None of Biden's actions influenced Putin, he was going to do it regardless, he was just waiting for when people like Tucker Carlson to essentially support him, Tucker could not have done that while Trump was still president.

---

I didn't expect a serious response. Appreciate the confirmation.

Putin wouldn't have EMPed Moscow, but there would have been strong bipartisan support for Ukraine, like there was at the beginning of the war in Iraq.

Instead we have people here carrying the water for Putin.

Manhattan said:

---

Ukraine's government was significantly more corrupt when Russia invaded Crimea we could not have done what we are doing now.

---

Yeah Ukraine cleaned up its act. The laptop with all the evidence to the contrary was Russian Disinformation.

Ukrainian forces with a captured Russian T-90M in the Robotyne area, Zaporizhia Oblast. pic.twitter.com/4WRfm4au96

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) September 8, 2023

Good thing they're making so many of these

Ukraine needs to capture 100 each month just to keep up with production.

Quote:

---

Putin evidently was not keen on the idea of an EMP being popped over Moscow.

---

Trump, the candidate that is now saying we should cut off aid to Ukraine for flighting back would risk WW3 if Russia had invaded Ukraine.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Putin evidently was not keen on the idea of an EMP being popped over Moscow.

---

Trump, the candidate that is now saying we should cut off aid to Ukraine for flighting back would risk WW3 if Russia had invaded Ukraine.

---

Tesla, please edit this post. I can't understand what you are saying, but I think I may.

Any time I see 3 up votes on a thread I assume it is as follows:

Ukraine can win the war: TeslAg, GAC06, and Weatherman.

Ukraine can't win the war: nortex, myself, fta fkc.

Are we reaching anyone or just battling?

Either way, we clearly have our lines drawn. The discussion is always engaging though, if only for the six of us. Apologies if anyone was left out.

Define win

Teslag said:

---

Define win

---

No, YOU define win. We can't have a conversation if you keep your definition of winning in your pocket. I've also previously stated on this thread what "win" means.

Instead of saying "define win" you should just give your opinion. Why would you ask me to define "win"? It would save us all a lot of time if you just clearly stated what your definition of a "win" is and move on. Instead we get stuck in a back and forth through multiple comments and people get banned. Stop playing games and start commenting with your thoughts and not "gotcha" traps.

Yet you didn't say what you think winning is

Sitrep: more dire changes needed, per Nato/western 'think tanks.' Excerpts below are from this open sub stack article at this link:

Quote:

---

The first big one making waves is from RUSI (Royal United Services Institute), a military thinktank which calls itself the "oldest defense and security think tank in the world," having been founded by the Duke of Wellington in 1831.

Their latest "special report" gives a considered update on Ukraine's counteroffensive. They start off with the admission that Ukraine is suffering "from heavy rates of equipment loss" but… "the design of armored fighting vehicles supplied by its international partners is preventing this from converting inot a high number of killed personnel."

This is the latest throughline adopted by the West as an attempt to buoy morale in the AFU. You'll notice that after the Challenger 2's first ever kill the other day, the "cope" from the newly appointed British defense minister is that, well, at least the crew survived.

---

Both sides have a lot of artillery, I don't derive much really from his back and forth discussion of various systems then.

However, next report:

Quote:

---

A new WarOnTheRocks article from the now infamous Rob Lee and Michael Kofman also sheds light on this much-discussed opening phase. They corroborate some of the findings, not only stating that Ukraine rarely uses more than a couple tanks at a time due to fear of losses, but that only a few platoons in a brigade are assault ready:

Quote:

---

Around Bakhmut, for example, many of Ukraine's mechanized assaults feature one to two squads backed by two tanks. Ukrainian tank units, according to our field research, rarely mass at the company level because of the risk of losing too many tanks at once. Tank battles are rare. Tanks spend much of their time supporting infantry and providing indirect fires. They generally operate in pairs, or in platoons, supporting infantry attacks. This offensive has largely been characterized by platoon-level infantry assaults, fighting tree line to tree line. Despite their size, brigades often have a limited number of platoons and companies that have assault training, constraining the forces available for such tasks.

---

The other big admission in their tepid piece is that Russia is in fact deliberately trading space for attrition, a fact clear to any even mid-level analyst but still repeatedly ignored by propaganda-boost-hungry Western cheerleaders:

---

More:

Quote:

---

Getting back to the RUSI piece, the rest of the section covers some post-op BDA stuff so we move onto the next interesting section called "Russian Lessons and Adaptation."
It starts off with another big concession:

Quote:

---

The tactical actions around Novodarivka and Rivnopil were largely seen as successes by Russian forces insofar as they inflicted sufficient equipment losses in the early phases so as to degrade the reach of Ukrainian manoeuvre units assuming a consistent rate of loss through the depth of Russia's defensive positions.

---

They are admitting that even though Ukraine eventually took those two small settlements, it was basically a Russian success because of the outsize and unsustainable casualties the AFU took. These are fairly stark confessions from an institute bent on promoting as 'sanitized' a version of the war as possible.
And another:

Quote:

---

The Russian military has also determined to tactically exploit opportunities when Ukrainian forces have become bogged down by aggressive flanking with armour to knock out Ukrainian systems. It is worth noting that Russia often loses the tanks used for these counterattacks but they inflict disproportionate damage because the mines constrain Ukrainian vehicles in their ability to manoeuvre or respond.

This willingness to counterattack and a decision to defend forwards highlight how training for Russian tank crews and other specialisms has continued to function, generating new crews with some tactical competence compared with the disruption in collective training that has hampered Russian infantry.

---

According to them, Russia is showing vast improvement in EW warfare, innovating new usages such as using smaller, lighter, mobile systems like Pole-21 to act as the "antenna" transmitter to larger more powerful systems. This allows the mobile unit to give off the EW signal leaving the larger mainframe safe and hidden, enabling wider battlefield coverage.

The final and most important advancement they note, is that the famed Russian Reconnaissance-Fire-Complex (RFC) has been continually improving every day. They note that Russia has favored prioritizing guided munitions like the Krasnopol and has tightened its ISR capabilities in carrying out accurate strikes that allows them to destroy targets with far less ammo expenditures than old Soviet grid-style gunlaying doctrines.

Quote:

---

This is a concerning trend, as over time it will likely significantly improve Russian artillery. The growth in the complexity, diversity and density of Russian UAVs is concerning. The gains in both effect of the warhead and the economy of its design between Lancet-3 and Lancet-3M demonstrate how the Russians are actively improving their fielded equipment. Modifications to loitering munitions to achieve noise reduction on Shahed-136 and to harden navigation are also notable.

---

The most important point in my view revolves around the improvements in the communications of the Recon-Fire-Complex authority/kill chains. This is of utmost importance and mentions something I've long harped on:

Quote:

---

Enabling the RFC depends on communications. Here too, the Russian military is making important progress. At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russian forces depended heavily on bespoke military radios. In the scramble for equipment late last year, a wide array of civilian systems was employed. Conceptually, however, the Russians now appear to have moved on, increasingly relying on military bearer networks but app-based services for encoding and accessing data. The result is that a system such as Strelets can provide a 3G connection to multiple devices operating applications that are intuitive for civilian users. This separation of bearers and services is nascent and the security and robustness of the systems being tested must be doubted. Nevertheless, the reduced training burden of this approach and the improvements in fire direction already achieved mean that the AFRF are likely to continue to push in this direction and increasingly systematise their communications architecture around these methods.

---

---

This corresponds a bit to our discussion yesterday where someone asserted baldly, and provided no support when asked, that the war is great because it is weakening Russia's military. Is it, in materiel net weaker today than in 2021, or in strategy/tactics? Hmmm…well let's turn to a friendly western outlet like the Council on Foreign Relations to buttress the wish-casting, right?

Quote:

---

Much of this is echoed by another Foreign Affairswhich, by the way, is the official magazine of the Council on Foreign Relationspiece which declares that Russia, troublingly, is improving in many ways:

---

And from there we learn that NATO has determined it's training isn't working for mid/junior NCO's, the tactics aren't working, and there is distrust from commanders that subordinates will execute orders.

Well, the Ukrainian units are all outfitted to succeed when on the offensive with new/updated tactics and great gear, right? Wait…

Quote:

---

But the RUSI report goes on:

Quote:

---

This approach to force generation means that most Ukrainian battalions are generating approximately two platoons of troops which are considered fully capable of leading assault actions. While the rest of the battalion provides reinforcement, and the ability to hold ground, the size at which formations can conduct offensive action is severely constrained.

---

So, due to these various limitations, each battalion can only generate half a company's worth of real fighting men, while the rest merely watches and provides fodder to replace those lost by the minute. This explains why we only see a company or two at most from each vaunted "brigade" strike out at a time.

---

Well ok, whatever, the important thing is that the Russians put everything into that first line of defense the UFA have now smashed through, right? Ugh, more bad news, this time from the DIA via The Economist:

Quote:

---

The one important takeaway here is that U.S. intel agencies admit they underestimated Russian defenses. But the breathtaking admission that's made is that the bulk of Russian reserves still remains on the 3rd line, which Ukraine hasn't even reached yet:



That's to say, the vast bulk of two entire army corps of the AFU were utterly destroyed with up to 50k casualties just fighting a fraction of Russia's forces, while the bulk of Russian defenders still remains uncommitted in the rear. Imagine how demoralizing that must be to realize.

They admit that Ukraine has spent most of its reserves, a fact attested to by the destruction of the Challenger 2 recently, which meansas someone else put itUkraine is already "scraping the bottom of the barrel" of its last capabilities for the offensive.

---

Ok, whatever nortex, but the Russians are desperate and inept/desperate, right? Umm, Kiev Independent (state sanctioned media):



In other words, one side is getting inevitably weaker via disproportionate losses while desperately trying to force some marginal territorial gains, while the other is building experience and continuing to increase munitions/ordinance/materiel production:

Quote:

---

Have you ever played one of those Real Time Strategy games where each unit accrues 'experience points' the longer it stays alive, making it stronger, deal more damage, etc.? It's a fairly apt analogy to how next year will look. Russia's units are taking far less losses, and thus are accumulating heaps of experience, making them stronger, hardier, more accurate and resourceful, etc. Ukraine on the other hand is constantly being replenished with ever-newer and ever-less-fit stockincluding invalids, geriatrics, now women, etc.

That means by next year, a majority of Russian troops will have the equivalent of a three-star XP rating above their heads, while those of the AFU will be fresh 0 star ones. The end result will be that losses for the AFU will take on an ever-less 'linear' disparity, and will begin to turn parabolic. Whatever the kill ratio is presently, it will only get worse by next year as seasoned Russian troops are wantonly pitted against untrained press-ganged conscripts.

The biggest takeaway from these reports is a blind hope that the West will somehow 'stay the course' and continue filling Ukraine's needs through next year. But we've already seen that not only are severe cutbacks in funding expected, but there's not much top equipment left to send, which is why they're already scraping the bottom of the barrel with things like old Leopard 1s to replace the lost 2 series.

Furthermore, much of the hoped-for European/Western arms manufacturing solidarity has not come to pass. The hollow promises of massive manufacturing boosts were made under the presumption of newly formed consortiums which can work together to open new factories and pump out huge quantities of shells. But none of that has happened, as companies instead balked and played for time, too chary to invest in a dubious proposition.

---

I'll stop there. Clearly, there's a lot more at the link to the actual linked articles/analyses. As stated above, it's cruel and counterproductive alike to force these Ukrainian conscripts to continue in this manner. The war is functionally over, it's just a politics game as to when to announce it.

10thYrSr said:

---

Any time I see 3 up votes on a thread I assume it is as follows:

Ukraine can win the war: TeslAg, GAC06, and Weatherman.

Ukraine can't win the war: nortex, myself, fta fkc.

Are we reaching anyone or just battling?

Either way, we clearly have our lines drawn. The discussion is always engaging though, if only for the six of us. Apologies if anyone was left out.

---

Im pretty up to speed on history and world events, but i still find everything about this war to be pretty opaque.

I'd love to see both sides summarize their idea of the real players,motives, status, and projected outcomes.

I'm curious as well for solid reporting/documentary analyses of the war. The likelihood is that the war will stagger on and end after our presidential election next November. Then, we will spend over a trillion dollars to help 'rebuild' what is left of Ukraine (largely along the current lines) in an enormous financial outlay that has already been negotiated with Blackrock/China/Kiev etc. Ukraine's actual population at that point will be around 18 million people, likely.

The alternative is that Russia decides to move offensively, instead of facilitating 'meat grinder' defensive operations as they have so far. This is plausible but I think relatively unlikely as they don't really want the increased casualties this would entail (they took heavy casualties when using what they considered 'expendable' forces/conscripts like Wagner in Bakhmut).

Decent oped about the current status around Robotine, from the…biased Russia Today:

Quote:

---

Race for reinforcements

As the fighting in Rabotino has dragged on, both sides have needed to transfer reserves and pull them into battle urgently. The Ukrainians, who started with several brigades, gradually introduced the 116th, 117th, and 118th mechanized brigades and then, in mid-August, played their trump card: the 82nd Air Assault Brigade. Initially, this group was supposed to go into battle only after breaking through Russia's first line of defense.

In reality, things didn't go as planned, and paratroopers from the 82nd stormed Rabotino. The presence of this "elite" (as the media called it) outfit on the battlefield allowed Russian troops to destroy more expensive Western equipment.

As for Russia, it transferred the seventh and 76th Air Assault Division to Rabotino to relieve the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division that fought there earlier. These units are currently the backbone of its defense.

Who controls Rabotino now?

For the most part, Rabotino is in the 'gray zone.' Ukrainian troops are positioned on the northern and northeastern outskirts of the settlement. At the same time, the Russians are keeping their main forces west and south of the village, maintaining control over the southern outskirts.

---

Quote:

---

Rabotino a new meat grinder?
The fact that Kiev continues to fight for Rabotino is highly convenient for Moscow's forces. Thanks to the heavy concentration of Ukrainians there, the Russian operational command does not expect the enemy to make unpredictable decisions and will probably focus on defending this area.

At the same time, even if the Ukrainians managed to take control of the settlement, this would not change the situation at the front since the village isn't as "strategically important" as Kiev officials say it is.
Rabotino and the fields to the east of it, where the Ukrainians were able to advance to the outskirts of the Russian primary defenses and reach the first line of defense in the area of Verbovoye, are located in tactically inconvenient lowlands. By controlling the high ground, where the first line has been constructed, the Russians can easily oversee the territory occasionally allowing the AFU to progress deeper, stretching their supply and evacuation routes and then launch a counterattack.

In general, when it comes to the battle for Rabotino, control over this tiny settlement is less important than the balance of the losses between the two parties; the issue of introducing and transferring reserves; and the remaining offensive potential of the Ukrainian army.

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Define win

---

No, YOU define win. We can't have a conversation if you keep your definition of winning in your pocket. I've also previously stated on this thread what "win" means.

Instead of saying "define win" you should just give your opinion. Why would you ask me to define "win"? It would save us all a lot of time if you just clearly stated what your definition of a "win" is and move on. Instead we get stuck in a back and forth through multiple comments and people get banned. Stop playing games and start commenting with your thoughts and not "gotcha" traps.

---

I've said it from the start. As long as Ukraine exists they have won. Now your turn. Define win.

Quote:

---

Then, we will spend over a trillion dollars to help 'rebuild' what is left of Ukraine (largely along the current lines)

---

Then this is a win for Ukraine and a complete embarrassment for Russia. Russia wanted the entire country and the U.S./NATO out. A peace along the current lines and the US rebuilding Ukraine commercially and militarily is not what Russia set out for when they tried rolling into Kiev as quickly as a possible.

Blinken: Ukraine and the United States will negotiate with Russia

Ukraine is ready to negotiate with the Russian Federation if the Russian side makes such a proposal. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken thinks so. According to him, the United States will support Kyiv by… pic.twitter.com/ct0QiCScqd

— Sprinter (@Sprinter99800) September 10, 2023

I wonder if this is an attempt to delay a Russian counter-attack.

Hopefully this signals an imminent end to the carnage, even if only a temporary pause this has potential to mean good news is coming.

Agreed. There's a chance this is china signaling via their spokesperson it's time to simmer down.