fka ftc said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Russia is going to keep Crimea for sure and most of the territory it holds now particularly as it relates to the buffer around Crimea. It may have been discussed and it also should be obvious, but that is inline with the defensive position discussed in your previous post.

---

Yep agreed . How does this end as UKE says they won't stop till all land is regained ?

---

It ends when China tells Joe that the current line is good as the new border for Russia-Ukraine and Biden makes sad call to Z that his moment is over, pack your gold, seek exile and we will let you know whom to hand the keys to.

---

LarryElder said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Russia is going to keep Crimea for sure and most of the territory it holds now particularly as it relates to the buffer around Crimea. It may have been discussed and it also should be obvious, but that is inline with the defensive position discussed in your previous post.

---

Yep agreed . How does this end as UKE says they won't stop till all land is regained ?

---

Ukraine will be paid off with NATO membership and a permanent presence to keep the lines as is.

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Russia is going to keep Crimea for sure and most of the territory it holds now particularly as it relates to the buffer around Crimea. It may have been discussed and it also should be obvious, but that is inline with the defensive position discussed in your previous post.

---

Yep agreed . How does this end as UKE says they won't stop till all land is regained ?

---

Ukraine will be paid off with NATO membership and a permanent presence to keep the lines as is.

---

Russia is not going to sign-off on Ukes being part of NATO. More likely they get exactly the opposite and a commitment that Ukraine will never be part of NATO.

Quote:

---

Russia is not going to sign-off on Ukes being part of NATO.

---

Russia doesn't get a say. What are they going to do? Toss around a bunch of nuke threats like they have for two years?

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is not going to sign-off on Ukes being part of NATO.

---

Russia doesn't get a say. What are they going to do? Toss around a bunch of nuke threats like they have for two years?

---

Sure, or they will just keep fighting, antagonizing whilst at the same time growing their economy, strengthening their military readiness and doing more and more business with Iran, China and India.

Quote:

---

The weapons' manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, currently makes about 500 ATACMS a year, though they're all slated for sale to Poland, Finland, Romania, the UAE and Taiwan, which have ordered the missile system in recent years.

The Army hasn't purchased new ATACMS in several years, though it has upgraded them with better guidance systems. The service is also preparing to move past the ATACMS, and beginning this year will start the transition to the new Precision Strike Missile, which can travel at least 310 miles, vastly outranging the ATACMS' 190 miles.

The Army will start receiving deliveries of the new missile this year, which could make more ATACMS available to transfer to other countries.

---

Biden about to sign off on long range missiles Ukraine.

Looks like Ukraine is picking over the US arsenal like the clearance aisle at Big Lots.

Surely these long range missiles will change the direction of the war.

Only a 200mi range on these bad boys so we still playing just the tip.

I'm sure It'll work out fine. We all just need to trust the experts who have our best interest at heart.

An argument could certainly be made that this is all a great bargain for China, as they are depleting both our arsenal and treasury without having to expend any blood of their own, while perhaps even buying/benefiting via BRICS trade/discounted oil/gas products and a deflated American economy.

But our genius Manchurian president would never let that happen, or go do something like kiss the memorial to the guys who shot down his friend in a communist country while thanking them, or shut down our energy exploration/production capacity, or sell our strategic petroleum reserves to china, or take money from Russian oligarchs for his crime family or exempt them from his Russian sactions…oh, wait.

Certainly makes strategic sense if the plan is to move against Taiwan in the near future.

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is not going to sign-off on Ukes being part of NATO.

---

Russia doesn't get a say. What are they going to do? Toss around a bunch of nuke threats like they have for two years?

---

Sure, or they will just keep fighting, antagonizing whilst at the same time growing their economy, strengthening their military readiness and doing more and more business with Iran, China and India.

---

Strengthening their military with what? What fighting have they done in the past 18 months? Their only offensive fighting force was disbanded and their leader shot from the sky.

Tactically, anybody saying saying either Russia or Ukraine is 'winning' this thing is probably full of B.S. it has all the makings right now of a stale-mate.

Strategically, Russia is having to expend an enormous amount of its GDP in this 'Special Military Operation' not even considering the body bags.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-doubles-2023-defence-spending-plan-war-costs-soar-document-2023-08-04/

Wars the longer they go on are eventually 'won' by economies. It is pure math. Is why U.S. prevailed in WW2 and why the Soviet Union eventually collapsed in late 80's when trying to keep up the military spending against us finally broke them.

Three states in the U.S., California, Texas, and New York have a GDP greater than Russia. If this Ukraine conflict were to go on for several more years, it is an eventual certainty that Russia economically would finally break vs the U.S. and NATO funding.

Russia/Putin is counting on being able to suffer longer than the Western countries patience. They are counting on wearing us down politically before they finally crack. Putin main advantages are his people are good at suffering and he's not elected and he totally controls the state media.

Russia is not 'getting stronger' over time the longer this goes on. If someone heard that…it is B.S.

You're right except for 2 facts

1) it's not the west that will lose resolve, they may but the most important metric is warm bodies on the western side of the Surovikin line. Ukraine is having a demographic collapse. Not only do you have massive casualties, but let's not forget a good 20% gtfo'd at the start. Kiev is trying to force EU countries to terminate asylum status for males. Forced, coordinated conscription.

Every body that ends up shelled in the "march" to Azov is one fewer able body defending the north. Throwing sht against a wall is a bad strategy, but they "had" to attempt an offensive rather than digging in or else they lose the initiative and the handouts to the West.

2) Russia is reporting month over month recruitment and contract goals. Whereas Kiev has been failing to replenish losses. Whether that translates to "Russia getting stronger" is moot, the Ruskies aren't taking 1:1 losses, in this attrition game patience wins. Russia can be more methodical because Ukraine and the West has thrown their counterpunch and the targets are 20% weaker due to manpower lost in the failed offensive.

It is interesting you mention ww2 parallels. The two economies that surfaced out of the war were the US and Russia, specifically because they expanded their manufacturing capacity throughout the war.

Whether you believe the 9000 tanks/month propaganda is irrelevant, Moscow has realigned their economy to manufacturing. We haven't. In fact Biden has canceled permits for energy production.

Now it's been estimated it takes a good 5-7 years to build a plant and get it to capacity. Russia and China continue to prioritize manufacturing and we don't. I don't want "operation warpspeed" for DoD equipment. But it seems like we are destined to play catchup because we have a Democrat in the WH.

Quote:

---

Russia is reporting month over month recruitment and contract goals

---

I'm sure they are

Another dime should not be sent over to a corrupt country we played politics with until we protect our own borders.

Let the EU pay for all that.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is reporting month over month recruitment and contract goals

---

I'm sure they are

---

I guess you're a math denier. Because Russia is rotating troops in and out of the defensive line. And Ukraine isn't. They are exchanging warm bodies for cold ones.

The funny part is you have been so consumed with maps and "territory gained" that you failed to care about the more important metric: human resource. Modern wars are not decided by controlling lands but destroying soldiers. It's why we lost Iraq and Afghanistan, it's why Ho won Vietnam.

Vietnam War against a determined foe, our kill ratio was reported 10:1 even 15:1. We had 600,000 troops over at its peak. How did that turn out for us? We supposedly killed about a million of the other side over there. Did we 'win'? If Ukraine is determined to fight and is supplied this thing can drag out several more years IMO yes bleeding out Ukraine but slowly bleeding out Russia too. It is of course horrific but dificulta to see any chance for a window of negotiated Peace until Putin exits. I don't believe the 'Ukraine is close to collapse' spin any more than I believe the spin that the Russians are close yet. Let's bookmark right here and come back in say yet another 6 months and see if everybody is still talking about 'so-and-so' is about to collapse. If the pro-Russia reports are to be believed like our Viet Cong kill counts…the Ukrainians are nearly out of men right now as I type.

Modern war is won through industry, not bodies. You got that completely wrong. Neither Ukraine or Russia are about to run out of bodies. Countries didn't run out of bodies in WWI, which was orders of magnitude more intense in regards to attrition.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Tactically, anybody saying saying either Russia or Ukraine is 'winning' this thing is probably full of B.S. it has all the makings right now of a stale-mate.

Strategically, Russia is having to expend an enormous amount of its GDP in this 'Special Military Operation' not even considering the body bags.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-doubles-2023-defence-spending-plan-war-costs-soar-document-2023-08-04/

Wars the longer they go on are eventually 'won' by economies. It is pure math. Is why U.S. prevailed in WW2 and why the Soviet Union eventually collapsed in late 80's when trying to keep up the military spending against us finally broke them.

Three states in the U.S., California, Texas, and New York have a GDP greater than Russia. If this Ukraine conflict were to go on for several more years, it is an eventual certainty that Russia economically would finally break vs the U.S. and NATO funding.

Russia/Putin is counting on being able to suffer longer than the Western countries patience. They are counting on wearing us down politically before they finally crack. Putin main advantages are his people are good at suffering and he's not elected and he totally controls the state media.

Russia is not 'getting stronger' over time the longer this goes on. If someone heard that…it is B.S.

---

wasn't this supposed to happen already they are selling oil and nat gas to China and India think they will be fine?

Gibberish

GAC06 said:

---

Gibberish

---

coming from king UKE fan boy thats a compliment


Many said Russia's economy would be in tatters from sanctions etc, etc, yet here we are.

Many said that Russia would roll over Ukraine, yet here we are.

GAC06 said:

---

Many said that Russia would roll over Ukraine, yet here we are.

---

Many said the spring offensive would end the war yet here we are.

Who said that?

LarryElder said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Many said that Russia would roll over Ukraine, yet here we are.

---

Many said the spring offensive would end the war yet here we are.

---

I don't believe anyone said that. The hope was they would get to the Sea of Azov.

Trade winds of change as Biden's proxy war continue to steadily empower a re-alignment of BRICS nations and international trade/order in favor of the Chinese and Russians:

Quote:

---

These tectonic shifts have not been lost on some of the world's most incisive thinkers. Alexander Dugin was amongst the first to notice the seachange. In a new post, he describes the new emergent world 'eschatology'. I'm no hardcore Duginist, per se, so I can only assume he's using the term not in a theological but rather Heideggerian way (he was a follower of Heidegger, after all)which is to say, eschatology as a sort of human manifest destiny, or true being. In short, he's saying that countries around the world are throwing off their previous imposed facades and false mantles, and are going back to their roots by re-embracing their historical essence.

Dugin links it to the final refutation of Francis ***uyama's fallacythat the "end of history" had come with the fall of the Soviet Union, and that "liberalism" would be the final eschatological fabric to enshroud humanity for all time. But the new global shift represents an awakening of the world's oldest cultures, having finally realized that the pseudo-religious cult of Western 'liberalism' is in fact a dead end.

Lastly, to return from the lofty and abstract back to the concrete developments on the ground, we note that the other major ground-shaking demarche occurred when the West, and the U.S. in particular, got a big slap in the face rebuke when the entire G20 refused to declare the Ukrainian conflict as an "aggression" by Russia, wording it as a "war in Ukraine" rather than a "war against/on Ukraine [by Russia]", a sharp departure from the Bali summit in November of last year, where most countries condemned Russia's "aggression".

---

Russia apparently has some new larger glide bombs that can be dropped from SU-34's which they are excited about. But more importantly, back to the artillery situation, comparatively:

Quote:

---

I wanted to issue a small update on the artillery war as a natural extension of the big artillery rant I did in this last report.

As you know, when new information corroborating some important throughline comes about, I like to update it to give people real complementary data to prove a point.

My position was that Russia is winning the artillery war despite the contrary complaints from 6th columnists, in both total attrition and the simple mathematics of things like range.

Here's a new video I happened to see of a Russian artilleryman describing a captured 2A65 Msta-B. He plainly states it has a 28km range; recall the M777 with basic round is listed at 23km and change.

It may not be groundbreaking stuff but it constitutes one of the first clear confirmations from actual Russian artillerymen, rather than relying on wikipedia stats. And though this video depicts a captured version, the 2A65 is one of Russia's most standard deployed field pieces, not to mention uses the same cannon as in the 2S19 Msta-S, which means they should have about the same range.

Building on that comes a new Ukrainian post which gives us unique insight into the situation:

Quote:

---

Ukrainian Post

In connection with the constant defeat of 2c4 "tulip" and 2c7 "peony", the enemy is forced to compensate for the losses of 2c5 "hyacinth-s", which is reflected in their ability to conduct counter-battery combat.

If we maintain the rate of destruction of 2c4 and 2c7, as well as enemy UAV control points, our artillery will feel a little more free and will already gain an advantage not only in counter-battery, but also as infantry support.

---

They claim that Russia is losing 2S4 Tulips and 2S7 Peonies, and is forced to compensate with 2S5 Hyacinth-S systems. But notice what he says. That only by continuing to attrit these systems can Ukrainian artillery gain any breathing room to work in counter-battery and supporting their infantry.

The conditional is "if" we maintain this attrition, our artillery will be able to breathe more freely and survive counterbattery warfare. So what does that tell you?

Remember how last time the 2S7M is precisely the system I listed as being the bane of any and all NATO artillery systems. It's a 203mm powerhouse that shoots nearly 40km with unassisted shells and even much farther with assisted ones. The AFU are confirming that the 2S7 doesn't let them breathe and only by further attriting them (with drones, HIMARs, etc.) can their artillery be able to come out of hiding and be effective in supporting frontline troops.

Also, note how he states IF we maintain destroying the 2S7s, we will "gain an advantage" in counterbattery warfarethis clearly presupposes that they don't currently have this advantage. i.e. he's admitting that Russia fields the counterbattery advantage at present.

---

Oh and I'm sure some above won't believe this but…yes they are rotating troops and hitting recruiting/sign up goals:

Quote:

---

Then, State Duma Defense Committee Chairman Kartapolov issued the following statement:

Quote:

---

Russia does not need a new mobilization for the rotation of servicemen in the special military operation zone, says the chairman of the defense committee.

According to the chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, they have already enlisted more than 200,000 contract servicemen, and it is through them that the rotation of mobilized personnel in the special military operation zone will be carried out.

"Today, we have over 200,000 contract servicemen just for this year, so by the end of the year, it will practically be one to one or maybe even more," explained the deputy.

In the State Duma, there was talk about the rotation of contract soldiers at the expense of the mobilized

In Russia, no new mobilization is needed to rotate military personnel in the zone of special military operations. The chairman of the State Duma defense committee, Andrey Kartapolov, spoke about this. According to him, contract soldiers will be used for this.

"That's why they were recruited." They have already recruited much more than 200 thousand, and because of them there will be rotation. As part of the partial mobilization, 300,000 people were recruited. Today, there are more than 200,000 military personnel under contract for this year alone, so by the end of the year it will be almost one to one, and maybe even more," explained the MP.

---

This is very interesting because if you'll recall, I had previously reported that there was a "rumor" Putin was going to use the newly mobilized to merely 'rotate' last September's partially mobilized 300k, rather than adding them to a much larger continual force.

There has been a big mystery surrounding what these newly 420k+ enlisted Russia plans to have by the end of this year are for, exactly. We speculated they would be either reserves for Shoigu's newly created military districts and army corps, and/or also new forces to add onto the existing formations in the SMO.

Now, Kartapolov appears to have confirmed that the chief purpose for the new cadres is to rotate the previously mobilized 300k, seemingly validating the earlier rumor. He said by the end of the year they will be more than "one to one", meaning they will match the 300k mobilized last year. The big question is, what does this "rotation" entail exactly? Is it temporary or a permanent demobilization of last year's numbers?


…
The last time I calculated it out in a report, I estimated Russia could have as few as 370-450k forces or so. This is based on the fact that they only used under 100k in the first year of the war, added another 300k mobilized, however likely lost anywhere from 50-100k in both casualties and contract expirations or those who simply left the service.

If we add to the above the fact that tens of thousands of the newly enlisted from this year have been sent to the frontline rather than placed in Shoigu's new corps, then we can arrive at somewhere around the 400k range give or take. Of course there are now 200-300k in reserve that can enter at any time, but the 420k number quoted in the article states that's the number participating in the SMO.

The fact that the Ukrainian intel rep is quoted as saying this is a very impressive number seems to indicate to me that Ukraine's number is similar if not lower, rather than the 800k-1M troops Zelensky would like us believe he currently has.

---

And again, these are reported in AFP and Bloomberg, hardly just bastions of "Russian propaganda" (aka 'thinks I don't want to believe' for many).

Ukrainian Prime Minister Shmygal publicly admitted the failure of the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and said that it was the fault of the West, which did not provide enough money and resources.❕
But if he gave even more, then the Armed Forces of Ukraine would show… pic.twitter.com/arBqchjNkP

— Sprinter (@Sprinter99800) September 12, 2023

Obviously this clean communication is conveying basic truths to win over Ukrainians to the just cause and battle for freedom:

This is pure madness …

pic.twitter.com/fHEqOy4ciI

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) September 13, 2023

Ah well, more at the link above.

Looks like an atacms strike to me as the Ukrainians haven't been able to launch 10 storm shadows for a while.

Together with the missile strike on Sevastopol, the AFU were planning to land again on Tarkhankut or gas production installations.

All yesterday night until noon the AFU transported ammunition and fuel to Zmeiniy from Vilkovo on boats, preparing for the operation in Crimea.…

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) September 13, 2023

And if the M270 was actually used for the strike, it means that either the Ukrainian troops have already been given the "go-ahead" to use American Atacms, or some new type of munitions has appeared that can hit at such a range.

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) September 13, 2023

I did read that some atacms were thought to have been quietly transferred in the past couple weeks. I'd think targets on land at key points of the "counter offensive" might have been prioritized but apparently a sub and landing ship were damaged.

What is curious is what the Ukrainian command is emphasizing when creating new units. Infantry brigades, given the favorite tactics of "meat" assault, will be equipped only with light armored vehicles and will act as expendable material to replace the depleted units

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) September 12, 2023

GAC06 said:

---

Modern war is won through industry, not bodies. You got that completely wrong. Neither Ukraine or Russia are about to run out of bodies. Countries didn't run out of bodies in WWI, which was orders of magnitude more intense in regards to attrition.

---

Clearly you aren't a historian. The countries involved in WW1, save the US and Russia, were massively decimated. The UK didn't see its industry harmed by Germans, yet the empire never recovered from the loss of 900k men (which was only 6% of their total population.) It's the part of the population that sires the next generation. In fact the demographic collapse of western powers ended up being one of the selling points of nazism, which focused the Germans on having 4 children to receive full vesting from the state. Mothers who had 8+ children were venerated as township heroes, given medals, parades, and even honors greater than military officers (Iike how even US generals must salute our Medal of Honor recipients.) It was that focus of rebuilding the population that flung Germany ahead of the rest of the west. It was always about population, that's why Russia defeated Germany in ww2.

Are you honestly going to claim russias industry was anywhere on the level of the nazi's industry? Hell no, because deep down you recognize its not about pig iron.

Excellent post.

The incredible losses on Flanders fields, Ypres, Verdun, the Somme, Marne etc. are all things that seriously did wound the 'people' of Europe to a point I think they will never recover.

I didn't know some of that German history you noted but it's believable. The Soviets/Russians ultimately won with sheer manpower, but it also helped that they had been sort of the R&D center abroad for the nazi's for armor etc. before the 2nd war happened.

Quote:

---

Hell no, because deep down you recognize its not about pig iron.

---

Of course not, it's mostly about silicon today. Technology and economies win wars in 2023. As Russia keeps finding out.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Hell no, because deep down you recognize its not about pig iron.

---

Of course not, it's mostly about silicon today. Technology and economies win wars in 2023. As Russia keeps finding out.

---

You may be right. Russia has been investing in technology and modern tech centers to diversify their economy.

Their $15 billion MIBC is more impressive than anything built in the US... maybe ever.

Russia WAS investing before they decided to cut themselves off from the world. Thought I'm sure the Kremlin would gleefully tell the world they still are.

Teslag said:

---

Russia WAS investing before they decided to cut themselves off from the world. Thought I'm sure the Kremlin would gleefully tell the world they still are.

---

That video is 5 minutes long. Did you watch it fully before responding?

No. It was from 3 years ago.

Are posters here debating whether Russia is getting stronger over time compared to USA or Ukraine as this drags on?

If USA…given the US's economy and population size was several times larger at the beginning of this conflict than Russia…Russia is spending much larger % of their national budget than U.S. is spending on this Special Military operation, Russia is losing an estimated 2-3 KIA a month while U.S. is losing 0, NATO is adding Finland and Sweden because of this…

Cynically…if how many Ukrainians die is irrelevant to the primary chess game of Cold War geo-politics….I am very skeptical Russia's comparative position to USA is getter better each day this drags on. If somebody wants to argue weaker but that actually makes them more dangerous, then ok. I can understand that angle of an argument. But stronger? The math doesn't seem like it could be anywhere close to ever adding up to make that case.

Especially when one considers that Russia is having to basically claw and scratch for everything they can just hold the ukes at bay at this point. How much will they have to spend and produce if they ever intend on an offensive? The US right now is spending about 3% of our defense budget on this. It's a pittance and the Russians are having to turn over the earth just to keep up. If it's an attrition battle the Russians are screwed.