Quote:

---

I am not really in agreement with you that this would elicit a boom of support for sending them more guns/ammo/money, but maybe it would, who knows.

---

I think it absolutely would raise the chances that it would.

Some mailbag updates this am. Sitrep.

The always emotional reaction inducing analyses of Russian tank production first:

Quote:

---

Russia was set to open two new factories this year just for refurbs/upgrades alone, which would drastically increase that number. My understanding is that these factories are not built from scratch but are the on-lining of previously mothballed factories. I have no precise information if they have already opened but we can assume they likely have as the intention to open them was made end of last year or early this year.

These new factories, according to The Economist at least, would allow Russia to refurb/upgrade 90+ tanks per month, in addition to the 20+ brand new monthly tanks manufactured at the Nizhny Tagil factory of Uralvagonzavod. This would allow 110/monthly or 1,320 yearly total tanks, according to the Economist's numbers.

This is not far off from what Putin and Medvedev proposed. Earlier this year, both of them stated Russia will produce a total of 1500-1600 tanks for the 2023 year period:

They specifically say this is new plus upgrades. My understanding is Russia is only producing new ones at the Tagil plant. The 103rd Armored plant in Atamanovka refurbs the upgraded T-62s, and the Omsktransmash plant does the T-80s, though the head has announced Russia charged them with the mission of restarting a fullblown original T-80 line. Thus they will produce brand new T-80s in the future, but this may still be a ways off, judging by the obstacles that were implied still exist.

Speaking of, at the time of this writing another large new batch of T-80BVM upgrades was just shipped to the front:

This is significant because a fresh batch of them had just been seen a couple months ago. Other experts have noted it:

Quote:

---

Omsktransmash has delivered another batch of T-80BVM tanks. Months ago, the company has taken around 180 old T-80 tanks from depots and plans to modernize and deliver them this year. Typically, they release batches of 20-30 units every 40-60 days.
Before the war, the company used to produce an average of 40 tanks annually, but they had the capacity to modernize about 400 units annually. Currently, the Armored Repair Plants are refurbishing the old T-80 tanks, while Omsktransmash is responsible for modernizing them into T-80BVM tanks.
We can expect around 50-70 more T-80BVM tanks to be delivered by the end of this year. Based on my estimates, the annual production could reach approximately 180-200 units. In an effort to balance the game, Ukraine will acquire 31 Abrams tanks and is negotiating the deliver of around 20 more Leopard 2 tanks.

---

They believe the T-80 upgrades alone will be around 200 for the year. This is a mostly pro-Ukrainian source so I expect they're undercounting it a bit, but at least it gives a rough idea.
It could fit with Western estimates because if you break it down into 20 brand new T-72s produced per month, as well as 20 refurbs of every other tank class, you get an annual output of roughly: 200+ T-72s, 200+ upgraded T-80s, 200+ upgraded T-62s, 200+ upgraded T-90s, and 200+ upgraded T-72s from old hulls taken from storage rather than built from scratch. This would get you at least 1000-1200 total tanks per year.

This jibes with a video I saw earlier this year of the T-62 refurb factory where they said a full 'tank battalion' of them had already been shipped to the front. The pace seemed to be a tank battalion per quarter, which would correspond to about 40-50 tanks per quarter or upwards of 200 annually. We can assume this could be the rough pace of the other factories as well, which is how we'd get the baseline minimum of at least 1000+ total yearly tanks. Putin/Medvedev's 1500-1600 would be the optimistic ceiling.

I'm not sure exactly how they'd reach the 1500-1600 number. Perhaps adding 200 yearly T-55s to the mix as well as the brand new T-72 hull production could be severely undercounted by Western sources. The reason is that Uralvagonzavod is arguably the largest manufacturer on earth but the majority of their plants (they have dozens of plants) were focused on building civilian machines like trolleys, trams, subway trains, etc. However earlier this year I read that some or all of their civilian lines would be turned over to tanks, not to mention the general increase to three 24/7 shifts for all lines. So we can only deduce that such a potentially massive increase in productivity would yield far more than 20 new T-72s per month.

I had already showed how the USSR, using the same factories, produced upwards of 1500+ brand new tanks per year:
…
This is why it's very plausible that Russia is doing at least somewhere near the stated goal numbers of 1500-1600, but I'll say at the minimum it's ~1200 yearly. By 2024 it will certainly be 1600 and beyond. Not only because Russia is continually streamlining, finetuning, and opening those new plants, which may still be in the process of getting fully up and running, but Russia is also vastly increasing its total defense budget from 3.9% of GDP to over 6% in 2024, making it one of the highest in the world.

Russia was said to begin mass producing the Armata next year. If they do that and open the line for brand new T-80s, then we can expect another potential 200 annual hulls of new T-80s on top of 200 refurbed ones from old hulls. If they could somehow pump out 100-200 Armatas then it would represent at least 300-400 new total annual tanks.

By the way, one tank expert on Twitter has the breakdown as follows:

260-350 T90M/T-72B3M
180-200 T-80BVM
220-250 T-62M
For ~800 total yearly tanks.

---

So, I dunno, something like 70-100 tanks a month, net. I sincerely have no idea the exact figures but this seems plausible still.

Quote:

---

Other estimates have Russia doing minimum 3.5M per year currently or even as high as 4-6M with the eventual goal of at least 7M if not more. Thus, given that they did 2M easily before, the 2.5M estimates seem to me as coping undercounts from the West. I'd say Russia does at least 3.5M - 4.5M currently, and it will increase drastically in 2024.

The thing is, even 4,500,000 only allows you to fire only 12,500 shells per day. Sure, Russia did 60k at its peak and ran through its stockpile, but even after that, Ukraine claims Russia still fires much more than 12.5k per day. This would seem to point to the fact that Russia already does as high as 7-8M shells per yearit's possible.

So I'd say the range is somewhere in between ~4M or so at minimum up to 7M and up.

---

On the Biden Ukraine proxy war's impact on Russia politically/economically:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My question is who do you see being the biggest winner geopolitically from the current crisis? While it appears Russia's SMO gambit will succeed, much like a Chess gambit material was sacrificed for position. There has been and will continue to be a cost. My pick would be India/Bharat. They will benefit from all Russia's plentiful resources that used to supply europes economy. Furthermore, they provide a third option to Western or Chinese trade thar will not arouse emnity as the former will. Thoughts?

---

That is a good idea. In many ways it does feel like India is a very underrated silent beneficiary of all this, particularly given that the situation has only inflamed the Western crackdown on both Russia and China, leaving India to benefit from all sides simultaneously.

We can try to find the winner sort of apophatically by first seeing who are the biggest losers, which is clearly Europeso European countries are definitely out.

Russia will be a big winner, but as you said they may lose a lot in the process as well, making it a sort of potential pyrrhic victory. That's just to play devil's advocate, though. Ultimately I still actually believe Russia will be the biggest winner simply because the things Russia will be gaining are nearly incalculable. No amount of losses can negate the capture of Crimea, Odessa, and potentially most of Ukraine as well as the military prowess that will emerge within Russia from the experience of this war.

India may end up burning themselves just like Turkey by "sitting on two chairs" and trying to play too many sides. That strategy often seems profitable in a 'hands in all cookie jars' game theory way, but ends up hurting you because instead of becoming a trusted senior partner with a powerful bloc, you end up as mere 'arms length' junior partner to several blocs, with marginal benefits from each. That's because no one particular bloc ever trusts you too fully to invest or create truly groundbreaking partnerships and projects, so you're left with a bunch of middling deals that never revolutionize or transform your country to a profound degree.

Turkey is suffering from this now. They can't get the weapons systems they want from the West because the West doesn't trust them, and the East too has to keep them somewhat at arms length.
Ultimately my pick remains Russia as the big winner at the end of the SMO for the following reasons:

• Russia has used the SMO to basically liquidate and recycle all of its old Soviet era equipment, replacing it with the latest brand new stuff which will result in the army sporting all top of the line equipment not long after the end of the SMO as the factories will now be churning at extremely high rates only the latest designs.
• When Russia emerges victorious, if it's in decisive fashion, the whole world will view Russia as regaining its status of superpower. The optics of the victory will be that Russia defeated the combined force of NATO, widely known as the most powerful military alliance in history. This will be second only to the USSR defeating the 3rd Reich, which was then known as the most powerful fighting force of history. This will be a huge status boost for Russia on the global stage.
• The saga of the SMO will have completely restructured Russia's economy with import substitution and complete elimination of reliance on foreign enterprises. That means Russia will emerge stronger than ever into a potential golden era.
• Russia's armed forces will be considered the most seasoned, experienced, knowledgeable, and trained in the world by the end of the SMO. This could even boost Russia into the #1 spot in world standings for top military superpower. Particularly if the final end is a decisive one, the U.S./NATO will come out looking extremely weakened, with major prestige loss.
• The newly nascent military pseudo-alliance between Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc., could turn into the de facto new global power bloc in the eyes of the world by the end of the SMO. Once we witness how the 'well oiled machine' operates apropos the weapons pipelines from Iran/NK/China to Russia, not just in pure materiel supply terms, but in the workflows of doctrine, design, theory, etc., it could potentially supplant NATO as the dominant military architecture on the global scene to which other countries will begin to flock.
• Let's not forget that when all is said and done, Russia will have added not only upwards of 10 million plus new citizens, but mass new territories, ports, etc., particularly some of the most fertile ground on earth not only for agriculture but minerals, rare earths, precious metals, etc. All of these will be a huge boon to the post-war Russian economy.

[url=https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F51b76e54-1475-493b-bab8-de9b67d6bb43_1220x727.jpeg][/url]

---

On a USNI article; this shows I think some of the convoluted/erroneous reporting we get from some propaganda outlets many rely on a bit too much, such as ISW or the war drive/Rogoway etc.

Quote:

---

This article strikes me as very ineptly written, such that I can only shake my head at the garbled attempt at pretending to understand warfare.

First off, I have no idea who they're even referring to when they say 'Putin's conscripts'.

It writes: "Russia's relying on a massive amount of conscripts to win." But then no mention is ever made of them again. What conscripts is Russia using? Conscripts are not allowed in the SMOthis is common knowledge. It somehow hamhandedly then tries to conflate it with the 300k reservists mobilized last year, but obviously those aren't "conscripts." Those are previously trained reservists who literally signed up to be called up.

I don't even know what to comment on. Literally every single paragraph is completely wrong and offbase, I could spend a whole day picking this amateurish dreck apart. Putin switched from 'mobile battalions' to Soviet divisions because Russia found battalions aren't "resilient" when met with strong resistance? No. Mobile BTGs were used in the phase of the war that called for them, which was the opening phase full of fast independent thunder-runs. After that, Russia switched to active defense to carry out a mass build up. In that phase, BTGs are unnecessary and ineffective.

The only part the article gets correctly are the vast social benefits offered by the Russian government to enlisted troops or bereaved families, etc.

The one important point the article does bring up in allowing me to debunk it is the common trope about Russia's ethnic regions being disproportionately affected by the war. It's a repeated syllogism that pro-Ukrainians use to say that Russia is recruiting only from poor border regions, like Tuva, Altai, and Buryatia and that these regions have disproportionate losses compared to 'cosmopolitan' ethnic Russian districts like Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The issue is, this does happen but only as a natural consequence of the laws of economics. You see, poorer regions in every country typically have a higher percentage of people joining the military for the competitive pay and social benefits. Additionally, in Russia you get exempted from conscriptionand therefore being a reservist who can be mobilizedfor attending higher education institutes. In poorer regions, less people go to university and therefore less are exempt, which means a disproportionate amount of them end up in the reservist pool compared to Moscow where many of the cosmopolitans get out of service by virtue of attending graduate school at higher rates. This isn't a "diabolical plot" of Putin's, this is how simple socio-economics works.

---

On the state of the Russian military in Ukraine ('active defense'):

Quote:

---

Furthermore, the general answer is that right now Russia is not interested in launching a true offensive or being in an offensive posture. Even Shoigu recently confirmed the current posture is officially active defense. They advance opportunistically, of course, when the AFU offers them opportunities they can't pass up, in areas where UA is particularly weak. But in general right now Russia simply does not appear interested in advancing at allit's just not in the parameters of the current phase they've decided on prosecuting.

This is not only because for now they're happy to continue stockpiling ammo for the future, but they recognize the utter desperation gripping the AFU in needing some sort of advancement of their own. As such, they know they can take advantage of that by basically setting a giant defensive trap for them, in the manner of Napoleon's "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."

But as to your main question of: "Is the Russian army not as capable as some wish to believe?"
You're referring to offensive capacity here. Russia clearly showed its defensive capabilities during the counteroffensive thus far. So you're really asking about its offensive capabilities. To answer that fairly, we have to ask, have you seen Russia's offensive capabilities demonstrated yet in order to be a fair judge of that question?

The answer is no: Russia has not yet even launched an offensive in recent times.

If they had launched a major offensive somewhere and got very badly stopped, then perhaps you could have claim to saying Russia is incapable. But so far, everything Russia has actually tried to take in force, they've taken. Bakhmut was the most recent, and it fell. Some argue earlier in the year, Russia failed in Ugledar. But this wasn't an actual major concerted effort to capture it. This was literally one 155th Marine unit simply trying to entrench themselves in the dachas around the town.

When you see Russia actually attempt to take something, you'll know it. To do that they surround the entire urban area first, with major forces. That's what happened in Mariupol and then Lisichansk-Severodonetsk, and slowly in Bakhmut. That type of concerted offensive effort has not happened since. So what does that tell you?

That Russia has not yet even attempted a subsequent major offensive action. When it does attempt one, you'll know it. Before then, everything you're seeing is just minor regional 'active defense', where they will doctrinally counter-attack and take a little territory just to create buffers and keep the enemy on his toes, but not actually go on offensive in a concerted and doctrinal manner.

The thing is, you don't need to use the "5d" explanation to understand what's going on. What is 5-dimensional about playing simple defense in order to exhaust and deplete your opponent? That's literally 1-dimensional. There's nothing mystical or hard to grasp about it, but pro-Ukrainians or 6th columnists attempt to spin it into some 5d narrative as if Putin is attempting some highly complex fake out. There's nothing complex about it, and there's no fake. Shoigu literally spelled out in public: "Our current task is to defend and destroy as much of the enemy's equipment as possible." What's 5d about that?

Is it taking a little too long for some people's liking? Is it inconveniencing them by interfering with their upcoming NBA season schedule? Well, too bad. Russia is not on anyone's timeline. Russia is enjoying its current posture. It's massively building up its forces while inflicting horrific 10:1 to 20:1 losses on the enemy. For those types of loss ratios, any general in history would gladly have taken as much time as needed to sit there and blast away his enemy in a glorified turkey shoot. It's a strategic gift on a silver platter.

You see daily that it's the West that's crumbling, not only economically, but their coalition, their solidarity and endurance for the conflict. Russia is showing not even the slightest of such cracks, neither societally nor economically or politically. Everything is as it was. So what's the issue then? Why should Russia hurry when its enemies are literally collapsing before its eyes in every domain?

So my answer to you is that Russia is very happy to just sit back and slowly lead the AFU into firetraps while bleeding them dry, exhausting them and their allies. Believe it or not, they can do this even for another year or two just like so, without having to advance an inch.

Ultimately though, we have to wait and see how they do on the offensive once they decide to do so. My point was merely to demonstrate that one cannot logically criticize their perceived offensive shortcomings when you haven't even seen their offensive yet. But that offensive does not have to come soon, and I don't think it will because in strategy you should never give up a stronger position for a weaker one just for the sake of some arbitrary parameter. Russia should stop killing the AFU 20:1 and instead transition to a 3:1 offensive ratio all because some people on the internet are getting impatient? That's just not how it works.

As long as Ukraine continues to hand the fate of its entire armed forces to Russia on such an easy, tempting silver platter, Russia is happy to sit back and continue blowing them up. When Ukraine is finally exhausted and is forced to stop, then Russia may activate. However, given Zelensky's recent statements, he's fully aware of this. He openly said exactly thatthat he's afraid stopping will cause Russia to 'smell blood' and pounce on them, so he will continue plodding forward at all costs.

---

About right. He gave a longer, rambling answer but ultimately this is pretty accurate.

pic.twitter.com/PWldqEk9pY

— Ted Nugent (@TedNugent) September 28, 2023

That’s only logical lol pic.twitter.com/1FMnxUeiMy

— Marinochka🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 (@joiedevivre789) September 29, 2023

Forever war!

Teslag said:

---

So the substack guy that was dead ass wrong about the Russian reserve rotations is now stone cold accurate about the phantom Russian tanks per month?

---

The only thing you ever contribute to this is snark.

I'm just asking for clarification as to why this source is accurate now when he's been so glaringly wrong in the past.

The military industrial complex, I mean Democrats are just stuck in the 20th century. If you're Gen Z, take it as a message that what they hate is really cool… like Russia.

Teslag said:

---

I'm just asking for clarification as to why this source is accurate now when he's been so glaringly wrong in the past.

---

No you're not. You're snarking. How hard is it to just ignore it if the source bothers you, or reply with your own data/source if it's so wrong? Again, you contribute absolutely nothing here.

Pointing out the fallacy of the source is fair game. Like in this instance when he warned of an impending Russian offensive that would decisively end the war in favor of Russia...


7 months ago...


https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/tempered-outcomes-and-shaken-confidence


Unfortunately, like most Russian propaganda sources he has a nasty habit of deleted older articles, but his takes at the start of the war were a sight to behold.

I guess, despite the propaganda, even the NYT realizes that, gasp, it's Russia that has taken more of Ukraine this year than vice versa? LOL.

Quote:

---

Who's Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One. - New York Times, September 29, 2023

That headline is contradicted by the content of the piece.

As Antiwar summarizes:

Quote:

---

Russian forces have gained more territory in Ukraine this year than the Ukrainian side despite the Ukrainian counteroffensive that was launched in June, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The report noted that despite nine months of heavy fighting in Ukraine, only about 500 square miles of territory have changed hands this year. Russia has gained 331 square miles while Ukraine has gained 143, a difference of 188, which amounts to Russia's net gain in territory so far this year.

---

Contradicting its headline the NYT graphics department admits as much.

---

Sort of funny to read that coming from the Old Gray Lady of lies.

Probably accurate when it's considered Kharkiv and Kherson fell last november Bakhmut fell after the new year.

Effectively confirmed at this point, Russian air defenses appear to have downed a Russian Su-35 over Tokmak last night in a friendly fire incident. https://t.co/JzNHzoqgnl pic.twitter.com/YeC3VOFbGg

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) September 29, 2023

Russia also looks to have made themselves stronger by shooting down one of their own planes.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4229414-house-overwhelmingly-approves-ukraine-aid/

US House votes overwhelmingly to approve more Ukraine aid.

And Rand Paul vows to kill any spending bill with funds for Ukraine.

Teslag said:

---

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4229414-house-overwhelmingly-approves-ukraine-aid/

US House votes overwhelmingly to approve more Ukraine aid.

---

You know there is another thread for this.

Quit ****ting on this thread with nothing but snark all day everyday.

But we know your goal is to use antagonism to try and get the thread locked again so the Ukes can use their War is Great thread to discussion stacking corpses of "orcs".

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4229414-house-overwhelmingly-approves-ukraine-aid/

US House votes overwhelmingly to approve more Ukraine aid.

---

You know there is another thread for this.

Quit ****ting on this thread with nothing but snark all day everyday.

But we know your goal is to use antagonism to try and get the thread locked again so the Ukes can use their War is Great thread to discussion stacking corpses of "orcs".

---

House votes for Ukraine aid are political, not tacitcal, thus they do not belong on that thread. Staff has said that this thread is for political aspects of the war.

Robert L. Peters said:

---

And Rand Paul vows to kill any spending bill with funds for Ukraine.

---

I'm sure the Democrat majority and GOP Ukraine supporters comprising 60 votes will give him a nice pat on the head for his efforts.

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4229414-house-overwhelmingly-approves-ukraine-aid/

US House votes overwhelmingly to approve more Ukraine aid.

---

You know there is another thread for this.

Quit ****ting on this thread with nothing but snark all day everyday.

But we know your goal is to use antagonism to try and get the thread locked again so the Ukes can use their War is Great thread to discussion stacking corpses of "orcs".

---

House votes for Ukraine aid are political, not tacitcal, thus they do not belong on that thread. Staff has said that this thread is for political aspects of the war.

---

Yes, and not for Teslag to show up everyday and make snarky comments on ANYTHING posted that is critical of that funding, Ukraine, the Great Z.

Can you explain on how clamoring for more money to stack corpses of "orcs" is discussing the political merits of the conflict?

You cannot because all you do is cheer on endless war and make snarky comments in response to most posts.

In yet another show of solidarity in this fight, 7 countries in the European Union devised a way to procure 2 Billion euros worth of defense munitions to Ukraine. Absolutely brilliant what can be done with a coalesced group of partners. Seeing the Euros pulling their weight defensively has been one of the better stories from this war.



https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/seven-countries-order-ammunition-under-eu-scheme-aid-ukraine-2023-09-29/

Quote:

---

The scheme was set up as part of a plan worth at least 2 billion euros, launched in March with the aim of getting 1 million artillery shells and missiles to Ukraine within a year. Some officials and diplomats have expressed scepticism that the target will be met but the initiative marked a significant step in the EU's growing role in defence and military affairs, spurred by the war in Ukraine. Until now, defence procurement has largely been the preserve of the bloc's individual 27 member governments.

---

It is absolutely amazing how many have been killed over these inches;

People Are Dying For Inches In Ukraine, The “World’s Largest Arms Fair”

There’s a heartbreaking graphic going around right now showing the almost microscopic changes that have occurred to the frontline of the war in Ukraine this year despite nonstop death and destruction of… pic.twitter.com/eTXvnynJH4

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 29, 2023

People Are Dying For Inches In Ukraine, The "World's Largest Arms Fair"

Reading by Tim Foley. pic.twitter.com/c1kYXYGc3i

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 29, 2023

Just lovely people. Who among us hasn't considered slapping an ISIS patch on a cosplay outfit?

Western Media not double checking the footage they put out....

This time "The Sun" and Ukrainian Territorial Defense "fighter" with an interesting patch. Yes, it's ISIS.

Fun fact - This is the unit Sarah Ashton-Cirillo belongs to! pic.twitter.com/Lhk12OURUj

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) September 29, 2023

I gotta go, have a good morning everyone. Forever war!

Remarkably, Ukraine will not need to import any natural gas this winter. Its electrical grid is now connected to the grids of its European neighbors, so that will further assist with energy resilience this winter, too.

GAS

Brilliant. It's amazing what Ukraine has coordinated with Europe to weaken Russia both militarily and economically since this broke out. Will also be advantageous once Ukraine is a NATO member and they have both energy and military stability. That stable energy will also help with securing foreign investment dollars once the rebuilding begins.

Teslag said:

---

Brilliant. It's amazing what Ukraine has coordinated with Europe to weaken Russia both militarily and economically since this broke out. Will also be advantageous once Ukraine is a NATO member and they have both energy and military stability. That stable energy will also help with securing foreign investment dollars once the rebuilding begins.

---

Yeah, there was a nice article discussing the measures Ukraine has taken to improve energy security not too long ago, but I can't find it again.

IIRC, the gist of it is that Ukraine has divided its main electrical grid into subsections which can be quickly quarantined from each other to prevent cascade failures from attacks. In addition to a plethora of generators, it has also heavily invested in wind- and solar-powered battery backups for individual facilities. Plus, it has hardened its energy infrastructure nodes as much as possible and stockpiled key components for quick replacement when needed.

All that in addition to achieving natural gas independence and connecting its electrical grid directly to the grids of its European neighbors will make for a much more bearable winter for Ukraine, particularly as it is now all protected by a far more robust IAD system.

Good for the Ukes. Work on the electrical infrastructure has caused a global shortage of equipment like transformers, actually stalling new housing development in the US, contributing to an already bad problem with housing supply in many areas.

How nice it is for the Ukes to be nice and warm this winter whilst your neighbors here in the US freeze to death. Go Ukraine!

It makes WW1 seem like a blitzkrieg

Quote:

---

Kadyrov meeting Putin. Notice Kadyrov's shaky hands at 0:11.

I don't think the guy is anywhere near death. But he is definitely not having it easy. pic.twitter.com/gbV6UUqQvK

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) September 28, 2023

---

His hand is shaky? I watched it 6 times to see what he is talking about. I can't tell if the tweet was being sarcastic or not. The guy is sitting down and adjusting himself to talk to Putin, ya know superHitler of the 2020s, was marching to the Atlantic until the West stopped him. I guess if you were sitting next to Satan your hand might give a third-of-a-second jolt realizing how near to death you are if you don't act or say everything to his liking.

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Good for the Ukes. Work on the electrical infrastructure has caused a global shortage of equipment like transformers, actually stalling new housing development in the US, contributing to an already bad problem with housing supply in many areas.

How nice it is for the Ukes to be nice and warm this winter whilst your neighbors here in the US freeze to death. Go Ukraine!

---

And to think, had Russia not invaded both the US and Ukraine would have had plenty of power with none of these issues. When people in the US are harmed over the lack of these items, they would be wise to remember it's the fault of Putin and Putin alone.

---

No, its the fault of folks like you who think Uke lives are worth more than your neighbors. And you feel this primarily because you live on a salary provided by my hard work and earnings and are not affected by hardships people face right here at home.

So you want grandma in Kentucky who cannot afford to fill her car up or keep her heat on because we had to send money to Ukraine to help them fight a war that drives up fuel costs globally.

That Jane and Bob and their newborn will have to live in a hotel this Christmas because their house is delayed because there is a shortage of transformers because they have all been sent to Ukraine.

I guess Jane, Bob and Grandma should fly to Moscow and wag their finger sternly at Putin.

Dude, your arguments barely make sense and come across as snark and disgusting.

74OA said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Brilliant. It's amazing what Ukraine has coordinated with Europe to weaken Russia both militarily and economically since this broke out. Will also be advantageous once Ukraine is a NATO member and they have both energy and military stability. That stable energy will also help with securing foreign investment dollars once the rebuilding begins.

---

Yeah, there was a nice article discussing the measures Ukraine has taken to improve energy security not too long ago, but I can't find it again.

IIRC, the gist of it is that Ukraine has divided its main electrical grid into subsections which can be quickly quarantined from each other to prevent cascade failures from attacks. In addition to a plethora of generators, it has also heavily invested in wind- and solar-powered battery backups for individual facilities. Plus, it has hardened its energy infrastructure nodes as much as possible and stockpiled key components for quick replacement when needed.

All that in addition to achieving natural gas independence and connecting its electrical grid directly to the grids of its European neighbors will make for a much more bearable winter for Ukraine, particularly as it is now all protected by a far more robust IAD system.

---

You bring up a good point, albeit one I think has been hotly debated on the Russian side as well as to why Russia hasn't targeted more of their generation/distribution grid etc.

The more extreme Russian voices have really blasted Putin for failing to do so, but it betrays more to me an intent not to completely level the place/cause a real mass migrant problem or otherwise then collapse Germany's grid in kind, but rather to carve off the pieces sought, without actually creating a more hateful remnant population to deal with later.

An electrical grid for major cities especially is relatively easy to destroy if within reach of cruise missiles/attack aircraft etc. Part of it also might be the Ukrainian threats to create a nuclear disaster via sabotage/attack on the big nuke plant too (the Russians tacitly agreeing not to hit their grid in exchange).

Separately, the "Volga" call sign for UFA forces to surrender over the radio has apparently been getting used at an increasing rate. Again Russia (and all of us) knows it will eventually win this war of attrition, so I think they are trying to leave in place the infrastructure (electrical and otherwise) of a functioning state.

Ukrainian troops surrendering en masse – TASS

More than 10,000 of Kiev’s forces have reportedly laid down arms in recent weeks, using a special radio channel to contact the Russian military.

The frequency, 149.200, with call sign ‘Volga’, was set up by the Russian military… pic.twitter.com/aCwgVPVXBi

— Make Peace Now; alternative news (@AlternatNews) September 29, 2023

To confirm, your position is that you are okay with Americans suffering as long as we support Ukraine to fight Putin?

And that we should accept this suffering as it is a consequence of Putin being a bad guy half way around the world from us?

The fact that for the better part of 2 years neither you nor anyone else supporting our involvement can explain why this is good for American sittings without settling squarely on Putin bad, Russia bad, must kill Russians.

NYT Confirms Russia is winning the war.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

It makes WW1 seem like a blitzkrieg

---

The more I think on it, yea there is crawl. But as far as I can tell there are no defensive lines for Ukr. The Surovikin line is clearly working as a defensive line. Russia continues to methodically gain in the north in the absence of a defensive line there. And that's kinda where we are...one side has a hard defense and the other side has a flexible territory. I doubt Rus will overextend their front in the north.

The West better hope their own press clippings are true about Russias inability to mount an offensive, because if Ukr has thrown the kitchen sink at Robotyne and the "throw them into the Azov Sea" offensive there should be serious questions as to how well manned Ukr is in the west.

War comes down to numbers. If you have "400k" soldiers total and you lose 100k in an offensive how many more do you have to defend? Is that 300k as effective to defend Ukr than if they had the 400k?

The problem with Ukr is that it is very vast in geography. 400k troops can be like butter spread too thin on bread. What happens when the potential defense numbers are down to 75% manpower?