To answer your 1st question, less than 100%.

Not sure about the rest of your questions. None of those are important to my point.

It looks like you're trying to back pedal your assertion Russia did commit 100% to Uke?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Only a fraction of the Russian Army is in Ukraine currently. If Russia decides to bring the full force of their military into Uke, you'll know it.

---

Its funny that supposed military guys seem to have poor understanding of Russian capabilities and what they will and will not do. They also think people like Putin, Trump and even fka ftc are completely ignorant fools because they disagree with them.

There typical top-level engagement in any discussion of differing perspectives is "Nuh uh commie, you are wrong and you are stupid and your momma is ugly too. Oh, and your dog is gay".

Just started John Toland's In Mortal Combat and the arrogance of both the military establishment combined with politicians in DC clearly make wars both inevitable and way worse than they need to be. Even today Trump haterz mock his approach as an outsider and deny the fact that we started no new wars, had no large conflict escalations in the Trump years, and we had an actual plan to get out of Afghanistan in the right way and on the most appropriate timeline, which was always subject to change based on the fact that the Taliban and other groups do not always keep their pinky promises.

I made several remarks along the below lines in recent days as the picture of a certain set of f16 posters becomes clearer. They tend to group up in their thoughts, their attacks on certain folks and in their "bullying" of posters who may challenge the collective borg.

Its easy to post snarky comments to gather blue stars of internet affirmation. It takes a more resolute person to post their own thinking regardless of whether it will be a "popular" take or not.

I am thankful you and others like Nortex are not afraid to post your thoughts and move past the borg minions to pursue actual discussion.

Quote:

---

None of those are important to my point.

---

The actual elements of a successful modern offensive force is not important to your point?



By the way, you don't have to answer as it's purely rhetorical.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Only a fraction of the Russian Army is in Ukraine currently. If Russia decides to bring the full force of their military into Uke, you'll know it.

---

Obviously, not a 'noteworthy' portion of the Russian forces.

nortex97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Only a fraction of the Russian Army is in Ukraine currently. If Russia decides to bring the full force of their military into Uke, you'll know it.

---

Obviously, not a 'noteworthy' portion of the Russian forces.

---

I think we've seen over the past year and half that nothing of the Russian military is particularly "noteworthy".

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

None of those are important to my point.

---

The actual elements of a successful modern offensive force is not important to your point?



By the way, you don't have to answer as it's purely rhetorical.

---

Correct, because my point is that Russia's tank isn't empty. Thats it. Thats all you're failing to refute

Teslag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Only a fraction of the Russian Army is in Ukraine currently. If Russia decides to bring the full force of their military into Uke, you'll know it.

---

Obviously, not a 'noteworthy' portion of the Russian forces.

---

I think we've seen over the past year and half that nothing of the Russian military is particularly "noteworthy".

---

Not even the part occupying Ukraine? Guess they don't need our help then!

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

Quote:

---

Not even the part occupying Ukraine?

---

Yes, the part that couldn't hold 60% of their gains, and lost Kharkiv and Kherson. And has been pushed to the Dnipro. That lost their Black Sea flagship. That had their most effective strike aircraft limited to operation due to NATO manpads. Their alligator attack helicpoters pushed so far from the front due to ATACMS they are now irreflavent, that is losing naval assets while docked in harbor. That has no way to coordinate any type of offensive whatsover and is spending now two months trying to take an abandoned village of 9,000 people as literally their most "noteworthy" accomplishment in 18 months.


Yes, those parts.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Who has claimed that Russia committed 100% of its military?

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not even the part occupying Ukraine?

---

Yes, the part that couldn't hold 60% of their gains, and lost Kharkiv and Kherson. And has been pushed to the Dnipro. That lost their Black Sea flagship. That had their most effective strike aircraft limited to operation due to NATO manpads. Their alligator attack helicpoters pushed so far from the front due to ATACMS they are now irreflavent, that is losing naval assets while docked in harbor. That has no way to coordinate any type of offensive whatsover and is spending now two months trying to take an abandoned village of 9,000 people as literally their most "noteworthy" accomplishment in 18 months.


Yes, those parts.

---

In that case, you should edit your post.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Who has claimed that Russia committed 100% of its military?

---

You asserted that to believe anything else is "back to the conspiracy" on the last page. Walk it back forus. I knew you would.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

The number in Ukraine is around 30% of active forces, though less now that Russia is increasing both its active military and reservists.

Russia just announced re-establishment of the Leningrad Military District to counter Finland joining NATO. I imagine that will continue to escalate with FInland and US announcing a partnership that will give US access to 18 bases in Finland.

All positive developments in the stabilization of the geopolitical scene. At this rate, the 204 election will take place in the middle of the early days of WWIII.

Also because we had to defend Ukraine's borders over our own. Great awesome strategy.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Nobody claimed that though did they?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Who has claimed that Russia committed 100% of its military?

---

You asserted that to believe anything else is "back to the conspiracy" on the last page. Walk it back forus. I knew you would.

---

What offensive weaponry have we not seen in Ukraine? Name the weapons and abilities. What are they holding back?

GAC06 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Nobody claimed that though did they?

---

I was told that to believe anything else is "back to the conspiracy". So at least 1 person did

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

What percentage of Russia's forces were scrambled to defend Moscow from their mutinied forces? Maybe that's a good reason to keep some home.

---

Exactly. Its pants on head to assert 100% of the Russian army invaded Ukraine. I don't know why he keeps doing that.

---

Who has claimed that Russia committed 100% of its military?

---

You asserted that to believe anything else is "back to the conspiracy" on the last page. Walk it back forus. I knew you would.

---

What offensive weaponry have we not seen in Ukraine? Name the weapons and abilities. What are they holding back?

---

Strategic bombers and nuclear subs are a couple. Tactical or low-yield nukes. They most certainly have EMPs and we have not seen those. I assume the 70% of forces not deployed would count as offensive weaponry.

They have a number of experimental weaponry that I am sure we have not seen yet.

But we should keep poking them until they show us everything. Very sensible approach.

I think it's quite clear to anyone that the assertion of some hidden russian force isn't a suggestion that they don't have forces protecting other areas of the Russian state. The assertion is that russia does not have a large contingent of readily available forces waiting and able to mount an offensive in Ukraine with more advanced weaponry than we have already seen.

Quote:

---

Strategic bombers and nuclear subs are a couple. Tactical or low-yield nukes. They most certainly have EMPs and we have not seen those. .

---

Strategic weapons by definition are not offensive weapons. Russia wants Ukraine, not an uninhabitable wasteland.

Quote:

---

They have a number of experimental weaponry that I am sure we have not seen yet.

---

This is simply a guess at best, and fan fiction at worst.

Teslag said:

---

I think it's quite clear to anyone that the assertion of some hidden russian force isn't a suggestion that they don't have forces protecting other areas of the Russian state. The assertion is that russia does not have a large contingent of readily available forces waiting and able to mount an offensive in Ukraine with more advanced weaponry than we have already seen.

---

700,000 plus active forces is nothing to sneeze at. Neither are 2,000,000 reservists.

Neither is the fact they train their teenagers at summer camp (or used to).

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Strategic bombers and nuclear subs are a couple. Tactical or low-yield nukes. They most certainly have EMPs and we have not seen those. .

---

Strategic weapons by definition are not offensive weapons.

---

I'm smiling. This is a silly thing to write. I think we're done here for today.

Quote:

---

700,000 plus active forces is nothing to sneeze at. Neither are 2,000,000 reservists.

---

So we are back to the 1943 throw bodies at the problem scenario? What will they fight with? What will provide CAS? How will they position them? Who will do it? Who and how will it be supplied? Who will protect the areas where these forces are withdrawn from?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Strategic bombers and nuclear subs are a couple. Tactical or low-yield nukes. They most certainly have EMPs and we have not seen those. .

---

Strategic weapons by definition are not offensive weapons.

---

I'm smiling. This is a silly thing to write. I think we're done here for today.

---

It is a 100% accurate thing to write. Strategic weapons are not offensive weapons. They are stand off weapons by design.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Strategic bombers and nuclear subs are a couple. Tactical or low-yield nukes. They most certainly have EMPs and we have not seen those. .

---

Strategic weapons by definition are not offensive weapons. Russia wants Ukraine, not an uninhabitable wasteland.

Quote:

---

They have a number of experimental weaponry that I am sure we have not seen yet.

---

This is simply a guess at best, and fan fiction at worst.

---

What sort of unintelligible horse**** is that?

EMPs actually do not create nuclear wastelands.

Neither do tactical nukes.

But we should just think they are only capable of throwing rocks since they are all dufus orcs.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

700,000 plus active forces is nothing to sneeze at. Neither are 2,000,000 reservists.

---

So we are back to the 1943 throw bodies at the problem scenario? What will they fight with? What will provide CAS? How will they position them? Who will do it? Who and how will it be supplied? Who will protect the areas where these forces are withdrawn from?

---

Protect these areas from what? Are there a bunch of countries lined up to invade Russia? Maybe the armed forces of greater antarctica are going to give it a go. They like the cold.

I will say this nonsense is funnier than the SNL skit that someone actually compared to Blazing Saddles.

Quote:

---

Protect these areas from what? Are there a bunch of countries lined up to invade Russia?

---

Wow., So you think the Russians can withdraw every defensive force they have with no repercussions?

So after all this we are basically back to...


1) Russia is hiding a massive modern army in Siberia and doesn't need to defend themselves at all

2) Russia could get really mad and use nukes

3) Russia could get really really mad and use their extremely advanced weapons that no one has heard about or seen

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Protect these areas from what? Are there a bunch of countries lined up to invade Russia?

---

Wow., So you think the Russians can withdraw every defensive force they have with no repercussions?

---

This coming from the guy that 1 page ago called me a conspiracy theorist for pushing back against his assertion that they did exactly this.

Carey on

Except no one, not even myself, made that assertion.

Teslag said:

---

Except no one, not even myself, made that assertion.

---

So you're confirming Russia has more fighting force than is currently deployed in Ukraine? A simple yes will do.

Of course, Who has claimed otherwise?

Russia's offensive problem isn't about more, it's about what. What else does Russia have for an offensive other than simply more inept forces?

Teslag said:

---

What military capability has Russia not shown? Are we back to the "Russia is hiding a vast well equipped military" conspiracy again"?

---

"Who has claimed otherwise?"

And that question remains. Where is the vast well equipped Russian military going to come from?

Teslag said:

---

And that question remains. Where is the vast well equipped Russian military going to come from?

---

"Of course Russia has more"

"Where is more going to come from?"

Two posts apart.