Respectfully, that is a pure russian propaganda take on what he actually said.
Macron was saying a typically French thing, basically claiming to be open to persuasion about sending some un-named group of French soldiers there, if some unspecific level of defeat were realized by Ukraine.
Basically, trash talking, imho. It's what the French are, after all, best at. They have practically zero deployable military capability that could impact anything in Ukraine/Russia, today much less so than when Napoleon lived.
This is just not true
Agreed.
France has been fighting wars almost non stop in East Asia and Africa since the 50s. I believe they currently have troops deployed in 3 or more active war zones.
Respectfully, that is a pure russian propaganda take on what he actually said.
Macron was saying a typically French thing, basically claiming to be open to persuasion about sending some un-named group of French soldiers there, if some unspecific level of defeat were realized by Ukraine.
Basically, trash talking, imho. It's what the French are, after all, best at. They have practically zero deployable military capability that could impact anything in Ukraine/Russia, today much less so than when Napoleon lived.
This is just not true
Agreed.
France has been fighting wars almost non stop in East Asia and Africa since the 50s. I believe they currently have troops deployed in 3 or more active war zones.
If the French can save Uke, why is our help required?
Respectfully, that is a pure russian propaganda take on what he actually said.
Macron was saying a typically French thing, basically claiming to be open to persuasion about sending some un-named group of French soldiers there, if some unspecific level of defeat were realized by Ukraine.
Basically, trash talking, imho. It's what the French are, after all, best at. They have practically zero deployable military capability that could impact anything in Ukraine/Russia, today much less so than when Napoleon lived.
This is just not true
What are you basing this on?
France routinely kicks Muslims ass in their former colonies in Africa and they also have the French foreign legion think you are wrong this instance
Respectfully, that is a pure russian propaganda take on what he actually said.
Macron was saying a typically French thing, basically claiming to be open to persuasion about sending some un-named group of French soldiers there, if some unspecific level of defeat were realized by Ukraine.
Basically, trash talking, imho. It's what the French are, after all, best at. They have practically zero deployable military capability that could impact anything in Ukraine/Russia, today much less so than when Napoleon lived.
This is just not true
Agreed.
France has been fighting wars almost non stop in East Asia and Africa since the 50s. I believe they currently have troops deployed in 3 or more active war zones.
Fighting AND ROUNDLY LOSING wars in one-time colonial African redoubts is not akin to taking on the Russian army in their own back yard. Goodness. How many of those wars exactly have French foreign legion/armee folks won, again? Gabon, Sahel, Congo, Niger, Chad, just list where they were able in the past 10 years to deploy forces to obtain an impact favorable to their interests? Ecowas/Burkina Faso etc. have defeated them steadily. It's a horrible recent history in sub-Sahara Africa.
They haven't been able to successfully sustain light armor/cavalry/scout operations in their own former republics, let alone would they have an impact on the roads leading to Kiev/Odessa. They have zero ability to militarily impact the war in Ukraine beyond exactly what they've been providing in materiel. Again, war isn't a video game; look at the structure of French army/foreign legion forces and let me know what they could/would deploy to Ukraine that would impact the war.
Anyway, it's perhaps on point to note that in some of these situations/most, the beneficiary ultimately of the resources/power vacuum from the French failures in Africa are…Russians/Chinese. Oh, and btw, as with our own political disconnect from whoever is actually operating the White House, the French people are opposed to Macron's lunacy;
Quote:
Most French people believe President Emmanuel Macron's increasingly hawkish stance on Russia is dangerous and will only increase tensions with Moscow, a new poll has indicated.
Macron was "wrong" to "raise his voice against Russia" with recent remarks about deploying troops to Ukraine and calls to provide more support to Kiev, according to 57% of respondents to a survey by French broadcaster BFMTV.
Macron triggered a stern backlash in February after he suggested that the US-led military bloc "cannot exclude" the possibility of sending soldiers to aid Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
Several NATO member states quickly repudiated Macron's remarks, asserting that they would put no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Macron, however, later doubled down on his original statement, arguing that his words were "weighed, thought-through, and measured."
According to the poll of 1,005 French residents aged 18 or older between March 12 and 13, the majority of French citizens believe Macron's remarks not only increase tension between France and Russia, but also isolate France from its Western allies.
Macron's words should again be seen for what they really are, domestically within the EU: a ploy to generate some sort of support for the globalists heading into EP elections.
Quote:
COMMENT MACRON'S BELLIGERENT POSTURING, MARCH 14th 2024 Macron sounded very warlike tonight, but he really didn't say anything new. He just sounded more warlike. France will not do anything without the support of other major powers, especially the US. Promises of support from the minuscule armed forces of the Baltic states will not change that.
The main reason for Macron's belligerence is the upcoming European Parliament (EP) elections. Macron's approval ratings are at a record low level. Support for his party is also at record low levels. Many polls give them about 15% in the upcoming elections. This would be a massive blow to his party and bode ominously for their future in french politics.
There is really no hurry for Macron, since no elections will be held in France until the municipal elections in 2026 and regional, national and presidential elections in 2027. But a bad result in the EP-elections in june would be a huge psychological blow to Macron and his party. His party is also a new party with little party loyalty. If the future prospects look bleak, many representatives might leave the party to join other parties with better prospects. That could result in a crisis of government and early elections. Elections that probably would eliminate Macron's party and make him into a lame duck.
Macron has tested almost everything, but still kept falling in the polls. His last chance is to play the other enemy card and try to rally the population, and especially the electorate, behind him. His blustering attacks on Russia will probably not have the effect he hopes. He will not be able to turn the 70% of the population that are negative towards him. They already mistrust all he say and do.
But we will probably see an angry war of words between Putin/Medvedev and Macron for a while.
A couple of related points:
1. Even if Ukraine were to hold elections, omnipresent state oppression and the destruction of all political opposition would render them meaningless. Ukrainians lack the freedom of thought to meaningfully participate in their nation's political life.… https://t.co/Gp90rU7dRw
Isn't it crazy how the past year has seen many public figures who made their bones as anti-mainstream 'iconoclasts' suddenly become the very gatekeepers they previously opposed? It's almost a rite of passage these days. Ben Shapiro and many others come to mind.
Remember folks: real "Democracies" cover the voting stations' windows with cardboard and arrest anyone attempting to film inside, then delete all footage of mysterious white vans that arrive at 3:47am in accordance with a massive tie-breaking boost to the establishment candidate.… https://t.co/pdHiW4EaqW
Must be nice, to have a healthy economy, an actual open election and a president that is capable of walking up stairs and speaking in complete sentences, anyway. Remember this date in Nuland "**** the EU" coup history;
Quote:
The transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt phone call, which apparently occurred sometime last week and was released on YouTube on February 6, reveals how deeply the United States is enmeshed into internal Ukrainian affairs. The two diplomats banter about which of the Ukrainian opposition figures ought to go into the government, perhaps as prime minister, if a deal can be struck with Viktor Yanukovich, the president.
As if it's any of her business, Nuland says, referring to Vitali Klitschko ("Klitsch"), an opposition leader, "I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea." To which Pyatt, after a long pause, replies, "Just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff." Instead, Pyatt and Nuland agree that Arseniy Yatseniuk ("Yats") ought be the guy who goes in. "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience." Then Nuland concludes: "I just think Klitsch going in… he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work."
After going back and forth, in which the two Americans decide on who'll make what phone call to give Yats and Klitsch their apparent marching orders, and after they note that Oleh Tyahnybok, who represents an outright fascist-nationalist party, might be a "problem" (but, still, it seems, someone they can work with), it gets worse.
After noting that Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations and a UN envoy will be weighing in, Nuland expresses her disdain for the European Union (EU), which has been taking the lead on trying to bribe, cajole and persuade Ukraine to drop its dependence on Russia and start the process of joining the EU. Although the United States has officially said that the EU ought to be out front, in Washingtonand in Nuland's officethere is frustration over the fact that the EU won't move faster and more aggressively to undercut Russia.
"**** the EU!" says Nuland. Pyatt replies, rather hilariously, "No, exactly." Exactly?
Exactly ten years ago, on the night of March 14th to March 15th 2014, the Ukrainian state committed its first open, politically motivated, public assassinations of Russians in modern history. A group of militarized activists from the Biletsky movement assaulted Kharkov citizens…
So are we for "war porn" and "war cheerleaders" now on this thread?
Speaking on behalf of others is something I try to refrain from. Many post here. I also don't think cheerleading for the Ukrainian Biden nuland side is an unfair categorization of some things I have seen online.
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
When will the abandonment of the green initiatives and ramp up of our industrial production actually start? That would have to be the 1st step to catching up, no?
BTW, their war economy being fully mobilized is the basis for the assertion that they're stronger today than 2 years ago; even if a few planes have gone down and boats have sunk since then.
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
When will the abandonment of the green initiatives and ramp up of our industrial production actually start? That would have to be the 1st step to catching up, no?
BTW, their war economy being fully mobilized is the basis for the assertion that they're stronger today than 2 years ago; even if a few planes have gone down and boats have sunk since then.
Is that why they are begging the Norks for ammo and send old tanks to the lines?
Producing a lot of crap just means you have a lot of crap. Russia in 2022 was much stronger than now. And they made the gains to prove it. Now they can't do **** but gain a couple miles in 6 months.
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
When will the abandonment of the green initiatives and ramp up of our industrial production actually start? That would have to be the 1st step to catching up, no?
BTW, their war economy being fully mobilized is the basis for the assertion that they're stronger today than 2 years ago; even if a few planes have gone down and boats have sunk since then.
Is that why they are begging the Norks for ammo and send old tanks to the lines?
Producing a lot of crap just means you have a lot of crap. Russia in 2022 was much stronger than now. And they made the gains to prove it. Now they can't do **** but gain a couple miles in 6 months.
Don't tell me. Show me.
So what is the 1st step for America catching up to Russian production? You know, the thing we were discussing before you dove in to derail.
Quickly. It's already happening. How many green revolts have you seen over the past two years? Where were the mass protests when the Kakhovka Dam, a truly immense ecological/environmental disaster, was breached? It's a non-starter issue and a distraction at best. It isn't even really worth discussing.
I won't disagree with you there, but again, this process was going to happen either way. Stronger today doesn't mean stronger tomorrow and in fact it's arguable that these pivots are actually weakening them in the intermediate and long-term. They are hollowing out their demography and industrial capabilities to fuel a war economy fighting Ukraine. Not NATO, Ukraine.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting." -Sun Tzu
We're not fighting, and they are expending immense resources, manpower, and upending their long-term economic strategy in this fight. All that for 5% of our military budget with no boots on the ground? What a bargain.
Quickly. It's already happening. How many green revolts have you seen over the past two years? Where were the mass protests when the Kakhovka Dam, a truly immense ecological/environmental disaster, was breached? It's a non-starter issue and a distraction at best. It isn't even really worth discussing.
I won't disagree with you there, but again, this process was going to happen either way. Stronger today doesn't mean stronger tomorrow and in fact it's arguable that these pivots are actually weakening them in the intermediate and long-term. They are hollowing out their demography and industrial capabilities to fuel a war economy fighting Ukraine. Not NATO, Ukraine.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting." -Sun Tzu
We're not fighting, and they are expending immense resources, manpower, and upending their long-term economic strategy in this fight. All that for 5% of our military budget with no boots on the ground? What a bargain.
Last 2 years I've seen ICE vehicle bans. If you're going to hand wave that, you and I are living in different worlds. I'm also not convinced moving their economy up into the top 5 globally is "hollowing them out."
Quickly. It's already happening. How many green revolts have you seen over the past two years? Where were the mass protests when the Kakhovka Dam, a truly immense ecological/environmental disaster, was breached? It's a non-starter issue and a distraction at best. It isn't even really worth discussing.
I won't disagree with you there, but again, this process was going to happen either way. Stronger today doesn't mean stronger tomorrow and in fact it's arguable that these pivots are actually weakening them in the intermediate and long-term. They are hollowing out their demography and industrial capabilities to fuel a war economy fighting Ukraine. Not NATO, Ukraine.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting." -Sun Tzu
We're not fighting, and they are expending immense resources, manpower, and upending their long-term economic strategy in this fight. All that for 5% of our military budget with no boots on the ground? What a bargain.
I'm also not convinced moving their economy up into the top 5 globally is "hollowing them out."
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
When will the abandonment of the green initiatives and ramp up of our industrial production actually start? That would have to be the 1st step to catching up, no?
BTW, their war economy being fully mobilized is the basis for the assertion that they're stronger today than 2 years ago; even if a few planes have gone down and boats have sunk since then.
Is that why they are begging the Norks for ammo and send old tanks to the lines?
Producing a lot of crap just means you have a lot of crap. Russia in 2022 was much stronger than now. And they made the gains to prove it. Now they can't do **** but gain a couple miles in 6 months.
Don't tell me. Show me.
Come on. I thought u were a military guy.
Any idiot that has studied the history of war knows that has always been Russia's war strategy.
They have a **** ton of raw materials and people. Overwhelm your opponent with material even if it is junk.
They have more material and more men. Eventually the other side runs out of material and they win. The few times they have lost they were not able to employ this strategy.
This is nothing new. You stating that they are employing the strategy they have always used is NOT an indicator they will use
Rather it's an indicator we are about to see history repeat itself.
NATO is panicking now due to recent Russian success. But those of us who warned about this conflict always knew several things that would lead us here.
1. It’s logistically impossible to defeat Russia in Russia. 2. Ukraine can never defeat Russia in a 1v1 war 3. Western…
🇷🇺🇫🇷🇺🇦🚨‼️ Ex French president Hollande admitted in a prank phone call that Ukraine and France (as mediator) signed the Minsk agreement for gaining time, to trick Moscow as ultimately they wanted a confrontation Ukraine - Russia
— Angelo Giuliano 🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻 安德龙 (@angeloinchina) March 15, 2024
French treachery in Ukraine of course goes back to the original Crimean war.
From Ayden;
Quote:
I'm waiting to see more conclusive evidence but here is the Ukrainian claim. If it is to be believed then the Russians did indeed conduct a double tap strike.
Ukrainian telegram channels write that during the Iskander-M missile attack on Odessa the following people were KIA:
Commander of the "Tsunami" battalion Alexander Gostishchev , deputy head of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Odessa region, who received an award from Zelensky in the fall of 2022.
Sergei Tetyukhin , former deputy head of Odessa, mobilized into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in November 2023.
Dmitry Abramenko , another deputy head of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Odessa region, head of the department of preventive activities of the Odessa police, who also served in "Tsunami".
While attempting to clear the rubble at the arrival site, a double tap strike was conducted
Back to the point about what the French could theoretically, maximally send to Ukraine if provided the air and sealift; from Valterson;
Quote:
ANALYSIS WHAT CAN FRANCE DO IN UKRAINE, MARCH 15th 2024 What could a french deployment of troops in Ukraine result in the Russo-ukrainian war? There has been much talk lately from Macro about French troop deployments to Ukraine. The risks are high, but possibilities for this to happen are slim. But if it happened how could such a deployment look like and what would the consequences be?
There would of course be a heightened risk for an all out war between France and Russia, but most probably eventual fighting would be kept in Ukraine. As long as that would be the case NATO involvement could probably be avoided. Theoretically naval warfare could occur in the Oceans but that could be a border case with article 5.
Risk for a nuclear war would probably not increase much. France would not attack Russia with nuclear weapons if its expeditionary Corps in Ukraine, and invite assured annihilation, Russia in it's turn would have no need to use nuclear weapons since a French engagement would have a scant influence on the Russo-ukrainian war. Russia would only use nuclear weapons if they saw an existential threat to their core interests.
What could France do? I assume a maximalist scenario. They could of course do anything less than this scenario. France lacks both large resources of ammunition, missiles, heavy equipment and manpower. The French military equipment are of high quality but expensive due to small production series. Its armed forces are also mainly prepared for policing operation in the Global South and not for high intensity or industrial warfare. There are also a severe shortage of armaments production capacity to replace lost equipment.
A French Expeditionary Corps (FEC) consisting of 20-30 000 men with a large part of remaining French heavy equipment could be sent to Ukraine. Maybe a quarter of French combat aircrafts could also be sent, that's around 50 combat aircrafts, equipped with for example some of the remaining Scalp missiles.
Theoretically 50 fighter aircrafts could strengthen Ukrainian air power a lot, as well as the same number of F-16:s, but they would have the same drawbacks. It would be hard to deploy the aircrafts to Ukrainian air fields since these are hard pressed by Russian attacks. One of the most significant positive things for Ukraine with French fighter aircrafts would be that they can fire Scalp missiles and also maybe Storm Shadows, with only slight modifications.
Ukraine has probably at most around 10 remaining Su-24:s capable of delivering Scalp or Storm Shadow missiles. If France could get more Storm Shadows from the UK, which the UK hasn't in abundance, it would increase Ukrainian deep strike capability significantly at least 3-6 months. France must though be ready to loose at least half of the aircrafts sent.
If the FEC was put at the frontline it would, according to French sources, be able to defend a frontline 80 km long for half a week in high intensity warfare. A better option would probably be to defend 30-40 km during a couple of weeks. If we look at losses we can assume that French losses would be proportional to their number at the front. Since the FEC would be about 5 percent of the frontline troops they would have the same losses.
Depending on the real Ukrainian losses, that would mean 500-1500 casualities (KIA/WIA) every month. In six months that would mean 3-9 000 French casualities. The units in the FEC would probably have to be withdrawn after 6 months and I doubt there are enough French manpower or military equipment to replace them. After a short while in Ukraine the FEC would probably also depend on Ukrainian supply of ammunition, due to French shortage in that area.
The best option for France would probably place French troops far from the front, freeing Ukrainian troops for the front. But if Ukraine could free 20 000 men those would be used up in 1-2 months. Ukraine would gain a couple of months by a French involvement, maybe a bit more with heavy French losses.
Macron said that he will probably have to send soldiers to defend Odessa, which is supposed to be now a main objective for Russia. He will have probably to negotiate with other European countries to avoid going there alone. Would this be enough to freeze the situation? Or is…
The French won't be able (nor willing) to alter the situation at all if/when the attack to take Odessa happens. It's chatter for the EC parliament voters this June, nothing more.
I don't want to distract from the topics we are discussing, but you are really cherry picking the least impactful points out of what I'm putting out there.
If you honestly think for two seconds that US military strategy is going to be influenced in any significant way by environmental policy during a real wartime crisis you've got another thing coming. It's not going to happen. Now, before you start cherry picking, remember I said significant. Don't throw out that they are asking troops to recycle or something like that. It just isn't relevant. It doesn't matter. At. All.
Russia's economy has been relagated to purely natural resource extraction. They have ramped that up, but they do precious little value-added manufacturing, have very little innovative momentum in those spaces, and even in natural resource extraction require outside expertise to extract those resources competitively and at scale. They have to import all of the technologically advanced components needed for anything high tech. That's what I mean by hollowed out.
I don't want to distract from the topics we are discussing, but you are really cherry picking the least impactful points out of what I'm putting out there.
If you honestly think for two seconds that US military strategy is going to be influenced in any significant way by environmental policy during a real wartime crisis you've got another thing coming. It's not going to happen. Now, before you start cherry picking, remember I said significant. Don't throw out that they are asking troops to recycle or something like that. It just isn't relevant. It doesn't matter. At. All.
Russia's economy has been relagated to purely natural resource extraction. They have ramped that up, but they do precious little value-added manufacturing, have very little innovative momentum in those spaces, and even in natural resource extraction require outside expertise to extract those resources competitively and at scale. They have to import all of the technologically advanced components needed for anything high tech. That's what I mean by hollowed out.
Not true at all, imho. Variously, some industries were impacted of course initially but whether it is weapons, autos, chips, lot's of value add/manufacturing activity and growth across their industrial space. Putin made that the centerpiece of his campaign even.
I feel like we're chasing a rabbit here. We're so far from the initial discussion, let's try to get it back on track.
Russia has a tight labor market, yes. They are doing what they can to promote domestic production, yes. Is that highly relevant to whether the war in Ukraine is in the US national interest or not, not enough to change the overall calculus. They do not produce quality goods highly marketable abroad. They do not innovate and create new globally marketable technologies. A large portion of their highly educated population abandoned them when the war started, so it's likely that it will continue to diminish in those capacities. Any way you shake it Russia is a raw material exporter, that's what drives their economy.
If you could respond to some of the other points I've made or point out something you'd like me to address, I'd really like to keep this going. You clearly have done your homework, and I appreciate that you're informed and open to a respectful discussion instead of hurling insults around.
At this moment in time yes, they are. That isn't the same as them having more capability than the West, or even the US individually. How Ukraine is currently performing is not comparable to how NATO or the US would perform if directly involved.
The more we talk the more I think I understand our differences of opinion, which could be wrong. You're looking at today and tomorrow, I'm looking further ahead. Their fully mobilized war economy outproduces us today, yes. Earmark this and check in here in a few years. Our infrastructure is insulated geographically and highly defensible sans the introduction of nuclear weapons to the theatre. Russia's is not. Their only true defense in a direct conflict with the West is the threat of nuclear war. Full stop.
When will the abandonment of the green initiatives and ramp up of our industrial production actually start? That would have to be the 1st step to catching up, no?
BTW, their war economy being fully mobilized is the basis for the assertion that they're stronger today than 2 years ago; even if a few planes have gone down and boats have sunk since then.
Is that why they are begging the Norks for ammo and send old tanks to the lines?
Producing a lot of crap just means you have a lot of crap. Russia in 2022 was much stronger than now. And they made the gains to prove it. Now they can't do **** but gain a couple miles in 6 months.
Don't tell me. Show me.
Come on. I thought u were a military guy.
Any idiot that has studied the history of war knows that has always been Russia's war strategy.
They have a **** ton of raw materials and people. Overwhelm your opponent with material even if it is junk.
They have more material and more men. Eventually the other side runs out of material and they win. The few times they have lost they were not able to employ this strategy.
This is nothing new. You stating that they are employing the strategy they have always used is NOT an indicator they will use
Rather it's an indicator we are about to see history repeat itself.
Quickly. It's already happening. How many green revolts have you seen over the past two years? Where were the mass protests when the Kakhovka Dam, a truly immense ecological/environmental disaster, was breached? It's a non-starter issue and a distraction at best. It isn't even really worth discussing.
I won't disagree with you there, but again, this process was going to happen either way. Stronger today doesn't mean stronger tomorrow and in fact it's arguable that these pivots are actually weakening them in the intermediate and long-term. They are hollowing out their demography and industrial capabilities to fuel a war economy fighting Ukraine. Not NATO, Ukraine.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting." -Sun Tzu
We're not fighting, and they are expending immense resources, manpower, and upending their long-term economic strategy in this fight. All that for 5% of our military budget with no boots on the ground? What a bargain.
I'm also not convinced moving their economy up into the top 5 globally is "hollowing them out."
Citation needed
Russia is nestled just below Mexico. "Top 5" my ass.
Russia just took 6 months to take 2 miles and Nortex is over here talking about Odessa, which is 90 miles from Kherson, which is still in Ukrainian hands and in no danger of falling. Hell it's not even near a possible offensive any time soon.
Russia just took 6 months to take 2 miles and Nortex is over here talking about Odessa, which is 90 miles from Kherson, which is still in Ukrainian hands and in no danger of falling. Hell it's not even near a possible offensive any time soon.
Didn't Odessa get hit with a double tap last night?
