Miscellaneous News

horse · Feb 25, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
no, a slow grind is what the US is settling for. They'd much rather have a crushing victory at low cost on their side. That's why they always bring up Desert Storm.

Exactly.

The United States thought that they could bleed Russia to death in the Ukraine.

Since that has not happened, and the rumours of massive Chinese arms to Russia are floating around in the United States, the American panic levels are spiking.

The truth is that Ukraine already lost this war. However, NATO came to the recuse and resupplied them, so the war continues.

How long will NATO persist in this war is a great unknown.

What is really going on, is now NATO is in the business of turning everything they touch into Vietnam quagmires.

Maybe the European people love Vietnam style quagmires far more than the American people ever did. Can't wait until they bring back the draft.

Anything else we hear, that is all noise. All nothing burger propaganda to deflect attention of the fact the next Vietnam is right in Europe.

They deserve it, that propaganda.

sheogorath · Feb 25, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
no, a slow grind is what the US is settling for. They'd much rather have a crushing victory at low cost on their side. That's why they always bring up Desert Storm.

The US has already spent as much as they did in Afghanistan as it is.

TK3600 · Feb 25, 2023

baykalov said:
Destroyed Russian T-72 placed in front of the Russian embassy, Berlin. The tank it was transferred to Germany with the help of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry and the Ukrainian National Museum of Military History. The Russian tank has been standing in the middle of the street for a week with a cannon pointed at the Russian embassy. On the tank is a Ukrainian flag and a NAFО dog.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629540851293511682

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629527054835146753

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629541386759331841

why was it taken down? was it by the government or random civilians?

FairAndUnbiased · Feb 25, 2023

Overbom said:
It depends on their strategic goals. Very early on the war (like a month in) I had already said that it would be in the best interests of the US to drag this war for at least 5 (ideally 10) years to fully drain Russia's national comprehensive power.

However, this was conditional that the war wouldnt expand to such an extend that the US would need to dramatically expand its support to Ukraine. This point hasn't been reached yet.

The difference would be China entering the game. If China threw its hat into the ring, the US' number 1 strategic priority imo would then be to drop Ukraine asap otherwise instead of the US draining Russia, it would be China draining the US and its minions. That's why the West is so apprehensive about China sending any sort of lethal aid to Russia

They know that the moment this happens, this would be a losing battle for them. Of course the reason why China hasn't done this is due to wide ranging considerations that are too complex to explain here. However, the West and Europe in particular should be careful to not push too far. China has a bottom line on Russia and I suspect that the West is getting a bit too close recently.

Let me remind you of a few facts:

1.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. Donbass states were not recognized by Russia until February 2022.
3. Ukraine wanted to keep fighting until

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, then they signed Minsk 2.
4.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

5.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

It is clear that the Minsk 2 treaty was designed not to be a lasting plan for peace but rather to buy Ukraine time to arm and radicalize. Based on these facts, let me propose an alternate model:

1. Ukraine would utterly and effortlessly crush LPR, DPR and invade Crimea.
2. Russia would not be ready for the intensity of the conflict, take too many losses, be too cowed by threats of NATO escalation, and give up these 'peripheral' territories.
3. End result: they want rapid and total Ukrainian victory that ends with them joining EU, NATO, and conquering LPR, DPR and Crimea.

Thus, the whole 'slow grinding' of Russian capability is only because they did not expect Russia to actually strike first.

Overbom · Feb 25, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
Let me remind you of a few facts:

1.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. Donbass states were not recognized by Russia until February 2022.
3. Ukraine wanted to keep fighting until
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, then they signed Minsk 2.
4.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

5.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

It is clear that the Minsk 2 treaty was designed not to be a lasting plan for peace but rather to buy Ukraine time to arm and radicalize. Based on these facts, let me propose an alternate model:

1. Ukraine would utterly and effortlessly crush LPR, DPR and invade Crimea.
2. Russia would not be ready for the intensity of the conflict, take too many losses, be too cowed by threats of NATO escalation, and give up these 'peripheral' territories.
3. End result: they want rapid and total Ukrainian victory that ends with them joining EU, NATO, and conquering LPR, DPR and Crimea.

Thus, the whole 'slow grinding' of Russian capability is only because they did not expect Russia to actually strike first.

If you meant rapid victory in this alternative model then I agree. I thought you were talking about the present war

Russia attacked first and disrupted the US plan, thus gaining the strategic and operational initiative. The rest is history, the West adapted, Russia slowed down.

So in the end, if present conditions remain in the future, its in the US national interest to prolong the war. Only China can disrupt this US calculation

FairAndUnbiased · Feb 25, 2023

Overbom said:
If you meant rapid victory in this alternative model then I agree. I thought you were talking about the present war

Russia attacked first and disrupted the US plan, thus gaining the strategic and operational initiative. The rest is history, the West adapted, Russia slowed down.

So in the end, if present conditions remain in the future, its in the US national interest to prolong the war. Only China can disrupt this US calculation

The original plan for the US was rapid victory of Ukraine if Ukraine went on the offensive first. Since Russia took the initiative, they're now settling for the lower, less decisive goal of bleeding Russia. This is not what they prefer. They'd prefer to win fast and easy, but that is no longer possible.

They're salvaging the situation, but it seems they don't have a plan for strategic victory. They can't actually bleed Russia as hard as they want because the war time demographics are far worse for Ukraine - the war is taking place in Ukraine, so people are fleeing and their civil economy has collapsed. Inflation took a $1 trillion toll in EU.

If this war does indeed take 5 years, then it is still questionable as to who comes out on top. You need to calculate the marginal cost of the war going on per month and the sunk costs. I suspect that you'll find Russia isn't anywhere close to being bled out.

horse · Feb 25, 2023

Overbom said:
So in the end, if present conditions remain in the future, its in the US national interest to prolong the war. Only China can disrupt this US calculation

A prolong war is a losing war, in that a prolong war is a losing proposition.

The Americans spent $1 trillion in Afghanstan - to do what? So the Chinese can start mining some copper, under an agreement with the Taliban, the same people who the Americans invaded to overthrow for 9/11 (when the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, but no one objected because the Taliban were too much in those days).

The spent how much in Iraq? Don't know. Of course, the Chinese now own major interests in Iraqi oil fields, and just this week the Iraqi central bank said they will diversify into Yuan.

Some Americans in Washington DC support this war because they own defense stocks. Not that they care about the world or geopolitical situation. They just want to make money for themselves.

Some other poor slob can go die on the battlefield. Suckas!

Overbom · Feb 25, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
The original plan for the US was rapid victory of Ukraine if Ukraine went on the offensive first. Since Russia took the initiative, they're now settling for the lower, less decisive goal of bleeding Russia. This is not what they prefer. They'd prefer to win fast and easy, but that is no longer possible.

They're salvaging the situation, but it seems they don't have a plan for strategic victory. They can't actually bleed Russia as hard as they want because the war time demographics are far worse for Ukraine - the war is taking place in Ukraine, so people are fleeing and their civil economy has collapsed. Inflation took a $1 trillion toll in EU.

If this war does indeed take 5 years, then it is still questionable as to who comes out on top. You need to calculate the marginal cost of the war going on per month and the sunk costs. I suspect that you'll find Russia isn't anywhere close to being bled out.

I see the bleeding more from a national comprehensive power angle than simply monetary terms

War is a disaster for a country. Always has been. It affects all aspects of a country's development, I am sure you understand my point on this. Direct, indirect, and opportunity costs are way too big and too wide reaching.

The West suffers as well but they have huge economies and they can absorb a lot of damage (or hide it under the carpet). For Russia though, I think their situation is quite bleak from a NCP's perspective.

FairAndUnbiased · Feb 25, 2023

Overbom said:
I see the bleeding more from a national comprehensive power angle than simply monetary terms

War is a disaster for a country. Always has been. It affects all aspects of a country's development, I am sure you understand my point on this. Direct, indirect, and opportunity costs are way too big and too wide reaching.

The West suffers as well but they have huge economies and they can absorb a lot of damage (or hide it under the carpet). For Russia though, I think their situation is quite bleak from a NCP's perspective.

But they also know that if they suffer damage, and China doesn't, they're at a disadvantage in the main contest against China. That is why they want to stop the war - they know Russia has less to lose, they know that they can eventually grind it out to a Russian disadvantage - but cannot achieve decisive strategic victory against Russia. If they can't achieve strategic victory against Russia, then what's the point?

Everything they lose in Ukraine, causes them to be a little weaker against China, whether that be in direct military losses, economic losses, or opportunity losses such as funding MBTs and MLRS that are useless in a Westpac battle.

Stierlitz · Feb 25, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
It is clear that the Minsk 2 treaty was designed not to be a lasting plan for peace but rather to buy Ukraine time to arm and radicalize. Based on these facts, let me propose an alternate model:

Merkel & Hollande pretty much admitted that was the case.

Miscellaneous News

horse

Colonel

sheogorath

Major

TK3600

Major

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Overbom

Brigadier

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

horse

Colonel

Overbom

Brigadier

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Stierlitz

Junior Member