Just saw a report that America is now sanctioning one third of the world. If we get past the halfway mark, I'm wondering would it be more efficient just to sanction ourselves?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

Russia can take Narva any time it wants to, to rescue ethnic Russians from oppression or chaos or (insert contrived reasons here). Then, Nato has to either cave, or take direct action.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

How does Nato react when Russian nationals with Estonian passports seize city hall in Narva and declare independence?

---

Keep an eye on what's happening in Moldova.

---

which is why Russia crossed the Dnieper at Kherson and headed west instead of north......they don't just want a land bridge to Crimea. They want a land bridge to Moldova.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

Russia to block Google, IOS and Android.

Aleksei Didenko, a member of the Russian State Duma, has announced that Google, along with its Android operating system and Apple's iOS, will soon be blocked in Russia. pic.twitter.com/SUTx3s7FvA

— Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) August 2, 2024

---

We better start coordinating better with NATO, Asia and Aus/NZ. Russia and China are positioning for a move. Iran with Israel and N Korea making munitions deals with Russia. Now this.

Whiterock, are you hearing anything that Russia is not showing its true capabilities in Ukraine? It is using basically the B and C teams? Just curious, not liking the chess board at the current time. Also, Asian allies in line? Curious...

---

Russia has large numbers of troops still waiting to join battle. Ukraine can't mobilize fast enough to create reserves at this point; they're just plugging holes.

Pokrovsk may well be the last nail in the coffin. Absolutely crucial supply hub linking the northeastern and southwestern halves of the front.

---

Where we differ, is that I believe Ukraine was the test case. When we allowed it to happen, the dominoes started falling. They are going for it all before the Nov election. Iran, Russia and China are all setting up the Board.

Too many things. Ukraine is not the end game for Russia. Next is Kalinburg Oblesk and the Baltics. They don't believe NATO will do a thing.

---

Their biggest concern is whether NATO will intervene directly in Ukraine. That's why they're making alliances, stockpiling ammo, conserving manpower. Even if they wanted to attack Kaliningrad or the Baltics, which I don't think they do, it would be a way down the road.

---

Yeah, it is much easier for them to subjugate their neighbors if nobody does anything. Silly NATO not realizing that...

You are really serious with this stuff? If NATO just agreed to stay out of it, Russia will go into Ukraine and sanitize it. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a Dr Evil line from Austin Powers movie. You really believe this stuff?

---

Whether NATO should intervene is another question. I'm just explaining why it makes no sense for Russia to start another war right now.

---

Russia isn't starting a war with anyone anytime soon because their conventional military capabilities have been exposed for what they are. Only a fool believe Russia is stronger now than it was before the war.

---

They're quite obviously stronger, but that's beside the point. They're not stronger in a way that enables them to go on the offensive against NATO.

---

If Russia calculates they can recreate in Romania, Poland, or the Baltics the same type of conflict they have in Ukraine, they will do it. All day long & twice on Sundays.

---

But they can't...and you have no evidence they even want to do so.

1. Romania, Poland, and the Baltic States are in NATO....they do not host a major Russian Black Sea naval base. And they are not flirting with joining NATO...they are already in NATO.

2. Romania and Poland have no real russian minority populations that Moscow could work through. Poland is 97% ethnically Polish and Romania is 89% ethnic Romanian... with Hungarians and Roma making up the rest (6% and 4%)

Lithuania is 85% ethnic Lithuanian and the remainder is Polish...less than 4% is ethnic russian.

-Latvia & Estonia are the only two that have any sort of significant russian minority population (25% for Latvia, and 22% for Estonia)

Not to mention that no all those ethnic russians are even interested in trying to help Moscow and the number of ethnic russians in the Baltic is on a steady decline anyway with out migration to Western Europe or to other countries.

[The number of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has been declining since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In 1989, the last census during the Soviet occupation of the three countries, the population of ethnic Russians was around 1.7 million. By 2023, that number had decreased to about 887,000, with 296,000 in Estonia, 445,000 in Latvia]

3.. In Ukraine pre-war there were at least two major political parties (one pro-West, and the other pro-Moscow)

Nothing like that exists in Romania, Poland, or the Baltic States.

The closest you can get to that is the pro-Russian ST party in Latvia...yet that party only has 9 of the 100 seats in the Parliament (The Saeima)...and does not do well electorally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Stability!

---

I said it a few pages back, but it bears being posted again....

You can watch any show that Margarita Simonyan, Olga Skabeyeva, and Vladimir Solovyov are on and hear it dozens of times. They are Putin's mouthpiece.

---

I have no idea what Russian media personalities you spend your time watching....but they could be advocating for Russia to invade the Moon....does not mean they could do it.

Poland has 37 million people (more than Ukraine) and its 97% ethnically Polish

Romania has 20 million people and its 89% ethnically Romanian.

The Baltic States have 6.1 million people...and its super majority non-russian...80% plus Baltic peoples

And all of these Nations are backed up by the entire NATO war machine (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -NATO- has an estimated population of 981 million people across its 32 member countries, many of whom are the largest economies on earth)

The idea of Russia taking any NATO state at this point is beyond ludicrous

---

the idea that Russia poses no threat to Nato is beyond ludicrous. They want a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they will never give up on it, never quit seeking ways to get one.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

https://apnews.com/article/russia-france-ukraine-liquified-natural-gas-shipments-eu-1bd02b575eace65806b4e37fffcd8186

Europe is importing more LNG from Russia than ever. Despite the fact that just about every media outlet is reporting of how Ukraine is winning all these battles by destroying a bridge here or there or a supply ship or two out in the black sea, there still doesn't appear to be a real end to this war, and Russia appears to be in a better spot for a prolonged conflict. The Russian government has also subsidized many portions of their economy which has shielded the average Russian from feeling the effects of all these sanctions. In fact, the sanctions were such big news at the time, the media swore up and down that they would cripple the Russian economy, but it's like we never hear about them anymore

---

India has saved nearly $100 Billion by purchasing discounted Russian oil. Not surprised to hear other countries are willing to purchase the discounted fuel. But that's not the full economic picture. Really difficult domestic impacts are happening, but Putin cares more about his broader interests vs the hardships of the Russian people.

---

Well we know that....

But North Korea (far far far more resource poor than Russia) has survived being totally cut off from just about everyone other than China since the 1950s

Western sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees and cause a collapse....not just lower living standards in Moscow....is that collapse coming any time soon?

---

You can add Iran to that list also. But that's the conundrum of sanctioning despots and/or despotic regimes. It assumes (incorrectly) they care about the outcomes that impact their people. Only when either the people revolt or you squeeze the right buttons on the regimes do they have impact. But like Iran, Russia has some other parties helping them which thwarts some of the sanction impact. But I'd guess if Russia and/or Iran faced NK level impact there'd be change.

---

Cuba as well

Sanctions as regime change tool don't seem to work that well

---

Regime change? You really think the US believes sanctions alone is going to change a regime? Sanctions are a "box-in" tool, to limit what resources they have, make the uncomfortable and minimize the damage they can do to us. Nobody believed that sanctions were going to take out Castro. Carrot/Stick to modify behavior, nothing but direct action changed regimes.

Maybe that is why you are so disillusioned, your expectations are all messed up. You really believe this stuff. Russia didn't invade over some Diplomats phone call 12 years ago. Sanctions will never change a regime. Putin is acting in HIS best interest, NATO is not causing Putin to invade. China is pulling the strings here, it is what they do.

---

he's making a false dilemma argument - that if sanctions don't cause the collapse of your enemy, the sanctions were worthless. In reality, sanctions do drive up the cost of everything, which affects a nation's ability to make war. Russia is throwing refurbished T-55s and T62s into battle because sanctions make it impossible for the to put T-14s into full production.

Sanctions are always a part of warfare. Cut off towns from their water supply. Blockade the harbor to prevent the import of food. Isolate allies from each other. Make 3rd parties fearful of trading with combatants. etc....... The German U-Boat offensive did not win the war, but it strangled UK in a way that significantly complicated British war-making. Same for the Allied bombing campaign. Whether one achieves those effects via military campaigns or via economic sanctions in no way changes the meaningfulness of the impact.
And if one can do both, one does......

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

Russia to block Google, IOS and Android.

Aleksei Didenko, a member of the Russian State Duma, has announced that Google, along with its Android operating system and Apple's iOS, will soon be blocked in Russia. pic.twitter.com/SUTx3s7FvA

— Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) August 2, 2024

---

We better start coordinating better with NATO, Asia and Aus/NZ. Russia and China are positioning for a move. Iran with Israel and N Korea making munitions deals with Russia. Now this.

Whiterock, are you hearing anything that Russia is not showing its true capabilities in Ukraine? It is using basically the B and C teams? Just curious, not liking the chess board at the current time. Also, Asian allies in line? Curious...

---

Russia has large numbers of troops still waiting to join battle. Ukraine can't mobilize fast enough to create reserves at this point; they're just plugging holes.

Pokrovsk may well be the last nail in the coffin. Absolutely crucial supply hub linking the northeastern and southwestern halves of the front.

---

Where we differ, is that I believe Ukraine was the test case. When we allowed it to happen, the dominoes started falling. They are going for it all before the Nov election. Iran, Russia and China are all setting up the Board.

Too many things. Ukraine is not the end game for Russia. Next is Kalinburg Oblesk and the Baltics. They don't believe NATO will do a thing.

---

Their biggest concern is whether NATO will intervene directly in Ukraine. That's why they're making alliances, stockpiling ammo, conserving manpower. Even if they wanted to attack Kaliningrad or the Baltics, which I don't think they do, it would be a way down the road.

---

Yeah, it is much easier for them to subjugate their neighbors if nobody does anything. Silly NATO not realizing that...

You are really serious with this stuff? If NATO just agreed to stay out of it, Russia will go into Ukraine and sanitize it. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a Dr Evil line from Austin Powers movie. You really believe this stuff?

---

Whether NATO should intervene is another question. I'm just explaining why it makes no sense for Russia to start another war right now.

---

Russia isn't starting a war with anyone anytime soon because their conventional military capabilities have been exposed for what they are. Only a fool believe Russia is stronger now than it was before the war.

---

They're quite obviously stronger, but that's beside the point. They're not stronger in a way that enables them to go on the offensive against NATO.

---

If Russia calculates they can recreate in Romania, Poland, or the Baltics the same type of conflict they have in Ukraine, they will do it. All day long & twice on Sundays.

---

But they can't...and you have no evidence they even want to do so.

1. Romania, Poland, and the Baltic States are in NATO....they do not host a major Russian Black Sea naval base. And they are not flirting with joining NATO...they are already in NATO.

2. Romania and Poland have no real russian minority populations that Moscow could work through. Poland is 97% ethnically Polish and Romania is 89% ethnic Romanian... with Hungarians and Roma making up the rest (6% and 4%)

Lithuania is 85% ethnic Lithuanian and the remainder is Polish...less than 4% is ethnic russian.

-Latvia & Estonia are the only two that have any sort of significant russian minority population (25% for Latvia, and 22% for Estonia)

Not to mention that no all those ethnic russians are even interested in trying to help Moscow and the number of ethnic russians in the Baltic is on a steady decline anyway with out migration to Western Europe or to other countries.

[The number of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has been declining since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In 1989, the last census during the Soviet occupation of the three countries, the population of ethnic Russians was around 1.7 million. By 2023, that number had decreased to about 887,000, with 296,000 in Estonia, 445,000 in Latvia]

3.. In Ukraine pre-war there were at least two major political parties (one pro-West, and the other pro-Moscow)

Nothing like that exists in Romania, Poland, or the Baltic States.

The closest you can get to that is the pro-Russian ST party in Latvia...yet that party only has 9 of the 100 seats in the Parliament (The Saeima)...and does not do well electorally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Stability!

---

I said it a few pages back, but it bears being posted again....

You can watch any show that Margarita Simonyan, Olga Skabeyeva, and Vladimir Solovyov are on and hear it dozens of times. They are Putin's mouthpiece.

---

I have no idea what Russian media personalities you spend your time watching....but they could be advocating for Russia to invade the Moon....does not mean they could do it.

Poland has 37 million people (more than Ukraine) and its 97% ethnically Polish

Romania has 20 million people and its 89% ethnically Romanian.

The Baltic States have 6.1 million people...and its super majority non-russian...80% plus Baltic peoples

And all of these Nations are backed up by the entire NATO war machine (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -NATO- has an estimated population of 981 million people across its 32 member countries, many of whom are the largest economies on earth)

The idea of Russia taking any NATO state at this point is beyond ludicrous

---

the idea that Russia poses no threat to Nato is beyond ludicrous. They want a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they will never give up on it, never quit seeking ways to get one.

---

Lets assume for a second that they do...(a easily attacked land bridge through 3 Baltic countries that would be hostile to them)

How would they do it?

They can't even invade and take eastern Ukraine....an area filled with a majority of ethnic russians

While all 3 Baltic States are super majority NON-russian.

Not to mention that any hypothetical russian invasion would be met with overwhelming military response from NATO.

Have our embargoes destroyed Russia's economy YET ?

I keep expecting Putin to surrender any day now.

Amazing how the media can focus on the Olympics with two bloody wars ongoing.

It's almost surreal.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

https://apnews.com/article/russia-france-ukraine-liquified-natural-gas-shipments-eu-1bd02b575eace65806b4e37fffcd8186

Europe is importing more LNG from Russia than ever. Despite the fact that just about every media outlet is reporting of how Ukraine is winning all these battles by destroying a bridge here or there or a supply ship or two out in the black sea, there still doesn't appear to be a real end to this war, and Russia appears to be in a better spot for a prolonged conflict. The Russian government has also subsidized many portions of their economy which has shielded the average Russian from feeling the effects of all these sanctions. In fact, the sanctions were such big news at the time, the media swore up and down that they would cripple the Russian economy, but it's like we never hear about them anymore

---

India has saved nearly $100 Billion by purchasing discounted Russian oil. Not surprised to hear other countries are willing to purchase the discounted fuel. But that's not the full economic picture. Really difficult domestic impacts are happening, but Putin cares more about his broader interests vs the hardships of the Russian people.

---

Well we know that....

But North Korea (far far far more resource poor than Russia) has survived being totally cut off from just about everyone other than China since the 1950s

Western sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees and cause a collapse....not just lower living standards in Moscow....is that collapse coming any time soon?

---

You can add Iran to that list also. But that's the conundrum of sanctioning despots and/or despotic regimes. It assumes (incorrectly) they care about the outcomes that impact their people. Only when either the people revolt or you squeeze the right buttons on the regimes do they have impact. But like Iran, Russia has some other parties helping them which thwarts some of the sanction impact. But I'd guess if Russia and/or Iran faced NK level impact there'd be change.

---

Cuba as well

Sanctions as regime change tool don't seem to work that well

---

Regime change? You really think the US believes sanctions alone is going to change a regime? Sanctions are a "box-in" tool, to limit what resources they have, make the uncomfortable and minimize the damage they can do to us. Nobody believed that sanctions were going to take out Castro. Carrot/Stick to modify behavior, nothing but direct action changed regimes.

Maybe that is why you are so disillusioned, your expectations are all messed up. You really believe this stuff. Russia didn't invade over some Diplomats phone call 12 years ago. Sanctions will never change a regime. Putin is acting in HIS best interest, NATO is not causing Putin to invade. China is pulling the strings here, it is what they do.

---

he's making a false dilemma argument - that if sanctions don't cause the collapse of your enemy, the sanctions were worthless. In reality, sanctions do drive up the cost of everything, which affects a nation's ability to make war.

---

1. Except you are forgetting how the Media framed this to the American people.

They set the expectation that the sanctions would collapse Russia.

People have a right to ask if they have been misled...does not seem like a collapse is coming anytime soon.

2. Sure it drives up the cost of war...but it does not prevent it...Iran fought the entire massive Iran-Iraq war while under sanctions....they are still to this very day waging proxy wars in the middle east while under a massive sanctions regime....have been for 40 years.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

Russia to block Google, IOS and Android.

Aleksei Didenko, a member of the Russian State Duma, has announced that Google, along with its Android operating system and Apple's iOS, will soon be blocked in Russia. pic.twitter.com/SUTx3s7FvA

— Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) August 2, 2024

---

We better start coordinating better with NATO, Asia and Aus/NZ. Russia and China are positioning for a move. Iran with Israel and N Korea making munitions deals with Russia. Now this.

Whiterock, are you hearing anything that Russia is not showing its true capabilities in Ukraine? It is using basically the B and C teams? Just curious, not liking the chess board at the current time. Also, Asian allies in line? Curious...

---

Russia has large numbers of troops still waiting to join battle. Ukraine can't mobilize fast enough to create reserves at this point; they're just plugging holes.

Pokrovsk may well be the last nail in the coffin. Absolutely crucial supply hub linking the northeastern and southwestern halves of the front.

---

Where we differ, is that I believe Ukraine was the test case. When we allowed it to happen, the dominoes started falling. They are going for it all before the Nov election. Iran, Russia and China are all setting up the Board.

Too many things. Ukraine is not the end game for Russia. Next is Kalinburg Oblesk and the Baltics. They don't believe NATO will do a thing.

---

Their biggest concern is whether NATO will intervene directly in Ukraine. That's why they're making alliances, stockpiling ammo, conserving manpower. Even if they wanted to attack Kaliningrad or the Baltics, which I don't think they do, it would be a way down the road.

---

Yeah, it is much easier for them to subjugate their neighbors if nobody does anything. Silly NATO not realizing that...

You are really serious with this stuff? If NATO just agreed to stay out of it, Russia will go into Ukraine and sanitize it. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a Dr Evil line from Austin Powers movie. You really believe this stuff?

---

Whether NATO should intervene is another question. I'm just explaining why it makes no sense for Russia to start another war right now.

---

Russia isn't starting a war with anyone anytime soon because their conventional military capabilities have been exposed for what they are. Only a fool believe Russia is stronger now than it was before the war.

---

They're quite obviously stronger, but that's beside the point. They're not stronger in a way that enables them to go on the offensive against NATO.

---

If Russia calculates they can recreate in Romania, Poland, or the Baltics the same type of conflict they have in Ukraine, they will do it. All day long & twice on Sundays.

---

But they can't...and you have no evidence they even want to do so.

1. Romania, Poland, and the Baltic States are in NATO....they do not host a major Russian Black Sea naval base. And they are not flirting with joining NATO...they are already in NATO.

2. Romania and Poland have no real russian minority populations that Moscow could work through. Poland is 97% ethnically Polish and Romania is 89% ethnic Romanian... with Hungarians and Roma making up the rest (6% and 4%)

Lithuania is 85% ethnic Lithuanian and the remainder is Polish...less than 4% is ethnic russian.

-Latvia & Estonia are the only two that have any sort of significant russian minority population (25% for Latvia, and 22% for Estonia)

Not to mention that no all those ethnic russians are even interested in trying to help Moscow and the number of ethnic russians in the Baltic is on a steady decline anyway with out migration to Western Europe or to other countries.

[The number of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has been declining since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In 1989, the last census during the Soviet occupation of the three countries, the population of ethnic Russians was around 1.7 million. By 2023, that number had decreased to about 887,000, with 296,000 in Estonia, 445,000 in Latvia]

3.. In Ukraine pre-war there were at least two major political parties (one pro-West, and the other pro-Moscow)

Nothing like that exists in Romania, Poland, or the Baltic States.

The closest you can get to that is the pro-Russian ST party in Latvia...yet that party only has 9 of the 100 seats in the Parliament (The Saeima)...and does not do well electorally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Stability!

---

I said it a few pages back, but it bears being posted again....

You can watch any show that Margarita Simonyan, Olga Skabeyeva, and Vladimir Solovyov are on and hear it dozens of times. They are Putin's mouthpiece.

---

I have no idea what Russian media personalities you spend your time watching....but they could be advocating for Russia to invade the Moon....does not mean they could do it.

Poland has 37 million people (more than Ukraine) and its 97% ethnically Polish

Romania has 20 million people and its 89% ethnically Romanian.

The Baltic States have 6.1 million people...and its super majority non-russian...80% plus Baltic peoples

And all of these Nations are backed up by the entire NATO war machine (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -NATO- has an estimated population of 981 million people across its 32 member countries, many of whom are the largest economies on earth)

The idea of Russia taking any NATO state at this point is beyond ludicrous

---

the idea that Russia poses no threat to Nato is beyond ludicrous. They want a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they will never give up on it, never quit seeking ways to get one.

---

Lets assume for a second that they do...(a easily attacked land bridge through 3 Baltic countries that would be hostile to them)

How would they do it?

They can't even invade and take eastern Ukraine....an area filled with a majority of ethnic russians

While all 3 Baltic States are super majority NON-russian.

Not to mention that any hypothetical russian invasion would be met with overwhelming military response from NATO.

---

You really think Russia can't take Ukraine, they are not even using air power besides to just hold superiority. If Putin really wanted, he could end this next week and overrun Ukraine. It would weaken Russia else where, but if they wanted they could. No, he is going at a pace he can afford and not weaken other areas.

The Baltics would be easier without NATO actually engaging.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

https://apnews.com/article/russia-france-ukraine-liquified-natural-gas-shipments-eu-1bd02b575eace65806b4e37fffcd8186

Europe is importing more LNG from Russia than ever. Despite the fact that just about every media outlet is reporting of how Ukraine is winning all these battles by destroying a bridge here or there or a supply ship or two out in the black sea, there still doesn't appear to be a real end to this war, and Russia appears to be in a better spot for a prolonged conflict. The Russian government has also subsidized many portions of their economy which has shielded the average Russian from feeling the effects of all these sanctions. In fact, the sanctions were such big news at the time, the media swore up and down that they would cripple the Russian economy, but it's like we never hear about them anymore

---

India has saved nearly $100 Billion by purchasing discounted Russian oil. Not surprised to hear other countries are willing to purchase the discounted fuel. But that's not the full economic picture. Really difficult domestic impacts are happening, but Putin cares more about his broader interests vs the hardships of the Russian people.

---

Well we know that....

But North Korea (far far far more resource poor than Russia) has survived being totally cut off from just about everyone other than China since the 1950s

Western sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees and cause a collapse....not just lower living standards in Moscow....is that collapse coming any time soon?

---

You can add Iran to that list also. But that's the conundrum of sanctioning despots and/or despotic regimes. It assumes (incorrectly) they care about the outcomes that impact their people. Only when either the people revolt or you squeeze the right buttons on the regimes do they have impact. But like Iran, Russia has some other parties helping them which thwarts some of the sanction impact. But I'd guess if Russia and/or Iran faced NK level impact there'd be change.

---

Cuba as well

Sanctions as regime change tool don't seem to work that well

---

Regime change? You really think the US believes sanctions alone is going to change a regime? Sanctions are a "box-in" tool, to limit what resources they have, make the uncomfortable and minimize the damage they can do to us. Nobody believed that sanctions were going to take out Castro. Carrot/Stick to modify behavior, nothing but direct action changed regimes.

Maybe that is why you are so disillusioned, your expectations are all messed up. You really believe this stuff. Russia didn't invade over some Diplomats phone call 12 years ago. Sanctions will never change a regime. Putin is acting in HIS best interest, NATO is not causing Putin to invade. China is pulling the strings here, it is what they do.

---

he's making a false dilemma argument - that if sanctions don't cause the collapse of your enemy, the sanctions were worthless. In reality, sanctions do drive up the cost of everything, which affects a nation's ability to make war.

---

1. Except you are forgetting how the Media framed this to the American people.
how the media frames a narrative about sanctions has no impact on the effectiveness of the sanctions........

They set the expectation that the sanctions would collapse Russia.

People have a right to ask if they have been misled...does not seem like a collapse is coming anytime soon.
Same can be said about those who in one post argue "Russia is an invincible war maching and winning hugely" and in the next insist "Russia isn't a threat because it can't win in Ukraine is therefore not a threat at all to Nato."

2. Sure it drives up the cost of war...but it does not prevent it...Iran fought the entire massive Iran-Iraq war while under sanctions....they are still to this very day waging proxy wars in the middle east while under a massive sanctions regime....have been for 40 years
Geeze the obtusity. How would the Iran/Iraq war gone differently if Iran had NOT been under sanctions? Can you not see the direct line connecting the release of restricted Iranian funds and the escalating proxy battles against Israel?

---

Deterrence means demonstrating overwhelming capability AND resolve. Nato has a problem with both. Nato has the industrial capability to swamp Russia, but has not yet chosen to do so. That has sent unhelpful signals about resolve BEFORE the tepid reactions to Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine leading up to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.. Blithely rewriting history to make Russia a victim and Nato an aggressor......insisting that Russia has a legitimate reason for launching a 3-front invasion of Ukraine......and refusing to define Russia as a threat to Nato are things that undermine deterrence against Russia. They are going to convince Russia that we are pathologically stupid, and/or simply unwilling to resist them and looking for justifications to do so.

You quite disconnected from geopolitical realities here.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

https://apnews.com/article/russia-france-ukraine-liquified-natural-gas-shipments-eu-1bd02b575eace65806b4e37fffcd8186

Europe is importing more LNG from Russia than ever. Despite the fact that just about every media outlet is reporting of how Ukraine is winning all these battles by destroying a bridge here or there or a supply ship or two out in the black sea, there still doesn't appear to be a real end to this war, and Russia appears to be in a better spot for a prolonged conflict. The Russian government has also subsidized many portions of their economy which has shielded the average Russian from feeling the effects of all these sanctions. In fact, the sanctions were such big news at the time, the media swore up and down that they would cripple the Russian economy, but it's like we never hear about them anymore

---

India has saved nearly $100 Billion by purchasing discounted Russian oil. Not surprised to hear other countries are willing to purchase the discounted fuel. But that's not the full economic picture. Really difficult domestic impacts are happening, but Putin cares more about his broader interests vs the hardships of the Russian people.

---

Well we know that....

But North Korea (far far far more resource poor than Russia) has survived being totally cut off from just about everyone other than China since the 1950s

Western sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees and cause a collapse....not just lower living standards in Moscow....is that collapse coming any time soon?

---

You can add Iran to that list also. But that's the conundrum of sanctioning despots and/or despotic regimes. It assumes (incorrectly) they care about the outcomes that impact their people. Only when either the people revolt or you squeeze the right buttons on the regimes do they have impact. But like Iran, Russia has some other parties helping them which thwarts some of the sanction impact. But I'd guess if Russia and/or Iran faced NK level impact there'd be change.

---

Cuba as well

Sanctions as regime change tool don't seem to work that well

---

Regime change? You really think the US believes sanctions alone is going to change a regime? Sanctions are a "box-in" tool, to limit what resources they have, make the uncomfortable and minimize the damage they can do to us. Nobody believed that sanctions were going to take out Castro. Carrot/Stick to modify behavior, nothing but direct action changed regimes.

Maybe that is why you are so disillusioned, your expectations are all messed up. You really believe this stuff. Russia didn't invade over some Diplomats phone call 12 years ago. Sanctions will never change a regime. Putin is acting in HIS best interest, NATO is not causing Putin to invade. China is pulling the strings here, it is what they do.

---

he's making a false dilemma argument - that if sanctions don't cause the collapse of your enemy, the sanctions were worthless. In reality, sanctions do drive up the cost of everything, which affects a nation's ability to make war.

---

1. Except you are forgetting how the Media framed this to the American people.
how the media frames a narrative about sanctions has no impact on the effectiveness of the sanctions........

They set the expectation that the sanctions would collapse Russia.

People have a right to ask if they have been misled...does not seem like a collapse is coming anytime soon.
Same can be said about those who in one post argue "Russia is an invincible war maching and winning hugely" and in the next insist "Russia isn't a threat because it can't win in Ukraine is therefore not a threat at all to Nato."

2. Sure it drives up the cost of war...but it does not prevent it...Iran fought the entire massive Iran-Iraq war while under sanctions....they are still to this very day waging proxy wars in the middle east while under a massive sanctions regime....have been for 40 years
Geeze the obtusity. How would the Iran/Iraq war gone differently if Iran had NOT been under sanctions? Can you not see the direct line connecting the release of restricted Iranian funds and the escalating proxy battles against Israel?

---

Deterrence means demonstrating overwhelming capability AND resolve. Nato has a problem with both.

---

Ludicrous....

When has NATO not demonstrated overwhelming military capability? Its 900 million, 30+ member alliance has some of the most power militaries on earth within it...

When has NATO not demonstrated a resolve to defend a NATO member?

(again for the 1,000th time...Ukraine is not a NATO member)

In fact NATO has often show military capability and "resolve" in getting into conflicts that did not involve it at all (Yugoslav wars, Libyan civil war, etc.)

Watch Putin's face while Gerasimov speaks

'Ukrainian forces lost 54 armored vehicles and 7 tanks in the Kursk attack.' pic.twitter.com/s5nvxjRgRo

— OSINTNic (@OSINTNic) August 7, 2024

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

https://apnews.com/article/russia-france-ukraine-liquified-natural-gas-shipments-eu-1bd02b575eace65806b4e37fffcd8186

Europe is importing more LNG from Russia than ever. Despite the fact that just about every media outlet is reporting of how Ukraine is winning all these battles by destroying a bridge here or there or a supply ship or two out in the black sea, there still doesn't appear to be a real end to this war, and Russia appears to be in a better spot for a prolonged conflict. The Russian government has also subsidized many portions of their economy which has shielded the average Russian from feeling the effects of all these sanctions. In fact, the sanctions were such big news at the time, the media swore up and down that they would cripple the Russian economy, but it's like we never hear about them anymore

---

India has saved nearly $100 Billion by purchasing discounted Russian oil. Not surprised to hear other countries are willing to purchase the discounted fuel. But that's not the full economic picture. Really difficult domestic impacts are happening, but Putin cares more about his broader interests vs the hardships of the Russian people.

---

Well we know that....

But North Korea (far far far more resource poor than Russia) has survived being totally cut off from just about everyone other than China since the 1950s

Western sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees and cause a collapse....not just lower living standards in Moscow....is that collapse coming any time soon?

---

You can add Iran to that list also. But that's the conundrum of sanctioning despots and/or despotic regimes. It assumes (incorrectly) they care about the outcomes that impact their people. Only when either the people revolt or you squeeze the right buttons on the regimes do they have impact. But like Iran, Russia has some other parties helping them which thwarts some of the sanction impact. But I'd guess if Russia and/or Iran faced NK level impact there'd be change.

---

Cuba as well

Sanctions as regime change tool don't seem to work that well

---

Regime change? You really think the US believes sanctions alone is going to change a regime? Sanctions are a "box-in" tool, to limit what resources they have, make the uncomfortable and minimize the damage they can do to us. Nobody believed that sanctions were going to take out Castro. Carrot/Stick to modify behavior, nothing but direct action changed regimes.

Maybe that is why you are so disillusioned, your expectations are all messed up. You really believe this stuff. Russia didn't invade over some Diplomats phone call 12 years ago. Sanctions will never change a regime. Putin is acting in HIS best interest, NATO is not causing Putin to invade. China is pulling the strings here, it is what they do.

---

he's making a false dilemma argument - that if sanctions don't cause the collapse of your enemy, the sanctions were worthless. In reality, sanctions do drive up the cost of everything, which affects a nation's ability to make war.

---

2. Sure it drives up the cost of war...but it does not prevent it...Iran fought the entire massive Iran-Iraq war while under sanctions....they are still to this very day waging proxy wars in the middle east while under a massive sanctions regime....have been for 40 years
Geeze the obtusity. How would the Iran/Iraq war gone differently if Iran had NOT been under sanctions?

---

---

Uh Iran would have more easily repulsed the Iraqi invasion?

You do realize that Baathist Iraq was the one that attack Iran in that war right?


[Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein ordered an invasion of southern Iran on September 22, 1980, which marked the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

---

You assured us in the days leading up to it that they'd never attack. I'm the one that, from the time they began amassing troops on the border, said they absolutely had to and would attack. Remember that?

---

No, actually I posted an article six days before entitled "Putin Has Methodically Planned to Invade Ukraine and Deflect Western Retaliation."

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.

NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

Russia has always been a plunderer, to the limits of its power and beyond.

NATO expanded to prevent Russia from doing so, which only the lunatic fringe would deny was inevitable.

---

More revisionist history there. The inevitability of Russian expansion was at best a fringe idea, perhaps held by the likes of Dick Cheney and others who immediately began planning Russia's demise. Unfortunately it's the lunatics who have taken charge since then.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.

NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.

---

Speaking of lunatics. Put down the krocodil pipe, Vlad.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657

they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.

worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.

---

I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.

I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.

In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.

---

Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.

---

There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?

I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?

---

Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).

---

At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.

Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)

Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)

If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.

It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion

---

Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia.

---

Certainly it's debatable…

But Kissinger point was that it's immaterial.

Russia perceived NATO expansion as a threat…that is what matters.

And it was all so foreseeable that our own experts were predicting this since the end of the Cold War that NATO expansion beyond the Bug River would cause serious problems

[On June 26, a group of 50 prominent foreign policy experts that included former senators, retired military officers, diplomats and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion.

-June 26, 1997

Dear Mr. President,

We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included…]

Quote:

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

(1) World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000 both civilian and military from all war-related causes. Of those there were 8.6 million Russian military, the rest civilian.

(2) Under the 'Case Blue' plan approved by Hitler on April 5, 1942, the Wehrmacht was to break through from the territory of eastern Ukraine to the very rich Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus (they accounted for over 70 percent of the USSR's entire oil production). Capturing them could have literally immobilized the Red Army.

Russia is willing to tolerate a government that is friendly to Moscow in Kiev. They are willing to tolerate a neutral government in Kiev. Given the above history, they aren't willing to tolerate the invasion route for the Wermacht joining NATO.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

(1) World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000 both civilian and military from all war-related causes. Of those there were 8.6 million Russian military, the rest civilian.

(2) Under the 'Case Blue' plan approved by Hitler on April 5, 1942, the Wehrmacht was to break through from the territory of eastern Ukraine to the very rich Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus (they accounted for over 70 percent of the USSR's entire oil production). Capturing them could have literally immobilized the Red Army.

Russia is willing to tolerate a government that is friendly to Moscow in Kyiv. They are willing to tolerate a neutral government in Kyiv. Given the above history, they aren't willing to tolerate the invasion route for the Wermacht joining NATO.

---

LOL the NATO is a threat myth again. Ok, vatnik.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

(1) World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000 both civilian and military from all war-related causes. Of those there were 8.6 million Russian military, the rest civilian.

(2) Under the 'Case Blue' plan approved by Hitler on April 5, 1942, the Wehrmacht was to break through from the territory of eastern Ukraine to the very rich Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus (they accounted for over 70 percent of the USSR's entire oil production). Capturing them could have literally immobilized the Red Army.

Russia is willing to tolerate a government that is friendly to Moscow in Kiev. They are willing to tolerate a neutral government in Kiev. Given the above history, they aren't willing to tolerate the invasion route for the Wermacht joining NATO.

---

Even if I entertained the crazed idea of a NATO invasion of Russia even with Ukraine in NATO, it would take less than a week of missile and aerial strikes from NATO allies to cripple everything you just mentioned without anything originating from Ukraine. We wouldn't fight the Russians like they were fought in WW2.

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.

---

(1) World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000 both civilian and military from all war-related causes. Of those there were 8.6 million Russian military, the rest civilian.

(2) Under the 'Case Blue' plan approved by Hitler on April 5, 1942, the Wehrmacht was to break through from the territory of eastern Ukraine to the very rich Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus (they accounted for over 70 percent of the USSR's entire oil production). Capturing them could have literally immobilized the Red Army.

Russia is willing to tolerate a government that is friendly to Moscow in Kiev. They are willing to tolerate a neutral government in Kiev. Given the above history, they aren't willing to tolerate the invasion route for the Wermacht joining NATO.

---

Even if I entertained the crazed idea of a NATO invasion of Russia even with Ukraine in NATO, it would take less than a week of missile and aerial strikes from NATO allies to cripple everything you just mentioned without anything originating from Ukraine. We wouldn't fight the Russians like they were fought in WW2.

---

And the modern Russians don't have the man power or birth rates the old Soviet Union had to fight WWII with…

Still does not mean that "strategic depth" is not something they desire and obsess over.

Not to mention the national humiliation they feel is the result of seeing ukriane (who has been in their sphere of influence since the 1600s) ripped out and placed under the influence of DC and Brussels

But if you view the map from the Russian perspective you can see why Ukriane, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are so important to them…

2/ Geolocated footage published on August 6 and 7 shows that Ukrainian armored vehicles have advanced to positions along the 38K-030 route about 10 kilometers from the international border.

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) August 8, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

2/ Geolocated footage published on August 6 and 7 shows that Ukrainian armored vehicles have advanced to positions along the 38K-030 route about 10 kilometers from the international border.

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) August 8, 2024

---

Battle of the Bulge for a dying regime in Kiev. A third of that force has already been destroyed.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

2/ Geolocated footage published on August 6 and 7 shows that Ukrainian armored vehicles have advanced to positions along the 38K-030 route about 10 kilometers from the international border.

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) August 8, 2024

---

Battle of the Bulge for a dying regime in Kyiv. A third of that force has already been destroyed.

---

Not really, vatnik.

These cross-border raids have been going on for a while. This one is catching a lot of criticism, as it seems to have been a particularly egregious waste of resources even by Ukraine standards. No one really expects them to hold the territory.

End result is that Russia is encouraged to create another buffer zone, thus opening yet another front and further stretching Ukrainian forces.