ukraine captured roughly 350 sq km of russian land in kursk region in the past three days
more movement than made in the past year pic.twitter.com/1r1IdqR2Cu

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) August 9, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.

The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).

NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.

---

Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.

---

We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.

Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.

---

It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.

It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.

---

Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.

---

I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...

Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic

In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.

[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en

---

No, they were preventing the EU move, and in some harsh ways. EU had cold feet because of anti-corruption issues. Ukraine had to show it wasn't going to do business and government the Russian way.

---

Well they took in Romania, Bulgaria, etc. that have extreme corruption problems.

[For years, Bulgaria was the most corrupt country in the European Union, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index]

[Bulgaria and Romania have recently been subject to close scrutiny due to the substantial and unyielding problem of corruption in both countries]

And they are now moving forward rapidly with Ukrainian membership....all while Ukraine is still highly corrupt

---

Hmmm....I wonder what the similarities are????

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.

The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).

NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.

---

Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.

---

We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.

Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.

---

It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.

It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.

---

Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.

---

I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...

Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic

In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.

[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en

---

No, they were preventing the EU move, and in some harsh ways. EU had cold feet because of anti-corruption issues. Ukraine had to show it wasn't going to do business and government the Russian way.

---

Well they took in Romania, Bulgaria, etc. that have extreme corruption problems.

[For years, Bulgaria was the most corrupt country in the European Union, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index]

[Bulgaria and Romania have recently been subject to close scrutiny due to the substantial and unyielding problem of corruption in both countries]

And they are now moving forward rapidly with Ukrainian membership....all while Ukraine is still highly corrupt

---

Hmmm....I wonder what the similarities are????

---

Strangely a unofficial (official) DC mouth piece like the Foreign Policy is still throwing up doubt on Ukrainian ascension to the EU.

There were/are plenty of internal EU political reasons and factions that gummed up the works on a Ukraine invite that had nothing to do with big bad Ruskies under the bed.

And still oppose Ukraine in the EU because it might take away money from them or political power in the EU

[Therefore, if EU leaders were really serious about membership for Ukraine, efforts to reform the bloc should already be underway. At the heart of the issue is the EU budget, which is dominated by two major elements: agricultural subsidies and development projects in poorer regions, which combined account for roughly 65 percent of the EU's long-term budget. For both these issues, prospective Ukrainian membership is explosive. Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, with a per capita income of barely one-tenth of the EU average and less than half that of the EU's poorest member, Bulgaria. Ukraine also now has vast infrastructure and reconstruction needs. To all of this, add one of the continent's largest agricultural sectors that would suddenly be eligible for EU subsidies.

Were the EU's budget and redistribution process to remain unchanged, Kyiv would immediately suck in a vast part of the EU budget, including funds now going to the bloc's less affluent members in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Many countries currently benefiting from EU funds would turn into net contributors overnight. If you think any of this will be a smooth process, then you don't know much about European politics.

Given the current redistribution of funds within the EU, it's no surprise that the biggest cracks in support for Ukrainian membership have come in Eastern Europe, where the EU's net recipients are concentrated. In fact, the battle over giving Ukraine access to European agricultural markets has already started, long before a single euro in EU farming subsidies is reallocated...

Further enlargement would also strain the EU's already handicapped ability to make decisions and adopt new laws and policies. Reaching unanimityneeded in foreign policy, for exampleamong 27 sovereign member states is already a Herculean task....Adding Ukraine and other countries patiently waiting to join could push the EU to well past 30 members. There is a long history of members weaponizing their veto power, which explains why other member states hesitate to add more countries to the decision-making mix...]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/17/ukraine-eu-european-union-nato-membership-reform-subsidies-budget-reconstruction-agriculture-war-russia/

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.

In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.

It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024

---

As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.

---

They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.

They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."

Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.

---

No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).

It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.

---

They are Russian insurgents:

Quote:

---

Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff

Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.

On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.

It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/

---

It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.

---

The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.

---

I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.

I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.

---

They are not regretting it. They took the initiative and brought the fight to Russia. They are making them think.

It may not win the war, but from a military perspective soldiers want to take the fight to the enemy. It is just a slice of the bigger effort.

---

But it makes no sense as part of the bigger effort. Aside from a few dead-enders here and there (especially here), everyone knows Ukraine's position in the Donbas is hanging by a thread. If they have any intention of winning, they need their best troops there. The only logical conclusion is that they've given up and they're either buying time for a miracle or going out in a blaze of glory.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.

The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).

NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.

---

Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.

---

We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.

Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.

---

It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.

It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.

---

Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.

It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.

---

It's undisputed that Ukraine sought further negotiations and the EU refused.

A neutral Ukraine, which all parties had agreed to, was an essential part of the European security structure following the Cold War. The systematic violation of that structure, the overthrow of Ukraine's government, the build-up of its army, support for extremist militias, dismantling of the arms control framework, etc. had to be regarded by Russian leaders as a threat. They would have been negligent otherwise. Their actions only proved that they will eventually enforce red lines (contrary to what we foolishly assumed and somehow continue to assume).

---

Negotiations had been going on for years and a framework agreement was ready to execute. Meanwhile the Russians were threatening to cut off more energy supplies, expanding business sanctions, and blockading goods creating extra risks and costs requiring more money for Ukraine. Yanukovych literally did an insta flip in a matter of days/weeks.

The Russians thwarted efforts by Ukraine to link with the EU once Putin began consolidating power. The seminal events were the largest EU expansion that occurred in 2004 followed by more Eastern European nations in 2007. Ironically, many of those countries were ALREADY in NATO. Ukraine wanted that (EU), but Russia wouldn't allow it, and definitely didn't want the anti corruption measures that were a key component. So much so they attempted to assassinate political candidates and killed journalists and opposition that tried to expose it.

Ukraine was never allowed to be neutral because Russia wanted to lord over them with corruption, blackmail, military threats, and constant internal meddling. Their actions immediately following Maiden were a culmination of their strategy. Invasion, unlawful seizures, fomenting rebellion, and economic warfare.

I've said it all along with many Russian conflicts. If you want to win the influence war, be a better partner. As it is, they are only effective with corrupt despots that they can bolster their authoritarianism.

---

The conspiracy is strong with this one. The seizing of Crimea has generally been recognized as an impulsive reaction, or an opportunistic reaction if you prefer, to developing events. There's no evidence that it was part of any master plan.

If you believe Yanukovych flipped on a dime, you should read more about the events of the previous months.

Russia never "blockaded" Ukraine. They used a variety of carrots and sticks, including trade sanctions, energy discounts, and a loan offer matching the EU's. This is what countries do when they negotiate. The real problem is that we didn't want them to have a seat at the table. And when they did win the influence war, we couldn't accept it.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.

In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.

It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024

---

As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.

---

They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.

They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."

Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.

---

No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).

It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.

---

They are Russian insurgents:

Quote:

---

Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff

Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.

On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.

It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/

---

It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.

---

The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.

---

I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.

I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.

---

They are not regretting it. They took the initiative and brought the fight to Russia. They are making them think.

It may not win the war, but from a military perspective soldiers want to take the fight to the enemy. It is just a slice of the bigger effort.

---

But it makes no sense as part of the bigger effort. Aside from a few dead-enders here and there (especially here), everyone knows Ukraine's position in the Donbas is hanging by a thread. If they have any intention of winning, they need their best troops there. The only logical conclusion is that they've given up and they're either buying time for a miracle or going out in a blaze of glory.

---

Sigh….a predictable misread.

The Ukrainian offensive is taking advantage of the reality that Russia does not have enough troops to defend the entire line. It will force them to pull troops from somewhere in Ukraine to defend the homeland.

And by forcing conflict in areas without prepared defenses, Ukraine is forcing Russia to respond in open terrain where it can be more easily interdicted (photos of which have already been posted).

" In strategy, the longest way round is often the shortest way home.."
-Basil Liddel Hart

I.E. if you want to relieve pressure or create opportunities in Kherson or Zapo…….

---

I agree, also from a Ukraine moral perspective, going on the offensive no matter how small lifts morale. Nothing is worse than being the nail. This was an opportunity to be the hammer. To piss of Putin and force Russia to react. You want aggression in soldiers. They need to take the fight to the enemy. There is value in going in to Russia.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.

In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.

It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024

---

As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.

---

They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.

They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."

Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.

---

No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).

It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.

---

They are Russian insurgents:

Quote:

---

Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff

Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.

On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.

It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/

---

It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.

---

The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.

---

I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.

I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.

---

They are not regretting it. They took the initiative and brought the fight to Russia. They are making them think.

It may not win the war, but from a military perspective soldiers want to take the fight to the enemy. It is just a slice of the bigger effort.

---

But it makes no sense as part of the bigger effort. Aside from a few dead-enders here and there (especially here), everyone knows Ukraine's position in the Donbas is hanging by a thread. If they have any intention of winning, they need their best troops there. The only logical conclusion is that they've given up and they're either buying time for a miracle or going out in a blaze of glory.

---

The Ukrainian offensive is taking advantage of the reality that Russia does not have enough troops to defend the entire line. It will force them to pull troops from somewhere in Ukraine to defend the homeland.

---

Which they're not doing because that isn't the reality. Like I said, aside from a few dead-enders.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.

The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).

NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.

---

Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.

---

We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.

Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.

---

It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.

It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.

---

Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.

It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.

---

It's undisputed that Ukraine sought further negotiations and the EU refused.

A neutral Ukraine, which all parties had agreed to, was an essential part of the European security structure following the Cold War. The systematic violation of that structure, the overthrow of Ukraine's government, the build-up of its army, support for extremist militias, dismantling of the arms control framework, etc. had to be regarded by Russian leaders as a threat. They would have been negligent otherwise. Their actions only proved that they will eventually enforce red lines (contrary to what we foolishly assumed and somehow continue to assume).

---

Negotiations had been going on for years and a framework agreement was ready to execute. Meanwhile the Russians were threatening to cut off more energy supplies, expanding business sanctions, and blockading goods creating extra risks and costs requiring more money for Ukraine. Yanukovych literally did an insta flip in a matter of days/weeks.

The Russians thwarted efforts by Ukraine to link with the EU once Putin began consolidating power. The seminal events were the largest EU expansion that occurred in 2004 followed by more Eastern European nations in 2007. Ironically, many of those countries were ALREADY in NATO. Ukraine wanted that (EU), but Russia wouldn't allow it, and definitely didn't want the anti corruption measures that were a key component. So much so they attempted to assassinate political candidates and killed journalists and opposition that tried to expose it.

Ukraine was never allowed to be neutral because Russia wanted to lord over them with corruption, blackmail, military threats, and constant internal meddling. Their actions immediately following Maiden were a culmination of their strategy. Invasion, unlawful seizures, fomenting rebellion, and economic warfare.

I've said it all along with many Russian conflicts. If you want to win the influence war, be a better partner. As it is, they are only effective with corrupt despots that they can bolster their authoritarianism.

---

The conspiracy is strong with this one. The seizing of Crimea has generally been recognized as an impulsive reaction, or an opportunistic reaction if you prefer, to developing events. There's no evidence that it was part of any master plan.

If you believe Yanukovych flipped on a dime, you should read more about the events of the previous months.

Russia never "blockaded" Ukraine. They used a variety of carrots and sticks, including trade sanctions, energy discounts, and a loan offer matching the EU's. This is what countries do when they negotiate. The real problem is that we didn't want them to have a seat at the table. And when they did win the influence war, we couldn't accept it.

---

Nothing conspiratorial, just the facts along the timeline of Putin's rise. They embargoed the border for Ukrainian goods, stopped filling refineries with oil, stopped gas supplies (strategically before and during Winter of course), established price deals then reneged on them, threatened to make the sanctions worse if they did an accession deal with the EU, and that was just in the last few years prior to Maiden. Even the "carrot" of bond purchases that supposedly was the influence for Yanukovych's change had the "stick" of greater Russian pipeline control in the country. And as far as carrots go, them giving the goods on Yulia Tymoschenko so Yanukovych could imprison his hated rival is a unique method of negotiating. And we thought Trump's Biden efforts were unethical.

If you go back to 2003 you'll find murders, poisonings, imprisonments, theft, more blackmail, oligarch game of thrones, and Billions in secret deals in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. It's all there, but I don't think it matters to you. Even the breaking away from the Moscow Russian Orthodox Church has some novel worthy intrigue.

At some point with the preponderance of evidence you have to accept that Russia has been a bad actor on multiple levels for a long time. Even Yanukovych was pleading to his Party of Regions within a couple of months of the flip flop that Russia didn't have Ukraine's best interests, and was a destructive partner. The plan and effort to control Ukraine has been there for decades.

50% of the UAF incursion force has been destroyed. I would imagine that the Battle of the Bulge 2.0 will be over by the end of the week.

Realitybites said:

---

50% of the UAF incursion force has been destroyed. I would imagine that the Battle of the Bulge 2.0 will be over by the end of the week.

---

First, information about the Ukraine Defense of their Homeland is highly inaccurate and no one seems to have a good grasp on what the numbers are. If you are for Russia you believe their propaganda. If you are for Ukraine you believe theirs. I have seen Russian losses ranging from 60k to 380k. Everything nuetral I read says Ukraine is not in danger of losing, but is not set up to win either. The big wild card is if NATO stops supplying weapons Ukraine is screwed, they cannot replenish.

The latest is that the move and future moves into this area is to give Ukraine some leverage in Peace Talks, We will see. I expect that there will be peace before Trump takes office if he wins. Ukraine will lose Crimea and Dombas. Putin will be rewarded and start looking for the next "special military operation" to get what he wants.

UKR w/ the 'Big Mo'.

If they can maintain control of that gas transport hub, that would be huge.....

People will be flying out of windows across Russia soon.

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

william said:

---

UKR w/ the 'Big Mo'.

If they can maintain control of that gas transport hub, that would be huge.....

People will be flying out of windows across Russia soon.

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

---

General Winter is fickle...

how does one say 'd'oh' in rooskie??

- kkm

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

50% of the UAF incursion force has been destroyed. I would imagine that the Battle of the Bulge 2.0 will be over by the end of the week.

---

Link?

As of an hour ago Russian millbloggers are reporting continued Ukrainian advance and dominance.

---

To be fair, he has a good source as it's his backyard

🏳️ Russia: Mass surrender of Russian soldiers in Kursk region. pic.twitter.com/z3BeOH4vH7

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) August 10, 2024

vlad's bad day week............

- kkm

Best Kursk meme so far… pic.twitter.com/XhepppbVAa

— Nicholas Drummond (@nicholadrummond) August 10, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

Hope Ukraine can secure a big victory.

As it would put an immense amount of pressure on Putin politically, while giving the Ukrainian military a much needed boost in moral.

But I am not counting on it.

---

Enough to bring about a UN endorsed Peace Treaty. I have no faith in the UN, but it would have to be recognized world wide for it to mean anything. OR, NATO will have another DMZ like Korea.

trey3216 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hope Ukraine can secure a big victory.

As it would put an immense amount of pressure on Putin politically, while giving the Ukrainian military a much needed boost in moral.

But I am not counting on it.

---

Enough to bring about a UN endorsed Peace Treaty. I have no faith in the UN, but it would have to be recognized world wide for it to mean anything. OR, NATO will have another DMZ like Korea.

---

theres not gonna be a DMZ in Ukraine. It would be 500-700 miles long. Hopefully Ukraine takes some more russian territory…a lot of it…and there's a 2014 border trade.

---

Without some type of DMZ, Russia will go again when they want. If they are not letting Ukraine in NATO, there will have to be a frontier that will need to be patrolled. Russia has done this twice, they will re-arm and come again.

FLBear5630 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hope Ukraine can secure a big victory.

As it would put an immense amount of pressure on Putin politically, while giving the Ukrainian military a much needed boost in moral.

But I am not counting on it.

---

Enough to bring about a UN endorsed Peace Treaty. I have no faith in the UN, but it would have to be recognized world wide for it to mean anything. OR, NATO will have another DMZ like Korea.

---

theres not gonna be a DMZ in Ukraine. It would be 500-700 miles long. Hopefully Ukraine takes some more russian territory…a lot of it…and there's a 2014 border trade.

---

Without some type of DMZ, Russia will go again when they want. If they are not letting Ukraine in NATO, there will have to be a frontier that will need to be patrolled. Russia has done this twice, they will re-arm and come again.

---

russia won't honor a DMZ. They need to have to admit fault and quit.

trey3216 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Hope Ukraine can secure a big victory.

As it would put an immense amount of pressure on Putin politically, while giving the Ukrainian military a much needed boost in moral.

But I am not counting on it.

---

Enough to bring about a UN endorsed Peace Treaty. I have no faith in the UN, but it would have to be recognized world wide for it to mean anything. OR, NATO will have another DMZ like Korea.

---

theres not gonna be a DMZ in Ukraine. It would be 500-700 miles long. Hopefully Ukraine takes some more russian territory…a lot of it…and there's a 2014 border trade.

---

Without some type of DMZ, Russia will go again when they want. If they are not letting Ukraine in NATO, there will have to be a frontier that will need to be patrolled. Russia has done this twice, they will re-arm and come again.

---

russia won't honor a DMZ. They need to have to admit fault and quit.

---

Well, that has happened regularly since 1917...

A Large Fire is currently burning within one of the Cooling Towers at the Russian-Controlled Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant in Southeastern Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/TH16vGy2Ll

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 11, 2024

Rise of the machines

The robot dogs can deliver a payload of 5 kg.

Getting one of these into the enemy’s trenches with 5 kg of explosives is useful ahead of an assault.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 11, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Rise of the machines

The robot dogs can deliver a payload of 5 kg.

Getting one of these into the enemy’s trenches with 5 kg of explosives is useful ahead of an assault.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 11, 2024

---

Who was telling me that geeks that can't pass a PT test were not going to be big players on future battlefields?

BREAKING:

A swarm of Ukrainian drones is striking Moscow and an airfield near it pic.twitter.com/pPp30ndccE

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 11, 2024

ron.reagan said:

---

This really just highlights the absurdness of thinking Russia has actual red lines or an actual nuclear doctrine. The mafia will not risk their reign. I'm sure they already wish they could find a way out

---

So they won't be invading Poland anytime soon?

I was told that all of Central and Western Europe were under threat….

(The regime in Moscow has had to sell its natural resources at bargain basement prices to China and India to stay afloat, it can't stop a small neighbor from invading its home turf- a neighbor it had been waging war on for two years, it nearly let a private military company of ex-cons and chronic alcoholics take its capital a few months ago, and it had to fight 2 long costly wars to keep a small mountain Islamic country inside the Russian Federation-and it only "won" by basically ceding over autonomy to the local fundamentalist Muslims)

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

This really just highlights the absurdness of thinking Russia has actual red lines or an actual nuclear doctrine. The mafia will not risk their reign. I'm sure they already wish they could find a way out

---

So they won't be invading Poland anytime soon?

I was told that all of Central and Western Europe were under threat….

(The regime in Moscow has had to sell its natural resources at bargain basement prices to China and India to stay afloat, it can't stop a small neighbor from invading its home turf- a neighbor it had been waging war on for two years, it nearly let a private military company of ex-cons and chronic alcoholics take its capital a few months ago, and it had to fight 2 long costly wars to keep a small mountain Islamic country inside the Russian Federation-and it only "won" by basically ceding over autonomy to the local fundamentalist Muslims)

---

you didn't address the point of the post, and again (predictably) miss the take home lesson.

As long as Russia believes it can outlast and outproduce its opponents, it will press onward, regardless of the cost to all.



What happens when both sides (Russia and Nato) realize that basically all nuclear threats are absurd?