"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If I was Putin and clearly not GAF about Russia's or my personal future I'd have used a tactical nuke by now, maybe three: Lviv, for one. What's NATO going to do, invade Russia? Putin knows he's a dead man anyway, like Hitler in the bunker.

Agreed, he's already rattled that sword enough but not used it that he's shown his own feelings about the matter. It reminds of the elementary-school playground taunt of "don't make me, don't make me".

If he was going there, he would have done it in September, when his army went to shit and shinola in the space of a few weeks. He clearly cares about surviving and winning this war, which pretty much rules nukes out. He's already telegraphed his hand.
 
But probably not at the same time...

:evil4:

72B75DB3-18F9-4D99-ABAA-DC6FAD1DCC57.gif
 
No, not necessarily. That is of course their ultimate objective - but how realistic it is in the face of Realpolitik remains to be seen. Perhaps sadly those regions are lost permanently. But for any nation invaded by another, preserving their capital, their government, their culture, their freedom and their borders at the time of that invasion is surely the first priority. Given they were expected by Putin - and not a small percentage of the same isolationist voices constantly predicting their imminent doom each week - to have folded like a pack of cards MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, where are we now? The Ukrainians have taken back a significant amount of territory despite all the apparent (but clearly inflated and inaccurate) odds.

Whatever issues of supply, munitions and equipment faced by the Ukrainians, and whatever the ebb and flow of the front line, the Russians clearly face exactly the same problems, and face them magnified by a greater factor. So the net result is neutral at worst.

And that's without accounting for the significant disparity between a motivated army of people fighting for all of the things listed above, and one of poorly trained, poorly equipped and increasingly conscripted men fighting for a cause which must look increasingly pointless and hopeless. That the Russians best troops are a blend of mercenaries and indentured convicts should send a huge message..
The Russians are in a much better manpower position, enjoying a >4:1 advantage over Ukraine pre-war population of ~40million. And since the war began Ukraine has lost somewhere between 7-10 million to outwards migration. If this is a war of attrition, which by all appearances it is, then Ukraine is in a very disadvantageous position.

You say the supply and equipment issues are neutral at worst but I see no way for that to be true. Russia has a large domestic arms industry that is producing its munitions, repairing its tanks, ect. Ukraine has a much smaller arms industry that relies on imports of shells, bullets and all matter of war material. They have to send many of their tanks and artillery pieces to Poland for repair. And they are reliant on fuel imports as well.

Furthermore Ukraine is dealing with very serious disruptions to its rail and electrical grid which place further difficulties on supplying the front, by comparison the Russian trains are still running, they have no power issues, ect.
 
You say the supply and equipment issues are neutral at worst but I see no way for that to be true. Russia has a large domestic arms industry that is producing its munitions, repairing its tanks, ect. Ukraine has a much smaller arms industry that relies on imports of shells, bullets and all matter of war material.

One could argue that the Russian arms industry is doing a pretty dandy job of supplying Ukraine with tanks, APCs, IFVs, SAM systems and the like.

Just sayin'....
 
You say the supply and equipment issues are neutral at worst but I see no way for that to be true. Russia has a large domestic arms industry that is producing its munitions, repairing its tanks, ect.
 
You say the supply and equipment issues are neutral at worst but I see no way for that to be true. Russia has a large domestic arms industry that is producing its munitions, repairing its tanks, ect.
And yet, excluding the parts the Russian's stole in 2014 (Crimea and Donetsk), it's taken them more than eleven months to take and hold a small piece of southern Ukraine, after being thrown out of Kyiv, Kharkiv and the north bank of Kherson. If I was Russian I'd be equally ashamed of my country's military performance and of their aggression towards their neighbours. It's as if Russia can't help but make poor foreign policy decisions and then execute them poorly - is there some flaw in their national psyche?

The sad thing is Russia had another path after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same path the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Georgians, Moldovans, Bulgarians, and everyone else (except the Belarusians, Chechnians and the 'Stans) who was held under the USSR's control took. That path was one of pursuing a just and free society and market economy, freedom of the press and of speech, controls on corruption, etc. If the Baltic republics can do it, so could Russia. But there's something in the national character that gets in the way, a reverence for strongmen and a belief that the West is some boogeyman wanting to put Russia down - in a time when a rapidly demilitarizing Europe was happy to trade with and buy Russian oil, and Washington was wanting to withdraw from Europe and the Middle East so to focus on China. The 2020s should have been a golden age for Russia.

Perhaps Russia's disaster in this war is just what the nation needs to shake itself free of strongmen and for its people to stop giving an apathetic, disinterested free hand to autocrats, corruption and thieving oligarchs. I have hope that Russia in 2040 will be more like today's Poland than North Korea.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back