Lounge of The Russian-Ukrainian War

Papist said:
Just to clarify, I'm 100% pro-Russia in this conflict.

Whilst I acknowledge that Putin's Russia is far from perfect, the West's criticism of him is based on fabrications, distortions and embellishments of the truth. Meanwhile, I'm well aware that most Western governments are controlled, directly or indirectly, by an evil elite that is responsible for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the meddling in Libya, Guantanamo Bay, and of course supports the Israeli regime. Dissidents and whistle blowers face persecution or death, e.g. David Kelly, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Meanwhile, the insidious decline in Christian values, which have been replaced with the likes of LGBTQ+, BLM and the concept of 'white privilege', have been actively promoted. Nobody will ever convince me that the West is morally superior to Russia.

My only concern is that when you have a forum populated by people who think similarly to me, who want to see a Russian victory, then objective reporting becomes difficult. Many appear to be predicting a Russian victory. Whilst I hope that's coming, is this not just the opposite of what the pro-Ukrainians were predicting for months on Twitter? I have read various reports indicating that Zelensky's army's about to be crushed, but when I look at the maps, the Russian forces don't appear to be making any progress. It just appears to have been a stalemate for some time.

@TruckDriver9 is the man who will be able to answer this, hopefully, given he appears to pay close attention to the maps.
Click to expand...

The real score in this battle is being kept from the public, Ukrainians have been dying at far greater rates in this war of attrition where artillery is king, used in conjunction with drone warfare. The Russians have an overwhelming advantage in firepower volume, about 7-10 to 1, so the loss ratio is similarly lopsided.

Russia would have cried uncle and settled this war if their loss ratio was anywhere near Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost around 400,000-500,000 KIA, Russia around 7 to 9 times fewer.

The other factor in Russia's favor is that they use sound, efficient and conservative tactics, like encirclements and defensive postures (Surovikin Line), whereas the Ukrainians are driven by PR tactics because the Zelensky govt and NATO want to preserve their narrative and keep the arms flow and morale up. As well NATO command is relatively ineffective due to their tremendous cultural hubris that has grossly overestimated their military prowess and wonderweapons while underestimating Russia's.

Furthermore, this war has highlighted the flaws within the US/NATO MIC, which has been geared towards expensive weaponry for mideast wars against fighters in sandals with AKs and RPGs. The Russian experience has been a rude awakening for them. The US MIC is overpriced, bloated, focused on the wrong type of weaponry and unable to scale up production of war staples.

Part of the problem with NATO is that their leaders are lawyer-ideologue types who don't understand military strategy, or revolving door generals who are glorified MIC lobbyists, political animals and business climbers. Guys like MacGregor who are military experts and aren't in the pocket of the MIC don't make it to the top.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
As well NATO command is relatively ineffective due to their tremendous cultural hubris that has grossly overestimated their military prowess and wonderweapons while underestimating Russia's.
Click to expand...
As well as NATO being completely inflexible and unable to adapt, while Russia quickly adapted to this new mining + drones + artillery battle warfare, while NATO made ZERO adjustments to their basic warfare doctrine, established decades ago, which relies on combined arms and air support, and when the air support isn't there they just kept the same gameplan and sent Ukrainian troops rushing Russian lines foolishly. (They will have a similar lesson when they attempt to use aircraft carriers in a modern naval battle).
Cooper said:
Part of the problem with NATO is that their leaders are lawyer-ideologue types who don't understand military strategy, or revolving door generals who are glorified MIC lobbyists, political animals and business climbers. Guys like MacGregor who are military experts and aren't in the pocket of the MIC don't make it to the top.
Click to expand...
Possibly the bigger problem is they don't understand economics, or one could say more broadly, sociology.
In the long run it is economic production and the human element that win wars.
Germany was man for man stronger than any army in WW2, but even if one German was worth 3 Soviets, they just swarmed 10 Soviets and thousands of tanks on the German lines and it's game over.

Likewise with the Confederacy in the US civil war--they won most of the battles, and likely would have won the war with European help, but they remained blockaded and isolated and eventually the war production of the north overwhelmed the superior troops and tactics of the south.

But sociology is the biggest factor. The human element. Neutral countries are looking at the insane reaction to Russia's invasion, and saying "erm, how is this worse than what the US did to Afghanistan? There was no sanctioning of America after that" So you have countries dropping the SWIFT system and trading more outside the petrodollar and being neutral with Russia if not allying it. That's to say nothing of the moral question of Russia vs the GAE.

If you alienate enough American allies (surely most of Europe dislikes America at this point?) and combine that with America's lack of industrial production and privatization of its economy you end up with a very negative long term strategic position for America, even if it could still dominate on battlefields.

The ability to win military battles in modern society is really just an afterthought. The actual battle itself is the inevitable outcome of the society you have built. In other words, America "won" so much in the past not because of troops or weapons or bullets or anything. It won because it had a big strong economy, a healthy society, a diverse manufacturing industry, etc. And all those lead it to victory on the world stage, regardless of whether it has to "fight" a battle or not. There's probably some Sun Tzu quote about this. Like the battle is already won before you get to the battlefield. We are losing, because we are weak personally, industrially, and socially, and no amount of missiles or bombs is reversing that.
 
The Western narrative has changed sharply for weeks now.


Weary Ukraine fears war is ‘extremely unlikely’ to end in victory​

“Right now, a victory on the battlefield is extremely unlikely. This war could last for years and years. Russia has the resources for this and their people will put up with it,

The mood is one of grim acceptance rather than defeatism: there is no talk of surrendering to Russia.
Click to expand...

So, the plan is just to die?

“I don’t even give the new guys call signs any more. Most of them don’t last long,” said a Ukrainian soldier in the Kharkiv region,
he doubted that any western weapons could now dislodge Putin’s troops from their heavily fortified defensive lines.
“I don’t think there is any weapon right now that can have a strong influence on the outcome of the war. ATACMS [army tactical missile systems] missiles can’t bring about a breakthrough. Warplanes? They can only help us achieve parity,” he said. “We are told we will get modern F-16 planes — but F-16s are from the 1970s and Russia has hundreds of 4 ++ generation fighters. I don’t understand who has it in their head that we can defeat Russia with dozens of F-16s.”
Click to expand...

Ukraine’s Front-Line Troops Are Getting Older: ‘Physically, I Can’t Handle This’​


“The quality of the replacements is not good. They’re rural guys aged 43 to 50, sometimes with health problems,”

Tired fighters note bitterly that when they go on leave in big cities such as Kyiv or Dnipro, they see able-bodied men in their 20s and 30s frequenting gyms, bars and hip restaurants.
Click to expand...

The photos of these older men being sent to slaughter infuriate me. The article says General Zaluzhny is more popular than Zelensky. Why not stage a coup now? The people support you!

The military hasn’t drafted men under the age of 27 so far,
Click to expand...
WTF?
“The bias in age and geography stems from corruption,” said Ihor Romanenko, a military analyst and retired Ukrainian lieutenant general. Young people in big cities can more often afford a bribe, while big companies can shield their employees from the draft, he said. In rural Ukraine, where the population skews older, it is harder to hide from the draft.
Click to expand...
Pure evil.
One would think the older populations would be more open to rebellion. One reason the army loves using 18 year olds is that they are so dumb and impressionable.
 
Cooper said:
Arestovich has gone full circle, positioning himself as the new post-war leader, pretty stunning turnaround:
Click to expand...
Agreed, very stunning turnaround for a man that was once considered a Zelensky confidant.
Cooper said:
Russia would have cried uncle and settled this war if their loss ratio was anywhere near Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost around 400,000-500,000 KIA, Russia around 7 to 9 times fewer.
Click to expand...
If true, that eclipses total US losses in Europe during WW2, maybe all US WW2 losses. Try explaining this to a normie. Might as well talk to a wall. very few people have the ability to frame the lost lives for such a small population country. It is beyond the level of thinking of the common man, at this point. All you get are vapid comparisons - "grandpa was at the Battle of the Bulge so I know" type stuff.

Russian tactics, good and bad, are going to be studied in depth for many years to come. The multi-pronged initial attack. The apparently chaotic next few months. Mariupol assault. The difficulty breaking through pre-war lines along the east. The decision to draw east from Kherson, behind the Dnieper. The Backmut fire sack, now the Avdeevka. The Surovikin Line - THAT will get much attention.

But such studies will be guesswork until after somebody gives up, the lost and dead are counted, and the archives get scrubbed.

Also now, the US is being challenged by long-standing (and NATO member) allies. Haven't France, Spain, and Italy already announced they won't operate under US Command in the Red Sea (OP Prosperity Guardian)? NATO is being stretched and the US might be losing the dominant authority it had before. The NATO slave armies are beginning to resist orders from the US.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
Russia would have cried uncle and settled this war if their loss ratio was anywhere near Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost around 400,000-500,000 KIA, Russia around 7 to 9 times fewer.
Click to expand...
The infuriating and comically tragic part is that the official Ukrainian military death toll peddled by the US was at 20,000 from the start of the conflict until the end of May 2023.

Let’s give a nice even number of 450 days from the end of February 2022 until the end of May 2023 to make calculations easy (and conservative, as it is technically more than 450 days).

That’s 45 Ukrainian soldiers killed per day, a farcically understated/lied about number. The frontline, even if not manned every 100 meters by one soldier minimum, is around 1,000 kilometers/600 miles, right? And 45 die per day? Give me a break.

The Russians gained and have held tens of thousands of square kilometers, not even counting the tens of thousands of square kilometers they previously held and strategically backtracked from in order to fortify their own positions. And only 45 soldiers from Ukraine on average died per day over one and a quarter years?

This is obviously impossible but the closest reasonable explanation for supposedly 45 Ukrainian soldiers dying daily would be the AFU playing a game of “military tag” where they fire, retreat and scatter Benny Hill music-style, and then come back and repeat the process for 15 months.
 
Cooper said:
Click to expand...

Full text:
In the Russian village of Kholki there stands a 6.5 meter monument to Great Prince Svyatoslav.In 965 AD, this Russian Prince lead his army to destroy the Khazarian Khaganate The sculpture stands not far from the city of Belgorod (often bombed by the Ukrainian army), roughly 50 miles from the Ukrainian border near Kharkov.If the Ukrainian army ever ‘make a decisive breakthrough’ they will definitely destroy this memorial to the one who ended Khazarian rule.Regarding the Sculpture itself, it was composed by Vyacheslav Klykov, a prominent Russian Orthodox Monarchist, and a skilled artist. The original shield of the downed Khazarian had a Star of David depicted on it, but the authorities of Belgorod received ‘a lot of pressure’ from certain influential oligarchs, and the Magen David was removed.
 
dgbrown said:
The infuriating and comically tragic part is that the official Ukrainian military death toll peddled by the US was at 20,000 from the start of the conflict until the end of May 2023
Click to expand...

Another explanation is certainly that the Ukrainians have a very large number of „missing in action“. So, in theory Ukraine may not even lie given their „approach“ to rescueing the wounded and evacuating the KIAs. But I think they still fudge the numbers.
 


Today their new mobilization law came out and it's insane. Here's some highlights. People are now fully eligible for service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in "Disability Group III," comprising people who:

1. Are missing or blind in one eye
2. Are partially deaf
3. Have a tracheotomy
4. Have jaw defects that prevent normal chewing
5. Suffer from dwarfism (<130cm for men)
6. Have a missing or nonfunctional arm
7. Have an amputated leg up to the thigh
8. Are missing fingers
9. Are missing both feet
10. Have a pacemaker implanted
11. Have only one working kidney
12. Have only one working lung
13. Have suffered from "traumatic castration"
14. Have a brain abscess (!)
15. Have a substantial skull defect
16. Have Parkinson's (!)
17. Have extreme scoliosis
18. Have severe chest deformities
19. Have "severe adrenal insufficiency" (it's a war eh?)
20. Have no bladder.

These are not the measures of a healthy society fighting a low-casualty war. This is Armageddon."

"To the last Ukrainian"
 
I can't believe they are only drafting those age 28+.
I'd be pretty raging if I was a deaf bladderless 1 legged dwarf with Parkinson's disease and my fake country drafted me to go die in artillery bombardments while 20something kids party it up in Keeeeeeeeeev.

The source for the draft age was the US Wall Street Journal by the way... no corroborating source, but they are a mouthpiece of the establishment and I see no reason for them to lie on such an absurd point. Doesn't every army in the world exhaust its 18-30 year olds before they even *consider* drafting anyone older?
 
Rax Moscow said:
I can't believe they are only drafting those age 28+.
I'd be pretty raging if I was a deaf bladderless 1 legged dwarf with Parkinson's disease and my fake country drafted me to go die in artillery bombardments while 20something kids party it up in Keeeeeeeeeev.

The source for the draft age was the US Wall Street Journal by the way... no corroborating source, but they are a mouthpiece of the establishment and I see no reason for them to lie on such an absurd point. Doesn't every army in the world exhaust its 18-30 year olds before they even *consider* drafting anyone older?
Click to expand...
Judging from all of the videos of the young military age people partying and living a life of luxury in Kiev, their draft seems to be more class and connections based first and foremost. Forcing working class/rural population of all ages into the meatgrinder. They'll take a rural 58 y/o man before they'll take a 22 y/o son of a connected person.
 
Rax Moscow said:
I can't believe they are only drafting those age 28+.
I'd be pretty raging if I was a deaf bladderless 1 legged dwarf with Parkinson's disease and my fake country drafted me to go die in artillery bombardments while 20something kids party it up in Keeeeeeeeeev.

The source for the draft age was the US Wall Street Journal by the way... no corroborating source, but they are a mouthpiece of the establishment and I see no reason for them to lie on such an absurd point. Doesn't every army in the world exhaust its 18-30 year olds before they even *consider* drafting anyone older?
Click to expand...

Yes the age guideline here is a red herring, they've certainly tapped the 19-28 segment hardest. It is because they are running out of them that they have to chase grandpas in supermarkets and bus stations. The young partiers in Kiev are likely privileged kids with connections and bribe money.
 
Cooper said:
Yes the age guideline here is a red herring, they've certainly tapped the 19-28 segment hardest..
Click to expand...
Have they? This was the quote from the Wall Street Journal:
On paper, Ukraine still has a large reserve of potential manpower, with several million male residents in their 20s and 30s who have yet to fight. The military hasn’t drafted men under the age of 27 so far, although Parliament has authorized a lower age limit of 25. Groups exempt from the draft include fathers of several children, carers for disabled people and workers in key sectors.
Click to expand...
The statement strikes me as ridiculous on its face, as militaries around the world universally and historically draw from teenagers on upwards. There are many good reasons for this, and I'm frankly surprised the Ukrainian army has been following orders as diligently as it has if it is really staffed with more mature fighters with some age and wisdom. Still, I'd love to see some corroboration either way.

I guess maybe one explanation could be if there is some type of required military service already, they may have already enlisted most able bodied 20somethings, and see no need to draft the rest, but this is just a guess. I do know my Russian friends did military service and I believe it was compulsory for 2 years.
 
^Consider the source, WSJ, always looking for an angle to extend the war. A lot of their men in their early 20s are either abroad or have already been drafted.
 
Let's try to confirm one way or the other instead of just assuming "it was printed in American media, therefore it must be a lie."

Here's some further info I found:


KYIV, Dec 26 (Reuters) - Text of a draft law posted on the website of Ukraine's parliament late on Monday proposed lowering the age of those who can be mobilized for combat duty to 25 from 27.

The draft text detailed which Ukrainian citizens would be subject to enrolment for military registration of conscripts and said it would apply to those "who have reached the age of 25."

An explanatory note signed by Defence Minister Rustem Umerov summarized key provisions of the draft law, saying they included the "change of conscription age from 27 to 25 years."
Click to expand...

The general referred to a call-up that covers most Ukrainian men between 18 and 60, though provides exemptions for those under 27 without experience in military service, unless they volunteer. The average age for a soldier in Ukrainian army is above 40.
Click to expand...
This article shares a little more background on the situation:


Denis, 29, said he was recently handed a summons he did not want outside a Kharkiv supermarket. But at the recruitment office, “I lied and said I didn’t have any military training,” he recalled — a lie that may not be caught because his records are in a different part of Ukraine.

Ukraine has long had conscription, and young men are required to do military service unless they fall into an exempt category, like being enrolled in a university, having a disability or having at least three children. After the war began, all nonexempt men ages 18 to 60 were required to register with their local recruitment offices and undergo medical screening for possible service, but at times enforcement and record-keeping have been haphazard.
Click to expand...

It sounds like if you enroll in some college courses, pump out some kids, have a disability, or claim to have not trained in the military already, you can be exempt from the draft if below 27. Those are pretty broad categories. I bet school enrollment has skyrocketed.

It makes a bit more sense now. A good portion of 20somethings were already trained by the military and called to mobilize. The rest (surely a minority?) aren't being drafted yet. I suppose a 50 year old with former military experience (someone that age was much more likely to just do their duty and not ask for exemptions) is a better option than a 20something that you have to train, but it still seems nuts to give a free pass to all these kids in KEEV when you look at the kind of guys they are forcing into the war... Not to mention the social effects of losing an older soldier are far more severe to society than a younger one (hence the exemption regarding having children to avoid the draft).

The Ukraine is going to lose the collective wisdom of their entire society. They will lose their very *culture* if they follow this plan. Even if they were to somehow have victory on the battlefield. Which is now impossible.
 
How closely were these directives being followed by Ukrainian conscription? One recurring theme in most of the gang-pressing videos was that the targets would often be arguing how they should be exempt.
 
Rax Moscow said:
The Ukraine is going to lose the collective wisdom of their entire society. They will lose their very *culture* if they follow this plan. Even if they were to somehow have victory on the battlefield. Which is now impossible
Click to expand...
*Insert "That's not a bug, it's a feature" meme.*

What's happening in the Ukraine is a globalists dream, except it's looking like they won't get the ending they are hoping for...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top