Lounge of The Russian-Ukrainian War

FrostBITE said:
Click to expand...

I opened that tweet and looked at the comments. I figured most people responding to a tweet by The Economist would be neocon believers, posting about Putler, and how Ukraine can still defeat Russia and take back the Crimea, and how NATO needs to go all in.

However, that's not the case. Most comments are from our side of the issue. When the comments for a tweet from The Economist are dominated by the opposition, I think that's a good sign!
 
Morale of the front line units of the ukrainian army begins to crumble, the 3rd "azov" brigade reportedly refused to deploy to Chasiv Yar, and 2 other brigades are to be disbanded: the 25th airborne due to heavy losses and mass surrender in the Avdeevka sector, and the 67th "right sector" brigade for abandoning positions near Chasiv Yar and general demoralization.



 

A reaction to this "battle update"


This "missile attacked" hotel has been closed for 2 years.
ssss.png

Next to it is the riverside hotel in a 100m. You can book beds for today. No problem. Saturday is almost fully booked. So you have to be quick for that.

Or the other

You can also give the the riverside park hotel a call, they speak english. And ask if it's safe. +380 93 468 3939


We have propaganda here, Russian propaganda vs Ukrainian propaganda.

Russia: It was an Ukrainian army center missile attacked
Ukraine: It was hotel attacked

Me: There was no missile yesterday. It's demolished building.

The illusion of war. We are being fooled.

Pay more taxes and pick your side.

images.webpdownloads (1).webpdownloads.webp1c2279eb3fe2e74d980427bf438364cd.webp
 
paternos said:
Or the other
Click to expand...

Dude, there is a massive warning when you look at this hotel,

"There is currently an increased risk to customers’ safety in this location. To make an informed decision about your stay, review travel guidelines for this area provided by your government.
Reservations should be made using the Booking.com platform only where you intend to visit and stay at the property. From Mar 1, 2022, your chosen cancellation policy will apply. We recommend booking a free cancellation option in case your travel plans change.
To make a donation in support of the humanitarian response to the war in Ukraine, be sure to donate through a reputable aid organization for maximum impact."

That warning wouldn't be there unless booking.com is afraid of being sued from someone who goes there and gets killed.

You, once again, fail to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
 
Samseau said:
Dude, there is a massive warning when you look at this hotel,

"There is currently an increased risk to customers’ safety in this location. To make an informed decision about your stay, review travel guidelines for this area provided by your government.
Reservations should be made using the Booking.com platform only where you intend to visit and stay at the property. From Mar 1, 2022, your chosen cancellation policy will apply. We recommend booking a free cancellation option in case your travel plans change.
To make a donation in support of the humanitarian response to the war in Ukraine, be sure to donate through a reputable aid organization for maximum impact."

That warning wouldn't be there unless booking.com is afraid of being sued from someone who goes there and gets killed.
Click to expand...
Booking gets sued by states. It's like 2 years ago when the hotels and restaurants were forced to display covid risks. Same stuff.

Call the hotel.

Samseau said:
You, once again, fail to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
Click to expand...
Or you be more skeptical.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to ask a war historian about examples of losing wars being conducted without any victorious battles and how long they continued. Unless one considers terrorist actions in Crimea "successes", it doesn't appear Ukrainians have had really any victory in the past year. There have been some minor positional trades where a territory goes back and forth, and then eventually falls into the hands of Russia, but I'm wondering how long a nation can psychologically sustain a losing war. I mean, the longer they fight, the worse negotiating position they are going to be in at the end.

Are we seeing something new? Is the modern propaganda machine changing the rules of what citizens will accept? I'm not sure how many victories Japan had in 1945, but even that is something different--they waged a successful aggressive war and gained a ton of territory, and were still very far ahead even when they were being pushed back.

Ukraine is smaller today than it has been at any point over the past 12 years when they started doing terrorism against Russian speaking citizens. It has no chance of coming out ahead, as it has never gained any territory, only lost it.

On top of the bigger picture stuff, the guys on the front lines have to know they are constantly losing, as they fight and fight and fight and then retreat. Even if most of the fighters are wiped out, and the new recruits are sent in to positions further and further back, surely they have to know the line of engagement is constantly moving back, right?

Or do they think F-16s are just that much of a game changer? :LOL:
Anyone care to opine?
 
Rax Moscow said:
I'd love to ask a war historian about examples of losing wars being conducted without any victorious battles and how long they continued. Unless one considers terrorist actions in Crimea "successes", it doesn't appear Ukrainians have had really any victory in the past year. There have been some minor positional trades where a territory goes back and forth, and then eventually falls into the hands of Russia, but I'm wondering how long a nation can psychologically sustain a losing war. I mean, the longer they fight, the worse negotiating position they are going to be in at the end.

Are we seeing something new? Is the modern propaganda machine changing the rules of what citizens will accept? I'm not sure how many victories Japan had in 1945, but even that is something different--they waged a successful aggressive war and gained a ton of territory, and were still very far ahead even when they were being pushed back.

Ukraine is smaller today than it has been at any point over the past 12 years when they started doing terrorism against Russian speaking citizens. It has no chance of coming out ahead, as it has never gained any territory, only lost it.

On top of the bigger picture stuff, the guys on the front lines have to know they are constantly losing, as they fight and fight and fight and then retreat. Even if most of the fighters are wiped out, and the new recruits are sent in to positions further and further back, surely they have to know the line of engagement is constantly moving back, right?

Or do they think F-16s are just that much of a game changer? :LOL:
Anyone care to opine?
Click to expand...

You are correct that this is an interesting case study on the power of modern propaganda. If Ukraine had a ruler that wasn't 100% controlled by foreign interests, the leadership would likely have some care about whether or not the country, its people, and its culture survive, and negotiations would have happened long ago. Ukrainian leadership seems completely uncaring about this and totally willing to fight until the last Ukrainian (they will sacrifice every young Ukrainian male's life to fight Russia just one more day with no consideration for how this will affect the future of their people). This foreign control combined with the most sophisticated propaganda machine in all of human history could have devastating effects depending on how far the population continues to buy into the propaganda. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Ukrainians' belief that they had a chance lies in their complex of inferiority towards the West. I mean surely, German and American technology is superior to Soviet Russian equipment? Mercedes beats Lada, right?
 
Also countries in the past that that were continuously losing wars I guess weren't propped up by ludicrous sums of money sent regularly by American taxpayers.
 
SkiPro said:
Also countries in the past that that were continuously losing wars I guess weren't propped up by ludicrous sums of money sent regularly by American taxpayers.
Click to expand...

The USA has a long history of financing the losing side...

Afghanistan.jpg




570429a229a1dd739a4d3c03b3bb3217.gif




slide_2.jpg
 
People don't understand wars. Anyone who has read even a modicum of history knows that, barring a swift surprise victory, wars last as long as the money keeps flowing. Look at 95% of wars, they only end with one side going bankrupt. The money always runs out before the men to fight do.

A cursory understanding of economics also reinforces this point. As men are drained to the front, the economy at home deteriorates and the state goes bankrupt. Hence bankruptcy always comes before defeat, hence if the money is there then the war will continue. It's that simple.

The idea that Russia or America would win quickly was always absurd and contradicted by history. Both sides have a deep bank accounts, why would it end quickly? We have decades of war left. Russia hasn't even begun to take on state debt, and America can seemingly print infinite amounts of cash until the entire world economy hyperinflates.

I'm on team stalemate. This war is still in the baby stages. Why on earth is this war going to end? So far my theory remains undefeated. Of course I accept I could be miscalculating on something, but the stalemate theory has, by far, performed the best out of all theories on this war.
 
This war only appears to be a stalemate because the Russians are minimizing their losses while inflicting high attrition on Ukraine, currently around 8 to 1, relying on their artillery and air power superiority. eventually Ukraine is going to reach its breaking point and the Russians will move in faster.
 
Caduceus said:
The USA has a long history of financing the losing side...

570429a229a1dd739a4d3c03b3bb3217.gif
Click to expand...
The U.S. beat North Vietnam in every battle. The Tet offensive was crushed after initial gains. Walter Cronkite sold a narrative to that it was a communist victory. In 1975 congressional Democrats prevented the U.S. from fulfilling its obligations under the Paris accords. Instead of troops, supplies and air support the South Vietnamese got 20 rounds of .308 and 2 grenades per man. Against an invasion that was more mechanized than Germany’s blitzkrieg through France in 1940. We sold the South Vietnamese into slavery and oppression because of domestic support for communists.
 
Helmsman said:
The U.S. beat North Vietnam in every battle. The Tet offensive was crushed after initial gains. Walter Cronkite sold a narrative to that it was a communist victory. In 1975 congressional Democrats prevented the U.S. from fulfilling its obligations under the Paris accords. Instead of troops, supplies and air support the South Vietnamese got 20 rounds of .308 and 2 grenades per man. Against an invasion that was more mechanized than Germany’s blitzkrieg through France in 1940. We sold the South Vietnamese into slavery and oppression because of domestic support for communists.
Click to expand...

The communists took on the mantle of Vietnamese nationalism, the same way the mullahs did in Iran, or the Taliban in afghanistan, because regardless of how bad the ideology of these people were, they were essentially fighting wars against colonizers. That was the fatal flaw in the Vietnam war (or in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc).
 
Cooper said:
This war only appears to be a stalemate because the Russians are minimizing their losses while inflicting high attrition on Ukraine, currently around 8 to 1, relying on their artillery and air power superiority. eventually Ukraine is going to reach its breaking point and the Russians will move in faster.
Click to expand...

Which is also why I stated that the first phase of the war will be about 5-6 years before they run out of fresh meat, since the usurers have more money than conscripts in Ukraine. Since the money is still there, and it will be, that is where more cannon fodder will be needed, and found, within Europe.

Hence Blinken announcing Ukraine will be part of NATO, which sets up the future conscription process needed in exactly 3-4 years from now, 5-6 years after the start date of this war. All on schedule and I called it back on RVF 2 or 3 months into this war. Extremely predictable because the usurers waging war are the descendants of the same people who waged WW1 and WW2. Combined with how wars in the past have unfolded, being that money is the primary driver of war, I predicted the following timeline which hasn't been contradicted:

- First 5-6 years: Ukraine genocided
- Next 10-30 years after: Europe annihilated
- Next 20-40 years after: USA goes all in, potentially ending in thermonuclear war

Unless the money runs out, the war never ends. We've got the printing press, and Russia is making more money than ever on energy, oil, and other natural resources. Soon Russia's economy will surpass Germany, eventually they will become bigger than all of the EU at this rate. Russia can also buy anything they need manufactured from China or India.

If Russia starts to run out of soldiers in 20-30 years they will pay for Chinese or Norks to go into Ukraine, because they will have the money to do so.

I must note that our leaders are desiring this outcome of endless stalemate. If our leaders wanted to crush Russia, all they would need to do is open up the Keystone pipeline, flood the oil and natural gas markets with cheap resources. Push the price of Brent down to $20 a barrel, like they did to bankrupt the USSR. But the fact that the keystone is kept closed shows they want this endless war, and it is indeed part of the depopulation agenda. The war is being waged against us, not against Russia.

Russia is merely trying to survive. They've got the best land army in the world, but if America opened up the spigots to cheap oil and gas found in Canada, Russia would go bankrupt within 10 years. That's how you know our leaders aren't serious about winning.
 
Cooper said:
The communists took on the mantle of Vietnamese nationalism, the same way the mullahs did in Iran, or the Taliban in afghanistan, because regardless of how bad the ideology of these people were, they were essentially fighting wars against colonizers. That was the fatal flaw in the Vietnam war (or in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc).
Click to expand...
Yep, the reality is outside of the USA (and perhaps the USSR) no one viewed that war as a battle about "communism." I realized this years ago when I was in a neutral third country in a dive shop and they had a book on the Vietnamese victory against the imperialist aggressors and everything was framed as Vietnamese nationalists fighting globohomo Muricans. It was like a light switch going off. Of course, how else could a Vietnamese person view this? I mean, as evil as our government is, if someone else came in and tried to force their way, I would rightfully view that as an invasion (I might welcome the invasion, but it would clearly be an invasion).

The communism stuff was so fake and gay. If you compare what actual communism is, as practiced by Lenin and Marx, the US probably has more of it than the Vietnamese ever had. And to the degree Vietnam (or China, or Cuba, or whatever) is "communist" it's mostly doing common sense stuff like providing good education for the people and healing them at a hospital when they get sick, things capitalism leaves up to "the free market."

It was also weird when they tried to do this war against the Taliban, when the Taliban was a generally peaceful, stable government that was doing things most traditional Americans would approve of, and even trying to cooperate with the war on terror stuff (the USA said give us Bin Laden and the Taliban said, ok present evidence of a crime he committed and we will, and then the US just blew up their schools and bridges and hospitals and bombed their weddings for 20 years and then the Taliban won).
 
Samseau said:
I must note that our leaders are desiring this outcome of endless stalemate. If our leaders wanted to crush Russia, all they would need to do is open up the Keystone pipeline, flood the oil and natural gas markets with cheap resources. Push the price of Brent down to $20 a barrel, like they did to bankrupt the USSR. But the fact that the keystone is kept closed shows they want this endless war, and it is indeed part of the depopulation agenda. The war is being waged against us, not against Russia.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. They won't open the pipeline because it's good for the American people, it would revitalize our dying economy. The one thing our leaders hate more than Russia is the red-blooded, hardworking, American white man.
 
Samseau said:
Which is also why I stated that the first phase of the war will be about 5-6 years before they run out of fresh meat, since the usurers have more money than conscripts in Ukraine. Since the money is still there, and it will be, that is where more cannon fodder will be needed, and found, within Europe.

Hence Blinken announcing Ukraine will be part of NATO, which sets up the future conscription process needed in exactly 3-4 years from now, 5-6 years after the start date of this war. All on schedule and I called it back on RVF 2 or 3 months into this war. Extremely predictable because the usurers waging war are the descendants of the same people who waged WW1 and WW2. Combined with how wars in the past have unfolded, being that money is the primary driver of war, I predicted the following timeline which hasn't been contradicted:

- First 5-6 years: Ukraine genocided
- Next 10-30 years after: Europe annihilated
- Next 20-40 years after: USA goes all in, potentially ending in thermonuclear war

Unless the money runs out, the war never ends. We've got the printing press, and Russia is making more money than ever on energy, oil, and other natural resources. Soon Russia's economy will surpass Germany, eventually they will become bigger than all of the EU at this rate. Russia can also buy anything they need manufactured from China or India.

If Russia starts to run out of soldiers in 20-30 years they will pay for Chinese or Norks to go into Ukraine, because they will have the money to do so.

I must note that our leaders are desiring this outcome of endless stalemate. If our leaders wanted to crush Russia, all they would need to do is open up the Keystone pipeline, flood the oil and natural gas markets with cheap resources. Push the price of Brent down to $20 a barrel, like they did to bankrupt the USSR. But the fact that the keystone is kept closed shows they want this endless war, and it is indeed part of the depopulation agenda. The war is being waged against us, not against Russia.

Russia is merely trying to survive. They've got the best land army in the world, but if America opened up the spigots to cheap oil and gas found in Canada, Russia would go bankrupt within 10 years. That's how you know our leaders aren't serious about winning.
Click to expand...

I doubt this war goes on beyond next year. Sure, the globalists would just love to bleed the Slavs and Euro useful idiots by the million for another decade, but they're not going to get that chance, because Russia is not complying.

You have to account for the fact that most of the globalist leaders and deciders are ideologically-driven and somewhat incompetent at running wars due to hubris and lack of understanding of basic war tactics and needs. The Russians however don't suffer from that kind of shortfall...

If I was Nuland or Blinken or Pelosi, I would have contracted at least 100,000 dorito-style drones to a number of countries including S Korea, Vietnam, Mexico, and set up big money-losing production facilities of shells and canons in a dozen allied/vassal low-cost countries TWO YEARS AGO. They are only starting to understand that they blew it, and now it's too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top