Lounge of The Russian-Ukrainian War

[Thomas More]

This simply confirms the stalemate reality of this war.

Appointing an econ guy to head the military is to, ensure, for decades:

1. Keep costs down
2. Keep the army supplied
3. Keep the country rich through military conquest

Since Putin is recognizing that this war will continue for decades, the most important thing is economics. Not strategy or tactics. This is going to be a war of attrition, and making the army as lean and economically competitive as possible will be paramount. That is the only way to sustain military operations against the "West" for the next 25 years or more, much more, without going bankrupt.

All the predictions of this war ending soon have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong. Putin himself admits the stalemate reality with an econ minister appointment to the head of the Ministry of Defense.

Is there anyone left not on team stalemate? Does anyone seriously believe this war ends before 2040?

I believe Ukraine will fold soon. However, I think the US intends to keep the state of veiled military conflict in place for decades.

However, I think they will find it difficult when:

1. NATO breaks up
2. The US national debt becomes ruinous due to multi-trillion dollar interest payments taking up most of the current tax revenues.

Yes, the US can print money to try to overcome these problems, but they are already sliding down the slippery slope. There is a saying that bankruptcy happens slowly at first, then suddenly. I think the US is approaching the "suddenly" phase.

 

[Caduceus]

I do not know of any historical example of a government that went in exile (outside its own borders) that later successfully came back into power.

In world war 2, the "official" Polish government in exile (based in London) was later unceremoniously thrown under the bus by the world community at the end of WW2 after the USSR overran all of eastern Europe, and Joseph Stalin imposed a pro communist government onto Poland.

Once your government is in exile, 9 times out of 10 you are finished for good.
It's just a matter of time.

 

[TruckDriver9]

I do not know of any historical example of a government that went in exile (outside its own borders) that later successfully came back into power.

In world war 2, the "official" Polish government in exile (based in London) was later unceremoniously thrown under the bus by the world community at the end of WW2 after the USSR overran all of eastern Europe, and Joseph Stalin imposed a pro communist government onto Poland.

Once your government is in exile, 9 times out of 10 you are finished for good.
It's just a matter of time.

Yes, but before their country was gfted to Stalin, they provided Allies with an impressive fighting force. And I can imagine that a similar fighting force could be made, in the west, by a hypothetical at this point ukrainian government in exile.

 

[Rax Moscow]

I do not know of any historical example of a government that went in exile (outside its own borders) that later successfully came back into power.

Didn't the French under De Gaulle sort of do this? I agree it is extremely unlikely.
Anyway, I don't think a foreigner like Zelensky could govern from abroad. I'm surprised he's hung on to power as long as he has in KEEV.

Most major wars are economic wars. The Confederacy won most of the battles, and had the best generals, fighting forces, and equipment, but couldn't keep up economically with industrial production in the north. The same with Germany in its world wars. Man for man, no one could take them on, but after years of being outnumbered, they succumbed to the overwhelming economic force of its enemies. Even the fall of the USSR was because their economy could not afford both the military, scientific, and technical advances it was enjoying, while maintaining sufficient quality of life for its citizens.

The only reason the USA has been able to win the economic war so far, is due to the global petrodollar, which greatly dilutes the economic costs our economy would otherwise bear when we are involved in foreign affairs. This is winding down, and Putin's move is going to make it more painful, particularly at a time of political unrest, rampant inflation, and a disrupted workforce in America.

That, and America no longer has the moral authority it did, mostly due to the Biden regime's behavior in the Gaza war. I'm thankful our enemies are not wise, and are ignorant of history.

 

[Samseau]

There have been many MSM narratives, and since the defeat of the hyped Ukrainian offensive, one of the most persistent has been that of a stalemate.

The MSM stalemate narrative is one of Ukraine vs. Russia being in a stalemate. That's not what I've been saying at all. I've been saying the stalemate is between Russia and the Talmudic controlled "West," who own hundreds of trillions in assets, and they will be funding this war for decades to come.

I believe Ukraine will fold soon. However, I think the US intends to keep the state of veiled military conflict in place for decades.

However, I think they will find it difficult when:

1. NATO breaks up
2. The US national debt becomes ruinous due to multi-trillion dollar interest payments taking up most of the current tax revenues.

Yes, the US can print money to try to overcome these problems, but they are already sliding down the slippery slope. There is a saying that bankruptcy happens slowly at first, then suddenly. I think the US is approaching the "suddenly" phase.

The USA will go easily go to 500% of debt to GDP. People underestimate just how powerful the usury machine is with our world reserve currency. This is not going to break up quickly at all.

Additionally, long before America goes bankrupt, we will witness the smaller and weaker countries go belly up first, because so many currencies are tied to the dollar:

- Middle East
- China
- Africa
- Latin America

All of these places will go bankrupt before America does, even though America will have much larger debt. It won't matter because our debt is easily payed off with printed money, whereas other countries cannot do so without destroying their economies to hyperinflation.

I wish I was wrong, but it doesn't look like it. The Coronavirus scamdemic proved that we can print infinite amounts of cash with tiny consequences. It's absurd how much money was printed, and no hyperinflation of the dollar. In fact, it was the other economies who were pegged to the dollar who suffered more economically than we did.

Russia has no choice but to outlast the evil Squid controlling the world and it won't be easy. They have decades of warfare, both militarily and economically, ahead of them. There is the question of succession as well: will the guy who replaces Putin in 6-12 years from now be as loyal to Russia as Putin is? A lot can go wrong for Russia. Russia is definitely the underdog in this fight, and I hope they win.

 

[Cooper]

I can imagine a scenario, in which western troops are deployed to hold the Dnieper, or at least the westernmost parts of ukraine (Lvov, Odessa), while the ukrainian government is established in exile in Europe, and a new ukrainian army is formed from the ukranians living in the west.

The Ukrainians abroad don't want to die in this war, most of the Kyiv patriots have already signed up or been conscripted. If they try to force conscript Ukies in Poland, they would move to Hungary, Slovakia etc.

The Kyiv regime would need a new army of several hundred thousands to restart the war, and even then, they would still lose as the Russians aren't going to stand by.

There's been a lot of movement in the Kharkov front the last 48hrs, which already signal that the war is moving into a new more dynamic phase with Russia having the initiative.

 

[Ember]

The MSM stalemate narrative is one of Ukraine vs. Russia being in a stalemate. That's not what I've been saying at all. I've been saying the stalemate is between Russia and the Talmudic controlled "West," who own hundreds of trillions in assets, and they will be funding this war for decades to come.

That is not a stalemate, either. The entire West combined does not have the military industrial capacity, to compete with Russia. The limiting factor is not money, but the time it takes to create the capacity and the skilled workforce. Russia had a vast amount of facilities mothballed in case it was needed. They also have the skilled workers to run it and vast material resources at hand. The West has no spare capacity, and is now unable to catch up. They are chasing a train leaving the station that is speeding up and drawing ever further away. No amount of money thrown at the issue can allow the West to catch up. For this reason alone, the war is lost.

Much of the material used in the production of shells by the West, came from Russia. The EU is so desperate that they went on a worldwide hunt for shells from arms dealers and came up empty-handed. What few they could find were in a poor state and the dealers jacked-up the price to ridiculous levels.

The US, following visits by Yellen and Blinken, is going to sanction China for normal trade relations with Russia. This will create a situation where the Chinese have nothing to lose if they decide to arm Russia. Not that Russia requires it. But this gives Russia a backstop of near infinite MI capacity if needed.

Then there is the issue that Western stocks of weapons have become so drastically depleted that only tiny shipments can be sent now. Token gestures. The Ukies have been rationing shells for a long time now, and rely more on FPV drones. But Russian EW is very effective, and with the rise of DIY turtle tanks, AKA 'Assault Sheds', it can take up to 40 drones to stop one. Judging from a lot of videos, armoured vehicles are often only destroyed once abandoned by the infantry they were carrying.

It is rumoured that at an upcoming NATO meeting, Western 'boots-on-the-ground' will be categorically ruled out. Cameron and Macron will be sidelined.

 

[Samseau]

That is not a stalemate, either. The entire West combined does not have the military industrial capacity, to compete with Russia. The limiting factor is not money, but the time it takes to create the capacity and the skilled workforce. Russia had a vast amount of facilities mothballed in case it was needed. They also have the skilled workers to run it and vast material resources at hand. The West has no spare capacity, and is now unable to catch up. They are chasing a train leaving the station that is speeding up and drawing ever further away. No amount of money thrown at the issue can allow the West to catch up. For this reason alone, the war is lost.

Much of the material used in the production of shells by the West, came from Russia. The EU is so desperate that they went on a worldwide hunt for shells from arms dealers and came up empty-handed. What few they could find were in a poor state and the dealers jacked-up the price to ridiculous levels.

The US, following visits by Yellen and Blinken, is going to sanction China for normal trade relations with Russia. This will create a situation where the Chinese have nothing to lose if they decide to arm Russia. Not that Russia requires it. But this gives Russia a backstop of near infinite MI capacity if needed.

I don't think this is true. In order to avoid sanctions, China will sell munitions to the "West." They will sell to both sides and get rich in the process. Chinese have no morals so they will do it.

Then there is the issue that Western stocks of weapons have become so drastically depleted that only tiny shipments can be sent now. Token gestures. The Ukies have been rationing shells for a long time now, and rely more on FPV drones. But Russian EW is very effective, and with the rise of DIY turtle tanks, AKA 'Assault Sheds', it can take up to 40 drones to stop one. Judging from a lot of videos, armoured vehicles are often only destroyed once abandoned by the infantry they were carrying.

The turtle tank is easily copied by the (((West))), so I don't see how it's an advantage.

It is rumoured that at an upcoming NATO meeting, Western 'boots-on-the-ground' will be categorically ruled out. Cameron and Macron will be sidelined.

Gee, the official denial. Where have we seen this before? An official denial of something happening is the surest guarantor it will happen.

 

[Ember]

I don't think this is true. In order to avoid sanctions, China will sell munitions to the "West." They will sell to both sides and get rich in the process. Chinese have no morals so they will do it.

You completely misjudge the Chinese. Under Xi's leadership, they have become staunch allies of Russia and are ideologically aligned for a new 'Fair World Order'. It is inconceivable that they would sell arms and ammunition to anyone that would pass them on to Ukraine. And the idea that they are without morals is absolutely preposterous.

The turtle tank is easily copied by the (((West))), so I don't see how it's an advantage.

Irrelevant. The point was that the Ukie reliance on FPV drones, following the shell drought, is not a good thing. They are becoming less and less effective as the Russians adapt.

Gee, the official denial. Where have we seen this before? An official denial of something happening is the surest guarantor it will happen.

You can hardly send in uniformed armed forces en-mass whilst claiming they are not there. It would be all over channels within hours. Any action performed undercover in a guerilla campaign would have to be small scale to avoid exposure. So it actually matters a lot what they say. Besides, the number of body bags coming home would soon give the game away.

 

[Samseau]

You completely misjudge the Chinese. Under Xi's leadership, they have become staunch allies of Russia and are ideologically aligned for a new 'Fair World Order'. It is inconceivable that they would sell arms and ammunition to anyone that would pass them on to Ukraine. And the idea that they are without morals is absolutely preposterous.

Ukraine continues to snap up Chinese DJI drones for its defense

Relatively cheap, commercial drones have helped Kyiv's forces with situational awareness on the front lines.

www.c4isrnet.com

They've been selling attack drones to Ukraine for years, I don't think munitions is a big step up.

 

[Ember]

Ukraine continues to snap up Chinese DJI drones for its defense

Relatively cheap, commercial drones have helped Kyiv's forces with situational awareness on the front lines.

www.c4isrnet.com

They've been selling attack drones to Ukraine for years, I don't think munitions is a big step up.

Those 'attack' drones pictured in the article are just standard DJI drones that are on sale to the public all across the West. China does not have the ability to control where they go once they reach the West. They are not by themselves classed as weapons, anyway.

Nonetheless, China *IS* placing restriction on the export of long range drones.

China restricts civilian drone exports, citing Ukraine and concern about military use

China has imposed restrictions on exports of long-range civilian drones, citing Russia’s war on Ukraine and concern drones might be converted to military use.

apnews.com

 

[Cooper]

I don't think this is true. In order to avoid sanctions, China will sell munitions to the "West." They will sell to both sides and get rich in the process. Chinese have no morals so they will do it.

That would be true if the decision to sell is left to some private companies and their owners. In China though, that would be a matter of state security and they wouldn't allow it. They are concerned with the survival of their $20 trillion economy, by comparison the selling of a couple of billions in drones or shells is insignificant.

If the West operated like Russia or China, they wouldn't have had as many issues scaling up their weapons and ammo production. One of the main problems is that it is not profitable for a corporate manufacturer to set up a very large ammunition production facility in a climate of uncertainty. The Ukraine war may well end next year.

 

[TruckDriver9]

Russia may let them take Lvov region, by agreement, but I don't believe they will be allowed anywhere near the Dnieper. A border will not work there, it has to be much further West.

It comes down to time. At the moment it's impossible for the the west to deploy troops on the Dnieper line - there's no infrastructure in place to sustain a western expeditionary force. So I think, that any kind of western intervention would have to be gradual: western troops at first would come and secure the westernmost regions of ukraine (which might be already happening), build up the necessary infrastructure and then gradually leapfrog east, reaching the Southern Bug River in the second stage, and if possible, the Dnieper line in the 3rd stage. So if the Russian Army takes too long to reach the Dnieper, they might fnd a European expeditionary force already entrenched on its western bank. Now to be clear, I don't necessarily expect Euros to go on the offensive (considering the general unpreparedness of European militaries), but I can imagine a scenario in which a hypothetical western force tries to impose a ceasefire on the Russians by mounting up a defense on whatever line they'll able to reach before the Russians, be it the Dnieper, Southern Bug, or any other place.

 

[TruckDriver9]

The Ukrainians abroad don't want to die in this war, most of the Kyiv patriots have already signed up or been conscripted. If they try to force conscript Ukies in Poland, they would move to Hungary, Slovakia etc.

True about Hungary and Slovakia, but those are small countries and they won't be able to accomodate millions of ukrainians living in Europe. And other than those two countries, no one else in Europe will care about the ukrainians: their fate might be decided on the EU level after the upcoming EU elections.

The Kyiv regime would need a new army of several hundred thousands to restart the war, and even then, they would still lose as the Russians aren't going to stand by.

That's why I think, that a western expeditionary force might be deployed to ukraine to separate Russian controlled territory from western parts of ukraine and, under the guise of ceasefire, get enough time to recreate a ukrainian army.

There's been a lot of movement in the Kharkov front the last 48hrs, which already signal that the war is moving into a new more dynamic phase with Russia having the initiative.

My take on the Kharkov situation - it hasn't even begun. Right now it's just shaping of the battlefield, things will get interesting when ukraine deploys its reserves - once this happens, Russia will start the real operation, advancing from additional directions and opening completely new sectors of the front.

 

[TruckDriver9]

I don't think this is true. In order to avoid sanctions, China will sell munitions to the "West." They will sell to both sides and get rich in the process. Chinese have no morals so they will do it.

Sanctions already failed against Iran, and against Russia. And they definitely won't work against China either. Not to mention that providing material support to the west, at the expense of their own stockpiles would be suicidal for China.

 

[TruckDriver9]

Gee, the official denial. Where have we seen this before? An official denial of something happening is the surest guarantor it will happen.

A NATO intervention is highly unlikely. There's no consensus among member states, Hungary and Slovakia are a: "hard no", and some other states would be pretty reluctant to support such a decision (too many conflicting interests). It wouldn't even be in the American interest to get directly involved right now - we've got a good thig going on with providing ukraine with all kinds of support (ISR, logistics, etc. - which are much more valuable than boots on the ground) but without taking any risks. The moment we start shooting at Russians, they'll shoot back and we'll lose our assets and the advantages they give us.
But it doesn't mean that no western troops wil get involved. The EU could deploy a "peacekeeping" force to ukraine, their initial task would be to contain the Russian advances, but if attacked by the Russians they would fight back.

 

[Thomas More]

A NATO intervention is highly unlikely. There's no consensus among member states, Hungary and Slovakia are a: "hard no", and some other states would be pretty reluctant to support such a decision (too many conflicting interests). It wouldn't even be in the American interest to get directly involved right now - we've got a good thig going on with providing ukraine with all kinds of support (ISR, logistics, etc. - which are much more valuable than boots on the ground) but without taking any risks. The moment we start shooting at Russians, they'll shoot back and we'll lose our assets and the advantages they give us.
But it doesn't mean that no western troops wil get involved. The EU could deploy a "peacekeeping" force to ukraine, their initial task would be to contain the Russian advances, but if attacked by the Russians they would fight back.

There is no actual difference between deploying troops directly to combat, vs. deploying "peace keeping" troops to contain the Russian advances and only fight if attacked.

Russia would have to agree to a deal including EU peace keeping troops, which would never occur. Even if Russia achieved all its objectives and signed a peace treaty on their terms, they wouldn't accept EU troops in a peace keeping role. The EU is not agreement capable. They couldn't possibly be trusted in a PK role.

Without such a peace treaty and PK agreement, Russia will simply regard the EU forces as illegitimate, and if they fire at Russian forces, Russia will at least kill them all, and probably strike other EU targets.

 

[TruckDriver9]

There is no actual difference between deploying troops directly to combat, vs. deploying "peace keeping" troops to contain the Russian advances and only fight if attacked.

Russia would have to agree to a deal including EU peace keeping troops, which would never occur. Even if Russia achieved all its objectives and signed a peace treaty on their terms, they wouldn't accept EU troops in a peace keeping role. The EU is not agreement capable. They couldn't possibly be trusted in a PK role.

Without such a peace treaty and PK agreement, Russia will simply regard the EU forces as illegitimate, and if they fire at Russian forces, Russia will at least kill them all, and probably strike other EU targets.

Yes, while a different, non-NATO structure, might be used to introduce western troops to ukraine, the end result would be the same - open hostilities between Russia and the west.
I'm more inclined to believe in this particular scenario because a European "peacekeeping" operation would be more manageable, think about the Red Sea operation Aspides. It's called a European operation, but only a handfull of countries are participating in it, so a similar, "volunteer" defensive structure could be used to bypass objecting countries. A "peacekeeping" force could be introduced gradually - building up defenses and infrastructure one step at the time. And since it's just a European coalition, American assets would still remain insulated from the fighting.
But most importantly it would allow western powers to keep up appearances - after all, we just want to break up the fighting. And it would be Russia who has to fire the first shot.

 

[TCOCBR18]

I often find the West's sociopolitical contortions to be decently predictable by monitoring the direction of Western propaganda. In 2022, Ukraine was the central subject of all Western propaganda as they rapidly established the narratives of a new cold war with Russia, in tandem with a domestic campaign for "Our Democracy". It was not only a cold war with Russia, but a global campaign to defeat all enemies of Democracy, including the ones inside the country. However, though I think they had imperial delusions of actually defeating Russia and removing its government and replacing it with Liberalism back in 2022, more recently the propaganda narrative has shifted to a more defensive posture: they are no longer attacking Russia so much as they are fanatically defending Our Democracy and Zionism now, their own core positions. They talk way more now about countersemitism than about Russia. I understand that it's all connected, but if they were planning an actual military campaign of Western forces in Ukraine, that would be proceeded by a significant propaganda adjustment that we have not yet seen. If they switch the narrative away from Israel and back to Ukraine, I would start getting more worried.

 

[Pointy Elbows]

Russia has seen such a thing (non-NATO but mostly western 'alliance') coming. They've served their notice that any 3d countries that get boots on ground will be considered combatants and subject to attacks on their lands/interests. Between all the color revolutions and all the "leading from behind" style alliances (like Libya and Syria), the western playbook is no longer a secret. The US will just have to come up with a new playbook to get into the war without being declared combatant - and that's not as easy as it was 10 years ago.

edit - I think this applies regardless of who the President is. Biden, Trump, Macron, whoever: send your troops, subject yourself to the war. Western European leaders better be on the lookout - the US is looking for a sacrificial lamb to test Russia's red lines.