Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Carlin]

Al Jazeera citing US officials, reports that 3 US bases were attacked in eastern Syria.

In turn, citing Syrian sources: Death toll in US strikes on pro-Iran installations in Syria rises to 19 fighters.

[Carlin]

МИТРОПОЛИТОТ ПАВЕЛ РАСПАЛИ ПО ЗЕЛЕНСКИ

"Господ нема да ви прости што нè бркате, плашете се"

Денеска е денот Д за исселување на монасите од Печерската Лавра во Киев. Тие добија понуда од украинските власти да останат ако се префрлат во новопризнатата ПЦУ, Православна украинска црква.

https://plusinfo.mk/mitropolitot-pavel-raspali-po-zelenski-gospod-nema-da-vi-prosti-shto-ne-brkate-plashete-se/

[Vangelovski]

Apparently Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, in part, to prevent further NATO expansion along its borders. But thanks to Putin's genius, the Russians have now added another 1,300 km of border between themselves and NATO with Finland's admission. In a hypothetical invasion of Russia (which apparently they were so afraid of), Finland will now provide direct access to Russia's Murmansk Peninsula with its Northern Fleet bases, a northern invasion route to St. Petersburg, complete isolation of the Baltic Sea fleet and missile bases much closer than what Ukraine can offer.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65132527.amp

[Risto the Great]

I wonder if there are still any Nazis leading NATO.

[Carlin]

"Within Bakhmut itself, the AZOM industrial park and the Bakhmutovka rivers were key defensive barriers which have now been overrun and breached. The total Ukrainian perimeter is now less than five miles in circumference. Too tight, too much Russian firepower."

https://twitter.com/witte_sergei/status/1643272191352643587?cxt=HHwWhoDRrcDWic4tAAAA

[Carlin]

Footage of the destruction of an entire assault group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the front near Kupyansk

https://mobile.twitter.com/bricnato/status/1641978602416914432?cxt=HHwWgIDS3du1vcktAAAA

[Vangelovski]

The three month Russian winter/spring offensive is coming to an end and they only managed to capture a total of 70 square km, three whole towns (Soledar, Kurdiumivka and Krasna Hora) and half of Bakhmut. Who would have thought

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...Dmining%20town.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/04/08/russia-takes-stock-after-winter-offensive-fails-to-deliver-gains-a80762

Compare this to Ukraine's counter offensives in September last year which liberated 13,000 square kilometers in a matter of weeks.

Some of you probably wonder why I'm so confident that Ukraine will defeat Russia. It's because Ukraine is being supplied by the West. Russia isn't just fighting 40 million Ukrainians, its fighting the collective economic and military industrial base of the West. Having said that, even without the West, Ukraine would ultimately defeat the Russians, through a long insurgency. But this way it'll be much quicker.

Some interesting figures in the table below. All sourced.



NATO outnumbers Russia in everything. Not only that, NATO weapons are a generation ahead of Russia's (with the exception of its nuclear forces, which are probably on par).

NATO's collective economic strength ($48.8 trillion vs $2.1 trillion) and its defence expenditure ($1.2 trillion vs $88 billion) dwarfs that of Russia.

Nor does Russia have any real hope of out-producing NATO. Its manufacturing output (measured in $US values) is a mere $257 billion versus NATOs $5.3 trillion.

And this does not include the wider West that is also supplying Ukraine, such as Australia, Austria, Ireland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Sweden. Sure, we could add Iran, North Korea and Belarus to the Russian side of the ledger, but that won't improve anything for them.

NATO does not even need to move to a war economy to out-produce Russia, it already does that by a lot.

[Karposh]

Honestly, your hatred for Russia borders on the bizarre.

In a hot war between NATO and Russia, it wouldn’t be just 3,249,000 Russians fighting for the Motherland. It would be closer to 100,000,000. Also, you can multiply NATO’s defence expenditure exponentially if you like. It would still make no difference at all if the Russians decided to unleash their Tsar Bombs (officially non-existent anymore). Then it’s goodnight for everyone on Earth, not just for NATO. So, the question is: Does NATO really want to risk it all and go down the path of a direct armed conflict with Russia? That was the whole point of the 45-year-old Cold War and the reason why it never spilled into an actual hot war – The mutually assured destruction of all involved.

My prediction for the outcome of this war is that Ukraine will continue to exist when a peace deal is finally worked out. I don’t believe that Russia wants to completely annex Ukraine despite the rumours to this effect. However, it will be a territorially reduced Ukraine without the Crimean Peninsula and the four eastern-most oblasts – Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk. That's a given. They could potentially lose Kharkiv oblast too if this war continues at NATO’s insistence. We can argue about how or why it got to this point, but the fact remains that there is no way Russia is backing away from this now. I purposefully avoided saying Putin as it is silly to associate him alone with the decision making on behalf of all of Russia. This has become an obvious Russia versus the west conflict and the Russians are not about to lose face. Not only will Ukraine be forced to relinquish these territories, but the peace deal will have a clause in there that assures Ukraine’s neutrality which will never see it become a part of NATO.

[Vangelovski]

Honestly, your hatred for Russia borders on the bizarre.

How does thinking Russia is wrong in its invasion of Ukraine and thinking it's going to lose the war equate to 'hatred' of Russia? Either way, I don't particularly like them. But I could say the same thing to you using your own logic - your hatred of the West borders on the bizarre. It raises the question why you would even want to live in a western country?

In a hot war between NATO and Russia, it wouldn’t be just 3,249,000 Russians fighting for the Motherland. It would be closer to 100,000,000.

Hardly. According to Russia's own statistics it only has 45 million men and women fit for military service. Of those, who's going to work in its factories, fuel production, hospitals, logistics etc to support its war effort, not to mention all the other industries required for civilian life? Do you have any idea how many men and women NATO and the rest of the west have fit for military service? I'll give you a hint - its a lot more.

Also, you can multiply NATO’s defence expenditure exponentially if you like. It would still make no difference at all if the Russians decided to unleash their Tsar Bombs (officially non-existent anymore). Then it’s goodnight for everyone on Earth, not just for NATO. So, the question is: Does NATO really want to risk it all and go down the path of a direct armed conflict with Russia?

Given that Russia invaded Ukraine the question really is does Russia want to risk it all and go down the path of direct armed conflict with NATO? But you're misreading the situation here. This is a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Not direct conflict. They've done this many times before. The Ukrainians have more than enough manpower to fight, they just need arms, training and logistical support, which is what NATO is providing.

However, it will be a territorially reduced Ukraine without the Crimean Peninsula and the four eastern-most oblasts – Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk. That's a given. They could potentially lose Kharkiv oblast too if this war continues at NATO’s insistence.

How exactly do you think Russia will achieve this given its pathetic military performance to date and its obvious disadvantage in terms of sheer resources?

We can argue about how or why it got to this point, but the fact remains that there is no way Russia is backing away from this now.

I agree, it won't back away and that's why it will ultimately face military defeat.

Not only will Ukraine be forced to relinquish these territories, but the peace deal will have a clause in there that assures Ukraine’s neutrality which will never see it become a part of NATO.

Again, how exactly do you think Russia can achieve this?

[Karposh]

How does thinking Russia is wrong in its invasion of Ukraine and thinking it's going to lose the war equate to 'hatred' of Russia? Either way, I don't particularly like them. But I could say the same thing to you using your own logic - your hatred of the West borders on the bizarre. It raises the question why you would even want to live in a western country?

So, what you're telling me is if I don't like it why don't I go back to where I came from? That's rich. Do I need to pledge my unwavering support to the west for every ill advised conflict they have ever stuck their nose in because I live in the west? Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the rest? No, I prefer to exercise my own independent critical thinking and respectfully disagree with the west's desire to impose, in their own words, their "liberal world order".

Hardly. According to Russia's own statistics it only has 45 million men and women fit for military service. Of those, who's going to work in its factories, fuel production, hospitals, logistics etc to support its war effort, not to mention all the other industries required for civilian life? Do you have any idea how many men and women NATO and the rest of the west have fit for military service? I'll give you a hint - its a lot more.

All other industries relating to civilian life will play second fiddle to the war effort and, in times of war, Russians will tend to mobilise all citizens of fighting age. I think my number of 100,000,000 is probably closer to the mark out of a country of approximately 150,000,000. Gone are the days when people had on average 4-5 kids per family. Russians, like most people in the world today, usually have about 1-2 kids per family. I don't think children under 18 make up a huge proportion of the overall population.

Given that Russia invaded Ukraine the question really is does Russia want to risk it all and go down the path of direct armed conflict with NATO? But you're misreading the situation here. This is a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Not direct conflict. They've done this many times before. The Ukrainians have more than enough manpower to fight, they just need arms, training and logistical support, which is what NATO is providing.

I know what a proxy war is (thank you) and the whole world knows that the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a proxy war between Russia and the west. Obviously it's not a direct conflict or else NATO would be trying to carpet bomb Moscow and Saint Petersburg by now. And no, the question isn't about Russia at all. Russians are already in this up to their balls. It really is about whether NATO is willing to commit troops on the ground and not just handing over their military surplus to Ukrainians only to sit back and watch them get slaughtered. I heard the life expectancy of Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut is only 4 hours. That's a national disaster for Ukraine and can't be maintained indefinitely. So, is NATO willing to get involved directly by going all in and escalating this to a nuclear Armageddon? If they are then we're all fucked.

How exactly do you think Russia will achieve this given its pathetic military performance to date and its obvious disadvantage in terms of sheer resources?

I think you should stop watching CNN or reading the New York Times. Hunter Biden's laptop was actually a Russian psyop according to these gaslighting fools. When it comes to gaslighting and spreading misinformation/disinformation, no one does it better than the western mainstream media.

[Vangelovski]

So, what you're telling me is if I don't like it why don't I go back to where I came from? That's rich. Do I need to pledge my unwavering support to the west for every ill advised conflict they have ever stuck their nose in because I live in the west? Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the rest? No, I prefer to exercise my own independent critical thinking and respectfully disagree with the west's desire to impose, in their own words, their "liberal world order".

You brought it up. I just applied YOUR logic. Maybe you should apply YOUR own logic to what would amount to YOUR hatred of the west?

All other industries relating to civilian life will play second fiddle to the war effort and, in times of war, Russians will tend to mobilise all citizens of fighting age. I think my number of 100,000,000 is probably closer to the mark out of a country of approximately 150,000,000. Gone are the days when people had on average 4-5 kids per family. Russians, like most people in the world today, usually have about 1-2 kids per family. I don't think children under 18 make up a huge proportion of the overall population.

Sure...your number. I prefer mine. It comes from legitimate sources not someone's napkin.

Second fiddle? Like food production? What about medical services? What about power generation and supply? How long will that last?

I know what a proxy war is (thank you)

Do you?

and the whole world knows that the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a proxy war between Russia and the west. Obviously it's not a direct conflict or else NATO would be trying to carpet bomb Moscow and Saint Petersburg by now.

You were just trying to suggest it would lead to a "direct conflict" one post ago.

And no, the question isn't about Russia at all. Russians are already in this up to their balls. It really is about whether NATO is willing to commit troops on the ground and not just handing over their military surplus to Ukrainians only to sit back and watch them get slaughtered.

All of the Putinista's on here keep insinuating the Ukrainians are puppets fighting for the west, but none have even attempted to answer the question of why wouldn't the Ukrainians fight for their own country, homes, families and national sovereignty against a foreign invasion? Some of you keep acting like the Ukrainians are just confused Russians and that Russia didn't send its military across a national border and this isn't an invasion.

I heard the life expectancy of Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut is only 4 hours.

Did you hear that on this forum? I bet you did.

So, is NATO willing to get involved directly by going all in and escalating this to a nuclear Armageddon? If they are then we're all fucked.

I don't think anyone is using nuclear weapons, you can stop wetting the bed.

I think you should stop watching CNN or reading the New York Times. Hunter Biden's laptop was actually a Russian psyop according to these gaslighting fools. When it comes to gaslighting and spreading misinformation/disinformation, no one does it better than the western mainstream media.

What on earth does CNN and the New York Times, or Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with anything I posted?

Russia has managed to capture a total of 3.5 towns over the past couple of months. The map has not moved since its winter/spring offensive started. It hasn't even claimed to have captured anything more. Russia's resources and manpower vs NATOs are what they are. I sourced all my figures. Do you think Russia's economy is larger than all of NATO's put together? Do you think Russia spends more money on defence than all of NATO? Do you think they have a larger manufacturing capacity? Do you think they have a larger stock of weapons? What sources can you provide other than what some drunk idiots told you?

Another question the Putinista's on here just can't seem to answer is HOW EXACTLY DO YOU THINK RUSSIA CAN WIN THIS WAR?

[Karposh]

You brought it up. I just applied YOUR logic. Maybe you should apply YOUR own logic to what would amount to YOUR hatred of the west?

To be clear, I don't hate the west. I disagree with many of the far-left ideology it openly promotes around the world but I never said or insinuated that I hate the west. At most, I have probably expressed some strong views with regard to this insane and insidious ideology it promotes on this forum and other forums but that pales in comparison to your overt anti-Russian stance.

You were just trying to suggest it would lead to a "direct conflict" one post ago.

No, I was merely saying that in order for NATO to take full advantage of those superior NATO stats that YOU listed, they would need to drop the pretense of just trying to level out the playing field by supplying arms to Ukraine and declare open war on Russia. That way they can use all that additional fire power they clearly possess unobstructed.

Did you hear that on this forum? I bet you did.

Nope. I heard it from Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor. And I know what you're gonna say - He's just another Putinista. Everyone who challenges the accepted narrative is a dirty Putinista according to leftist liberals on CNN, Biden administration, and YOU apparently.

I don't think anyone is using nuclear weapons, you can stop wetting the bed.

Very funny and quite revealing of your abrasive nature. You must be a real delight to be around. No, I'm not scared at all. We all have to die some day and I couldn't think of a better way to go than that if that day were to arrive sooner than I expected. But I wouldn't dismiss things going wrong even if you're correct (which I will agree with) that no one really wants to press the button.

What on earth does CNN and the New York Times, or Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with anything I posted?

Well you just said that Russia is going to lose this war because of its pathetic military performance and obvious disadvantage in terms of sheer resources. You are very confident in this as are CNN and the New York Times. According to some in the media, Russians are so under-resourced and pathetic that they have resorted to fighting with shovels.

[Phoenix]

Vangelovski,

Using your economics argument I wonder why the USA had such a difficult time in Vietnam and Afghanistan…in both instances and time in history the USA was the preeminent economic global power pitted against 3rd world basket cases…

[Vangelovski]

No, I was merely saying that in order for NATO to take full advantage of those superior NATO stats that YOU listed, they would need to drop the pretense of just trying to level out the playing field by supplying arms to Ukraine and declare open war on Russia. That way they can use all that additional fire power they clearly possess unobstructed.

There's no pretense. NATO doesn't need to put its own personnel into Ukraine to make use of its weapons. Ukraine has more than enough manpower.

Nope. I heard it from Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor. And I know what you're gonna say - He's just another Putinista.

What would Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor know more than any other member of the public? Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor retired from the military in 2004 and doesn't have access to any special information. Even when he was in the US Army, he would not have had access to any special intelligence. He was in command of the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment. It's an armoured infantry battalion of about 430 men. He'd be given his marching orders and expected to do his job.

Everyone who challenges the accepted narrative is a dirty Putinista according to leftist liberals on CNN, Biden administration, and YOU apparently.

WTF?

Very funny and quite revealing of your abrasive nature. You must be a real delight to be around. No, I'm not scared at all. We all have to die some day and I couldn't think of a better way to go than that if that day were to arrive sooner than I expected. But I wouldn't dismiss things going wrong even if you're correct (which I will agree with) that no one really wants to press the button.

You were literally just talking about how its all going to be Armageddon and the end of the world. Do you even read what you post?

Well you just said that Russia is going to lose this war because of its pathetic military performance and obvious disadvantage in terms of sheer resources. You are very confident in this as are CNN and the New York Times. According to some in the media, Russians are so under-resourced and pathetic that they have resorted to fighting with shovels.

I know what I said and I know why I have said it. I've even provided ample information as to why I think Russia will lose the war. The real question for the Putinista's like you is WHY YOU THINK RUSSIA CAN WIN THIS WAR? None of you have even attempted to answer such a basic question other than some vague reasoning that they've got 100 million people capable of fighting and an invincible industrial base that in reality is tiny compared to what is available to the west.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,

Using your economics argument I wonder why the USA had such a difficult time in Vietnam and Afghanistan…in both instances and time in history the USA was the preeminent economic global power pitted against 3rd world basket cases…

Maybe the US failed in Vietnam and Afghanistan (and a host of other places) because they were invading a foreign country just like Russia has done in Ukraine. Maybe it's a lot easier to supply and finance resistance to invasion than actually successfully undertake one? Maybe its even easier to supply and finance resistance when you are the preeminent global superpower? Just a thought.