I think you're really overlooking the real position the West has created for both Russia and China, so you can forget the political choreography BS.
The US is desperate, as are the G7 to save political and economic face and will do something Stupid, which will result in Russia having No alternative but to strike back with by something far…
I think you're really overlooking the real position the West has created for both Russia and China, so you can forget the political choreography BS.
The US is desperate, as are the G7 to save political and economic face and will do something Stupid, which will result in Russia having No alternative but to strike back with by something far more strategic and impact full than just the mere bombing of a few NATO countries. Whatever Russia has Decided to do, will most certainly Not be visible in political or other circles to anyone, but wi be of such an impact full nature ( it may only be a single event), that the West will be forced to just Shut Up and sit down, to avoid a repeat or an escalation of such events. NATO is already fighting in Kursk and have been in other areas of the the Ukraine, and what exactly have they achieved, besides being killed???
You place far too much emphasis on Russia needing to have any fear of NATO, however the Russian military powers that be have realised that NATO will continue sending Cannon Fodder to fight for the Ukraine, and therefore merely bombing NATO nations wi also have little to no effect on NATO Idiocy, and only serve to extend a war that NATO is also incapable of winning, hence the need for a little something that shocks the West into reality and the realisation that they they cannot continue to lean on Russia without suffering the mere dire consequences of losing NATO troops, and destroying a neighbour or two of the Ukraine. What's more is that NATO/ EU/US have basically disarmed themselves and couldn't in real terms think of beating Russia on a battlefield, and it's going to be a lomore difficult to conscript Europeans into a war with than Ukrainians, and EU resistance is already building. You obviously haven't seen the posters already going up on the streets in Italy.
I've been analyzing the West's dual containment of Russia and China for years, actually for a decade now since I began doing so in 2014.
My view has always been that the US could attempt a first strike against Russia at any time but it has yet to do so or signal any such intent due to MAD.
It wants to escalate below the nuclear threshold and through proxy means, albeit increasingly direct ones like in this case.
As for what the Russian military thinks, it actually doesn't matter since they remain loyal to Putin and won't act without his approval.
A lot of military-affiliated Telegram channels have been agitating since the get-go for a more muscular approach towards the SMO yet it hasn't happened.
Russia won't even bomb a single bridge over the Dnieper so it's clearly not doing it's all to stop NATO in Ukraine since political goals continue to predominate.
On the topic of those posters in Italy, it's not hard to recruit people for a guerrilla marketing campaign or encourage them to do so on their own.
It's the same as anti-government graffiti in Belarus and Russia: it gets airplay on the West but doesn't accurately reflect local sentiment.
I acknowledge that the posters in Italy might be a more accurate representation of sentiment, but do you REALLY think it'll influence policy formulation?
Come on, we both know that it's going to have zero effect. This is all political choreography, both the posters and this brouhaha over long-range weapons.
They're busy aiding and abetting Israel's genocide. They're playing the long game with Russia. The Eastern world has been ridiculously tolerant of the US empire's wars around the world. How much longer will their patience last🤔
If you posit a President who is absent and unmanaged bureaucracy, is it possible that two branches, DOD and State, are working at cross purposes? I have suspected the same dynamic may have been at work in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Separately, a Russian response neednt be so blunt as a direct attack on a NATO country. It seems like a lot of the messaging around who can and cant operate missiles is establishing the idea that NATO set the precedent for the supplier to assist a proxy in an attack. I would think this might make NATO military bases potential targets if the provocations continue.
The posters in Italy most certainly don't influence Idiotic EU policy, which controls Italian policy, however it does have a major Influence on the sentiment of the people and their willingness to be the cannon fodder, and is also a reflection of existing sentiment of the people, and this can be said for the whole of the EU.
President Putin has been extremely patient with the West thus far, and has held back, which has been understandable and savvy of him, which reflects that he is the Only adult currently in the Ukraine war room, however just like he was patient with the West in regard to NATO for at least a decade and a half, he did act Feb 2022, and by now he realises that being patient with the West has limited to no success, in overcoming their beligerance, hence the need arising for a surprise and shock mechanism. I am not for a moment doubting that the Russian military are not loyal and obedient to the commander in Chief, but they have most certainly prepared to dish out whatever shock treatment they are holding in abayence until Putin gives the greenlight, which he has no doubt decided in advance what he considers to be a trigger, so you can stop banking on a theory of who is going to shoot first, when it will most probably be a series of events, and not a physical first shot, which triggers a Russian military shock response.
Public sentiment means nothing if it's not translated into political action, ideally through truly free and fair elections whose winners remain committed to their platform and don't change it like Meloni did in some notable cases.
Wrong, public sentiment and your failure to be able to conscript/ draft troops or support your austerity measures required to go to war against Russia, will have a Major impact on your ability to wage war, and I know, I am South African, and it was internal resistance within our country that made the government think twice before perpetuating the war in Angola and SWA/ Namibia.
You couldn't be more wrong and your views are clouded by the Apartheid-era regional proxy war experience.
In the contemporary case of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, public sentiment had absolutely zero effect on the course of events thus far.
You're also wrongly assuming that the West will conscript people to fight a prolonged hot war with Russia, which also is extremely unrealistic.
It's hypocritical too since you literally just argued that Russia might hit NATO, thus leading to a nuclear escalation, yet now you think it won't? I don't get it.
From what I gather thus far, your views are as follows:
* Russia might soon snap, say "to hell with it!", and bomb NATO
* Westerners might revolt against their governments support of the proxy war
* That same proxy war won't go nuclear even if Russia bombs NATO
* Hence the need to draft people for a prolonged hot conflict instead
* And all the while, Russia won't bomb bridges across the Dnieper
* Even though that could cripple Ukraine's logistics and create more "Krynkis"
Is this an accurate summary of what you've shared today under this thread?
So the public opinion in the Ukraine has had Zero affect on the war???by
So it hasn't led to a growing resistance, public strikes, the censorship, the banning of churches, the free press, and the arrest of "dissident, "the burning of conscription recruiters vehicles and overall morale collapse ???
If you think this was unique to Apartheid, think again you Dogmatic Fool, I'm seeing exactly what happened in South Africa being repeated in the Ukraine, and it will have the same effect!!!
Correct, public opinion hasn't stopped NATO from gradually escalating its involvement in the conflict through its "boiling frogs" approach, ergo the discussion over long-range weapons 2,5 years into the SMO.
"Growing resistance" and "public strikes" failed to stop the abovementioned trend as proven by that example and the others that preceded it (F-16s, ATACMS, HIMARS, etc.).
What I wrote above is indisputable: NATO has continued escalating its involvement in the conflict despite the examples you shared. To deny this is delusional and proof that you live in a wishful thinking fantasyland.
Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for you as a special operations veteran to explain why pontoons are preferable to builds and rail for crossing rivers. If that was true, why do bridges and rail even still exist? It doesn't make sense.
So then tell me, is the West's failure to finally take out the Kersch Bridge or the newly established railway line from Russia into the Ukraine also a political one???
I'm curious and also asking for a friend.
The public opinion in South Africa didn't stop the government of the day from going to war in Angola, but it definitely helped to end it, and exactly the same will occur with NATO, which your Ineptitude seems to prevent you from seeing.
Talk about living in a Fantasy.
Are you that dumb, that you can't suddenly see Donald Tusks attitude change, since many of his soldiers and officers recently returned wounded or in body bags to Poland???
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???
The lack of bridges didn't stop the Ukraine's perpetual attempts to transfer troops into Krynki, now did it.
Look carefully at the limited regions where Russia has attacked and destroyed bridges, those were purely tactical and strategic as the Russian military has no intention of advancing in that direction again, however they now realise that crossing the Dnieper into Western Ukraine although undesirable, may become necessary, and the bridges will be critical.
Besides, as Russia draws closer to the Dnieper, the Ukrainians will in all probability destroy the bridges themselves, however the Ukrainians destroying the bridges themselves will be a sign of their admission of defeat, which will have an even greater shock impact on the West and the Ukraine, than if Russia had destroyed them.
Now that would be both a political and military strategic victory for Russia!
I feel like you're trying so hard to make a point -- which I understand to (and perhaps I'm wrong so correct me in that case) that Russia is about to use nukes or other WMDs in Ukraine or perhaps even against NATO -- that you're not realizing how irrelevant that example is.
Kyrnki, as I'm sure you know very well but are so caught up in the moment that you forgot, was a desperate morale-boosting measure that ultimately failed. But it can't be compared with the scale and scope of what's crossing the Dnieper across its several bridges on a regular basis.
For those readers who might be unaware, Kyrnki refers to the small village where Ukraine has launched suicidal cross-river assaults against Russia. This isn't honestly comparable to moving loads of troops and equipment across bridges outside of the direct conflict zone into one's own controlled territory.
To this day, Russia won't touch a single one of those bridges across the Dnieper despite that crippling Ukrainian logistics if it comes to pass by forcing them to use pontoons and other means to cross, thus greatly reducing the amount of troops and equipment that reaches the front lines.
The only cogent explanation for why Russia continues to allow Ukraine to replenish its troops and equipment without any impediment whatsoever when crossing the Dnieper is a stubborn focus on political goals over military ones, or treason, but I don't lend credence to that second-mentioned explanation.
Notice how Ukraine bombed a bridge in Kursk Region right after they began their invasion? That stands in stark contrast to Russia, which still won't touch any of the bridges over the Dnieper. Again, can you cogently explain what the "master plan" is behind letting Ukraine replenish itself through these means?
And before you post, reread whatever it is that you're going to write, take a five-minute or longer break, and think about whether it actually makes sense to anyone other than those like yourself you've seemingly convinced themselves that "everything is going according to plan".
It's not, at all, but that doesn't mean that Russia is losing either. It's incredibly frustrating to know that political goals continue overriding military ones and the conflict continues dragging on as a result. Russia can destroy those bridges but chooses not to, but you can't explain why.
All you've done is bring up a ridiculous example (Krynki), which actually proves my point: imagine that Ukraine was reduced to Kynki-like crossings ALL ACROSS THE DNIEPER instead of being able to bring in so many troops and equipment on a daily basis across bridges, including via rail routes.
It's been 2,5 years, Russia isn't going to cross the Dnieper again, let alone on the scale required to need those bridges, and you yourself just said that Ukraine would probably destroy them anyhow, so why doesn't Russia just destroy them first to help it beat Ukraine?
Russian oligarchs, and the globalist cabal, control Putin.
That is the explanation for not attacking the bridges, which any military force that actually wanted to achieve Putin's proclaimed objectives would have done from the start.
But destroying those bridges would have diamaged the profits of the Russian oligarchs who, together with the globalist cabal of the West, control Putin - so of course, he didn't destroy them.
The objective of the Ukraine war is to vastly enrich all of the key parties involved, and to serve as a pretext for key elements of the globaliist plan, which include making energy prices in the West prohibitively high for ordinary people, as a means of controlling them, and as just another means of making billions in profits for the globalist cabal; as a means of switching Europe over to buying gas at 3 - 4 times the cost of Russian gas, and thereby permanently ruining the economies of Europe, etc., etc.
Also, the globalist criminals running the West absolutely need an 'enemy' to blame so many of their policies destructive to the peoples of the West on - and that is Putin's role: to pretend to be their deadly, evil enemy and the great threat to the West, when he actually works for globaliist criminals - who are actually the deadly threat to the peoples of the West.
What's more, is that you, like so many others fail to understand the Russian war of attrition against the Ukrainians that began in approximately October/ November of 2022, and that had Russia blown up the bridges over the Dnieper at that early stage of the conflict, the war of attrition would Not have been successful, as Russia required that the West led Ukraine keep filing troops into the conflict to meet their destruction.
Had Russia blown the bridges too early/ at all it would have stopped this process, and now it doesn't matter anyway, given that it is too late for the Ukrainians who don't have vast numbers of troops to file into Eastern Ukraine, nor does the West have a supply of weapons to keep fulfilling their promises, and all of this has become highly visible since the Ukraine launched their attack on Kursk, which was Idiotic, and yes, Political to say the least., by weakening their already weakened forces, in the hope of weakening Russian forces and attacks that have been shown to growing stronger and more experienced by the day.
This has been no different to launching a hostile takeover of your opposition in business, when you are financially weak.
Although at my level of military experience, I am far from being a master military strategist, but I sure as hell know the difference between a bad military strategy, and a good one.
Don't forget for a minute that our war in Angola was against Soviet and East German backed Angolan, Cuban and Plan forces, but that has not made me cling to dogma.
I saw much badly planned/ implemented Soviet and Cuban strategy, while I am seeing exactly the same US led Western Ukrainian planned strategy and implementation.
This while, despite a few Russian errors and miscalculation which are normal in the very best armies, I am seeing nothing but Strategic Coherence across the board and the whole front coming from the Russian Army, to the point of being awestruck, knowing how complex and the kind of competence resources it requires to achieve such across a 1000km+ front.
To top it all, I am seeing Russia not only dominate on the battlefield against NATO/ Ukraine, but I am seeing Russia dominate in the global political and economic sphere through incredibly well thought out strategies.
Jim Rickards about six months ago said, that the lady who heads up the Russian Central Bank, is the only competent central bank head on the planet, and it's obvious from Russia's economically strong position, despite higher inflation and difficulties during the masses of punitive sanctions against Russia and the war.
This very competence and strength which Russia has displayed, has exposed just how incompetent and pathetic the West is, in all of these spheres, despite their arrogance, the US is headed for serious financial dangers, which Russia and China are already starting to exploit with few, but strategic sanctions on minerals needed by the West for their survival at multiple levels.
First off, you didn't comprehend many parts of my prior comments, secondly, secondly, I didn't say that Russia's response would definitely be Nuclear, third, how many troops does the Ukraine still have that are West of the Dnieper? Fourth, if Russia did bomb the bridges over the Dnieper, they would have to continue bombing the pontoons which would be erected and possible air lifts into the region which the US/ NATO would facilitate, and create a whole new front, at a distance which you couldn't command, especially at the earlier stages of the SMO.
I might only have been a Lieutenant in the Angolan war, but I was a member of a special forces unit, and know a just a little something about military strategy.
Yes, I am making a point, which you have Not effectively been able to counter, which is reflected in your incorrect comprehension/interpretation and responses to many points in my prior comments.
You can be whoever you are, that's fine and I'm not interested in your biography, just in your ideas as expressed in this context.
You've been saying that Russia is going to react in a radical way and even taunted me to come back to you once that happens.
Nobody knows for sure how many troops Ukraine has that are still west of the Dnieper, but that's where NATO arms and ammo are coming from.
Don't you think it would complicate Ukraine's military logistics to have to resort to pontoons as opposed to bridges and rails?
Since you're a veteran of the special forces, can you please explain why pontoons are better for military logistics than bridges and rails?
Seriously, I don't understand it and I'm sure that 99% of people don't either. Only those who think there's a "master plan" will blindly agree with you.
None can explain it though, you'd be the first person in 2,5 years to share a cogent explanation if you're capable of doing so, but I really doubt it.
If someone's desperate, wouldn't they throw the kitchen sink at it and not care about escalation control?
How do you square the circle of NATO being desperate yet still cautiously escalating with Russia?
I've accounted for that by introducing the influence of Western factions into my analysis and acknowledging escalation-management.
But you haven't done that. Instead, you're repudiating everything that I've written above in totality and I just can't understand how you arrived at such opposite conclusions.
I rarely interact with "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists since it's an exercise in futility to try to convert them and can also be very emotionally exhausting.
But since you're evidently one and I've already invested thus much time into learning about your views, at least answer my targeted questions.
To repeat:
1. If NATO is so desperate for war, why not just launch a first strike against Russia now without warning and get it over with?
2. Why is NATO waiting a full 2,5 years since the SMO began to consider letting Ukraine use long-range weapons?
3. Why are pontoons preferred to bridges and rail for crossing rivers as you imply is the reason why Russia didn't bomb them?
If I may, I'll ask some more questions since you didn't coherently answer them earlier:
4. Absent the need for a draft, in what way outside of the election cycle (which isn't always truly free and fair and whose winners sometimes go against their promises after being elected) does Western sentiment shape policy towards this proxy war?
5. You now insist that whatever major thing Russia might do won't lead to a nuclear war with NATO, so why do you expect a prolonged hot one that would extend long enough for NATO to need to draft troops? Why won't either side escalate to using nukes?
If you think that Russia doesn't have a pretty good idea as to how many Ukrainian troops are still West of the Dnieper, then you're a bigger fool than you care to realise.
If the Ukrainians had any forces West of the Dnieper, why weren't they either sent to Kursk, or to strengthen the front in the Donbass???
It also reflects your lack of military experience and understanding of military strategy on the ground, yet you persist in commenting as though you know or understand even the slightest about military strategy.
Talk is Cheap when you've never been on the battlefield, and as a boxer ( don't recall which one) once said, " everybody has a plan until he gets punched in the face".
I'm not trying to bait you into anything, I pointing out the Obvious, which you seem to dogmatically refuse to accept, that being that Russia will get to a point, in the face of continued Western and Ukrainian Beligerance in the not too distant future, when they will launch some form of attack, of whatever type, once again, Not Necessarily Nuclear, but which will bring the West and Ukraine back down to earth with a bump.
My Business Consultancy and Military resume are of critical importance to understanding people who control the reasoning behind strategy and reactions, so you can brush it aside a you want, but it will prove you Wrong on multiple issues and points I have made.
I've never said nor implied that, you're making strawmen and continuing to veer further off course from the original subject and my supplementary questions.
But for the benefit of other readers, I'll answer your question: they might not have the most accurate idea of how many are West of the Dnieper. Even if they do, Lukashenko said that 120,000 are on the Belarusian border right now.
They're being kept there presumably due to Kiev (in my view wrongly) fearing a Russian incursion from that front even though neither Russia nor Belarus has intimated any such interest in that repeating that early SMO scenario.
You also don't need to make this personal. I stand by my analyses and always update them accordingly when the need arises. You, however, continue clinging to the most absurd talking points that you won't even defend.
I've also never denied that Russia might get to the point where I lets loose and drastically escalates, but you flat-out refuse to countenance that maybe it won't for the reasons I've explained. It's a matter of dogma for you apparently.
You're discrediting your alleged resume too by refusing to answer my polite questions, especially about you implying that pontoons are more preferable than bridges and rail for crossing rivers.
I've thought about that for an hour, it's even distracted me from my work, but I can't make sense of it. I can only conclude that you were angry, said something ridiculous thinking it made your point, and are now too embarrassed to defend it.
You know, sometimes for a guy with a PhD which is supposedly to reflect the ability to think and reason you can come up with the most irrational Bullshit possible and in this case you are projecting this onto me.
Well for me, a guy with an Engineering degree, an honours in Applied Match and a Masters in Operations Management, both business and manufacturing, you have exposed yourself as far from deserving a PhD.
Although you often make sensible comments and write sensible assessment reviews you also quite often veer off the rails, like in this case, clinging to your Bullshit Dogma which you have most definitely not assessed from multiple angles and are horribly flawed you series of Irrational comments show, while you attempt to play to your audience, hoping for reprieve by public opinion.
The last time you produced such Shit to put it plainly, was in your analysis of the reasons for the visit by India's foreign minister to Russia, supposedly to put pressure on Putin to stop the war, and in the comments section I pointed out that to be absolute nonsense, and that it was in regard to establishing a better trade balance with Russia through more exports to Russia, which is Exactly what it turned out to be, as India went away with agreements for greater purchasing by Russia from India.
So, you can bury your head in the sand for as long as you like, it's not going to stop you from getting your ass proverbially shot off, and that projection finger you have pointed at me, has three pointed back at you.
So try being an adult, and accept that you have misanalysed this current situation, and that it is not merely political posturing or choreography.
PS! Tell me your story again, when US long range missiles hit multiple targets deep inside Russia, be they military or civilian, and Russia responds with something extraordinary.
Buddy, NATO satellites have already helped Ukraine bomb the Kremlin, the Crimean Bridge, strategic airfields, and even early warning systems.
ATACMS have already been authorized for use across Kharkov's border in Belgorod though the suspected approved range is likely larger.
And don't even get me started on how many times the HIMARS have been used within Russia's new regions that unified with it in 2022.
They're just as much a part of Russia as Tver for example, yet once again, Russia declined climbing the escalation ladder.
I'll ask you once more: what signs have you seen from Putin other than the speech the other day suggesting that he's ready to fight World War III?
I live in Moscow and would be vaporized if that happened, yet nobody is hoarding food, there aren't any drills, nothing, it's as if everything is normal.
Don't you think Russia would at least try to save it's own capital's people if it was about to spark World War III? Or nah, we're just expendable pawns, eh?
I think you're really overlooking the real position the West has created for both Russia and China, so you can forget the political choreography BS.
The US is desperate, as are the G7 to save political and economic face and will do something Stupid, which will result in Russia having No alternative but to strike back with by something far more strategic and impact full than just the mere bombing of a few NATO countries. Whatever Russia has Decided to do, will most certainly Not be visible in political or other circles to anyone, but wi be of such an impact full nature ( it may only be a single event), that the West will be forced to just Shut Up and sit down, to avoid a repeat or an escalation of such events. NATO is already fighting in Kursk and have been in other areas of the the Ukraine, and what exactly have they achieved, besides being killed???
You place far too much emphasis on Russia needing to have any fear of NATO, however the Russian military powers that be have realised that NATO will continue sending Cannon Fodder to fight for the Ukraine, and therefore merely bombing NATO nations wi also have little to no effect on NATO Idiocy, and only serve to extend a war that NATO is also incapable of winning, hence the need for a little something that shocks the West into reality and the realisation that they they cannot continue to lean on Russia without suffering the mere dire consequences of losing NATO troops, and destroying a neighbour or two of the Ukraine. What's more is that NATO/ EU/US have basically disarmed themselves and couldn't in real terms think of beating Russia on a battlefield, and it's going to be a lomore difficult to conscript Europeans into a war with than Ukrainians, and EU resistance is already building. You obviously haven't seen the posters already going up on the streets in Italy.
I've been analyzing the West's dual containment of Russia and China for years, actually for a decade now since I began doing so in 2014.
My view has always been that the US could attempt a first strike against Russia at any time but it has yet to do so or signal any such intent due to MAD.
It wants to escalate below the nuclear threshold and through proxy means, albeit increasingly direct ones like in this case.
As for what the Russian military thinks, it actually doesn't matter since they remain loyal to Putin and won't act without his approval.
A lot of military-affiliated Telegram channels have been agitating since the get-go for a more muscular approach towards the SMO yet it hasn't happened.
Russia won't even bomb a single bridge over the Dnieper so it's clearly not doing it's all to stop NATO in Ukraine since political goals continue to predominate.
On the topic of those posters in Italy, it's not hard to recruit people for a guerrilla marketing campaign or encourage them to do so on their own.
It's the same as anti-government graffiti in Belarus and Russia: it gets airplay on the West but doesn't accurately reflect local sentiment.
I acknowledge that the posters in Italy might be a more accurate representation of sentiment, but do you REALLY think it'll influence policy formulation?
Come on, we both know that it's going to have zero effect. This is all political choreography, both the posters and this brouhaha over long-range weapons.
The US has also proven that it isn't as desperate as some people, myself included, earlier thought that it was.
They're only just now considering long-range weapons for Ukraine 2,5 years after the proxy war began in earnest.
That's because they're reluctant to escalate in a way that risks provoking Russia into "overreacting" by sparking World War III.
What nobody who thinks the US wants World War III so badly can answer is why it's only just now doing all of this stuff?
Why not send F-16s, ATACMS, HIMARS, long-range weapons, etc. right after the SMO began? Why wait until now? What's the point in dragging it out?
If they want World War III, why don't they just launch a first strike? Why go through all these motions, which are prolonged instead of rapid at that?
Because their death throes confuse them?
In all seriousness, you're quite right, and I'm sure Putin's adult patience will prevail.
They're busy aiding and abetting Israel's genocide. They're playing the long game with Russia. The Eastern world has been ridiculously tolerant of the US empire's wars around the world. How much longer will their patience last🤔
If you posit a President who is absent and unmanaged bureaucracy, is it possible that two branches, DOD and State, are working at cross purposes? I have suspected the same dynamic may have been at work in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Separately, a Russian response neednt be so blunt as a direct attack on a NATO country. It seems like a lot of the messaging around who can and cant operate missiles is establishing the idea that NATO set the precedent for the supplier to assist a proxy in an attack. I would think this might make NATO military bases potential targets if the provocations continue.
The posters in Italy most certainly don't influence Idiotic EU policy, which controls Italian policy, however it does have a major Influence on the sentiment of the people and their willingness to be the cannon fodder, and is also a reflection of existing sentiment of the people, and this can be said for the whole of the EU.
President Putin has been extremely patient with the West thus far, and has held back, which has been understandable and savvy of him, which reflects that he is the Only adult currently in the Ukraine war room, however just like he was patient with the West in regard to NATO for at least a decade and a half, he did act Feb 2022, and by now he realises that being patient with the West has limited to no success, in overcoming their beligerance, hence the need arising for a surprise and shock mechanism. I am not for a moment doubting that the Russian military are not loyal and obedient to the commander in Chief, but they have most certainly prepared to dish out whatever shock treatment they are holding in abayence until Putin gives the greenlight, which he has no doubt decided in advance what he considers to be a trigger, so you can stop banking on a theory of who is going to shoot first, when it will most probably be a series of events, and not a physical first shot, which triggers a Russian military shock response.
Public sentiment means nothing if it's not translated into political action, ideally through truly free and fair elections whose winners remain committed to their platform and don't change it like Meloni did in some notable cases.
Wrong, public sentiment and your failure to be able to conscript/ draft troops or support your austerity measures required to go to war against Russia, will have a Major impact on your ability to wage war, and I know, I am South African, and it was internal resistance within our country that made the government think twice before perpetuating the war in Angola and SWA/ Namibia.
You couldn't be more wrong and your views are clouded by the Apartheid-era regional proxy war experience.
In the contemporary case of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, public sentiment had absolutely zero effect on the course of events thus far.
You're also wrongly assuming that the West will conscript people to fight a prolonged hot war with Russia, which also is extremely unrealistic.
It's hypocritical too since you literally just argued that Russia might hit NATO, thus leading to a nuclear escalation, yet now you think it won't? I don't get it.
From what I gather thus far, your views are as follows:
* Russia might soon snap, say "to hell with it!", and bomb NATO
* Westerners might revolt against their governments support of the proxy war
* That same proxy war won't go nuclear even if Russia bombs NATO
* Hence the need to draft people for a prolonged hot conflict instead
* And all the while, Russia won't bomb bridges across the Dnieper
* Even though that could cripple Ukraine's logistics and create more "Krynkis"
Is this an accurate summary of what you've shared today under this thread?
Ohh no???
So the public opinion in the Ukraine has had Zero affect on the war???by
So it hasn't led to a growing resistance, public strikes, the censorship, the banning of churches, the free press, and the arrest of "dissident, "the burning of conscription recruiters vehicles and overall morale collapse ???
If you think this was unique to Apartheid, think again you Dogmatic Fool, I'm seeing exactly what happened in South Africa being repeated in the Ukraine, and it will have the same effect!!!
Correct, public opinion hasn't stopped NATO from gradually escalating its involvement in the conflict through its "boiling frogs" approach, ergo the discussion over long-range weapons 2,5 years into the SMO.
"Growing resistance" and "public strikes" failed to stop the abovementioned trend as proven by that example and the others that preceded it (F-16s, ATACMS, HIMARS, etc.).
What I wrote above is indisputable: NATO has continued escalating its involvement in the conflict despite the examples you shared. To deny this is delusional and proof that you live in a wishful thinking fantasyland.
Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for you as a special operations veteran to explain why pontoons are preferable to builds and rail for crossing rivers. If that was true, why do bridges and rail even still exist? It doesn't make sense.
So then tell me, is the West's failure to finally take out the Kersch Bridge or the newly established railway line from Russia into the Ukraine also a political one???
I'm curious and also asking for a friend.
The public opinion in South Africa didn't stop the government of the day from going to war in Angola, but it definitely helped to end it, and exactly the same will occur with NATO, which your Ineptitude seems to prevent you from seeing.
Talk about living in a Fantasy.
Are you that dumb, that you can't suddenly see Donald Tusks attitude change, since many of his soldiers and officers recently returned wounded or in body bags to Poland???
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
Will you at least please elaborate on what you so confidently implied about pontoons being preferable to bridges and rail for crossing rivers?
Of all the things you wrote, that's the most ridiculous by far. It's difficult to imagine that you were serious but you don't seem to be trolling.
If pontoons are preferable, then why do we even have bridges and rail? Why not move everything by pontoons from here on out?
Is there some global conspiracy against pontoons? lol For real, what were you thinking by implying that's the reason why Russia hasn't bombed them!?
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???
PS! How do you know that not bombing the bridges over the Dnieper is a political decision, and not a strategic military one?
Just look at the total destruction of Eastern Ukraine and so many targets in Western Ukraine, and attempt to justify that political argument again.
Because it's common military logic to cut off the logistics of one's enemies, yet these have remained unimpeded since the SMO began.
The destruction in Eastern Ukraine is due to urban warfare brought about by Kiev's refusal to responsibly withdraw from villages, towns, and cities.
The lack of bridges didn't stop the Ukraine's perpetual attempts to transfer troops into Krynki, now did it.
Look carefully at the limited regions where Russia has attacked and destroyed bridges, those were purely tactical and strategic as the Russian military has no intention of advancing in that direction again, however they now realise that crossing the Dnieper into Western Ukraine although undesirable, may become necessary, and the bridges will be critical.
Besides, as Russia draws closer to the Dnieper, the Ukrainians will in all probability destroy the bridges themselves, however the Ukrainians destroying the bridges themselves will be a sign of their admission of defeat, which will have an even greater shock impact on the West and the Ukraine, than if Russia had destroyed them.
Now that would be both a political and military strategic victory for Russia!
I feel like you're trying so hard to make a point -- which I understand to (and perhaps I'm wrong so correct me in that case) that Russia is about to use nukes or other WMDs in Ukraine or perhaps even against NATO -- that you're not realizing how irrelevant that example is.
Kyrnki, as I'm sure you know very well but are so caught up in the moment that you forgot, was a desperate morale-boosting measure that ultimately failed. But it can't be compared with the scale and scope of what's crossing the Dnieper across its several bridges on a regular basis.
For those readers who might be unaware, Kyrnki refers to the small village where Ukraine has launched suicidal cross-river assaults against Russia. This isn't honestly comparable to moving loads of troops and equipment across bridges outside of the direct conflict zone into one's own controlled territory.
To this day, Russia won't touch a single one of those bridges across the Dnieper despite that crippling Ukrainian logistics if it comes to pass by forcing them to use pontoons and other means to cross, thus greatly reducing the amount of troops and equipment that reaches the front lines.
The only cogent explanation for why Russia continues to allow Ukraine to replenish its troops and equipment without any impediment whatsoever when crossing the Dnieper is a stubborn focus on political goals over military ones, or treason, but I don't lend credence to that second-mentioned explanation.
Notice how Ukraine bombed a bridge in Kursk Region right after they began their invasion? That stands in stark contrast to Russia, which still won't touch any of the bridges over the Dnieper. Again, can you cogently explain what the "master plan" is behind letting Ukraine replenish itself through these means?
And before you post, reread whatever it is that you're going to write, take a five-minute or longer break, and think about whether it actually makes sense to anyone other than those like yourself you've seemingly convinced themselves that "everything is going according to plan".
It's not, at all, but that doesn't mean that Russia is losing either. It's incredibly frustrating to know that political goals continue overriding military ones and the conflict continues dragging on as a result. Russia can destroy those bridges but chooses not to, but you can't explain why.
All you've done is bring up a ridiculous example (Krynki), which actually proves my point: imagine that Ukraine was reduced to Kynki-like crossings ALL ACROSS THE DNIEPER instead of being able to bring in so many troops and equipment on a daily basis across bridges, including via rail routes.
It's been 2,5 years, Russia isn't going to cross the Dnieper again, let alone on the scale required to need those bridges, and you yourself just said that Ukraine would probably destroy them anyhow, so why doesn't Russia just destroy them first to help it beat Ukraine?
Russian oligarchs, and the globalist cabal, control Putin.
That is the explanation for not attacking the bridges, which any military force that actually wanted to achieve Putin's proclaimed objectives would have done from the start.
But destroying those bridges would have diamaged the profits of the Russian oligarchs who, together with the globalist cabal of the West, control Putin - so of course, he didn't destroy them.
The objective of the Ukraine war is to vastly enrich all of the key parties involved, and to serve as a pretext for key elements of the globaliist plan, which include making energy prices in the West prohibitively high for ordinary people, as a means of controlling them, and as just another means of making billions in profits for the globalist cabal; as a means of switching Europe over to buying gas at 3 - 4 times the cost of Russian gas, and thereby permanently ruining the economies of Europe, etc., etc.
Also, the globalist criminals running the West absolutely need an 'enemy' to blame so many of their policies destructive to the peoples of the West on - and that is Putin's role: to pretend to be their deadly, evil enemy and the great threat to the West, when he actually works for globaliist criminals - who are actually the deadly threat to the peoples of the West.
What's more, is that you, like so many others fail to understand the Russian war of attrition against the Ukrainians that began in approximately October/ November of 2022, and that had Russia blown up the bridges over the Dnieper at that early stage of the conflict, the war of attrition would Not have been successful, as Russia required that the West led Ukraine keep filing troops into the conflict to meet their destruction.
Had Russia blown the bridges too early/ at all it would have stopped this process, and now it doesn't matter anyway, given that it is too late for the Ukrainians who don't have vast numbers of troops to file into Eastern Ukraine, nor does the West have a supply of weapons to keep fulfilling their promises, and all of this has become highly visible since the Ukraine launched their attack on Kursk, which was Idiotic, and yes, Political to say the least., by weakening their already weakened forces, in the hope of weakening Russian forces and attacks that have been shown to growing stronger and more experienced by the day.
This has been no different to launching a hostile takeover of your opposition in business, when you are financially weak.
Although at my level of military experience, I am far from being a master military strategist, but I sure as hell know the difference between a bad military strategy, and a good one.
Don't forget for a minute that our war in Angola was against Soviet and East German backed Angolan, Cuban and Plan forces, but that has not made me cling to dogma.
I saw much badly planned/ implemented Soviet and Cuban strategy, while I am seeing exactly the same US led Western Ukrainian planned strategy and implementation.
This while, despite a few Russian errors and miscalculation which are normal in the very best armies, I am seeing nothing but Strategic Coherence across the board and the whole front coming from the Russian Army, to the point of being awestruck, knowing how complex and the kind of competence resources it requires to achieve such across a 1000km+ front.
To top it all, I am seeing Russia not only dominate on the battlefield against NATO/ Ukraine, but I am seeing Russia dominate in the global political and economic sphere through incredibly well thought out strategies.
Jim Rickards about six months ago said, that the lady who heads up the Russian Central Bank, is the only competent central bank head on the planet, and it's obvious from Russia's economically strong position, despite higher inflation and difficulties during the masses of punitive sanctions against Russia and the war.
This very competence and strength which Russia has displayed, has exposed just how incompetent and pathetic the West is, in all of these spheres, despite their arrogance, the US is headed for serious financial dangers, which Russia and China are already starting to exploit with few, but strategic sanctions on minerals needed by the West for their survival at multiple levels.
First off, you didn't comprehend many parts of my prior comments, secondly, secondly, I didn't say that Russia's response would definitely be Nuclear, third, how many troops does the Ukraine still have that are West of the Dnieper? Fourth, if Russia did bomb the bridges over the Dnieper, they would have to continue bombing the pontoons which would be erected and possible air lifts into the region which the US/ NATO would facilitate, and create a whole new front, at a distance which you couldn't command, especially at the earlier stages of the SMO.
I might only have been a Lieutenant in the Angolan war, but I was a member of a special forces unit, and know a just a little something about military strategy.
Yes, I am making a point, which you have Not effectively been able to counter, which is reflected in your incorrect comprehension/interpretation and responses to many points in my prior comments.
You can be whoever you are, that's fine and I'm not interested in your biography, just in your ideas as expressed in this context.
You've been saying that Russia is going to react in a radical way and even taunted me to come back to you once that happens.
Nobody knows for sure how many troops Ukraine has that are still west of the Dnieper, but that's where NATO arms and ammo are coming from.
Don't you think it would complicate Ukraine's military logistics to have to resort to pontoons as opposed to bridges and rails?
Since you're a veteran of the special forces, can you please explain why pontoons are better for military logistics than bridges and rails?
Seriously, I don't understand it and I'm sure that 99% of people don't either. Only those who think there's a "master plan" will blindly agree with you.
None can explain it though, you'd be the first person in 2,5 years to share a cogent explanation if you're capable of doing so, but I really doubt it.
You also missed my question earlier about why the US doesn't just launch a first strike against Russia if that's what it wants?
Also, why is it waiting 2,5 years to consider letting Ukraine use its long-range weapons against Russia?
Why wasn't this and other escalations done right away if they're so hellbent on war out of desperation? I genuinely don't get it.
If someone's desperate, wouldn't they throw the kitchen sink at it and not care about escalation control?
How do you square the circle of NATO being desperate yet still cautiously escalating with Russia?
I've accounted for that by introducing the influence of Western factions into my analysis and acknowledging escalation-management.
But you haven't done that. Instead, you're repudiating everything that I've written above in totality and I just can't understand how you arrived at such opposite conclusions.
I rarely interact with "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists since it's an exercise in futility to try to convert them and can also be very emotionally exhausting.
But since you're evidently one and I've already invested thus much time into learning about your views, at least answer my targeted questions.
To repeat:
1. If NATO is so desperate for war, why not just launch a first strike against Russia now without warning and get it over with?
2. Why is NATO waiting a full 2,5 years since the SMO began to consider letting Ukraine use long-range weapons?
3. Why are pontoons preferred to bridges and rail for crossing rivers as you imply is the reason why Russia didn't bomb them?
If I may, I'll ask some more questions since you didn't coherently answer them earlier:
4. Absent the need for a draft, in what way outside of the election cycle (which isn't always truly free and fair and whose winners sometimes go against their promises after being elected) does Western sentiment shape policy towards this proxy war?
5. You now insist that whatever major thing Russia might do won't lead to a nuclear war with NATO, so why do you expect a prolonged hot one that would extend long enough for NATO to need to draft troops? Why won't either side escalate to using nukes?
If you think that Russia doesn't have a pretty good idea as to how many Ukrainian troops are still West of the Dnieper, then you're a bigger fool than you care to realise.
If the Ukrainians had any forces West of the Dnieper, why weren't they either sent to Kursk, or to strengthen the front in the Donbass???
It also reflects your lack of military experience and understanding of military strategy on the ground, yet you persist in commenting as though you know or understand even the slightest about military strategy.
Talk is Cheap when you've never been on the battlefield, and as a boxer ( don't recall which one) once said, " everybody has a plan until he gets punched in the face".
I'm not trying to bait you into anything, I pointing out the Obvious, which you seem to dogmatically refuse to accept, that being that Russia will get to a point, in the face of continued Western and Ukrainian Beligerance in the not too distant future, when they will launch some form of attack, of whatever type, once again, Not Necessarily Nuclear, but which will bring the West and Ukraine back down to earth with a bump.
My Business Consultancy and Military resume are of critical importance to understanding people who control the reasoning behind strategy and reactions, so you can brush it aside a you want, but it will prove you Wrong on multiple issues and points I have made.
I've never said nor implied that, you're making strawmen and continuing to veer further off course from the original subject and my supplementary questions.
But for the benefit of other readers, I'll answer your question: they might not have the most accurate idea of how many are West of the Dnieper. Even if they do, Lukashenko said that 120,000 are on the Belarusian border right now.
They're being kept there presumably due to Kiev (in my view wrongly) fearing a Russian incursion from that front even though neither Russia nor Belarus has intimated any such interest in that repeating that early SMO scenario.
You also don't need to make this personal. I stand by my analyses and always update them accordingly when the need arises. You, however, continue clinging to the most absurd talking points that you won't even defend.
I've also never denied that Russia might get to the point where I lets loose and drastically escalates, but you flat-out refuse to countenance that maybe it won't for the reasons I've explained. It's a matter of dogma for you apparently.
You're discrediting your alleged resume too by refusing to answer my polite questions, especially about you implying that pontoons are more preferable than bridges and rail for crossing rivers.
I've thought about that for an hour, it's even distracted me from my work, but I can't make sense of it. I can only conclude that you were angry, said something ridiculous thinking it made your point, and are now too embarrassed to defend it.
You know, sometimes for a guy with a PhD which is supposedly to reflect the ability to think and reason you can come up with the most irrational Bullshit possible and in this case you are projecting this onto me.
Well for me, a guy with an Engineering degree, an honours in Applied Match and a Masters in Operations Management, both business and manufacturing, you have exposed yourself as far from deserving a PhD.
Although you often make sensible comments and write sensible assessment reviews you also quite often veer off the rails, like in this case, clinging to your Bullshit Dogma which you have most definitely not assessed from multiple angles and are horribly flawed you series of Irrational comments show, while you attempt to play to your audience, hoping for reprieve by public opinion.
The last time you produced such Shit to put it plainly, was in your analysis of the reasons for the visit by India's foreign minister to Russia, supposedly to put pressure on Putin to stop the war, and in the comments section I pointed out that to be absolute nonsense, and that it was in regard to establishing a better trade balance with Russia through more exports to Russia, which is Exactly what it turned out to be, as India went away with agreements for greater purchasing by Russia from India.
So, you can bury your head in the sand for as long as you like, it's not going to stop you from getting your ass proverbially shot off, and that projection finger you have pointed at me, has three pointed back at you.
So try being an adult, and accept that you have misanalysed this current situation, and that it is not merely political posturing or choreography.
PS! Tell me your story again, when US long range missiles hit multiple targets deep inside Russia, be they military or civilian, and Russia responds with something extraordinary.
Buddy, NATO satellites have already helped Ukraine bomb the Kremlin, the Crimean Bridge, strategic airfields, and even early warning systems.
ATACMS have already been authorized for use across Kharkov's border in Belgorod though the suspected approved range is likely larger.
And don't even get me started on how many times the HIMARS have been used within Russia's new regions that unified with it in 2022.
They're just as much a part of Russia as Tver for example, yet once again, Russia declined climbing the escalation ladder.
I'll ask you once more: what signs have you seen from Putin other than the speech the other day suggesting that he's ready to fight World War III?
I live in Moscow and would be vaporized if that happened, yet nobody is hoarding food, there aren't any drills, nothing, it's as if everything is normal.
Don't you think Russia would at least try to save it's own capital's people if it was about to spark World War III? Or nah, we're just expendable pawns, eh?