NATO might be willing to test Putin’s patience by crossing yet another of Russia’s perceived red lines in spite of its updated nuclear doctrine and new Oreshniks.
Hopefully Russia still has the bulk of the mobilized/recruited forces on the side. My layman's envelope calculation is 6 corps at the front line, the equivalent of 3 division for combat forces, add one for direct combat support, add another one for logistic support, and add one for airforce, navy, national guard support for each Corp. That would be between 360k to 540k. There is a chance that 300k remains undeployed. However, all other fronts have been stretched thin. For example, Marine brigades from Kaliningrad, Baltics, Pacific, and Black Sea fleets have all participated in battle. I don't think they have been sent back to reset. Even if the intelligence estimate could have been a Western plant, Russia still has to prepare. Maybe a "pretext" for a new round of call-up? Hopefully not. The way forward, it seems more ground troop no longer carries the decisive role it once carried. It is the industrial might and precision manufacturing need extra protection, and contingency plans for western false-flags. Alex Krainer and others have reported security camera black-out in London.
Also I wonder why SVR has been in the news so often lately? I don't remember SVR in the news limelight so often in the past.
You're right, SVR used to stay out of the public eye prior to the SMO, and it's only over the past 6 months or a year tops if my memory serves that it's begun publishing regular press releases.
Poland may end up with piece of Ukraine, but only if Russia gives it to them. Otherwise the Poles better put on their war gear and go out to die. they lack the power to pull off such a stunt and they know it.
Poland doesn't need to control the land and it doesn't want responsibility for the at least several million remaining Ukrainians in that part of the country, who are known to be the most "nationalist" in the country.
All that it wants is a sphere of economic influence from which it can reap lucrative business deals for its companies. Poles already have practically equal rights in Ukraine as the latter's citizens do per prior agreements and can already freely visit historic cultural sites so there's no reason to annex anything.
All bridges on Dnieper and Bug rivers must be destroyed plus all roads and trains rails. I also said that embassies of finland, sweden, estonia, latvia, lithuania, germany, denmark, norway, uk, holland, france, israhell, us and canada in kijev. Otherwise Russia will be destroyed
I've already explained how I don't see a pathway for Russia to completely demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.
Even if they attack intervening NATO troops in Ukraine, I don't think that Russia will go nuclear, but would agree to a de-escalation deal after a brinksmanship crisis.
It can tolerate a militarized and nazified Ukraine west of the Dnieper. It won't like it, and another conflict will likely follow after some time, but it's not worth World War III.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that Russia is willing to risk its own destruction by American nukes in pursuit of that maximalist goal.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they achieve it without a brinksmanship crisis, but I'm not getting my hopes up because I simply don't see the realistic pathway for that.
How do you think they can do that? Assuming that NATO might conventionally intervene if Russia crosses the Dnieper to keep them away from the bloc's eastern borders?
Any kinetic exchange will immediately lead to a brinksmanship crisis, and that'll either only end with nuclear armegeddon or a compromise deal.
Do you maybe think that NATO will withdraw after getting bombed by Russia? Or that they'll fight a strictly non-nuclear land and missile war, and Russia will win?
If the second, what makes you so certain that it wouldn't escalate to credible nuclear threats considering that strategic stability planning has been based on that for decades?
"Do you maybe think that NATO will withdraw after getting bombed by Russia?"
It depends on the severity of the first strike: if a high enough proportion of NATO resources can be neutralised, so there's no realistic hope of continuing without resorting to nuclear weapons, I think that would be Russia's best chance. You seemed surprised and dismayed Russia had neither neutralised the (easy) Dniepr crossings, nor struck already-obvious NATO logistic hubs in the Western Ukrainian or Moldova. Wouldn't it be strategically advantageous to have as much NATO investment into targets as possible, rather than offering 'warning shots'. Softball and hardball are two different games. Certainly, if it weren't directed by mentally/emotionally (and often obese and therefore physically) ill and unstable leaders, NATO would have withdrawn long ago... So, there is that. Надежда умерает последней.
"...what makes you so certain that it wouldn't escalate to credible nuclear threats considering that strategic stability planning has been based on that for decades?"
Nothing whatsoever (makes me certain). The combatants' health and stability, however, I believe offers the most telling insight: if the stability and health of the American nation is spiralling out of control to the extent they've felt the need to appoint someone so obviously suffering from NPD as their ultimate representative, there's little can be done to ameliorate that. The best way to minimalise the damage caused by (mentally/emotinally) disturbed people, threatening to harm others, is to be calm and wait for the be best moment to disarm then. Надежда умерает последней.
Frankly speaking, it's disappointing that these NATO training centers haven't already been wiped out. SVR's candid disclosure of their existence this far into the conflict raises a lot of uncomfortable questions that challenge prevailing Alt-Media narratives.
NATO actually wants WW3. Fucking insane cunts. Fuck NATO and fuck Ukraine.
Hopefully Russia still has the bulk of the mobilized/recruited forces on the side. My layman's envelope calculation is 6 corps at the front line, the equivalent of 3 division for combat forces, add one for direct combat support, add another one for logistic support, and add one for airforce, navy, national guard support for each Corp. That would be between 360k to 540k. There is a chance that 300k remains undeployed. However, all other fronts have been stretched thin. For example, Marine brigades from Kaliningrad, Baltics, Pacific, and Black Sea fleets have all participated in battle. I don't think they have been sent back to reset. Even if the intelligence estimate could have been a Western plant, Russia still has to prepare. Maybe a "pretext" for a new round of call-up? Hopefully not. The way forward, it seems more ground troop no longer carries the decisive role it once carried. It is the industrial might and precision manufacturing need extra protection, and contingency plans for western false-flags. Alex Krainer and others have reported security camera black-out in London.
Also I wonder why SVR has been in the news so often lately? I don't remember SVR in the news limelight so often in the past.
You're right, SVR used to stay out of the public eye prior to the SMO, and it's only over the past 6 months or a year tops if my memory serves that it's begun publishing regular press releases.
Poland may end up with piece of Ukraine, but only if Russia gives it to them. Otherwise the Poles better put on their war gear and go out to die. they lack the power to pull off such a stunt and they know it.
Poland doesn't need to control the land and it doesn't want responsibility for the at least several million remaining Ukrainians in that part of the country, who are known to be the most "nationalist" in the country.
All that it wants is a sphere of economic influence from which it can reap lucrative business deals for its companies. Poles already have practically equal rights in Ukraine as the latter's citizens do per prior agreements and can already freely visit historic cultural sites so there's no reason to annex anything.
All bridges on Dnieper and Bug rivers must be destroyed plus all roads and trains rails. I also said that embassies of finland, sweden, estonia, latvia, lithuania, germany, denmark, norway, uk, holland, france, israhell, us and canada in kijev. Otherwise Russia will be destroyed
That Russia did not destroy those bridges on the first day of the war simply shows that the Russian leadership did not take this war seriously.
"...the most realistic best-case scenario for Russia."
Depends on how you look at it, which side you're on.
I've already explained how I don't see a pathway for Russia to completely demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.
Even if they attack intervening NATO troops in Ukraine, I don't think that Russia will go nuclear, but would agree to a de-escalation deal after a brinksmanship crisis.
It can tolerate a militarized and nazified Ukraine west of the Dnieper. It won't like it, and another conflict will likely follow after some time, but it's not worth World War III.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that Russia is willing to risk its own destruction by American nukes in pursuit of that maximalist goal.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they achieve it without a brinksmanship crisis, but I'm not getting my hopes up because I simply don't see the realistic pathway for that.
How do you think they can do that? Assuming that NATO might conventionally intervene if Russia crosses the Dnieper to keep them away from the bloc's eastern borders?
Any kinetic exchange will immediately lead to a brinksmanship crisis, and that'll either only end with nuclear armegeddon or a compromise deal.
Do you maybe think that NATO will withdraw after getting bombed by Russia? Or that they'll fight a strictly non-nuclear land and missile war, and Russia will win?
If the second, what makes you so certain that it wouldn't escalate to credible nuclear threats considering that strategic stability planning has been based on that for decades?
"Do you maybe think that NATO will withdraw after getting bombed by Russia?"
It depends on the severity of the first strike: if a high enough proportion of NATO resources can be neutralised, so there's no realistic hope of continuing without resorting to nuclear weapons, I think that would be Russia's best chance. You seemed surprised and dismayed Russia had neither neutralised the (easy) Dniepr crossings, nor struck already-obvious NATO logistic hubs in the Western Ukrainian or Moldova. Wouldn't it be strategically advantageous to have as much NATO investment into targets as possible, rather than offering 'warning shots'. Softball and hardball are two different games. Certainly, if it weren't directed by mentally/emotionally (and often obese and therefore physically) ill and unstable leaders, NATO would have withdrawn long ago... So, there is that. Надежда умерает последней.
"...what makes you so certain that it wouldn't escalate to credible nuclear threats considering that strategic stability planning has been based on that for decades?"
Nothing whatsoever (makes me certain). The combatants' health and stability, however, I believe offers the most telling insight: if the stability and health of the American nation is spiralling out of control to the extent they've felt the need to appoint someone so obviously suffering from NPD as their ultimate representative, there's little can be done to ameliorate that. The best way to minimalise the damage caused by (mentally/emotinally) disturbed people, threatening to harm others, is to be calm and wait for the be best moment to disarm then. Надежда умерает последней.
The NATO centers will be wiped out with the NATO idiots in it.
Naturally will be WW3 and nuclear armageddon, US will cease to exist and they will be annihilated to use a "Trump term".
Addio US and NATO!.
Life on this planet?
Maybe 2 or 3 million survivors.
Frankly speaking, it's disappointing that these NATO training centers haven't already been wiped out. SVR's candid disclosure of their existence this far into the conflict raises a lot of uncomfortable questions that challenge prevailing Alt-Media narratives.