The Kremlin is burning?

[Roman Alymov]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And the supply route to Crimea wouldn't be reliable anymore? Of course it would have been better to reach the Azov Sea physically, but sometimes you have to make do with less.

Depending on definition of "reliable". I remember how surprised was i to hear traindriver announcements in London subway about "poor service" due to rain. 

    As for me, it is another sort of pro-Ukrainian legend, sort of "War will end as soon as we will be able to hit Moscow". Now they can - and nothing changed, except may be more support of "real war" from Russian piblic.

"I communicate with fellow countrymen from Ukraine. Ordinary people. Watching TV. They say on TV that if Crimea is captured, the war will end. Here they are sitting and waiting for the APU to seize Crimea. They hope. They don't have the strength to wait anymore. But they are waiting.

Recently, they said on TV that Russia will surrender, even if Ukraine only blocks Crimea.

Moreover, if you think about it, what made them think that Russia would surrender? Even if you imagine something that cannot be in life: that Ukraine will seize Crimea. Even if Ukraine captures the Rostov, Kursk and Belgorod regions. What makes them think that Russia will surrender?

Maybe then and only then will corrupt officials be shot in Russia, and the children of the bosses will go to war. Maybe then stupid managers will begin to be removed from their posts, and sensible ones will be appointed.

Even if the enemy came to Moscow, what made them think that the Russians would surrender? Bonaparte took Moscow — and what? Won?

Poor people. They don't have a winning scenario. Fight for what? How long have you been fighting? "Russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield."
/ By the way, this is a quote by Vladimir Putin from the FS Message/" (from https://t.me/olegtsarov/8255 , former Ukr President candidate by the way)

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

There is absolutely no reason for Russia to go to stratospheric nuclear levels.  If US chooses to have sum of  RU/CN nuc assets - it will add to it's own fiscal predicament later on.

Never the less Russia has maintained nuclear parity with the US throughout, and I don't see any reason it would fail to continue to do so. The US can almost double its warhead count using existing platforms and warheads, and like will start to move in that direction once New START expires.

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Depending on definition of "reliable". I remember how surprised was i to hear traindriver announcements in London subway about "poor service" due to rain. 

    As for me, it is another sort of pro-Ukrainian legend, sort of "War will end as soon as we will be able to hit Moscow". Now they can - and nothing changed, except may be more support of "real war" from Russian piblic.

"I communicate with fellow countrymen from Ukraine. Ordinary people. Watching TV. They say on TV that if Crimea is captured, the war will end. Here they are sitting and waiting for the APU to seize Crimea. They hope. They don't have the strength to wait anymore. But they are waiting.

Recently, they said on TV that Russia will surrender, even if Ukraine only blocks Crimea.

Moreover, if you think about it, what made them think that Russia would surrender? Even if you imagine something that cannot be in life: that Ukraine will seize Crimea. Even if Ukraine captures the Rostov, Kursk and Belgorod regions. What makes them think that Russia will surrender?

Maybe then and only then will corrupt officials be shot in Russia, and the children of the bosses will go to war. Maybe then stupid managers will begin to be removed from their posts, and sensible ones will be appointed.

Even if the enemy came to Moscow, what made them think that the Russians would surrender? Bonaparte took Moscow — and what? Won?

Poor people. They don't have a winning scenario. Fight for what? How long have you been fighting? "Russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield."
/ By the way, this is a quote by Vladimir Putin from the FS Message/" (from https://t.me/olegtsarov/8255 , former Ukr President candidate by the way)

Or maybe the alleged West Appeasement Party has more sense than the 'turbopatriots' and will decide that it doesn't make sense to fight anymore. 

[ink]

2 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Depending on definition of "reliable". I remember how surprised was i to hear traindriver announcements in London subway about "poor service" due to rain. 

    As for me, it is another sort of pro-Ukrainian legend, sort of "War will end as soon as we will be able to hit Moscow". Now they can - and nothing changed, except may be more support of "real war" from Russian piblic.

"I communicate with fellow countrymen from Ukraine. Ordinary people. Watching TV. They say on TV that if Crimea is captured, the war will end. Here they are sitting and waiting for the APU to seize Crimea. They hope. They don't have the strength to wait anymore. But they are waiting.

Recently, they said on TV that Russia will surrender, even if Ukraine only blocks Crimea.

Moreover, if you think about it, what made them think that Russia would surrender? Even if you imagine something that cannot be in life: that Ukraine will seize Crimea. Even if Ukraine captures the Rostov, Kursk and Belgorod regions. What makes them think that Russia will surrender?

Maybe then and only then will corrupt officials be shot in Russia, and the children of the bosses will go to war. Maybe then stupid managers will begin to be removed from their posts, and sensible ones will be appointed.

Even if the enemy came to Moscow, what made them think that the Russians would surrender? Bonaparte took Moscow — and what? Won?

Poor people. They don't have a winning scenario. Fight for what? How long have you been fighting? "Russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield."
/ By the way, this is a quote by Vladimir Putin from the FS Message/" (from https://t.me/olegtsarov/8255 , former Ukr President candidate by the way)

While all that sounds wonderful, it is important to remember that the Vietnamese and Afghans (perhaps especially Afghans) didn't need to take any enemy territory in order to win in their struggle against great powers. Neither did the Crimea War allies need to take any Russian territory in order to defeat Russia.

I can think of no instance in history where a great power defeated a smaller power when that smaller power was supported by other great powers. Can you?

[ink]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Or maybe the alleged West Appeasement Party has more sense than the 'turbopatriots' and will decide that it doesn't make sense to fight anymore. 

More likely the Money Appeasement Party will feel the pinch and will oust the West Appeasement Party and the hardliners just so things can go back to what they were like before.

[Strannik]

1 minute ago, ink said:

More likely the Money Appeasement Party will feel the pinch and will oust the West Appeasement Party and the hardliners just so things can go back to what they were like before.

I would guess that everybody except ultra-patriots and ultra voke liberals belongs to the esteemed Money Appeasement Party  🤣

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, ink said:

More likely the Money Appeasement Party will feel the pinch and will oust the West Appeasement Party and the hardliners just so things can go back to what they were like before.

I think the former might be a faction of the latter. 

Things won't go back to what they were and everybody realizes it, but the costs associated with continuing the war might become too much at some point. As far as the West is concerned (and the Ukrainians are willing to fight), we can support them pretty much indefinitely.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Or maybe the alleged West Appeasement Party has more sense than the 'turbopatriots' and will decide that it doesn't make sense to fight anymore. 

They have made this decision back in 2014. The problem is now they have to deal with massive crowd of armed Russians, organised in military units and fed up with their rule even before mobilization.....

[Strannik]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never the less Russia has maintained nuclear parity with the US throughout, and I don't see any reason it would fail to continue to do so. The US can almost double its warhead count using existing platforms and warheads, and like will start to move in that direction once New START expires.

That's your projections.  Past performance does not indicate future results ;)

Also I know your RU war/defense outlays claims  are based on certain Reuters/UK article and not 100% legit.

And even IF they were - RU can easily afford several years of military spending at those levels.

[Strannik]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

As far as the West is concerned (and the Ukrainians are willing to fight), we can support them pretty much indefinitely.

We will see about that rather sooner than later, propaganda and lies can only last so much...

Who is we?   US can, EUtards - no, you don't have much.

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, Strannik said:

I would guess that everybody except ultra-patriots and ultra voke liberals belongs to the esteemed Money Appeasement Party  🤣

That was the idea of "Minsk agreement" - " let's silence ultra-patriots (by assacination or excile or flooding them with paperwork), and the rest will be satisfied with new roads, bridges, houses and cars". But it turned out it is not the case - with kind help of West of course. ""Our enemies will never betray us"(c) Vladimir Grubnik.

[urbanoid]

Just now, Strannik said:

We will see about that rather sooner than later, propaganda and lies can only last so much...

Who is we?   US can, EUtards - no, you don't have much.

Yeah, we will see, Russian propaganda and imperial dreams might wear off as well.

UA received plenty of military support from the EU countries and continues to do so, but they need other kinds of support as well and they get that as well. I guess the US + EU have yet to match the number of tanks donated by Poland alone. 

Quote

According to their research, between February 2022 and May 2023, the US pledged nearly €71 billion of total aid to Ukraine. 

EU countries and institutions have committed to €68 billion in total -- nearly the same as Washington. 

https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/28/how-much-has-the-eu-given-to-ukraine-compared-to-the-us

The US also doesn't really have to bear costs of Ukrainian refugees (ok, it does, but it's miniscule compared to the EU) - that also counts as support, when the soldiers know that their families live in a safe country, not to mention that it does have a monetary value as well. 

[JWB]

28 minutes ago, ink said:

I can think of no instance in history where a great power defeated a smaller power when that smaller power was supported by other great powers. Can you?

That depends upon the definition of the word defeat.

[JWB]

40 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Good job there are only a 'few'  lines of defence' left.................

How many of those lines have any boots?

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, ink said:

 

I can think of no instance in history where a great power defeated a smaller power when that smaller power was supported by other great powers. Can you?

Poland would be quite surprised in 1939 to have discovered that when it was attacked by a pair of Great Powers while being supported by two Great Powers that the result was not its defeat and partition.

Going back a generation, Romania in 1917.

Going back from there a century, prior to his foolish invasion of Russia in 1812, Napoleon had a string of wars in which the larger France defeated a series of lesser powers, all of which who were backed by Great Powers.

[Mistral]

7 hours ago, JWB said:

How many of those lines have any boots?

None, Russians are at negative boots level at the moment. A single Challenger2 can reach the Sea of Azov in hours!

[seahawk]

10 hours ago, Strannik said:

Very true.  The Pandora's box has been opened. 

I would call it the democratisation and globalisation of power. Once more countries have nuclear weapons, the West will be no longer to invade or have colour revolutions in these countries. Any attack by Western oppressors would face the risk of nuclear retaliation.

Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria - I think many countries would be more than happy to protect themselves from Western aggression and build their own nukes with Russian help.

[ink]

9 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

[...] and the rest will be satisfied with new roads, bridges, houses and cars". 

Well, maybe that's because new roads, bridges, houses and cars is literally what it's all about.

[ink]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Poland would be quite surprised in 1939 to have discovered that when it was attacked by a pair of Great Powers while being supported by two Great Powers that the result was not its defeat and partition.

Going back a generation, Romania in 1917.

Going back from there a century, prior to his foolish invasion of Russia in 1812, Napoleon had a string of wars in which the larger France defeated a series of lesser powers, all of which who were backed by Great Powers.

I think that Poland might not be a good fit given the level of "support" they received. But even if we roll with it, Germany was unable to hold on to Poland for very long, in the scheme of things.

I'll bow before your Napoleon example, though. Fair play.

Still think my statement holds for more recent times - the 20th and 21st century basically. Which doesn't bode well for Russia in the long run.

[mkenny]

26 minutes ago, ink said:

Still think my statement holds for more recent times - the 20th and 21st century basically. Which doesn't bode well for Russia in the long run.

 

I think Russia is the only side planning for a long game.  US politics will be paralyzed by the upcoming election and if the result goes the 'wrong way' Ukraine will be cast adrift  left to her own devices.  I find it amusing that those who dream of the  destruction Russia have to  hope their ideological soul-mates  are defeated  because their fantasy is being enthusiastically  pursued by politicians they despise as 'socialists'!

[Stuart Galbraith]

If they were playing for a long game, they would  have been content to wait for Ukraine to collapse so they could acquire Crimea and Donbass at minimal cost. So they were self evidently not playing the long game. They were playing the game of what was good for Russia in Putin's lifetime, and trying, and failing, to precipitate a Ukrainian collapse multiple times.

Nobody was stopping to think what happened after Putin is gone, anymore than they were after Stalin died. The same result will occur, the only question is how long its going to take.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Last time British Empire collapsed during above mentioned 70 years, transforming UK from global master to medium size island country. Who knows what will happen during next 70 years.... 

Complete balls, it was more like 100 years, when Europe reached level pegging with our level of industrialisation, and we had started the scrabble for Africa (arguably a backward step considering the investment we had to put in). If you count Hong Kong and the other colonies we offloaded, its even later than that. Call it inevitable but managed decline.

For the USSR, the writing was on the wall when Brezhnev took power. Thats what, 28 years? Now thats what I call precipitate decline. Another 30 took you to the Ukraine War.  Who knows what the next 30 will bring?....

[ink]

I think we should all consider ourselves very lucky if the transition from Putin to the next guy is as smooth as it was from Joe to Nikita.

Edited September 6, 2023 by ink

[ink]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Complete balls

Roman's not wrong, imo. Whatever preceded 1914, it was the world wars that polished off the British Empire (or, if you prefer, made it impossible).

We can agree, however, that from the point of view of the metropole, the decline was exceedingly well managed.

[sunday]

50 minutes ago, mkenny said:

I think Russia is the only side planning for a long game.

Commie China. Still relevant, and quite the masters of the long game.

50 minutes ago, mkenny said:

  US politics will be paralyzed by the upcoming election and if the result goes the 'wrong way' Ukraine will be cast adrift  left to her own devices.  I find it amusing that those who dream of the  destruction Russia have to  hope their ideological soul-mates  are defeated  because their fantasy is being enthusiastically  pursued by politicians they despise as 'socialists'!

Or perhaps those on the right do not, or should not, really want the annihilation of a Russia that is communist no more.