Ad from the SBU (Ukrainian KGB) illustrates the problem with post-Maidan Ukrainian nationalism.

In case you were wondering who Russia is dealing with and why there will be no ceasefire, take a look. Here is a commercial shown on the Ukrainian children's channel 'Plus Plus’.

Translation…

If your sister listens to Russian songs, she is not your sister…call the SBU pic.twitter.com/lkXCX0ymds

— Anna (@provemewrong411) March 11, 2025

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

It is time that you ignore these voices. I am pretty much convinced they are the dregs of the Russian intel service, charged with putting up misinformation on various social media sites. if you look at their posting behavior they hardly ever engage with actual cal sports - but rather regurgitate Russian talking points. The above is beyond hysterical.

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

NATO lost, FAFO. The war should have never happened. Russia is now much stronger, NATO / EU in shambles. But C-A got to play w drones.

---

Please explain how losing tens of thousands of troops and a crapload of tanks and equipment makes a military stronger. And, yes, Russia had built up a whole bunch of ammunition, but now a lot of that is buried in Ukrainian soil. Are they going to dig it up and recycle it?

Maybe Russia is stronger in the sense that they saw how screwed up they were in 2022-23 and are able to make adjustments for the future... to be less incompetent.

Call me crazy, but I still favor NATO over Russia.

---

NATO also gained members since the war started.

If NATO is weaker it's mostly because Donald Trump is busy trying to destroy the alliance.

Who predicted victory in 3 days or 3 weeks?

NATO / USA had been building up Ukraine for years, President Trump gave them "defensive" Javelin missiles, they supposedly built defensive fortifications, we trained them, etc. Also C-A and US / EU 'technical advisors'.

You bypass that the EU, NATO, USA, and much of the world's military stockpiles have been expended. It's frankly quite absurd all the UK / France posturing, when they didn't meet NATO funding requirements, drew down their military, and rely on us for protection.

Edit: Ukraine had probably the biggest, most well-trained military in Europe.

Google: "In July 2022, [Ukranian] Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated that the Armed Forces had an active strength of 700,000; Reznikov also mentioned that with the Border Guard, National Guard, and police added, the total comes to around one million."

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The Russians initially mounted a military operation with around 200,000 soldiers with the goal of getting a quick political settlement, which they would have achieved with the Istanbul peace agreement 2 months into the war, if it wasn't for NATO's political intervention with Boris Johnson pressing the Ukrainian into rejecting that deal and continuing to fight.

The Russians were facing an army more that 3 times their size at that point, and had to scale back their territorial coverage and scale up their numbers. They also had to adapt and integrate the use of drones and to ramp up their military production. As well they have conducted this war with the main constraint of limiting their own losses while maximizing Ukrainian military losses with the kind of more static warfare that takes advantage of their big edge in artillery and stand-off weaponry.

Ukraine has been able to hold the line, ceding terrain at a relatively slow pace, but at an enormous cost in men and treasure, with around 2 million casualties and $200 billion spent by NATO. At this point they might not be able to sustain this rhythm that much longer.

Those are the basic aspects of this war which are not properly addressed in the MSM.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

What do you think of 'defensive-alliance' NATOs response?

movielover said:

---

Who predicted victory in 3 days or 3 weeks?

---

PUTIN!!! You troll!! That is why he sent a poorly equipped column to Keiv in expectation he could decapitate the government.

I am going to ask Greg to look at your account/IP. Your agiprop crap does a disservice to this board.

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The Russians initially mounted a military operation with around 200,000 soldiers with the goal of getting a quick political settlement, which they would have achieved with the Istanbul peace agreement 2 months into the war, if it wasn't for NATO's political intervention with Boris Johnson pressing the Ukrainian into rejecting that deal and continuing to fight.

The Russians were facing an army more that 3 times their size at that point, and had to scale back their territorial coverage and scale up their numbers. They also had to adapt and integrate the use of drones and to ramp up their military production. As well they have conducted this war with the main constraint of limiting their own losses while maximizing Ukrainian military losses with the kind of more static warfare that takes advantage of their big edge in artillery and stand-off weaponry.

Ukraine has been able to hold the line, ceding terrain at a relatively slow pace, but at an enormous cost in men and treasure, with around 2 million casualties and $200 billion spent by NATO. At this point they might not be able to sustain this rhythm that much longer.

Those are the basic aspects of this war which are not properly addressed in the MSM.

---

Could you provide a citation to your 2 million Ukrainian figure? I have seen the agitprop group throw that around but most credible sources peg it at about 20% of that. However, should you have a good source happy to read.

BTW - that isn't what they wanted. The column sent to keiv suggests they were after regime change and early on they hit heavily on the idea that the Ukrainian government were fascists that needed to be removed.

Also lets stop throwing around the Instanbul protocol as a magic phrase. Here are the contents that would have required Ukraine to essentially become a vassal state similar to Belarus.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

---

Not sure about the goalposts, but the frontlines in Ukraine are certainly moving right now.

Russia is (1) not a military pushover, and (2) has escalatory dominance in a land war at its borders. Those are the facts, and acknowledging them do not make one a Russian shill, this assessment and the ones above are rational takes based on the realities on the ground.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

---

Not sure about the goalposts, but the frontlines in Ukraine are certainly moving right now.

Russia is (1) not a military pushover, and (2) has escalatory dominance in a land war at its borders. Those are the facts, and acknowledging them do not make one a Russian shill, this assessment and the ones above are rational takes based on the realities on the ground.

---

I don't think that is as much of a slam dunk as you do.

1) Russia LOST the afghan war (we did too) in taking on a truly impoverished country on its border. Arguably its failure brought down the Soviet system. They don't ALWAYS win and many of the real inefficiencies in their system are again repeating themselves.

2) Any analysis that is objective would find that russian gains are measured in yards per week and likely unsustainable expenditures. The figure that I love is that it would take Russia over 100 years to capture all of Ukraine at the current rate. 20% plus inflation isn't a good indicator of a healthy economy able to sustain the effort.

That is not to say that Russia's strength here is real. But there are REAL problems right now in Moscow - not the least of which is oil at $70 a barrel which is about 15 too low for Russia.

At the highest level it becomes what the definition of "victory" is (and I think even more important for the US - What definition of victory serves OUR interests. That is why I am just not a huge fan of the "peace at any costs because there are scenarios where that happens which are NOT in the US's interests.

socaltownie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

---

Not sure about the goalposts, but the frontlines in Ukraine are certainly moving right now.

Russia is (1) not a military pushover, and (2) has escalatory dominance in a land war at its borders. Those are the facts, and acknowledging them do not make one a Russian shill, this assessment and the ones above are rational takes based on the realities on the ground.

---

I don't think that is as much of a slam dunk as you do.

1) Russia LOST the afghan war (we did too) in taking on a truly impoverished country on its border. Arguably its failure brought down the Soviet system. They don't ALWAYS win and many of the real inefficiencies in their system are again repeating themselves.

2) Any analysis that is objective would find that russian gains are measured in yards per week and likely unsustainable expenditures. The figure that I love is that it would take Russia over 100 years to capture all of Ukraine at the current rate. 20% plus inflation isn't a good indicator of a healthy economy able to sustain the effort.

That is not to say that Russia's strength here is real. But there are REAL problems right now in Moscow - not the least of which is oil at $70 a barrel which is about 15 too low for Russia.

At the highest level it becomes what the definition of "victory" is (and I think even more important for the US - What definition of victory serves OUR interests. That is why I am just not a huge fan of the "peace at any costs because there are scenarios where that happens which are NOT in the US's interests.

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

---

Not sure about the goalposts, but the frontlines in Ukraine are certainly moving right now.

Russia is (1) not a military pushover, and (2) has escalatory dominance in a land war at its borders. Those are the facts, and acknowledging them do not make one a Russian shill, this assessment and the ones above are rational takes based on the realities on the ground.

---

I don't think that is as much of a slam dunk as you do.

1) Russia LOST the afghan war (we did too) in taking on a truly impoverished country on its border. Arguably its failure brought down the Soviet system. They don't ALWAYS win and many of the real inefficiencies in their system are again repeating themselves.

2) Any analysis that is objective would find that russian gains are measured in yards per week and likely unsustainable expenditures. The figure that I love is that it would take Russia over 100 years to capture all of Ukraine at the current rate. 20% plus inflation isn't a good indicator of a healthy economy able to sustain the effort.

That is not to say that Russia's strength here is real. But there are REAL problems right now in Moscow - not the least of which is oil at $70 a barrel which is about 15 too low for Russia.

At the highest level it becomes what the definition of "victory" is (and I think even more important for the US - What definition of victory serves OUR interests. That is why I am just not a huge fan of the "peace at any costs because there are scenarios where that happens which are NOT in the US's interests.

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

---

Yup. It gets at a fundamental problem for a lot of autocratic systems.....they are really bad at recalibrating and not doing "stupid" things because of the high cost of opposing the autocrat.

When the histories of this are written I think it will be very interesting to read why Putin believe the Ukrainian government would quickly cave - I think that misreads significantly how much Ukrainian identity was forged in the post 1917 period - especially in the areas closer to Western Europe. But it also gets at the fundamental tension in Putin's russia and that it is an extinction level threat to have a successful democratically governed post Soviet state on his border.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have lost tens of thousands of troops, and added hundreds of thousands who are now trained in 21st century warfare. They produce 4 million shells/yr and produce/refurbish 2,000 tanks/yr. Most of the perception of Russian incompetence boils down to western cultural hubris.

NATO's military strength is rooted in its air force, which is largely ineffective against Russia's air defenses.

---

It is curious to explain Russia's failure to beat Ukraine in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years by saying its a repeat of WW1 ... but then also extoll the virtues of Russia's 21st century warfare capabilities. It is one or the other, not both.

---

The goalposts will keep moving until we acknowledge Russia's greatness.

---

Not sure about the goalposts, but the frontlines in Ukraine are certainly moving right now.

Russia is (1) not a military pushover, and (2) has escalatory dominance in a land war at its borders. Those are the facts, and acknowledging them do not make one a Russian shill, this assessment and the ones above are rational takes based on the realities on the ground.

---

I don't think that is as much of a slam dunk as you do.

1) Russia LOST the afghan war (we did too) in taking on a truly impoverished country on its border. Arguably its failure brought down the Soviet system. They don't ALWAYS win and many of the real inefficiencies in their system are again repeating themselves.

2) Any analysis that is objective would find that russian gains are measured in yards per week and likely unsustainable expenditures. The figure that I love is that it would take Russia over 100 years to capture all of Ukraine at the current rate. 20% plus inflation isn't a good indicator of a healthy economy able to sustain the effort.

That is not to say that Russia's strength here is real. But there are REAL problems right now in Moscow - not the least of which is oil at $70 a barrel which is about 15 too low for Russia.

At the highest level it becomes what the definition of "victory" is (and I think even more important for the US - What definition of victory serves OUR interests. That is why I am just not a huge fan of the "peace at any costs because there are scenarios where that happens which are NOT in the US's interests.

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

---

Yup. It gets at a fundamental problem for a lot of autocratic systems.....they are really bad at recalibrating and not doing "stupid" things because of the high cost of opposing the autocrat.

When the histories of this are written I think it will be very interesting to read why Putin believe the Ukrainian government would quickly cave - I think that misreads significantly how much Ukrainian identity was forged in the post 1917 period - especially in the areas closer to Western Europe. But it also gets at the fundamental tension in Putin's russia and that it is an extinction level threat to have a successful democratically governed post Soviet state on his border.

---

And also, whatever the Russia stans want to argue right now, you know that they also knew this was a dumb war because they spent their time arguing that of course Putin would never actually invade Ukraine right up until the moment he did it. We even had some folks on this forum arguing that Putin would not invade while the tanks were already rolling in (I guess they hadn't gotten the new memo yet).

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

Your last comment is probably true. But whether this war is folly for Russia depends on what they view their objectives and security needs are. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant.

movielover said:

---

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

NATO lost, FAFO. The war should have never happened. Russia is now much stronger, NATO / EU in shambles. But C-A got to play w drones.

---

Please explain how losing tens of thousands of troops and a crapload of tanks and equipment makes a military stronger. And, yes, Russia had built up a whole bunch of ammunition, but now a lot of that is buried in Ukrainian soil. Are they going to dig it up and recycle it?

Maybe Russia is stronger in the sense that they saw how screwed up they were in 2022-23 and are able to make adjustments for the future... to be less incompetent.

Call me crazy, but I still favor NATO over Russia.

---

Russia now:

- has a 1.3 M man trained, experienced military; not classes or video games, actual warfare
- overcame their weak spot in drone technology
- robust manufacturing now even stronger
- alliance w Iran
- alliance w North Korean manufacturers who have shipped massive numbers of containers to the front lines
- meanwhile, MacGregor says even the US stockpile - tapped out by Israel and Ukraine '- is threadbare
- Russia now has midrange 'escalatory dominance' with their hypersonic missiles - which we can't stop. They're now experimenting with mission-specific modifications
- Europe can't provide manpower or ammunition
- you favor NATO for what? Targeting?

---

If Russia was as strong as the Rooskie-lovers like to say -- and Ukraine as depleted -- we would've long ago seen Putin posing for pictures in Kyiv, a la Hitler in Paris.

When I say I "favor NATO over Russia", I mean two things:

a) that's who I'm rooting for
b) I would favor them to win, if it were a situation where the two sides were equally motivated. Part of the problem with this war is that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do... and rightfully so.

Big C said:

---

b) I would favor them to win, if it were a situation where the two sides were equally motivated. Part of the problem with this war is that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do... and rightfully so.

---

100% agree.
The decision not to provide full robust military weaponry out of fear of Russia going nuke or angering Russia was reminiscent of Vietnam.

Zippergate said:

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

Your last comment is probably true. But whether this war is folly for Russia depends on what they view their objectives and security needs are. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant.

---

In terms of geopolitics or negotiations, yes, my opinion is irrelevant. In terms of judging the efficacy of their actions? I think we can all analyze that for ourselves, and I think it's pretty clear that Putin's choice to invade was stupid.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

b) I would favor them to win, if it were a situation where the two sides were equally motivated. Part of the problem with this war is that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do... and rightfully so.

---

100% agree.
The decision not to provide full robust military weaponry out of fear of Russia going nuke or angering Russia was reminiscent of Vietnam.

---

Yup. I would love to see us have made a huge, full-on effort to stop Russia going into Ukraine, but the risk of the war spreading (or worse, going nuclear) was always orders of magnitude worse than what's happening now.

So we had to strike a balance. It's cost us big bucks and hasn't turned out all that well, but we have nevertheless:

+ sent a message that taking over a sovereign country will be very costly. Are you taking notes, China? They are.
+ gotten a good look at the capabilities of the Russian military
+ seen how we will need to adapt our own military, going forward

It was reasonable to hope (if not to expect) that Putin would look for a face-saving way to back down, once young Russian men started returning home in body bags in significant numbers. To Putin's credit, the b******, he's held on.

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

NATO lost, FAFO. The war should have never happened. Russia is now much stronger, NATO / EU in shambles. But C-A got to play w drones.

---

Please explain how losing tens of thousands of troops and a crapload of tanks and equipment makes a military stronger. And, yes, Russia had built up a whole bunch of ammunition, but now a lot of that is buried in Ukrainian soil. Are they going to dig it up and recycle it?

Maybe Russia is stronger in the sense that they saw how screwed up they were in 2022-23 and are able to make adjustments for the future... to be less incompetent.

Call me crazy, but I still favor NATO over Russia.

---

Russia now:

- has a 1.3 M man trained, experienced military; not classes or video games, actual warfare
- overcame their weak spot in drone technology
- robust manufacturing now even stronger
- alliance w Iran
- alliance w North Korean manufacturers who have shipped massive numbers of containers to the front lines
- meanwhile, MacGregor says even the US stockpile - tapped out by Israel and Ukraine '- is threadbare
- Russia now has midrange 'escalatory dominance' with their hypersonic missiles - which we can't stop. They're now experimenting with mission-specific modifications
- Europe can't provide manpower or ammunition
- you favor NATO for what? Targeting?

---

If Russia was as strong as the Rooskie-lovers like to say -- and Ukraine as depleted -- we would've long ago seen Putin posing for pictures in Kyiv, a la Hitler in Paris.

When I say I "favor NATO over Russia", I mean two things:

a) that's who I'm rooting for
b) I would favor them to win, if it were a situation where the two sides were equally motivated. Part of the problem with this war is that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do... and rightfully so.

---

It didn't start that way, but when he realized Zelensky backed off the Istanbul Accord, and NATO wouldn't back off, the Russia War footing followed.

Further:

- we have 2 weeks supply of ammo and missiles? (Colonel MacGregor)
- we can't produce 155 shells at scale, three years in, but we had DEI and trans training sessions and funded sex change operations
- are behind in integrated air defense
- Russia has escalatory dominance w midrange hypersonic can't-be-blocked missiles; if we went to war w them, we can't use our aircraft carriers (sitting ducks)
- drove North Korea into Russian arms
- catapulted their use of integrated drone use and cheap production methods
- Russia now has a 1.3-million-man trained military
- NATO in tatters
- Russia likely takes 20% of Ukraine, or more, if a peace deal isn't brokered
- Biden stretched our yearly deficit to over $2.1 Trillion, and added roughly 200,000 new FTEs (more debt and beaucracy)
- China is definitely taking copious notes

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

Your last comment is probably true. But whether this war is folly for Russia depends on what they view their objectives and security needs are. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant.

---

In terms of geopolitics or negotiations, yes, my opinion is irrelevant. In terms of judging the efficacy of their actions? I think we can all analyze that for ourselves, and I think it's pretty clear that Putin's choice to invade was stupid.

---

So I guess what you're saying is that Russia should have just sat back and let US/NATO essentially take over Ukraine which is what was happening. I understand why you think that this is a good idea but it is not at all clear that this was the will of the people, let alone reasonable in light of geopolitical realities. You would have Russia rollover and allow a massively armed Ukraine run by rabidly anti-Russian US/NATO puppets with missiles pointed at Russia on the Ukraine/Russia border. You apparently think that Russia should have just looked the other way as the NATO-installed government brutally subjugated ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country. etc etc

It seems to me given all the history, a small-scale invasion to bring Ukraine to the bargaining table was not a "stupid" response. Russia's terms for peace were reasonable, did not involve annexing Ukrainian territory and were accepted by Ukraine. It was the US/NATO that rejected the peace and escalated this to a full-blown war. The deaths since that opening invasion (the vast majority) are on NATO for refusing to pursue peace.

Proxy war = war of aggression.

Zippergate said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Yes, and this is why I considered this war a complete folly for Putin from the beginning. Not that he couldn't win it eventually, but the costs would be way too high. As it turns out, it's going to be even costlier than imagined because he badly underestimated how much Ukrainian resistance there would be.

Your last comment is probably true. But whether this war is folly for Russia depends on what they view their objectives and security needs are. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant.

---

In terms of geopolitics or negotiations, yes, my opinion is irrelevant. In terms of judging the efficacy of their actions? I think we can all analyze that for ourselves, and I think it's pretty clear that Putin's choice to invade was stupid.

---

So I guess what you're saying is that Russia should have just sat back and let US/NATO essentially take over Ukraine which is what was happening.

---

I don't agree with this characterization of what was happening, so no. There is zero reason to believe that NATO would ever have invaded Russia.

By this logic we should take Cuba

Colonel MacGregor and others argue that we've had plans to break up Russia for decades, and numerous large corporations, including Big Ag, want their hands on Ukraine and Russia.

We're not innocent. We had 12 "secret" C-A locations on Russia's border, also allegedly bio weapons labs, not to mention Darth Nuland, $5 Billion, and a bag of tricks.

Colonel Macgregor says a lot of crap.

movielover said:

---

Further:

- we have 2 weeks supply of ammo and missiles? (Colonel MacGregor)
- we can't produce 155 shells at scale, three years in, but we had DEI and trans training sessions and funded sex change operations
- are behind in integrated air defense
- Russia has escalatory dominance w midrange hypersonic can't-be-blocked missiles; if we went to war w them, we can't use our aircraft carriers (sitting ducks)
- drove North Korea into Russian arms
- catapulted their use of integrated drone use and cheap production methods
- Russia now has a 1.3-million-man trained military
- NATO in tatters
- Russia likely takes 20% of Ukraine, or more, if a peace deal isn't brokered
- Biden stretched our yearly deficit to over $2.1 Trillion, and added roughly 200,000 new FTEs (more debt and beaucracy)
- China is definitely taking copious notes

---

DEI. Russia is winning because they are anti-DEI. You are Putin's personal bot too much, really.

The reason Russia has more ammo than the US/EU/Japan/S. Korea is that we are not motivated enough for this war to devote more resources to it. If we were attacked -- hell. if Russia went into Poland -- we would have enough ammo within the year to bury the Kremlin and Iran and N. Korea in lead. Instead, we are making cars and s***. Let me guess: you don't drive a Russian car. There's a reason for that.

movielover said:

---

Colonel MacGregor and others argue that we've had plans to break up Russia for decades, and numerous large corporations, including Big Ag, want their hands on Ukraine and Russia.

We're not innocent. We had 12 "secret" C-A locations on Russia's border, also allegedly bio weapons labs, not to mention Darth Nuland, $5 Billion, and a bag of tricks.

---

Just curious, why do you always type C-A instead of CIA? Are you afraid the key loggers on your devices will start reporting back to …umm… T.H.E.M.?

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

Further:

- we have 2 weeks supply of ammo and missiles? (Colonel MacGregor)
- we can't produce 155 shells at scale, three years in, but we had DEI and trans training sessions and funded sex change operations
- are behind in integrated air defense
- Russia has escalatory dominance w midrange hypersonic can't-be-blocked missiles; if we went to war w them, we can't use our aircraft carriers (sitting ducks)
- drove North Korea into Russian arms
- catapulted their use of integrated drone use and cheap production methods
- Russia now has a 1.3-million-man trained military
- NATO in tatters
- Russia likely takes 20% of Ukraine, or more, if a peace deal isn't brokered
- Biden stretched our yearly deficit to over $2.1 Trillion, and added roughly 200,000 new FTEs (more debt and beaucracy)
- China is definitely taking copious notes

---

DEI. Russia is winning because they are anti-DEI. You are Putin's personal bot too much, really.

The reason Russia has more ammo than the US/EU/Japan/S. Korea is that we are not motivated enough for this war to devote more resources to it. If we were attacked -- hell. if Russia went into Poland -- we would have enough ammo within the year to bury the Kremlin and Iran and N. Korea in lead. Instead, we are making cars and s***. Let me guess: you don't drive a Russian car. There's a reason for that.

---

You bypass or are ignorant of so many of our specific lapses.

- We spent almost $3 Trillion on Defense the past 4 years, and still haven't figured how to get surge capacity
- 45 4-star generals hurt
- Russia started w a stockpile
- we de-industrialized, just like most of Western Europe
- our hi-tech, costly weapons were defeated by low-cost drones and stand-off WWII artillery
- we've been gearing up for this battle for years and NATO got crushed
- for years I heard we were prepared to fight three regional wars; well, we can't handle a WWII artillery war vs Russia, and Israel turning Gaza into ruble
- Russia added North Korea as a backstop on case our proxy war expanded
- MacGregor says the estimate now is 1.2M KIA Ukrainians, and 120,000 KIA Russians and partners; this lines up w his prior numbers from 18 months ago
- this matches the 10-to-1 devastating kill ratio leaked previously from internal documents
- if Europe were to send larger deliveries of weapons or men, Russia has the capability to take them out before they even hit the battlefield
- whatever large surge fantasies you envision would be gutted by an utterly corrupt system that pinches off 50% in graft (Biden's playpen)

🇷🇺🇺🇦 A Russian 3 tone glide bomb hit a Ukranian army deployment point.

The strike was accidentally captured on video by a nearby reconnaissance drone.

The shock wave from the explosion spreads over half a kilometer. pic.twitter.com/EnZL02bqLb

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 13, 2025

You really can not believe this??? The idea that the US "wants" a ln aging middle income country with deep structural economic issues like Russia boggles the mind. You really need to out down the Bong.

A British tab is running a story with this conclusion:

"Putin's demands:

Weakened US at the negotiating table

"Complete dismantling" of Zelenskyy's government

No resolution until 2026

Creation of new buffer zone

No European peacekeeping troops

No Nato membership for Ukraine

Sovereignty over stolen land"



Please challenge the accuracy of this.

bearister said:

---

A British tab is running a story with this conclusion:

"Putin's demands:

Weakened US at the negotiating table

"Complete dismantling" of Zelenskyy's government

No resolution until 2026

Creation of new buffer zone

No European peacekeeping troops

No Nato membership for Ukraine

Sovereignty over stolen land"



Please challenge the accuracy of this.

---

Russia demands things because they are winning. I don't believe they are asking for more land than they've already taken. The terms they offered nearly three years ago were much better, but the US and UK preferred a proxy war.