Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Strix454]

I knew Hillary was basically guaranteeing a war with Russia, but how do you explain in 2012 when Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to the US, and Obama, the media, and the entirety of the left constantly mocked him about it. I suppose it was too early to show their hand, and any chance to shit on Romney was exploited. Then again, Obama had his hot mic moment with Putin around that time where he told Pootie to be patient and that he could be more flexible with Russia once the election was over. I seriously doubt Obama and Hillary are on opposite ends of that issue.

US policy in 2012 was to pressure the Ukrainian government into signing an association agreement with the EU. The pressure was brought in a number of different ways including heavy involvement in Ukrainian domestic politics. The Ukrainian government was playing the US and Russia off against each other to get more money and concessions.

Ukraine eventually turned down the US deal because it was worse than the Russian deal financially and demanded that Ukraine make political concessions to strengthen the opposition parties to the government.

When Ukraine turned down the EU association agreement, US policy shifted to encouraging an uprising and violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine through their surrogates.

At every step, they expected the Russians to back down. That the Russians would eventually accept Ukraine being in the EU and being in NATO. That the Russians would accept the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Obama just wanted "peace" Surely the Russians could not get in the way of any of this. The Obama policy toward Russia was as hostile as the Clinton policy. But the Obama policy assumed that the Russians could be convinced to give the US what it wanted in Ukraine through peaceful means.

What Romney did was considered wrong because what he said should only have been said in private. US policy since the 1990s has been to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the EU and NATO at any price. Then to use Ukraine and Georgia as a weapons against Russia. They would gain what they wanted either through cooperation with Russia or hostility with Russia.

Once the government of Ukraine had been overthrown, they moved to the next step in their plans. They could at that point afford to be completely hostile to Russia on the subject of Ukraine. That was the heart of Clinton's public attitude in 2016. But the plan was always to arm Ukraine, get it into NATO and then use it as a weapon against Russia.

The policy and its long-term goals never change. Only the public face and the style of public arguments made by the US ruling class changes.

 

[Shallow Wave]

NATO is using ukrops as lab rats to see how Russia responds to attacks and come up with solution.

Thats just cope on the tier of "we are just testing our equipment" and "we are just killing Russians with others hands", because none of the three is actually happening.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Obama was running for reelection and that statement was a chance for future plausible deniability for the shit the US was doing to subvert Russia with the added bonus jab at Mitt.

Here's another dirty secret. Whoever controls the resources underground in Asia will control the world in a few decades. Everything our future depends on is made with that stuff. That's just the resources we know about. A huge part of Russia is unexplored permafrost that's now thawing out. Some estimates guess there's more under there than still exists everywhere else combined. Imagine Russia with wealth that eclipses Saudi Arabia. Yeah we'll start a nuclear war to prevent that.

That and

I seriously doubt Obama and Hillary are on opposite ends of that issue.

They are but they aren't; my understanding was he and his camp were against an invasion of Libya but Hillary, Susan Rice and Samantha Power wore him down. Similarly the Obama camp favored a less confrontational approach while the Hillary camp was more aggressive towards Russia. Both were confrontational towards Russia, its just that Obama and his backers were less so, and thus far less likely to encourage the hohols to go after Crimea; Crimea was, and is, Russia's red line.

Hillary is still madder than a wet cat about losing the election because she had plans for the Ukraine and Russia, as did a good many in Congress. If you didn't notice a lot of their offspring had no show jobs in Ukraine so at the very least it was a way for them to grab some of Ukraine's wealth and resources for their families. Like Strix said they wanted to use it to get at Russia as well, but those weren't the only reasons they wanted it.

It was also their debauched playground; Hunter Biden took full advantage of it.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

It was also their debauched playground; Hunter Biden took full advantage of it.

It would not surprise me one bit if when the truth does come out in 50 years we learn that the CIA was running Hunter as an asset. It'd be poetic if true and they can't present that as a defense without admitting the US really did instigate this war and had planned to for years.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

It would not surprise me one bit if when the truth does come out in 50 years we learn that the CIA was running Hunter as an asset. It'd be poetic if true and they can't present that as a defense without admitting the US really did instigate this war and had planned to for years.

I mean its no secret the US was using UPA criminal Nazi filth like Roman Shukhevych to get at the USSR/Warsaw Pact to destabilize them. As the USSR began to liberalize, in large part due to American and European open and secret campaigns, and Warsaw Pact began to renounce socialism, the clandestine networks popped up again in Galicia. Ukrainian nationalism was carefully cultivated as far back as the 1980s, and very likely before that.

We have always been at war with Oceania Russia.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

company for moral and psychological support.

Good to see the Sword and Shield of The Party is alive and well in Ukraine.
Erich Honecker would be proud, Hohols.

 

[Napoleon III]

Their pre-war military was never any good to begin with. Before 2014 it was the corrupt and decaying remains of what had existed in Soviet Union times. It was poorly funded, badly equipped and barely capable of anything.

Before and around the Donbas war the Ukrainian Military was pretty damn bad I'll agree to that. However the decaying remnants of the Red Army Ukraine received was enough to make a quite capable military after the Donbass war. Ukraine got the largest portion of the Equipment the Red Army had. They let most of it decay away into nothing but that bit they managed to save was strong enough to make Ukraine the 2nd strongest army in Europe. They had mor tanks in inventory than all other European NATO members combined. This war has been mostly fought until somewhat recently with the remnants of the Red Army. Also worth considering that Ukraine has a lot of people who got combat experience in 2014. That is incredibly valuable to the functioning of an army in war. War is extremely difficult and stressful and having officers who are not green and have commanded under fire is a massive bonus. Ukraine in 2022 was a fairly capable army. More capable than any NATO country with the exception of the US.

As that sort of army, they can do ok on the defensive. Then can put small units into trench positions - tell him to stay there - and they will generally give an OK account of themselves.
But try to put them on the offensive and they are completely lost. They send wave after wave of men and equipment at fixed positions without any particular strategy or coordination. See Robotyne. See Krinky.

This is somewhat true and also somewhat not true and this forgets both some offensive success Ukraine has had and some massive offensive failures Ukraine has had. Don't forget the Kherson offensives that were an absolute disaster in the attempt to push Russia over the river that didn't really do anything except get a bunch of Ukrainian killed. However Ukraine did manage to have a successful offensive when they retook some of the land in Kharkov and other places I can't remember the name of around that time. This was a success, though it is interesting to note that a lot of the successful offensive actions were done using foreign volunteers. An entire army doesn't need to be suitable for offensive action in order to be successful. A small core of elite units that does the offensive action while the rest of the army supports is a very reasonable strategy.

I can give you an example of good decision making Ukraine made semi-recently on a operational scale. When the Russian Marines were pushing into Ugledar and it looked like it might be taken fairly quickly, Ukraine made a good operational choice fairly quickly and put units in the right position to stop the Russian Marine's advance. This decision required good tactical and operational knowledge in a short time frame.

The 2023 counteroffensive did more than just fail. It destroyed all of their reserves and any ability to rotate units out and any ability to raise standards of units through training.

This is entirely true. Ukraine burned resources to accomplish nothing and they really needed those resources. And because they burned those resources they will have to burn more resources they currently have to stay alive.

All in all I'd say the 2022 Ukrainian army was a fairly capable army especially in comparison to several other powers. I don't think they would have held on this long against Russia if this wasn't true. It is worth not underestimating Ukraine especially in the past. Ukraine is capable which is why this war has been bigger and bloodier than anything in several decades.

I mean its no secret the US was using UPA criminal Nazi filth like Roman Shukhevych to get at the USSR/Warsaw Pact to destabilize them. As the USSR began to liberalize, in large part due to American and European open and secret campaigns, and Warsaw Pact began to renounce socialism, the clandestine networks popped up again in Galicia. Ukrainian nationalism was carefully cultivated as far back as the 1980s, and very likely before that.

I can't remember who said it but there was a soviet official arguing back in 1945 why Galicia should not have been included as a part of Ukraine and it would cause problems down the line. Though I have to agree with Putin that this conflict has it roots in the division of the Rus parts of the Poland Lithuanian Commonwealth between the Russian and Austrian Empire. Even modern day Ukrainian, insofar as it actually exists, was created from a Russian Peasant dialect by the Habsburgs as to try and sever the ties between Ukraine and Russia.

 

[Male Idiot]

Not trying to be a dick, but you said Russia can't defeat Europe and now that the hohols had the strongest army in Nato besides US.

Unless you mean the US in Europe, no, if the Ukies couldn't beat the ruskies, what makes you think lets say Poland could?

The only thing to halt Putin in a hypothetical WW3 would be the US army in Europe, if Shaniqua with 2 moms can steer the troopships away from islands. And even that gets dubious if China gets involved, even if we say all US wunderborgar F35 works perfectly.

 

[BallsOfaKiwi]

Not trying to be a dick, but you said Russia can't defeat Europe and now that the hohols had the strongest army in Nato besides US.

Unless you mean the US in Europe, no, if the Ukies couldn't beat the ruskies, what makes you think lets say Poland could?

The only thing to halt Putin in a hypothetical WW3 would be the US army in Europe, if Shaniqua with 2 moms can steer the troopships away from islands. And even that gets dubious if China gets involved, even if we say all US wunderborgar F35 works perfectly.

Polands army equals that of Russias in terms of active manpower, in a limited war Poland holds off Russia almost alone, for a while. What none of these small European countries have is the stamina to hold off Russia in a long war: Resource wise, production wise, manpower wise, etc. Maybe even resolve wise.

But together? Easily, up to the point where Russia uses nukes or Europe disintegrates from internal strife.

But all this means doing things that will seriously disrupt the life of Europeans and our delusions about what a war really is.

 

[Ashkenazi Porn Actress]

Most folks don't realize that this Ukraine/Russia adventure was supposed to kick off under President Hillary but Trump threw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan that's been in the works for over a decade.

Coincidentially there was also material in the Open Society Foundation hack that suggested that the first round of BLM protests were supposed to deliver the justification for a broad federalization of police forces in the US.
I'm genuinely not sure if the 'muricans understand what a giant bullet they dodged in 2016.

 

[Male Idiot]

Polands army equals that of Russias in terms of active manpower, in a limited war Poland holds off Russia almost alone, for a while. What none of these small European countries have is the stamina to hold off Russia in a long war: Resource wise, production wise, manpower wise, etc. Maybe even resolve wise.

But together? Easily, up to the point where Russia uses nukes or Europe disintegrates from internal strife.

But all this means doing things that will seriously disrupt the life of Europeans and our delusions about what a war really is.

I was asking Napoleon 3 as his assesment had both things.

But I think you overestimate how much Europe can fight.

Serbs are pro Russia. Croatia is.. I am not sure on public support. Slovakia is dragging its feet, and Hungary knows better than to fight the Ruskies for a fourth time. Romania may fight, but its too near. Sweden is a joke.

UK is Pakistan at this point. Wermacht has gun painted brooms. French likely are more arab than baguette, and even the latter hadn't been worth a damn for a century. Poles are retarded toilet cleaners, baltics are yappy dog microstates. Italy? Not even Mussolini could make them into a good army, so no way in hell Meloni can.

Migrants and Sanctions already disrupted lives and nobody fought back. If they couldn't shoot Soros's smugglers, you think they'll face the red hordes? Who got artillery and planes?

So even if we are optimistic, you got Czech, Croat, Poland, Romanian and Finnish armies, and the front 2 aren't very strong. And remember much wargear was sent out already. Even Hungary that started re-arming after Trump has only the Leopard 2s that just got fragged in the Ukraine. Europe isn't sitting on thousands of the most up to date Abrams XXXLs.

Finland is the best bet for actually holding them back. The mad pervitin lads did the impossible once already.

Turkey is the second good bet but the US/EU spent the last 2 decades shitting on them.

Hungary has 36 (24 Phz 2000/ 12 D-20)artillery, 54 (34 T72/20 Leopard2) tanks, 20 aircraft (8 Hind/12 Gripens). 23 thousand troops and 600 BTR 80s.

And that's almost near peer to Romania who get more stuff but less modern currently.

 

[BallsOfaKiwi]

The Frogs have elite formations that are good. The French legion is still the French legion. French tanks are still French tanks, what people forget is that neither the Soviets nor the Germans had anything that the French had when WW2 hit off. The Leclerc tank has been considered the worlds best tank up to these new things coming out of Russia and Japan. Leopard was close after but we see how easily they blow up.

I don't really think that the militaries of Europe are sissified little paper tigers, even if its funny to imagine that they are.

Look you can have just so much on the frontline at once and man it.
Poland has more than enough to man its entire frontline. But gaps appear in 2-3 months of fighting and then there's nothing to plug those gaps.


Europe doesn't really need America to defend against a country that has 1/10th of its GDP. This war is just a scam for the arms manufacturers as inflation and arms transfers draw money from the population into the pockets of war profiteers. But its not like Russia is close to depleting its vast Soviet stocks that are being constantly beefed up by an economy gearing up for war .

In relation to that guy you were quoting, I have no idea what Ukraines army is or isn't. But just like Poland its only fit for a war of 2-3 months and then needs supplies. Russia isn't fighting Ukraine as you all know here, Russia is fighting Europe/NATO already, its just that Europe/NATO can afford to not gear up its economy fully because its so much larger. The only difference here is that its Ukranians dying constantly instead of various Europeans. Without American help the Europeans have to radically fuck with their own living standards if they want to keep the war going.

There would be no difference on the ground. IF anything I imagine Polish soldiers are better trained and at this point perhaps even better motivated than Ukranians.

 

[Midwit]

@Male Idiot
I think you're underselling the French, and the Bongs still have some formations that are actually worth a damn.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

And even that gets dubious if China gets involved

Hence why I can't take the Biden administration and the current US establishment seriously; they actually sperged so hard they brought Russia and China closer together, the last thing they should have done.

Finland is the best bet for actually holding them back.

They may be capable but they don't have the manpower.

Europe doesn't really need America to defend against a country that has 1/10th of its GDP

Did you get fired up by Grant Shapps' rah rah speech? It would not be Russia alone, especially if the Eternal Anglo decides it still has one last meatgrinder of a war left in it.

I think you're underselling the French, and the Bongs still have some formations that are actually worth a damn.

I don't think he is; he's taking into account the political will of a people to fight, and there are more nafris than Gauls at this point. Same with the UK, its a Paki and West Indian/African outpost as well. The US is trying to do the same by flinging its borders open to the world.

Russia may be be more than the Rus but its had centuries of experience in integrating its various ethnicities and religions; European countries and the USA have not.

 

[Male Idiot]

Elite formations and tanks are exactly what didn't matter shit in this conflict and what Nato has been doing for the last 30 years.

Drones fucked them raw. New account, haven't followed the thread, makes sense.

Manpower is good, airpower is good, but AA, Artillery and drones now rule the battlefield.

It may change in another decade or two, but for this war that's it, the age of the tank spearhead and super elite commandos winning wars is over for now.

 

[Betonhaus]

I strongly believe the whole point of the offensives was to expose Russian warfighting methods and strategy through repeated tests.
NATO is using ukrops as lab rats to see how Russia responds to attacks and come up with solution

Tbh I don't quite see what NATO can do with that information. Pretty much all of the countries in NATO has spent a long time suppressing patriotism in their countries and are experiencing shortfalls in their millitaries. They just won't have the manpower or weaponry to take on Russia

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

Are you faggots so retarded as to not recognize so obvious that its painful socks? And I thought that ukrofans are this level of idiot.

 

[IKOL]

I am not dumb remove the dumb reactions immediately

Poshel nahui.

 

[Napoleon III]

Not trying to be a dick, but you said Russia can't defeat Europe and now that the hohols had the strongest army in Nato besides US.

Unless you mean the US in Europe, no, if the Ukies couldn't beat the ruskies, what makes you think lets say Poland could?

The only thing to halt Putin in a hypothetical WW3 would be the US army in Europe, if Shaniqua with 2 moms can steer the troopships away from islands. And even that gets dubious if China gets involved, even if we say all US wunderborgar F35 works perfectly.

I can understand how you could find what I said contradictory. Though if you look again you'll see I said some specific things that mean that it isn't contradictory. I said Russia couldn't conquer and hold all of Europe. Relative strength of army is a good way to compare the competency of a military and even capability but it doesn't mean that a military will win in all possible scenarios which could hypothetically occur. The US would easily win in a war against Russia fought on US soil and Russia would easily win a war against the US fought on Russian soil. If Russia were to fight in France having conquered Poland, Germany and most of Eastern Europe they would be at a tremendous disadvantage even though they are the stronger army.

I bet Russia could conquer most of Eastern Europe if they really wanted to. I don't know how far they could get past that maybe they could hypothetically take Germany. But eventually the amount of troops required would be too great and the logistical strain would be too much and Russia would take too many losses and they wouldn't be able to conquer all of Europe. Not that Russia even has any reason to conquer any of Europe. Considering the demographic situation in Russia wars that cause large amounts of casualties are very bad. Russia has the the strongest army in Europe but Russia as a state does not have the resources to conquer all of Europe. Particularly they are missing the manpower they need.

One thing this war has taught everyone is that guys holding rifles in fortified positions are still a pain in the ass to deal with on the offensive. It is a simple thing to maintain and produce but it requires a lot of resources to deal with on the offensive. You need artillery and armor and assault detachments etc.

 

[Overly Serious]

I strongly believe the whole point of the offensives was to expose Russian warfighting methods and strategy through repeated tests.
NATO is using ukrops as lab rats to see how Russia responds to attacks and come up with solution.

Undoubtedly NATO is capitalising on this to the extent they can. But to say this is "the whole point" is a little crazy. The price being paid is far too high for just that. Not least because in return Russia is getting battle-hardened experienced troops and unlike Ukraine has the numbers and resource to properly rotate troops so that experience is preserved not lost in the next ill-considered push. And on the NATO side, there's the cost that the whole world is seeing that it is possible to stand up NATO troops and NATO tanks. I mean, have we actually seen the Abrams tank put into the battle yet? Or are the US terrified of the optics of seeing Russia blow one to crap?

No, the USA was absolutely gearing up for conflict. The years of fortifying Bakhmut and Avdiivika weren't about defending against Russia invasion as they were about creating staging grounds to threaten Russia with a push from Ukraine. Russia pre-empted all of this by moving in and in terms of preserving their country they made the right call. The sanctions were supposed to cripple Russia and they haven't.

Yes, NATO has learned stuff from this but that was not remotely "the whole point". And also unfortunately for NATO a lot of what they've learned is that their much touted "NATO training" and focus on assumed air superiority just doesn't work against a peer force and what's needed is manpower and cheap drones, not billion dollar tanks. Which frankly is bad news for the MIC.

I bet Russia could conquer most of Eastern Europe if they really wanted to. I don't know how far they could get past that maybe they could hypothetically take Germany

Russia could easily conquer Germany. The problem is Poland is in the way.