The end of the article could be right, partially... New funds could be at least delayed.
So Russians are planning to wait for it, building defensive positions which will be IMHO dramatically bombed by Ukrainians with the help of West intelligence.
Another, long and regular, massacre of russian soldiers is hidding behind it, and the article will not talk about it for sure )

You know, he could already have been kicked out. Mafiosos told him to visit 1940 museum on TV if he wanted to stay alive.



He will be here "virtually" they installed a satellite relay in Lavrov's ass.

I mean Singapore is where a lot of Chinese capitalists fled to, as Cubans did to Miami.

And Mao wasn't popular just because he was "less bad" than Chang, but because the communists liberated China from external powers and then rapidly raised life expectancy, did extensive land reforms, and on and on.


Yeah, goddamnit, not looking good for that bet lmao

I really thought Kherson would be an area they wouldn't withdraw from. I can understand why they did it, but at some point the Russians need to be willing to get into a tough fight. If not to control their bridgehead on the West bank of the Dnieper, when exactly? They gonna retreat from Mariupol to 'save Russian lives'?

Crimea is my bet, but even then they might retreat a step in order to advance 2.

I think they'd kesslerize space with a couple tons of gravel before they let that happen, but who knows.

Here's the Russian calculus as I see it: Putin is finally being told the truth on the ground, instead of what his sycophants want him to hear. Further successful offensives are highly unlikely to yield gains in territory against huge Western backing, so he's going to dig in as best as possible and beg for negotiations. He's no longer going to be willing to expend huge amounts of blood because it will come with a domestic political price.

Well, you've always been wrong about the casualty numbers, so ofc it leads to bad analysis. You should ask yourself why BBC Russia went looking to prove Russian deaths were higher and found nothing, but aren't even trying to do that for Ukraine.

I think the problem is a combination of all sorts of things. Russian incompetence early on resulted in too few people defending areas that pose encirclement risks - they should have been well beyond the Dnieper with proper force size. Being too slow to escalate, and even refusing to respond to extreme aggression such as the bombing of the pipelines, has resulted in a much stronger UFA than it would otherwise have been because the West continually calls the Russian bluff. There are hard assets in space and flying around the Black Sea that Russia doesn't have the balls to hit, even though they are obviously used to kill Russians and retake Russian territory.

I think they've at every step thought they could do more with less, and it turns out you can't. Eventually they'll correct that. And then they'll find out that it's hard to anything when Americans watch every single thing you do, and eventually they'll have to decide if it's worth the risk to put an end to that, too.

Imho, Russian leadership has already been knowing this and prepared for it for weeks. The attacks against Ukraine's civilian infrastructure seem like a move designed to force Ukraine to the negotiating table, even in case they have the upper hand on the battlefield. "With all the Western backing, you might be able to beat back our troops from strategically weak positions, but can you really afford a lenghty and costly siege of our fortified positions on Crimea and in the Donbass while your civilians starve and freeze to death?"

I haven't been wrong. It's utterly disingenuous to draw distinctions between DPR, LPR, mercenary, or RU federal troop casualties. Coming along and saying "well ackshully, Russian troop losses haven't been that high" because many of the losses are being felt by parties fighting FOR RUSSIA, doesn't cut it in the game of honest discussion.

There are assets inside Russia proper that aren't attacked for the same reasons.

That's not the issue, the issue is that Russia outfires Ukrainian artillery by an enormous margin, withdraws every time they face difficulty and that results in a much higher rate of loss for the AFU.

BBC will try to debunk Russian numbers and fail, but someone working there has consciously decided trying to do the same in Ukraine would 'help Putin' or whatever.


Yep, but the threat calculus leans towards Russia. If Russian assets start getting hit, the outcome is annihilation at the hands of a Western backed army of Nazis or eventually being put into a situation where fission becomes an enticing process. If American UAVs and satellites get destroyed, the outcome is that some people they don't give a shit about have a harder time taking a place they don't give a shit about.

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Nov 9 2022 01:18pm