you'll never get anywhere when you can't even frame the question in a realistic way
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well you can make some observations.
Like why did Russia back out of Kyiv when one of their objectives was to overthrow a nazi infested government.
+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
their objective wasn't to overthrow the government
The idea that it was a regime change war is counter-intuitive. They need a legit govt in Kyiv to sign some dox. Overthrowing it would make Russia inherit a big problem.
I don't know why they retreated from the North, there are a few possibilities, I think that it was fairly costly for them militaily & the political reasoning for being there wasn't worth it any more.
They're not going to admit what role the military cost was but they were occupying settlements & just getting bombarded by UFA, they also said they saw some signs of good faith from Kyiv negotiating team on 31 March... since then Kyiv has backpeddled on that stance though, likely due to the yanks.
You can't really separate political from military "negotiations" in this conflict. It's a kind of old skool one, similar to what was taking place in Afghanistan for 2-3 years as US wanted to get out but the fighting continued.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Overthrow" as in installing a pro Russian puppet. That way it's not their problem and can make the needed changes they want. I guess taking out Zelensky would be important for this, but that hasn't panned out either.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
installing a client regime would be met with a lot of resistance internally & externally. The yanks were already talking about setting up a "government-in-exile" when they thought that might have been Russia's plan. As toxic as the Kyiv regime is, it's still preferable to dealing with the aftermath of overthrowing it imo. Look how poorly things went in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya for the yanks. They had the advantages of practically limitless military $$ and being thousands of miles away - they just walked away from Libya & forgot about it. Russia doesn't have these advantages. It's more likely to play into the hands of the US if the Kyiv regime was overthrown I'd say. Russia seeks a political settlement that involves neutrality & annexation of Crimea + independence of Donbass, not a vassal state with a failed economy. Let EU inherit what's left of Ukraine is likely more their thinking. They've not made any objections to Ukraine joining EU, only NATO. I doubt EU actually wants Ukraine either, for the same reasons, it's an economic basket case.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"installing a client regime would be met with a lot of resistance internally & externally."
Same goes for invasions. Quite a lot of resistance internally & externally.
Anyway, a puppet leader would of course be elected by "lawful referendum" as usual.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
yeah but that part is a given
installing puppet government adds to their problems in all kinds of ways & would be seen as less illegitemate than the military campaign, internally & externally (incl amongst some of the majority of countries that aren't yet onboard with the US-led anti-Russia campaign). It'd also require a force they don't have unless they were to mobilize a shit-tonne of reserves & possibly even conscripts, something that wouldn't be super popular in Russia. They'd need to occupy the entire country, a country crawling with NATO/CIA/MI6 trouble makers & whose western region is rabidly anti-Russia. It'd be a nightmare to pacify & likely turn Ukrainian moderates into anti-Russia partisans.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Either way they do it, Russia has problems. They have created a shit load of them for themselves.
What little they might gain from this, they've lost on other fronts. NATO most likely expanding, sanctions and trade with the west is sure to go down (where ever they can manage an alternative).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
Ukraine joining NATO is a deal breaker, this was known since at least 2008
US-led bloc is losing the economic war imo.
It's hard to say who's winning or losing in strategic terms ... the only clear losers are EU & Ukraine so far.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah since they weren't even going to let Ukraine in NATO I don't what the fuzz is about.
It's weird how everyone is losing but Russia. Sanctions don't do one bit, a few more NATO countries, doesn't really matter as long as it's not Ukraine. Dragging out the war, it's just what they planned all along.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
it's weird that you don't acknowledge the economic pressure facing EU countries & resort to becoming a troll in place of any substantive counter arguments
then again, you are the nong who uploaded this video so not exactly surprising
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"it's weird that you don't acknowledge the economic pressure facing EU countries"
Where did I deny this? Everyone involved is loosing here. EVERYONE.
You are just unable to acknowledge this on the part of Russia.
"resort to becoming a troll in place of any substantive counter arguments"
Take a look at your post history. Then look in the mirror.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
that dumb shit had it coming after weeks of buzzing around me like a fly trying to get attention & it has nothing to do with this convo regardless.
if you compare the political & economic resources the west has spent on their attempt to cripple Russia's economy it's has been a net loss for them, all things considered. They've vastly understimated Russia's economic & diplomatic power & jumped on a hype train they never should have. They barely even consulted their central bankers on whether these moves were smart or not. European leadership is really lacking these days & they're gonna pay for it in the months & years ahead. Biden admin has gotten their primary goal ticked off - driving a wedge between Russia & Western Europe. But at what cost & who pays, that's something the Europeans ought to be asking. Everything the US has been up to suggests their main concern is China & yet all they've been doing is driving Russia into China's arms, thinking they can isolate both at once. This is folly & will either lead to the demise of the US-centric global financial order & potentially wwiii.
if you wanna just say "everyone's losing" then why post a video with this title
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Nobody, everyone is losing!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Correct
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
"why did Russia back out of Kyiv when one of their objectives was to overthrow a nazi infested government."
In order to look at that specifically it's important to understand what kind of Warfare Russia is fighting.
Manuever warfare.Think of tanks like your chariots. Speed/mobility + Armor.
My guess is Russia wanted a significant part of Ukraines forces held at the capital to protect their main objective.
In order to do that you must project a sizeable threat to the area.
Meanwhile Russia has contributed the rest of it's deployed forces to secondary objectives acros the country. With a large part of Ukraine forces held in defense of the capital, it cannot commit to the other areas. Your army is only good wherever it is.
Meanwhile once these areas are secured, significant resources are sapped away, and the Ukraine forces are segmented into smaller pockets and unable to rally, where they can picked off little by little.
Also setting up Russian forces for an envelopment strategy on the larger forces later if they choose.
Figures I have heard so far is Ukraine and Russia will engage in between about 1 and 3 more larger scale battles before Ukraine's defeat is decisive. Two of the regions were named I just don't remember them. They weren't Kiev though. They started with N. Maybe someone with better Ukraine geography can point these areas out.
Lower estimates are by end of April to mid may These battles may be concluded.
Upper estimates are fighting may continue sporadically until the end of year.
Pentagon is hoping for a conflict that lasts years lol.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Sick to my stomach of this shit! "Kiev was a feint" would be a hillarious joke under other circumstances!
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Didn't you serve in NATO for a period of time? They didn't teach you that warfare is about deception?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
In contrary to you I actually was in the (german) military.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Maneuver warfare.Think of tanks like your chariots. Speed/mobility + Armor."
Yeah these guys werent exactly blitzkrieging the place. Poor logistics, getting stuck, out of fuel and abandoning tanks.
"My guess is Russia wanted a significant part of Ukraines forces held at the capital to protect their main objective."
And what did Russias eastern front do when they were holding Ukrainian forces occupied in Kyiv. Nothing really, the same old grind.
Everything point to them being incompetent and leaving Kyiv because it wasn't the cakewalk they expected.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
"Yeah these guys werent exactly blitzkrieging the place. Poor logistics, getting stuck, out of fuel and abandoning tanks. "
Blitzkreig is not the only manuever. And most of the stuff they lost was their old garbage that barely runs. Ukraine was set on the back foot with their garbage while the good stuff is still in reserve.
Defeated by table scraps by numbers of LESS than 1-1 of manpower. An Invasion is ill advised at less than 3-1 in pure numbers historicly. Meanwhile all the good munitions that are being sent are being expended on said Russian table scraps. Surviving conscripts will return as hardened combat veterans while the weak and unlucky perish. Minimal cost.
"And what did Russias eastern front do when they were holding Ukrainian forces occupied in Kyiv. Nothing really, the same old grind."
They secured eastern and south eastern foot holds. Decimated about 1/3 of ukrains forces, seized oil from ukrain, established air superiority, prevented Ukrain from planting during the start of farming season and smashed a number of training and munitions depots.
"Everything point to them being incompetent and leaving Kyiv because it wasn't the cakewalk they expected."
Precisely what a General wants you to believe.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
To answer the question: Russia failed in achieveing their goal to quickly get rid of the Ukrainian government and install a new pro russian government. They probably thought following the covid crisis this was easy and that Ukraine wouldn't get as much support as they do. Now they just keep on killing people and destroying infrastructure in a desperate attempt to save face and "rid the country of nazis".
THEY (again: and looking at the bigger picture everybody else) LOST! PERIOD!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
"Russia failed in achieveing their goal to quickly get rid of the Ukrainian government and install a new pro russian government."
Doing that quickly was a best case outcome. Not a vital victory condition.
"Now they just keep on killing people" Most of that is not proveable to Russians as the cause, and much is attributed to Azov.
"destroying infrastructure"
Not really. Ukraine can still communicate can it not.
"THEY (again: and looking at the bigger picture everybody else) LOST! PERIOD!"
Oh everybody lost alright. NATO sanctions and the climate change Gaia cult made sure of that.
No wheat, no livestock. No live stock no meat, dairy or eggs.
No fertilizer. No food.
No Energy or manufacturing, No Nothing.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
for whom?
The best outcome would have been if russia wouldn't have invaded ukraine in the first fucking place you dimwit!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
NATO is blameless? I think not.
Of course Putin was going to invade. He is working with Shwab and friends, as are the rest of NATO.
Better for whom? Everyone. If NATO could have just kept out of everyone's business and let him have the gypsy town then we wouldn't be in this mess. But no, All the woke leadership had to galavant their less than worthless virtue signalling to distract everyone from doing something about their own freedom.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The global damage is done.
The great reset continues and has now been accelerated.
Bird flu might be a big problem if it's not another psyop. I was always aware they would drop a real killer on the masses, I wonder if this it. We'll find out soon. Don't worry, they'll have shots for you.
*spoiler* They won't cure or prevent anything. Ah never mind. Knock yourselves out.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Also hillarious:
Meanwhile, far right-far left unity has been achieved in the European Parliament on voting against calling for an energy embargo on Russia. The German far right AfD voted together with the Czech quasi-Nazi party, the German far left Die Linke, the Czech Communist Party, the Portuguese Communist Party, and the Spanish Anticapitalist Party.
Comments
(Site Administrator)
you'll never get anywhere when you can't even frame the question in a realistic way
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well you can make some observations.
Like why did Russia back out of Kyiv when one of their objectives was to overthrow a nazi infested government.
(Site Administrator)
their objective wasn't to overthrow the government
The idea that it was a regime change war is counter-intuitive. They need a legit govt in Kyiv to sign some dox. Overthrowing it would make Russia inherit a big problem.
I don't know why they retreated from the North, there are a few possibilities, I think that it was fairly costly for them militaily & the political reasoning for being there wasn't worth it any more.
They're not going to admit what role the military cost was but they were occupying settlements & just getting bombarded by UFA, they also said they saw some signs of good faith from Kyiv negotiating team on 31 March... since then Kyiv has backpeddled on that stance though, likely due to the yanks.
You can't really separate political from military "negotiations" in this conflict. It's a kind of old skool one, similar to what was taking place in Afghanistan for 2-3 years as US wanted to get out but the fighting continued.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Overthrow" as in installing a pro Russian puppet. That way it's not their problem and can make the needed changes they want. I guess taking out Zelensky would be important for this, but that hasn't panned out either.
(Site Administrator)
installing a client regime would be met with a lot of resistance internally & externally. The yanks were already talking about setting up a "government-in-exile" when they thought that might have been Russia's plan. As toxic as the Kyiv regime is, it's still preferable to dealing with the aftermath of overthrowing it imo. Look how poorly things went in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya for the yanks. They had the advantages of practically limitless military $$ and being thousands of miles away - they just walked away from Libya & forgot about it. Russia doesn't have these advantages. It's more likely to play into the hands of the US if the Kyiv regime was overthrown I'd say. Russia seeks a political settlement that involves neutrality & annexation of Crimea + independence of Donbass, not a vassal state with a failed economy. Let EU inherit what's left of Ukraine is likely more their thinking. They've not made any objections to Ukraine joining EU, only NATO. I doubt EU actually wants Ukraine either, for the same reasons, it's an economic basket case.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"installing a client regime would be met with a lot of resistance internally & externally."
Same goes for invasions. Quite a lot of resistance internally & externally.
Anyway, a puppet leader would of course be elected by "lawful referendum" as usual.
(Site Administrator)
yeah but that part is a given
installing puppet government adds to their problems in all kinds of ways & would be seen as less illegitemate than the military campaign, internally & externally (incl amongst some of the majority of countries that aren't yet onboard with the US-led anti-Russia campaign). It'd also require a force they don't have unless they were to mobilize a shit-tonne of reserves & possibly even conscripts, something that wouldn't be super popular in Russia. They'd need to occupy the entire country, a country crawling with NATO/CIA/MI6 trouble makers & whose western region is rabidly anti-Russia. It'd be a nightmare to pacify & likely turn Ukrainian moderates into anti-Russia partisans.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Either way they do it, Russia has problems. They have created a shit load of them for themselves.
What little they might gain from this, they've lost on other fronts. NATO most likely expanding, sanctions and trade with the west is sure to go down (where ever they can manage an alternative).
(Site Administrator)
Ukraine joining NATO is a deal breaker, this was known since at least 2008
US-led bloc is losing the economic war imo.
It's hard to say who's winning or losing in strategic terms ... the only clear losers are EU & Ukraine so far.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah since they weren't even going to let Ukraine in NATO I don't what the fuzz is about.
It's weird how everyone is losing but Russia. Sanctions don't do one bit, a few more NATO countries, doesn't really matter as long as it's not Ukraine. Dragging out the war, it's just what they planned all along.
(Site Administrator)
it's weird that you don't acknowledge the economic pressure facing EU countries & resort to becoming a troll in place of any substantive counter arguments
then again, you are the nong who uploaded this video so not exactly surprising
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"it's weird that you don't acknowledge the economic pressure facing EU countries"
Where did I deny this? Everyone involved is loosing here. EVERYONE.
You are just unable to acknowledge this on the part of Russia.
"resort to becoming a troll in place of any substantive counter arguments"
Take a look at your post history. Then look in the mirror.
(Site Administrator)
that dumb shit had it coming after weeks of buzzing around me like a fly trying to get attention & it has nothing to do with this convo regardless.
if you compare the political & economic resources the west has spent on their attempt to cripple Russia's economy it's has been a net loss for them, all things considered. They've vastly understimated Russia's economic & diplomatic power & jumped on a hype train they never should have. They barely even consulted their central bankers on whether these moves were smart or not. European leadership is really lacking these days & they're gonna pay for it in the months & years ahead. Biden admin has gotten their primary goal ticked off - driving a wedge between Russia & Western Europe. But at what cost & who pays, that's something the Europeans ought to be asking. Everything the US has been up to suggests their main concern is China & yet all they've been doing is driving Russia into China's arms, thinking they can isolate both at once. This is folly & will either lead to the demise of the US-centric global financial order & potentially wwiii.
if you wanna just say "everyone's losing" then why post a video with this title
(Old Spike)
Nobody, everyone is losing!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Correct
(Old Spike)
"why did Russia back out of Kyiv when one of their objectives was to overthrow a nazi infested government."
In order to look at that specifically it's important to understand what kind of Warfare Russia is fighting.
Manuever warfare.Think of tanks like your chariots. Speed/mobility + Armor.
My guess is Russia wanted a significant part of Ukraines forces held at the capital to protect their main objective.
In order to do that you must project a sizeable threat to the area.
Meanwhile Russia has contributed the rest of it's deployed forces to secondary objectives acros the country. With a large part of Ukraine forces held in defense of the capital, it cannot commit to the other areas. Your army is only good wherever it is.
Meanwhile once these areas are secured, significant resources are sapped away, and the Ukraine forces are segmented into smaller pockets and unable to rally, where they can picked off little by little.
Also setting up Russian forces for an envelopment strategy on the larger forces later if they choose.
Figures I have heard so far is Ukraine and Russia will engage in between about 1 and 3 more larger scale battles before Ukraine's defeat is decisive. Two of the regions were named I just don't remember them. They weren't Kiev though. They started with N. Maybe someone with better Ukraine geography can point these areas out.
Lower estimates are by end of April to mid may These battles may be concluded.
Upper estimates are fighting may continue sporadically until the end of year.
Pentagon is hoping for a conflict that lasts years lol.
(Old Spike)
Sick to my stomach of this shit! "Kiev was a feint" would be a hillarious joke under other circumstances!
(Old Spike)
Didn't you serve in NATO for a period of time? They didn't teach you that warfare is about deception?
(Old Spike)
In contrary to you I actually was in the (german) military.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Maneuver warfare.Think of tanks like your chariots. Speed/mobility + Armor."
Yeah these guys werent exactly blitzkrieging the place. Poor logistics, getting stuck, out of fuel and abandoning tanks.
"My guess is Russia wanted a significant part of Ukraines forces held at the capital to protect their main objective."
And what did Russias eastern front do when they were holding Ukrainian forces occupied in Kyiv. Nothing really, the same old grind.
Everything point to them being incompetent and leaving Kyiv because it wasn't the cakewalk they expected.
(Old Spike)
"Yeah these guys werent exactly blitzkrieging the place. Poor logistics, getting stuck, out of fuel and abandoning tanks. "
Blitzkreig is not the only manuever. And most of the stuff they lost was their old garbage that barely runs. Ukraine was set on the back foot with their garbage while the good stuff is still in reserve.
Defeated by table scraps by numbers of LESS than 1-1 of manpower. An Invasion is ill advised at less than 3-1 in pure numbers historicly. Meanwhile all the good munitions that are being sent are being expended on said Russian table scraps. Surviving conscripts will return as hardened combat veterans while the weak and unlucky perish. Minimal cost.
"And what did Russias eastern front do when they were holding Ukrainian forces occupied in Kyiv. Nothing really, the same old grind."
They secured eastern and south eastern foot holds. Decimated about 1/3 of ukrains forces, seized oil from ukrain, established air superiority, prevented Ukrain from planting during the start of farming season and smashed a number of training and munitions depots.
"Everything point to them being incompetent and leaving Kyiv because it wasn't the cakewalk they expected."
Precisely what a General wants you to believe.
(Old Spike)
To answer the question: Russia failed in achieveing their goal to quickly get rid of the Ukrainian government and install a new pro russian government. They probably thought following the covid crisis this was easy and that Ukraine wouldn't get as much support as they do. Now they just keep on killing people and destroying infrastructure in a desperate attempt to save face and "rid the country of nazis".
THEY (again: and looking at the bigger picture everybody else) LOST! PERIOD!
(Old Spike)
"Russia failed in achieveing their goal to quickly get rid of the Ukrainian government and install a new pro russian government."
Doing that quickly was a best case outcome. Not a vital victory condition.
"Now they just keep on killing people" Most of that is not proveable to Russians as the cause, and much is attributed to Azov.
"destroying infrastructure"
Not really. Ukraine can still communicate can it not.
"THEY (again: and looking at the bigger picture everybody else) LOST! PERIOD!"
Oh everybody lost alright. NATO sanctions and the climate change Gaia cult made sure of that.
No wheat, no livestock. No live stock no meat, dairy or eggs.
No fertilizer. No food.
No Energy or manufacturing, No Nothing.
(Old Spike)
for whom?
The best outcome would have been if russia wouldn't have invaded ukraine in the first fucking place you dimwit!
(Old Spike)
NATO is blameless? I think not.
Of course Putin was going to invade. He is working with Shwab and friends, as are the rest of NATO.
Better for whom? Everyone. If NATO could have just kept out of everyone's business and let him have the gypsy town then we wouldn't be in this mess. But no, All the woke leadership had to galavant their less than worthless virtue signalling to distract everyone from doing something about their own freedom.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The global damage is done.
The great reset continues and has now been accelerated.
Bird flu might be a big problem if it's not another psyop. I was always aware they would drop a real killer on the masses, I wonder if this it. We'll find out soon. Don't worry, they'll have shots for you.
*spoiler* They won't cure or prevent anything. Ah never mind. Knock yourselves out.
(Old Spike)
(Old Spike)
Also hillarious:
Meanwhile, far right-far left unity has been achieved in the European Parliament on voting against calling for an energy embargo on Russia. The German far right AfD voted together with the Czech quasi-Nazi party, the German far left Die Linke, the Czech Communist Party, the Portuguese Communist Party, and the Spanish Anticapitalist Party.