Russia will not win this war

[WilliamSmith]

LOL

Under the current regime, the spirit of Ukraine is paying for Hunter Biden's crack and one man's penis in another man's anus.

True! Though you forgot other facets of the "spirit of Ukraine" under the current regime, such as keeping it as such a fertile harvesting ground for jewish "businessmen" to videotape white Ukrainian girls gang-raped by imported blacks and monetized into pornography, and to kidnap and traffic thousands of white Ukrainian girls and children into the Israeli sex trade, not to mention a focal point for subversion for NATO to surround Russia with missiles and so on.

Some recent Ukrainian heroism:



Also, I won't personally be showing up at any "white nationalist" get-togethers for various reasons (I like "women of color," LOL), but I respect Dr Duke here who has had the balls of steel to call a spade a spade on these bloodsuckers for years and is still actively reporting on the going-ons there:
https://davidduke.com/dr-duke-sr-slatte ... the-world/

[Yohan]

..... I think it will take a while but eventually Russia will win. Civilians do not know how to handle machine guys. And it's only a matter of time before Ukraine folds. Russia isn't gonna withdraw and lose its pride. Both sides are very stubborn.
.....
I don't see a massive civilian army standing up against a professional Russian army. That's fantasy.

Thre will be no winner on both sides, just destruction and to recover will take years.

It is not difficult to handle a machine gun or other small weapons, and during the last 8 days the Ukrainian civilians learnt how to handle them obviously.

To call these many Russian soldiers, who are not even 20 years old, to be a professional army....well, up to you.

From EU borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania a lot of support material including weapons are entering for the Ukrainians every day and if the support from outside is going on well they can hold out in their destroyed cities for a very long time, you cannot just remove resistance of more than 40 million people, who are supported by a large number of various countries so easily. A terrible miscalculation by Putin.

One thing is for sure, after this nightmare is finally over, every Ukrainian citizen will deeply hate Russia and this country will become one of the strongest anti-Russian nations worldwide. Likely ethnic Russians living in Ukraine will have no other choice but to relocate to east into Russian territory for their own safety.

The Russian army is dispersed, some are located in Far East, some in Central Asia, some are facing Europe usw. Russia is underpopulated with only 145 million people, despite their land is so huge. EU alone, without UK and without Ukraine has more than 440 million people.

[Winston]

Btw @ladislav. I don't think Ukraine can win this war. Kyiv is not going to be like Stalingrad in 1942. Remember that the Nazis in 1942 when they reached Stalingrad, had very thin supply lines that could not be replenished, and they were far from home. In contrast, the Russian army in Ukraine is very well supplied by supply lines from the north and south via Crimea. And they are not that far from home since Russia is next door. So the situation in Ukraine is very different than Stalingrad of WW2. The advantage is clearly in the Russian army's favor.

Plus situations like Stalingrad were unique and was meant to be a turning point in the war. Before that, the Nazis did capture many Russian cities and towns. So not every city can hold out and become a turning point. But they were stretched thin and eventually there had to be a turning point. But in this war, that's not the case. Even if the resistance forces in Kyiv do well and hold out for a long time, it's only a matter of time before they fold. This is a calculated war of attrition. The fact is, Ukraine is falling and unless NATO sends troops to intervene, Ukraine is likely to lose. That is the reality. I'm sure deep down you know that right? Of course, you are right that it may be difficult to hold and occupy Ukraine after Russia wins. However, the Russians are likely to use brutal tactics to accomplish that.

Hope this war and bloodshed ends soon somehow one way or another though. This is all very terrible and horrible.

[Yohan]

@Winston

The advantage is clearly in the Russian army's favor.

Even if the resistance forces in Kyiv do well and hold out for a long time, it's only a matter of time before they fold. This is a calculated war of attrition. The fact is, Ukraine is falling and unless NATO sends troops to intervene, Ukraine is likely to lose...

This is not so clear, small countries often can hold out over decades, without foreign soldiers in combat, as long as they have full political support from a powerful country, the supply of required materials and weapons is functioning and the people defending themselves are willing to fight it out.

The best example is likely Afghanistan, which kicked both out, the Russians and the Americans, despite totally they are only 40 million people (about the same population as Ukraine).

An interesting example is Israel, with millions of Arabs around them who want to eliminate it - it does exist, like it or not.

Also North Korea comes to my mind, so many sanctions but also so much secret supply 'from behind' - even able to develop nuclear weapons.

Cuba is also a good example of full political support and supply, despite USA is nearby.

Vietnam was able to kick out the French, suffering of a civil war north vs. south, kicked out the Americans and even was fighting against invading Chinese troops....

And what about Taiwan? I do not see any Communist politician there from China mainland since decades....

.....

I am not so sure, how this will develop with Ukraine. Any comment?

[publicduende]

I am not so sure, how this will develop with Ukraine. Any comment?

@Winston @Yohan

The way I see it, every country that is not Russia or Ukraine has already made it clear that they will not escalate this regional conflict into a full-blown world war. They might have been passing equipment and aids to Ukraine, they might have been deploying a few mercenary units, but so far they haven't sent their own army, not even under the NATO umbrella. It would be absolutely insane to do so, even if the propaganda machine is full-throttle distorting facts in favour of Ukraine and its humanitarian tragedy unfolding.

Putin will have a chance to cleanse Ukraine and turn them into a pro-Russia puppet state, no more no less than it is now a puppet state of the atlanticist powers that be. We have to wonder if one conclusion is better than the other. On a pure geopolitical standpoint, it would appear to me that a Ukraine more under the Russian sphere of influence might be beneficial for the US/Eurasian balance of power.

The problem I see is how Putin will manage having much of the whole world against them, with crippling sanctions and heightened trade walls. If, and it's a big "if" the Russian people will continue to support him, knowing that, in their hearts, "that was the right thing to do", they will have to endure a long period of isolation and mistrust. A moral bankruptcy of sorts, not dissimilar to that experimented after the fall of the Soviet empire.

What saddens me is that Putin, after all, has done no more no less than what the Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Netanyahu have been doing to a dozen far away countries for the past 20 years, only, for reasons far more vague and less compelling than Putin's right to protect Russia's sovereignty and national interest at their doorsteps.

[Yohan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... asion.html

Experts have set out five different ways that Russia's invasion could develop

It has been ten days since troops invaded Ukraine with brutal attacks on citizens

To write this I do not need to be an expert, but anyway it's published in the DailyMail...

Simply said, we do not know about the future, we will have to wait it out, how long, nobody knows...

[Yohan]

@publicduende

What saddens me is that Putin, after all, has done no more no less than what the Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Netanyahu have been doing to a dozen far away countries for the past 20 years, only, for reasons far more vague and less compelling than Putin's right to protect Russia's sovereignty and national interest at their doorsteps.

There is a big difference between Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden and Putin.

Putin declared himself by laws he made himself for president for life and also cleared himself by receiving immunity for life against any form of prosecution in Russia.

This is clearly impossible in the United States, you get 4 years and again 4 years and after you are gone, like it or not.
You might be active again in politics of course, but surely not as president of the United States.

-----
Netanyahu cannot be compared with Putin, you need only to look at a map, how tiny Israel is compared to Russia - and it is surrended by hostile countries which governments want to erase it and kill the entire Jewish population living inside this small country.
You might compare maybe in future Israel with Ukraine if the Western support is enough to survive - but to compare Israel with Russia is ridiculous.

[Cornfed]

This is clearly impossible in the United States, you get 4 years and again 4 years and after you are gone, like it or not.
You might be active again in politics of course, but surely not as president of the United States.

So a term limit makes the difference on whether it is OK to invade places. That is retarded. You are going the way of Biden.

[publicduende]

There is a big difference between Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden and Putin.

Putin declared himself by laws he made himself for president for life and also cleared himself by receiving immunity for life against any form of prosecution in Russia.

This is clearly impossible in the United States, you get 4 years and again 4 years and after you are gone, like it or not.
You might be active again in politics of course, but surely not as president of the United States.

This is because you believe that a US president elected by democratic elections my change the course of his country's economy and foreign policy. Trump did try and what happened to him has been before everybody's eyes.

With droolin' Biden, they are back where they wanted to be, where they are supposed to be. "They" are hidden powers who have ruled the US, and much of the "free" world, longer than Putin's or every bona- (or mala-) fide dictator's wildest dreams.

Netanyahu cannot be compared with Putin, you need only to look at a map, how tiny Israel is compared to Russia - and it is surrended by hostile countries which governments want to erase it and kill the entire Jewish population living inside this small country.
You might compare maybe in future Israel with Ukraine if the Western support is enough to survive - but to compare Israel with Russia is ridiculous.

I am not comparing country with country, I am listing a number of presidents whose actions have been instrumental in destablising much of the Middle East, much of the former Balkan states, and much of ex Soviet bloc countries, including Ukraine.

[flowerthief00]

I, too, suspect that Putin will regret this. Wait until we get into the ugly post-war (guerilla war) phase, which tends to happen.

This is because you believe that a US president elected by democratic elections my change the course of his country's economy and foreign policy. Trump did try and what happened to him has been before everybody's eyes.

Well, it has happened more than a few times. Otherwise would "Jacksonian", "Wilsonian", "Jeffersonian" have the meanings that they do.

[Tsar]

I, too, suspect that Putin will regret this. Wait until we get into the ugly post-war (guerilla war) phase, which tends to happen.

This is because you believe that a US president elected by democratic elections my change the course of his country's economy and foreign policy. Trump did try and what happened to him has been before everybody's eyes.

Well, it has happened more than a few times. Otherwise would "Jacksonian", "Wilsonian", "Jeffersonian" have the meanings that they do.

Wilson was responsible for selling out America to the Rothschilds and the Elites by creating the Federal Reserve Bank. Before that, America had more stability and the Treasury was in direct control of the currency. He admitted it was his greatest regret.

No American President can change history or foreign policy. The West is completely controlled by groups that rule from the shadows but give people the illusion they can choose their leaders. It's a buy in and it's also a common known psychological trick. Allow people to think something was their decision and they're more likely to accept it without question, no matter how terrible or destructive it is to them, and America like most of the West, is caught in an endless loop that they can't escape because the logic is "I voted and this is democracy, next election things will change, change of government but nothing improves, vote again, etc, etc, etc etc, etc" and it's stupid.

There won't be a post-war guerilla phase. This isn't Iraq. There won't be Zealotry. At most there might be assassinations in certain areas of Ukraine and car bombs, maybe home invasions where politicians get shot. But there won't be a guerilla war. Putin is unlikely to actually occupy the entire country but might keep military units in key areas of the country and annex certain areas like the entire Black Sea coastline, and areas of Eastern Ukraine, while putting bases on West Ukraine. But for all practical purposes, Ukraine will be autonomous like Belarus but much smaller. He isn't going to occupy all Ukraine indefinitely. He's logical and anyone knows occupying such a large territory isn't feasible or logical. And a guerilla war can only be fought against an occupation. Siege warfare is incompatible with guerilla warfare, which is why Putin knows that the only way to control Ukraine is by putting it under a siege. If the objective is to prevent it from joining NATO, extract a powerful prize, and create a buffer, he doesn't need to occupy or annex all of Ukraine. He can take the coastline, the East, and encircle Ukraine with military bases as part of a treaty with a pro-Russian government and then even if the new government was toppled, Russia resumes it's siege warfare against a demilitarized Ukraine. It's also a fact that starving, hungry, and afraid people are unlikely to want to fight or be able to fight. They will be more concerned with survival and also trying to return to normal under a new government.

The West will regret starting this conflict with Russia.

[Yohan]

I, too, suspect that Putin will regret this. Wait until we get into the ugly post-war (guerilla war) phase, which tends to happen.

The West will regret starting this conflict with Russia.

The West did not start this conflict, Putin decided to invade Ukraine, his decision.

Putin totally miscalculated the situation, he is too long in power and is suffering of megalomania.
He expected only a little resistance by a few Ukrainian people, despite Ukraine has over 40+ million ethnic Ukrainians and he expected Western countries will only complain (because Ukraine is not an EU-member and not protected by NATO) but otherwise doing nothing.

He also seems to overestimate Russian manpower and its financial situation - the country is large but it is severely underpopulated, only 145 million people - far less than EU without Ukraine and UK - and far less than USA. Out of these 145 million people around 30 millions are living in Siberia, what is left over are only maybe 115 million people or less in European Russia.

Life under Russian rule was no joke for ordinary people in countries like Hungary and former Czechoslovakia after both were invaded by Russia in 1956 and 1968. East Germany does not exist anymore and Ukraine knows the only chance for a better life without Russia is to fight it out.

I guess the conflict will continue and even if the Russians are successful to get Ukraine under their control, they will face daily attacks by local Ukrainians operating in small groups and hiding in villages. Expect a 'little Afghanistan'.

How many Russian soldiers do you need to control a country as large as France with 40+million people who hate you and want to harm you? Who pays for such an occupation force?

[Yohan]

Russia resumes it's siege warfare against a demilitarized Ukraine. It's also a fact that starving, hungry, and afraid people are unlikely to want to fight or be able to fight. They will be more concerned with survival and also trying to return to normal under a new government.

Not possible, as Ukraine has borders with Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland and these 4 countries don't want to have anything to do with Russian soldiers due to their history. There will always be support coming in from these western countries.

Hungry and afraid? Maybe the poor Russian young men who will be sent to Ukraine to control the occupation...likely many of them will use the chance to get over to the West, even risking their life to get over the border - former East Germany comes to my mind. They even had special forces which were watching the young soldiers (their own people!) and order to kill them should they try to escape.

[publicduende]

Well, it has happened more than a few times. Otherwise would "Jacksonian", "Wilsonian", "Jeffersonian" have the meanings that they do.

Of course, I am only listing the recent presidents. The US have a long history of meddling with countries outside their borders, for commercial, military or political advantage. From what I read, you guys were already harassing a bunch of South American countries on behalf of United Fruit in the early 1900's.

[Yohan]

The US have a long history of meddling with countries outside their borders, for commercial, military or political advantage. From what I read, you guys were already harassing a bunch of South American countries on behalf of United Fruit in the early 1900's.

But how is this different with the Russians? Russia has a really huge land and is still harassing all its neighbors around.
The only way to stop them is with a gun.

Finland is a good example when it was invaded in 1939 bu the Russians without any reason, this little Finland was no threat for Russia at all.
However the Finns were fighting back, 70.000 lost their life but the Russian, not prepared to such a resistance, lost over 380.000 men....

Even recently, Russia was threatening openly Finland and also Sweden. How can these 2 countries ever be a danger for the Russians...