Russia begins invasion of Ukraine

[Hughinn]

Yeah but its what Russia does its proven by history . There is no other way but to fight them i live 200 km from Ukraine thats why i feel different about the war!

I understand that you feel differently.

But what you're saying about Russians is no different than a California liberal telling me about the depraved minds of they typical Midwestern conservative and saying they know because they're both Americans

I get your bias. It's your right to believe what you want.

It doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

[GuerillaPete]

I understand that you feel differently.

But what you're saying about Russians is no different than a California liberal telling me about the depraved minds of they typical Midwestern conservative and saying they know because they're both Americans

I get your bias. It's your right to believe what you want.

It doesn't mean it's the truth.

That goes both ways

 

[Hughinn]

Hugh the whole prevent NATO expansion because we feel threatened argument for the aggression by Russia seems bogus as fuck.

Well it doesn't seem bogus to me at all.

Because if you put the shoe on the other foot and imagine Russia had orchestrated a coup in Mexico and installed a pro Russian government that began militarizing themselves immediately, then the very pro American provinces of the north of Mexico objected so the pro Russian government of Mexico began shelling them and driving them out with millions of refugees flooding into America, and Mexico announcing it's plans to join a military pact with Russia, I think we'd see it as a security concern, just like Russia does and at some point we'd surely get involved in what was going on.

Just my opinion

Finalnds now joining NATO, in resoonse to that Russia basically said “it aint no big thang” but IF they wrre really so concerned with NATO expansion then Finland joining NATO would be catastrophic to Putin, but instead Putin shrugged it off like its nothing.

Finland is a tiny liberal type democracy. Not a large hostile regime installed by a hostile foreign government.

I think that alone demonstrates this was never about stopping NATO expansion, and if it was, it has totally failed as it created further NATO expansion.

Furthermore from what ive been told (obviously i cant verify in person) Russias been moving military assets from NATO bordering regions to the war effort in Ukraine. If Russia was so concerned about NATO why would they be disarming their NATO bordering regions? Out of necessity? If thats the case then it further highlights the deficits in Russias capabilities to wage this war,

Its always seemed to me the Russians dont fear NATO as a threat to their security, but rather as a threat to their imperialist agenda of restoring historical boundaries of the soviet union as much as possible.

What about NATOs imperialist agendas?

It has not been Russia trying to expand it influence into NATO territory the past forty years. But the other way around.

Besides how can you say on one hand Russian military is a joke and can't even conquer Ukraine, but suddenly flip flop into hysterical outburst that if we don't stop them they'll take over the world?

At least be consistent

 

[malfeasance]

Where are you and retired Colonel Macgregor getting this 20% utilization of ground forces figure? The entire Russian army was only around 280,000-300,000, and you are surely aware that combat troops are only a very small part of that (just as they are with the US Army or any other country's army). Could you elaborate a little more on why you think they have only deployed 20%? Just walk us through your math so we can understand how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[malfeasance]

I'll point out that if you are relying solely on Col. MacGregor, I wouldn't. If you look back over his analysis and predictions about this war from the start, they guy is not very credible. Pretty much nothing he said back in March has turned out to be true. To be honest, he seems pretty clueless, but everybody is paying attention to him because of his prior position in the Trump administration.

The fact that he is not credible does not automatically mean that his 20% figure is wrong, but if you are relying on him as your source, I'd investigate a little further rather than relying on anything he says about anything in Ukraine.

 

[Hughinn]

Where are you and retired Colonel Macgregor getting this 20% utilization of ground forces figure? The entire Russian army was only around 280,000-300,000, and you are surely aware that combat troops are only a very small part of that (just as they are with the US Army or any other country's army). Could you elaborate a little more on why you think they have only deployed 20%? Just walk us through your math so we can understand how you arrived at this conclusion.

I can't honestly say I know where Colonel MacGregor gets his data. I would bet that his sources are likely better than mine.

I'll post a few of mine below for reference.

global firepower has the Russian military at over 850k total active personnel and 250k reserves. That's over a million people all told.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=russia

The center for strategic services states that the Russian initial invasion was around 190k troops including the militia groups in the Donbass and Crimea which were estimated to be around 50k.

That puts Russian intitial troops in the 120k to 150k for the invasion.

Note Ukraine boasted over 500k for the defense. That's well over double the forces Russia had at any given time and they were well equipped and trained by NATO

I realize this is a biased pro western article and the casualties numbers are probably not accurate, but the numbers concerning troop numbers involved in the invasion does look to be accurate. Note they claim Russian manpower at 900k with 300k reserves. But that's still in the ballpark of Colonel MacGregor.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine: Reaching the Tipping Point

In five weeks of combat, Russia may have lost 25 percent of its initial attacking force. The loss of trained troops will impair military operations and may force Russia to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

www.csis.org

Now macgregor says Russia has deployed less than 20% of it's available military capabilities. And if global firepower is accurate, then MacGregor is well within the ballpark. So he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Add this to the fact that Russia has withheld it's bombing fleets and submarine fleets to block ports launch missles and MacGregor may actually be on the high end of that estimate of 20%.

Assuming the sources are correct. But mine seems right in line with his. I came the conclusion that Russia is obviously showing a great deal of restraint here.

This leads me to believe that Putin's goal all along was to get to the negotiating table. Unfortunately since Joe Biden seems unwilling to negotiate and more than happy to fight to the last ukranian I've come to the conclusion that Russia is likely staging itself for a major, hopefully decisive ending to the conflict.

 

[Hughinn]

I'll point out that if you are relying solely on Col. MacGregor, I wouldn't. If you look back over his analysis and predictions about this war from the start, they guy is not very credible. Pretty much nothing he said back in March has turned out to be true. To be honest, he seems pretty clueless, but everybody is paying attention to him because of his prior position in the Trump administration.

You're welcome to your opinions on Colonel MacGregor. But I find him far more credible than CNN MSNBC and DNC propoganda networks.

Unfortunately the news on all sides of this is contradicting themselves and each other and everyone seems to be lying.

When I examine the circumstances and facts myself, I find myself agreeing with MacGregor and not CNN

The fact that he is not credible does not automatically mean that his 20% figure is wrong, but if you are relying on him as your source, I'd investigate a little further rather than relying on anything he says about anything in Ukraine.

Yes, I've investigated alot on this subject and found alot of contradictions and outright lies on all sides.

You shouldn't believe anything coming out of Kyiv at this point and very little coming from anywhere else.

Especially CNN. Everything on CNN is no more than Washington DC and Kyiv press releases simply rewritten like a high school cheerleader reviewing the last home game.

 

[Hughinn]

By comparison, the US invaded Iraq with over 750k US and coalition forces and went up against an Iraqi army I'll equipped, not trained and only numbering around 200-300k.

When you look objectively at what Russia has done, with the resources they used and the opposition they faced.....

I'm not sure the US military could've done better

Let's be honest, the US military has never fought against a NATO caliber trained and equipped force before. And hasn't faced an adversary equal to themselves since 1944.

I hope this can stop soon and these guys can get home to their families. Because these men are in hell right now.

Persian Gulf War: Dates & Operation Desert Storm - HISTORY

The Persian Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm, began in 1991 after President Saddam Hussein of Iraq ordered the inv...

www.history.com

 

[Hughinn]

I'd also add that our own government has lied to us repeatedly about it's own performance in all of our recent conflicts.

General David Petraeus is a prime example. For over 20 years Petraeus and other top military leaders routinely lied about the real situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We were told these countries were being rebuilt and we were "spreading democracy".

The Taliban for instance we're this evil group of facist Muslim extremist groups that had to be overthrown and removed at all costs just to "Dave the Afghan people" and Everytime these people testified to the Congress or went before the propoganda networks everything was always going right on schedule and our brave and competent leadership had the situation well in hand.

Joe Biden straight up lied and told us the Afghan army was trained and the Afghan people ready to take care of themselves.

After 20 years of these lies, we spent trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people all to replace the Taliban with......the Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was (que all of the buzzwords they're calling Putin now) and we had to "liberate the Iraqi people and "expand the borders of freedom "

Look at Iraq today.

I'm afraid this is what's in store for the Ukrainian people.




Joe Biden has shown he has no interest in trying to broker peace as long as he has Ukraine men he can arm to send against the Russians.




And why is this happening?
If every foreign policy expert the past thirty years said not to attempt to expand NATO because it would destabilize Eastern Europe and lead to war with Russia and it was a shit idea to consider.

I wonder, just who thought it was a good idea?




And their friends at Lockheed and ratheon of course. Because every new NATO member has to have a shiny new NATO arsenal

 

[malfeasance]

You're welcome to your opinions on Colonel MacGregor. But I find him far more credible than CNN MSNBC and DNC propoganda networks.

We do not simply have a choice between MacGregor on the one hand and MSNBC on the other. Both can be wrong. In some cases, both could be right, or parts right or parts wrong. Truth does not depend upon whom the speaker is.

But if I am going to appeal to authority, and just rely on a source because he is the source, then MacGregor is not going to be it, because he has been so far off in the past. That alone does not make him right or wrong this time. It just makes him unreliable.

That does not mean that I am left with only left wing news networks, and that false dichotomy is not the choice facing you, either.

 

[malfeasance]

On your numbers, I will simply state you are overlooking a few things. If you were to point to the US, we have 1.4 million military folks on active duty, but the Army has only 480,000, and out of that, only 15%, or about 72,000, are infantry, which bear the brunt of the land fighting.

Now of course there are armored and aircraft and naval forces, but the brunt of the fighting on the ground is infantry. This is the same for the Russians.

You can send in suicide drones to take out infrastructure and terrorize civilians, but at the end of the day, if you do not have boots on the ground, you do not and cannot control an area.

So I think your analysis resulting in 20% is a little misguided.

In addition, of course, the real fighting power of any nation is in its fighting age male population, and how quickly it can get them into the theater to fight. Look back at WWII, for example, and how many men were fighting for the United States at the time. Or look at your source (which draws most of its facts from the CIA fact book) and look at the number of men available to be drawn upon in a subscription in Russia, but that is far different from stating that only 20% of Russia's military capacity is being used. The number of boots on the ground in Ukraine and military capacity are not synonymous.

This is why Putin started mobilization, to have more capacity, and there is obviously lots from which to draw.

And, let's face it, the initial invasion was the result of underestimating Ukraine and overestimating Russia. Putin sent in what he thought would take down the country's government and military forces in days or a couple weeks. He assumed it would be more like the invasion of Georgia.

This error gave Ukraine time to get foreign aid, which means that Russia has to either get very serious about this invasion or basically not get anywhere. And at this point even getting very serious is not going to result in anything happening swiftly.

 

[Hughinn]

On your numbers, I will simply state you are overlooking a few things. If you were to point to the US, we have 1.4 million military folks on active duty, but the Army has only 480,000, and out of that, only 15%, or about 72,000, are infantry, which bear the brunt of the land fighting.

Now of course there are armored and aircraft and naval forces, but the brunt of the fighting on the ground is infantry. This is the same for the Russians.

You can send in suicide drones to take out infrastructure and terrorize civilians, but at the end of the day, if you do not have boots on the ground, you do not and cannot control an area.

So I think your analysis resulting in 20% is a little misguided.

Well the 20% numbers speak for themselves. And if the sources are correct, the 20% figure is correct.

You can bullshit around the point all you want.

The undisputable fact is that Russia has not used anything close it's top military might in this theater. And whether the number is 20% or 22.2% doesn't make a difference to point at hand.

In addition, of course, the real fighting power of any nation is in its fighting age male population, and how quickly it can get them into the theater to fight. Look back at WWII, for example, and how many men were fighting for the United States at the time. Or look at your source (which draws most of its facts from the CIA fact book) and look at the number of men available to be drawn upon in a subscription in Russia, but that is far different from stating that only 20% of Russia's military capacity is being used. The number of boots on the ground in Ukraine and military capacity are not synonymous.

Isn't that exactly the point?
They've got something like 20% of the boots they could put on the ground actually there.

Like you said, if you want to control territory, you've got to have boots on the ground. That's a pretty simple fact no reasonable person could dispute. And I'm pretty sure it's a fact the Russian generals are well aware of themselves.

Therefore my own conclusion, is that I find it obvious that they're not trying to hold large swaths of territory in any part of Ukraine where the local residents do not support them.

They're literally making no attempt to do so. Not even by simply having the boots on the ground, even though it's clear they could.

This is why Putin started mobilization, to have more capacity, and there is obviously lots from which to draw.

If you're suggesting this mobilization is to "take over the rest of Ukraine" I'm going to disagree.

Because their maneuvers and tactics so far have not supported that conclusion at all.
I know that CNN and Western propoganda insist that's the case. And you obviously believe that. I just don't buy it.

I guess we'll see

And, let's face it, the initial invasion was the result of underestimating Ukraine and overestimating Russia. Putin sent in what he thought would take down the country's government and military forces in days or a couple weeks. He assumed it would be more like the invasion of Georgia.

Obviously things didn't go as anybody expected.

This error gave Ukraine time to get foreign aid,

No, not accurate at all. Not even close

Ukraine had been getting foreign aid since 2014 and had the largest standing army in NATO except for the US at the time of the initial invasion.
The US and NATO had been building this force in Ukraine for years.

Arguably for the purpose of driving ethnic Russian people out of Eastern Ukraine and to threaten Russia
They were well equipped, well trained and prepared.

which means that Russia has to either get very serious about this invasion or basically not get anywhere. And at this point even getting very serious is not going to result in anything happening swiftly.

Here we agree.

Russia has to end this decisively or else face further NATO expansion and constant coup attempts in it's outlying members of the federation.

The US state department has already tried multiple times to coup the governments of Belarus, Kyrgyzstan Russian allies of Syria and Iran. In fact, I don't think there's a government in the world friendly to Russia that the US hasn't tried to overthrow.

So I agree, if Russia can't end this decisively then the world economic forum and the western banking alliance under the guise of NATO "defense" measures will continue it's march through the Russian federation and around the globe.

We'll see
Maybe they'll succeed and run the same playbook in China and Taiwan

Or maybe Russia succeeds and the few remaining independent nation states will survive for a little bit longer

 

[Hughinn]

We do not simply have a choice between MacGregor on the one hand and MSNBC on the other. Both can be wrong. In some cases, both could be right, or parts right or parts wrong. Truth does not depend upon whom the speaker is.

Well said my friend

But if I am going to appeal to authority, and just rely on a source because he is the source, then MacGregor is not going to be it, because he has been so far off in the past. That alone does not make him right or wrong this time. It just makes him unreliable.

I have yet to find a reliable source in this matter.
Our own news networks are among the worst.

If you can share any, I'd like to see them.

That does not mean that I am left with only left wing news networks, and that false dichotomy is not the choice facing you, either.

True.
What sucks is that we have to actually search for the truth and wade through lies.
That's why I like to share perspective and debate.
More often than not the truth exposes itself in the form of cold hard logic.

 

[Inspired]

Russia seriously hasn't begun...........anything. The Russians have been trying very hard to not destroy infrastructure or turn civilians against them.

The Russians wanted to do exactly what they said: secure areas like Donbass. They didn't plan on taking the entire Ukraine. They clearly wanted to deter NATO, because NATO has broken all the rules and become an intolerable aggressor. Russia assumed they'd roll on through and accomplish this, since to be honest, if you know the history of Ukraine and the shelling those areas etc, it was not only fair but absolutely needed.

Initially, the Russians rolled through, with mechanized units, armor units, supply convoys etc. They conducted some specialized missions throughout the country (there's a lot of speculation about these), but those missions weren't indicators of them trying to take the entire country.

I think Russia assumed that NATO would back off and never be so stupid to interfere in this way. I think the Russians wanted to send a signal saying "knock it off" and they expected NATO to do so.

They didn't expect that NATO was going to fight them. No way.

So far, it's been guerrilla warfare with Americans as the guerrillas, fighting the Russians. Because the Russians didn't expect this obviously, they got hit very hard.

You have the Americans with 20 years of experience in this style of fight. Conventional military vs insurgents. A replay of Iraq. With new weapons.

The Ukrainians aren't doing shit. It's Americans and contractors. Everyone knows this.

Once again, I think Russia intended to do exactly as Putin said in his speech: secure Donbass etc. They rolled around the country (not to take over the country), conducting other missions along the way.

My guess is the Russians have learned a lot. They made the mistake of underestimating the clown world we live in today and never expected this type of insane NATO response. But rest assured, the Russians haven't begun anything. The Russian Bear is still trying to stay in hibernation, patiently, but oh boy, if they commit to fighting this war.........everyone is FUCKED. Remember the war isn't only fought on the battlefields.

What's stopping the Russians from creating levels of industrial sabotage that will stop entire local or even entire sectors of the world economy? One can brainstorm and come up with a million ways for angry Russians to cause disruptions. Sure, we could do the same to them, but their society is more homogeneous and outsiders are detected very easily, which would largely prevent this type of warfare.

Russia is far more stable than the West and and is positioned far better to survive economic disruptions. America is falling apart, and everyone is at odds with each other. Long term, a country like Russia will survive.


I think Russia can do a lot. I can think of a million alternative strategies. They haven't even begun to fight.

Ultimately, they do have the manpower and they may have to occupy Ukraine and take the entire country now. That's what I would do. The Ukrainians don't care who wins. Throughout history, they have always been in the middle of these conflicts and then sided with the winner. Deep down they know that, and they know life continues either way. That's why all these fake stories of "brave Ukrainians" fighting are a larp and fake news. It's a US led insurgency with new weapons. That's the deal for now.

 

[GuerillaPete]

Russia seriously hasn't begun...........anything. The Russians have been trying very hard to not destroy infrastructure or turn civilians against them.

The Russians wanted to do exactly what they said: secure areas like Donbass. They didn't plan on taking the entire Ukraine. They clearly wanted to deter NATO, because NATO has broken all the rules and become an intolerable aggressor. Russia assumed they'd roll on through and accomplish this, since to be honest, if you know the history of Ukraine and the shelling those areas etc, it was not only fair but absolutely needed.

Initially, the Russians rolled through, with mechanized units, armor units, supply convoys etc. They conducted some specialized missions throughout the country (there's a lot of speculation about these), but those missions weren't indicators of them trying to take the entire country.

I think Russia assumed that NATO would back off and never be so stupid to interfere in this way. I think the Russians wanted to send a signal saying "knock it off" and they expected NATO to do so.

They didn't expect that NATO was going to fight them. No way.

So far, it's been guerrilla warfare with Americans as the guerrillas, fighting the Russians. Because the Russians didn't expect this obviously, they got hit very hard.

You have the Americans with 20 years of experience in this style of fight. Conventional military vs insurgents. A replay of Iraq. With new weapons.

The Ukrainians aren't doing shit. It's Americans and contractors. Everyone knows this.

Once again, I think Russia intended to do exactly as Putin said in his speech: secure Donbass etc. They rolled around the country (not to take over the country), conducting other missions along the way.

My guess is the Russians have learned a lot. They made the mistake of underestimating the clown world we live in today and never expected this type of insane NATO response. But rest assured, the Russians haven't begun anything. The Russian Bear is still trying to stay in hibernation, patiently, but oh boy, if they commit to fighting this war.........everyone is FUCKED. Remember the war isn't only fought on the battlefields.

What's stopping the Russians from creating levels of industrial sabotage that will stop entire local or even entire sectors of the world economy? One can brainstorm and come up with a million ways for angry Russians to cause disruptions. Sure, we could do the same to them, but their society is more homogeneous and outsiders are detected very easily, which would largely prevent this type of warfare.

Russia is far more stable than the West and and is positioned far better to survive economic disruptions. America is falling apart, and everyone is at odds with each other. Long term, a country like Russia will survive.


I think Russia can do a lot. I can think of a million alternative strategies. They haven't even begun to fight.

Ultimately, they do have the manpower and they may have to occupy Ukraine and take the entire country now. That's what I would do. The Ukrainians don't care who wins. Throughout history, they have always been in the middle of these conflicts and then sided with the winner. Deep down they know that, and they know life continues either way. That's why all these fake stories of "brave Ukrainians" fighting are a larp and fake news. It's a US led insurgency with new weapons. That's the deal for now.

So a 65 km convoy of artillery wasn't there to encircle and take Kiev?
Thats a good one i think you and the other guy have no idea what you are talking about and no matter what happens and what arguments you get presented its you are leftist , manipulated or trust propaganda this is your get out of jail free card in any argument .

 

[Norse13]

Now macgregor says Russia has deployed less than 20% of it's available military capabilities. And if global firepower is accurate, then MacGregor is well within the ballpark. So he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Add this to the fact that Russia has withheld it's bombing fleets and submarine fleets to block ports launch missles and MacGregor may actually be on the high end of that estimate of 20%.

Assuming the sources are correct. But mine seems right in line with his. I came the conclusion that Russia is obviously showing a great deal of restraint here.

I think you are mixing up "percentage available military capabilities" with proportion of available personnel.

There's a huge difference in the combat capabilities and survivability of a Russian battalion tactical group (Батальонная тактическая группа) of 800 men with air defense, artillery, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles versus a hastily thrown together light infantry batallion of 800 reservists with mostly trucks and little armour and heavy weapons.

20% of available personnel does not in any way mean 20% of military power (army).

Likewise, 1000 men from Wagner Group will contribute hugely more combat power than 1000 poorly trained, poorly equipped, demoralised reservists with no artillery and armour support.

I find this whole calculation a bit strange.

 

[Inspired]

So a 65 km convoy of artillery wasn't there to encircle and take Kiev?
Thats a good one i think you and the other guy have no idea what you are talking about and no matter what happens and what arguments you get presented its you are leftist , manipulated or trust propaganda this is your get out of jail free card in any argument .

No, the convoy wasn't there to encircle and take Kiev. Convoys are convoys. Units are units. They are always on the move. Have you ever served in the military? If not, then shut up.

 

[GuerillaPete]

No, the convoy wasn't there to encircle and take Kiev. Convoys are convoys. Units are units. They are always on the move. Have you ever served in the military? If not, then shut up.

I wont shut up because you talk nonsense!
Fucking Orc lover dick munching piece of shit !

 

[Hughinn]

I think you are mixing up "percentage available military capabilities" with proportion of available personnel.

There's a huge difference in the combat capabilities and survivability of a Russian battalion tactical group (Батальонная тактическая группа) of 800 men with air defense, artillery, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles versus a hastily thrown together light infantry batallion of 800 reservists with mostly trucks and little armour and heavy weapons.

20% of available personnel does not in any way mean 20% of military power (army).

Likewise, 1000 men from Wagner Group will contribute hugely more combat power than 1000 poorly trained, poorly equipped, demoralised reservists with no artillery and armour support.

I find this whole calculation a bit strange.

You're talking about forced Russia has committed.

I'm talking about they're overall capabilities.

They're not even scratching the surface of what they could really do if they had to.

And they're literally up against all of NATO by themselves.

Smart leadership would be at the negotiating table, not standing on the sidelines talking shit like Joe Biden has chosen to do.

This is not benifited the Ukrainian people and the longer it goes on, the worse the negotiating circumstances will be for Ukraine.

The whole thing is madness

 

[GuerillaPete]

Here's what happened till now


View: https://youtu.be/4mJT452uDDc