Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 554

On August 23 2023 03:03 captainwaffles wrote:


My main argument is that NATO has thrown 40k+ bodies into this "counter offensive" and they haven't even reached the first offensive zone. This idea that Ukraine can punch through Russia's defense is absurd, and it's getting people killed, for no reason.

Y'all might think I'm the bad guy for being pro Russia, but from the beginning, back in February of last year, I could do basic math and I knew that Russia had more people and more industrial output, and Ukraine never stood a chance. And I knew this would end however and whenever Russia wanted it too.

Douglas MacGregor just went on Tucker Carlson's show and said, according to his sources on the ground, that Ukraine has lost 400,000 people in combat since the start of the SMO. And that it was clear that the Minsk accords were just a time buying tactic to give the Ukrainians more time to mount an offensive against Russia.

MacGregor goes onto to say that the Russian machine that has been mobilized to defend itself can't be beat by NATO, even if the Americans and co go in on the ground. Which would then necessitate a nuclear response from NATO, which would trigger that scene from Terminator 2 where everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.

So, in short, my argument is that NATO needs to just give up on their aspirations of toppling the Russian government, and that we should live in peace, for the sake of all life on earth.

On August 23 2023 06:35 Excludos wrote:


Why do you people keep saying "NATO" is doing this, "NATO" is doing that..? Ukraine is throwing bodies at the counter offensive.

I know this is unfathomable for Russians, but Ukraine is an independent country with the ability to make their own decisions. They are fighting for their freedom and the sovereignty of their own country. NATO does not control Ukraine, they are merely supplying them with equipment and training because fuck Russia. This is not a Russia vs NATO war. This is a Russia vs Ukraine war, with NATO supporting on the sidelines. If Russia wins this war, NATO has not lost. If Ukraine wins, NATO did not win it. All honors goes to Ukraine alone

On August 23 2023 03:37 maybenexttime wrote:

NATO is not even fighting in this offensive, let alone throwing 40k bodies.

Several pages ago I posted a video showing that literally every claim made by MacGregor during the first year of the war was utterly wrong. Kyiv was supposed to fall within weeks, Ukrainians were getting into cauldrons across the whole front, Russia was supposed to launch an unstoppable winter offensive, the Ukrainian society was on the brink of collapsing due to Russia's attacks on the infrastructure. None of that was real. Why do you keep posting this crap?

On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
It's also Scott Ritter, who single handedly delayed the US invasion of Iraq for 5 years because he refused to lie on behalf of the CIA.

On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?

People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.

After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.

I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.

The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to.

On August 23 2023 09:21 Salazarz wrote:


Even by your standards, this is a pretty poor post.

Lend-lease to USSR played a significant role in WW2 without a doubt, sure, but that doesn't really take anything away from an absolutely monumental effort of the Soviets in that war. Talking about whether USSR could or couldn't beat back Germany on their own back then is just as idiotic as the guys who go '1v1 me bro, or u too pussy?!?!' after a DotA match, it's just completely pointless conjecture.

Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan. Everybody loses there. There was also Syria where you can disagree all you want with methods but without question Russians were by far more successful than the Western coalition forces. Bunch of other local conflicts as well but those aren't particularly interesting, sure enough.

Going to before WW2, the Soviets might have 'gotten fucked' in Finland, but they did win the Winter War. The war against Poland was a long back and forth which ended inconclusively, with neither side really winning (also, Poland was receiving large amounts of foreign support throughout the war so by your own standards, that 'doesnt count' or what?).

The Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905 was a disaster for Russians, but they did beat the Japanese handily multiple times in the run up to WW2. The war in Crimea they faced a rather large coalition and not just 'the British who were quite far away from Crimea' but I'm sure you're aware of that, you're just twisting the facts to paint your narrative as you always do. After all, if you were trying to be objective and impartial you'd mention the following Russo-Turkish war which Russia has won handily.

And of course your comment about the Napoleonic wars is very telling as well. Napoleon's defeat in Russia had absolutely nothing to do with 'Russia being on the same side as the West.' But again, objectivity is obviously not your strong suit when it comes to Russian history. I mean, claiming that 'any real country' would have beaten Russia by now in this ongoing war is insulting as fuck in its own right, not to Russia -- because god knows they deserve to be insulted over their idiotic invasion -- but to Ukraine, who by all accounts have performed way above any expectations.

The idea that the only reason Russia hasn't conquered Ukraine is because they are inept and terrible at everything is asinine. There has never been a war of such scale using the sort of hardware that is involved here, and vast majority of the world's countries are completely incapable of waging such a war. The US could, China and India maybe, although they'd definitely face same issues with organization and logistics as Russia did at the start. Other than that, what nation could realistically deploy and maintain a million-strong army right now, with the intensity that we've seen in Ukraine?

On August 23 2023 09:32 KwarK wrote:

The reason that most other countries also couldn’t conquer Ukraine today is that most other countries have no plan to do so and so didn’t invest in building an army capable of doing so. They’re not trying to conquer Ukraine. But if they wanted to and knew 8 years ahead of time that they were going to make the attempt the list of western countries that couldn’t conquer Ukraine is pretty small. Germany, Poland, France, Britain, Italy, Turkey etc. all could if they invested in creating that capability. Not least because all of them have sufficient soft power and diplomacy that they wouldn’t face an international coalition arming Ukraine.

Whereas what we’re seeing with Russia is that they planned this war, they prepared for this war, they invested in creating the capability, they chose to start it, and it’s a clown car. Sure, the west is aiding Ukraine. Maybe don’t launch chemical weapons attacks killing British citizens in British cities right before you need Britain to stand by. That, like the rest of it, was Russia’s choice.

Russia just isn’t good at this. Their entire reputation is built on WW2 when they were a much larger empire that avoided half the world war by staying neutral in the entire Asian theatre. They participated only in the 4v1 on Germany and even then they had to beg for help throughout (after starting the war on the same side as Germany). They’re fucking clowns and should be treated as such. In retrospect the entire Cold War is a bad joke. The idea that they’d cross the Rhine in 3 days was predicated on the assumption that they could reliably put fuel in a tank.

I’m also a little confused by your defence of them which could be best summed up as “they’re not incompetent, they just completely failed in their strategy, planning, and execution”. That seems like trying to agree with me by stealth. If the military is good, except when you try to use it, then it breaks down, it’s not good.

On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:

Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west.