Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Putin will detonate a low powered nuke in Ukraine before he withdraws and faces the specter of a public loss of face. If Putin withdraws, he dies. It’s as simple as that.

So basically we have Ukrainian civilization survival vs. Putin’s psychopathic survival. Who will blink first?

Three problems with that scenario:

1) prevailing weather patterns make it unavoidable that much of the deadly fallout lands on Russian civilian areas, resulting in mass death even the FSB cannot cover up, and

2) Putin knows the international consequences would not be survivable for his regime, and,

3) successful use of a tactical nuclear weapon requires equipping your own forces to survive, and continue to fight on the contaminated battlefield. Russian logistics are barely able to supply their troops with the bare necessities to survive and fight right now. Hypothermia and frostbite casualties have been massive (and covered up). Hunger and malnutrition hamper current efforts. Russia is in no position to effectively use one of their nukes.

Your assessment is accurate. But I don’t think Putin cares about anything except his own survival and control. He will sacrifice the Russian border oblasts to nuclear fallout if he thinks it will give Russia the upper hand. He has the propaganda machine to support him the “tragedy” of this “necessary sacrifice.”

Given his failing health and his failing military, I think we are possibly entering the most dangerous phase of this war. A desperate man will take desperate measures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ukraine 2022: pop 43.8M

Are you aware that more than 8 million people have left Ukraine in 2022?

As for the rest - time will tell.

Most of those 8 million are Ukrainian women with their children, and the very elderly.

Now consider Russia’s demographic time-bomb, compared to Ukraine:

- Ukraine is demographically roughly 15 years younger than Russia, and the vast majority of the more than 1.2 million Russians who have fled Russia over the past year are military-aged males (including approx 70K trained computer programmers / IT professionals). The last year the "Russian" ethnic demographic was reproducing in anything near replacement levels occurred in the early 1980s.

At best, the Russian supply of 15-45 year-olds suitable for military service is roughly double that of Ukraine; and that’s assuming the Russians are capable of devoting 100% of their military efforts to Ukraine (which they can't, due to their long border with China and many other nations). If Ukraine can maintain a 3:1 loss rate in their favor AND continue the current rate of Russian equipment losses, while continuing to inflict something approaching the current levels of C3 and logistics asset attrition, Russia will be the ones who lose the "War of Attrition".

This rough estimate does not even take into account the impact of future offensive action by the Ukrainians, as any major success that interdicts a major road or rail line in the Russian occupied areas could quickly turn large areas of the Russian front lines into the equivalent of a heavily-armed homeless camp, with roughly the same military utility. Given the option of surrendering to the Ukrainians, or obliteration by artillery, what do you believe the average, forcibly-mobilized Russian will choose? There are numerous accounts of dissatisfied Mobiks shooting their commander in the back, and surrendering.

Russia stands no chance of winning militarily.

You don't know what the Ukraine's loss rate is as this information has never been made public. So, let's stop making silly calculations based on variables you only pretend to know.

Anonymous wrote:Russia has lost. Our military general announced it last week. Russia was drafting old men and has no weapons. They’re going out with a whimper.

LOL and then he also said Ukraine needs a hundred kazillion dollars to fight this pathetic army of old men with no weapons because otherwise they'd be scaling the Eiffel Tower tomorrow.

Logic is out of fashion.

Anonymous wrote:I think Putin will detonate a low powered nuke in Ukraine before he withdraws and faces the specter of a public loss of face. If Putin withdraws, he dies. It’s as simple as that.

So basically we have Ukrainian civilization survival vs. Putin’s psychopathic survival. Who will blink first?

Three problems with that scenario:

1) prevailing weather patterns make it unavoidable that much of the deadly fallout lands on Russian civilian areas, resulting in mass death even the FSB cannot cover up, and

2) Putin knows the international consequences would not be survivable for his regime, and,

3) successful use of a tactical nuclear weapon requires equipping your own forces to survive, and continue to fight on the contaminated battlefield. Russian logistics are barely able to supply their troops with the bare necessities to survive and fight right now. Hypothermia and frostbite casualties have been massive (and covered up). Hunger and malnutrition hamper current efforts. Russia is in no position to effectively use one of their nukes.

Russia has lost. Our military general announced it last week. Russia was drafting old men and has no weapons. They’re going out with a whimper.

I’ve read some silly walls of text on DCUM and then there’s this crap! It’s probably as ridiculous as this site gets. Perhaps Ukraine will triumph, but this is obviously getting ahead of the current reality, which is still very bad and just might get worse for Ukraine.

I think Putin will detonate a low powered nuke in Ukraine before he withdraws and faces the specter of a public loss of face. If Putin withdraws, he dies. It’s as simple as that.

So basically we have Ukrainian civilization survival vs. Putin’s psychopathic survival. Who will blink first?

Anonymous wrote:

Ukraine 2022: pop 43.8M

Are you aware that more than 8 million people have left Ukraine in 2022?

As for the rest - time will tell.

Most of those 8 million are Ukrainian women with their children, and the very elderly.

Now consider Russia’s demographic time-bomb, compared to Ukraine:

- Ukraine is demographically roughly 15 years younger than Russia, and the vast majority of the more than 1.2 million Russians who have fled Russia over the past year are military-aged males (including approx 70K trained computer programmers / IT professionals). The last year the "Russian" ethnic demographic was reproducing in anything near replacement levels occurred in the early 1980s.

At best, the Russian supply of 15-45 year-olds suitable for military service is roughly double that of Ukraine; and that’s assuming the Russians are capable of devoting 100% of their military efforts to Ukraine (which they can't, due to their long border with China and many other nations). If Ukraine can maintain a 3:1 loss rate in their favor AND continue the current rate of Russian equipment losses, while continuing to inflict something approaching the current levels of C3 and logistics asset attrition, Russia will be the ones who lose the "War of Attrition".

This rough estimate does not even take into account the impact of future offensive action by the Ukrainians, as any major success that interdicts a major road or rail line in the Russian occupied areas could quickly turn large areas of the Russian front lines into the equivalent of a heavily-armed homeless camp, with roughly the same military utility. Given the option of surrendering to the Ukrainians, or obliteration by artillery, what do you believe the average, forcibly-mobilized Russian will choose? There are numerous accounts of dissatisfied Mobiks shooting their commander in the back, and surrendering.

Russia stands no chance of winning militarily.

Russia "lost" in Afghanistan as well. Just took a decade to get there...

Anonymous wrote:Read Kissinger piece….

OP gloats over a break up of Russia with zero concern about what instability that would bring.

Yes, your foreign policy establishment is this dumb. OP sounds like they work at state department. And the idea any nation today could bear ww1 levels of carnage.

Idiot wind.

One thing to know is that the "break-up of Russia" (into multiple ethnic statelets) has been a scare tactic of the Russian imperial propaganda corps for quite some time. "We must resist the West because they don't want to see a large strong country, they'd rather break us up into a dozen poor weak states they can control". It may or may not be true but when this idea is repeated and given serious consideration in Western speeches or research, it feeds the propaganda machine.

Ukraine and Russia will both be ground into the dust

Slavic people are not going to be around in the long run

Their birth rates are extremely low and are not productive economically.

Western Europe has the economics

Asia has the people and economics

Africa has people

Slavs will be subsumed by others in the long run

Ukraine is doing what it is being directed to do - be an ulcer on the belly of Russia to bleed it out

Read Kissinger piece….

OP gloats over a break up of Russia with zero concern about what instability that would bring.

Yes, your foreign policy establishment is this dumb. OP sounds like they work at state department. And the idea any nation today could bear ww1 levels of carnage.

Idiot wind.

Anonymous wrote:

It is not that Russia will run out of mobiks, but rather, Russia is losing because of poor and deteriorating morale, broken, antiquated logistics, lack of training, crippling economic sanctions, and domestic production issues. Russia can’t possibly solve these critical issues in the necessary timeframe.

LOL witness the logical pretzels of your lot. Russia and its army is on the brink of collapse. AND, AT THE SAME TIME, Ukraine needs the world's most sophisticated machinery to fight them otherwise Poland, Estonia and the rest of Europe is next.

Which is it?

I will end with saying that it's very telling you hold up Israel - an oppressive apartheid regime - as an example for Ukraine. Great job there. Inspirational!

Ukraine 2022: pop 43.8M

Are you aware that more than 8 million people have left Ukraine in 2022?

As for the rest - time will tell.

Ukraine has the population, will, and backing to win.

It has also proven it can outlast and outfight the RA.

Russia’s losses are unsustainable, while Ukraine’s are not. I am not just referring to equipment (although Russia cannot replace its lost tanks/planes missiles, while Ukraine’s supplies of tanks / IVFs etc. increase daily ).

As to combat losses of soldiers, WW1 France is a good analogy.

France 1914: pop 39.6M. KIA over 4.3 years: 1.4M, or about 320,500 per year every year. Total % of male population per year, all ages :1.6%

Ukraine 2022: pop 43.8M. KIA over 1 year: 50K? 75K? Official figures are not released. Total of male population per year, all ages: to 0.22% to 0.34%.

Ukraine is taking essentially 1/5th to 1/7th the casualty rate that France took every year for 4.3 years, and at the end of that 4.3 years the French Army was objectively stronger than it was in 1914 thanks to added capabilities and tactics.

It is also relevant the French were fighting against being subjugated, while the Ukrainians are fighting against being exterminated.

There are plenty of ground-level interviews that show the average Ukrainian knows the stakes. Ukraine will fight on because they must. Study the military history of Israel for comparison, where an objectively smaller, less-equipped military nevertheless prevailed over much larger forces and against all odds.

Having studied Russia’s repeated, overt, statements of their genocidal intentions toward Ukraine, this isn’t just rhetoric. Russia absolutely will murder millions of Ukrainians if they win. They’ve done it before and they say they will do it again (and that is not even considering their intended cultural genocide, which is currently underway in some Oblasts).

Ukraine can suffer these losses far longer than Russia can keep throwing mobiks at them.

It is not that Russia will run out of mobiks, but rather, Russia is losing because of poor and deteriorating morale, broken, antiquated logistics, lack of training, crippling economic sanctions, and domestic production issues. Russia can’t possibly solve these critical issues in the necessary timeframe.

Russia is facing a coalition of forces with more than 20 times their GDP. This military conflict can only end one way. And Putin has steadfastly refused at this point to negotiate.

Rest assured: Russia will lose this war.

The only open question is if Russia survives this, or breaks up entirely.