Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Honestly, I dislike Zelensky. In fact, the entire situation around Ukraine has me kinda paranoid: when Croatia was fighting for its independence, West slapped it with embargo, which was frankly a crime against humanity with relation to Croatia and BiH. Now, the West is falling over its feet to help Ukraine.

This means that Ukraine has almost certainly been already conquered by the globalist Marxists, and that Zelensky is their puppet. And this promo campaign only reinforces this belief.
From what i've heard before the war, Zelensky was rather mediocre, elected as a "moderate" after the last far right guy (not that it helped dealing with Russians in the end lol), and his chances to get reelected didn't look good.
I think the western chattering classes are just suffering from the shock that he stuck around for the fight after war experiences with the Afghan and Iraqi governments. They were fully prepared to give similar treatment to these more diverse war leaders, but there wasn't much to show, to their disappointment.
higher-IQ Ukrainians tend to be more nationalistic (Svidomy) and would thus be much less likely to remain under Russian rule if resistance was not a realistic option.
Wonder how much of that is war's rallying effect since 2014. Also TV\Internet filtering as news source. Older and lower IQ people would get their news from TV, which was usually biased for Russia, later on sometimes for nationalists. Younger and higher IQ would use Internet more often, which was dominated by nationalists and liberals, the latter especially in EN sources.

For different effects, wonder if it doesn't happen to look similar in Japan regarding communists, and in South Korea regarding NK simps.
In the "old West" academia is full-on exploited by leftist activists for propaganda, so they could be skewing the IQ-political relationship their way.
You know what, even if the West, if there was an invasion by a country that puts liberals in prison or worse, i think liberals would vote "nationalisticly" in favor of not surrendering and focusing on winning the war. Sure, they support the third worlder sneaky invasion, but at the same time they are under effective whitewashing propaganda regarding the character and political leanings of the migrants.
PragerU even did a video on such politically driven ignorance on the theme of "Gays for Palestine", which obviously is not a reciprocated sentiment:

So, on paper Russia could have perhaps gotten 15 million new citizens. But just how many of them would have actually been economically productive ones?
You can already see that. The "stay behinds" in Russian occupation in all the stories tend to be often pensioners or people otherwise struggling to move on a short notice, or Russia sympathizers, who tend to be older too. Meanwhile younger people, especially military age men, have a lot of reasons to not stay there.
You can also try doing demographic analysis on Russian aid queue photos, they tend to confirm that theory - very hard to spot anyone who doesn't look like they are at least in late 40's.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Zelensky is an unlikely hero, but a hero nonetheless. As an Eastern European politician he likely does have skeletons in the closet (Putin meanwhile has literal skeletons in his closet), but I've found his leadership throughout this to be majestic.

If this is Ukraine's "battle of Britain" moment, then providence indeed wisely provided a Churchill for them.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Honestly, I dislike Zelensky. In fact, the entire situation around Ukraine has me kinda paranoid: when Croatia was fighting for its independence, West slapped it with embargo, which was frankly a crime against humanity with relation to Croatia and BiH. Now, the West is falling over its feet to help Ukraine.

This means that Ukraine has almost certainly been already conquered by the globalist Marxists, and that Zelensky is their puppet. And this promo campaign only reinforces this belief.
I read,that he was actor hired by one of oligarchs to help him.And now,puppet becomed man of state,becouse he do not gave Ukraine to his mentor.
Besides,Bides sell Ukraine to Moscov - IF Putin eat them partially,and help against China.
Then Putin claimed to be China ally,and attacked to take all on one grab.
USA support Ukraine - but,still prefer deal with Moscov.After removing Putin,of course.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Besides,Bides sell Ukraine to Moscov - IF Putin eat them partially,and help against China.
Very unlikely. The Bidens are financially entangled with Ukraine and China. They don't want Russian help against China because they want China to win. Their only restraint is that if congress stops ignoring Joe's senility they're getting thrown under the bus. And at least one Democrat congressional leader has substantial investments in Taiwanese companies.

Biden might have been willing to sell part of Ukraine if his investments were going to be protected, but it wasn't to get Russian help against China.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
You can already see that. The "stay behinds" in Russian occupation in all the stories tend to be often pensioners or people otherwise struggling to move on a short notice, or Russia sympathizers, who tend to be older too. Meanwhile younger people, especially military age men, have a lot of reasons to not stay there.
You can also try doing demographic analysis on Russian aid queue photos, they tend to confirm that theory - very hard to spot anyone who doesn't look like they are at least in late 40's.

Marduk, you're quoting me here, not Aldarion.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I don't see any harm in Ukraine becoming more pro-LGBTQ+ just so long as it doesn't perform HRT or surgeries on minors.

Uh, there is all kinds of harm in Ukraine becoming more pro-LGBTQWERTY.

From what i've heard before the war, Zelensky was rather mediocre, elected as a "moderate" after the last far right guy (not that it helped dealing with Russians in the end lol), and his chances to get reelected didn't look good.
I think the western chattering classes are just suffering from the shock that he stuck around for the fight after war experiences with the Afghan and Iraqi governments. They were fully prepared to give similar treatment to these more diverse war leaders, but there wasn't much to show, to their disappointment.

Thanks.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Russia is just being spiteful by this point. Causing as much misery as possible to get Ukraine to capitulate when it’ll make them even more hated by basically everyone. Congratulations Putin you incompetent tyrant, you’ve played yourself and you keep playing yourself.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Russia is just being spiteful by this point. Causing as much misery as possible to get Ukraine to capitulate when it’ll make them even more hated by basically everyone. Congratulations Putin you incompetent tyrant, you’ve played yourself and you keep playing yourself.
Russia runs on spite, vodka and oil and the oils relatively new it used to be just spite and vodka
 

History Learner

Well-known member
And Ukraine just took it back.
Well, shit! Russia just lost Kherson, when apparently it was never even besieged in the first place? That's a new low even for them if they're losing places that aren't even under attack.

Indeed, they took back Kherson but, once again, failed to achieve the encirclement of Russian forces. If Kherson was being besieged in September, when I posted that, explain the lack of any major encirclements of Russian troops? Likewise, Surovikin's announcement of tough decisions preceded the official start of the Ukrainian offensive on Kherson in late October/early November by almost two weeks. The decision to abandon the city had been made in advance of any military realities on the ground. 19fortyfive explains why this was the case well:

As part of Putin’s response to the deteriorating situation in his Ukrainian war effort, he announced a mobilization of 300,000 reservists in September. Despite significant difficulties and shortcomings by the Russian state in conducting the effort – and reportedly up to 700,000 Russian men fleeing the border to avoid serving – there are now more than 200,000 new troops (82,000 of the 300,000 mobilized reservists have already been deployed to Ukraine) preparing for a winter offensive that could completely change the nature of this war.​
By surrendering Kherson city without a fight and blowing the bridges over the Dnipro, Surovikin has preserved 30,000 of his best-trained and experienced troops for use in the coming offensive, sealed off the southern front from a risk of a Ukrainian flanking action and will soon have a massive new force to employ (I will publish a separate analysis next week looking at potential objectives of this offensive).​
Once this force is ready to launch Putin’s winter offensive (likely in late December/early January when the ground has sufficiently frozen), it will likely be preceded by a massive new attack on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure to plunge the country into darkness, cripple the remainder of its electrified rail system, and significantly hamper the government’s ability to supply its troops with basic needs, complicate their ability to move troops around the battlefield, and most critically, degrade their ability to communicate with troops in the field.​
Further evidence of this:

 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Indeed, they took back Kherson but, once again, failed to achieve the encirclement of Russian forces. If Kherson was being besieged in September, when I posted that, explain the lack of any major encirclements of Russian troops? Likewise, Surovikin's announcement of tough decisions preceded the official start of the Ukrainian offensive on Kherson in late October/early November by almost two weeks. The decision to abandon the city had been made in advance of any military realities on the ground. 19fortyfive explains why this was the case well:

As part of Putin’s response to the deteriorating situation in his Ukrainian war effort, he announced a mobilization of 300,000 reservists in September. Despite significant difficulties and shortcomings by the Russian state in conducting the effort – and reportedly up to 700,000 Russian men fleeing the border to avoid serving – there are now more than 200,000 new troops (82,000 of the 300,000 mobilized reservists have already been deployed to Ukraine) preparing for a winter offensive that could completely change the nature of this war.​
By surrendering Kherson city without a fight and blowing the bridges over the Dnipro, Surovikin has preserved 30,000 of his best-trained and experienced troops for use in the coming offensive, sealed off the southern front from a risk of a Ukrainian flanking action and will soon have a massive new force to employ (I will publish a separate analysis next week looking at potential objectives of this offensive).​
Once this force is ready to launch Putin’s winter offensive (likely in late December/early January when the ground has sufficiently frozen), it will likely be preceded by a massive new attack on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure to plunge the country into darkness, cripple the remainder of its electrified rail system, and significantly hamper the government’s ability to supply its troops with basic needs, complicate their ability to move troops around the battlefield, and most critically, degrade their ability to communicate with troops in the field.​
Further evidence of this:



Any chances of NATO ever introducing robot troops into the war in Ukraine?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
So, you don't understand what it means to cross something out and replace it with something else?

This is what it looks like when you cross something through. This is what you did, and it is called an underline. Perhaps learn the difference before embarrassing yourself?

Hahahahaha... Nope, try again. Basically every prediction you've made about the state and future progress of the war has been wrong. "They're about to take Kyiv!" But, they didn't. "They're going to pocket basically the entire UAF when they pocket them in the east!" But, they didn't. "Kherson isn't even under attack!" And yet it fell.

Entirely proving my point with how much I live in your head rent free, for one.

Next, would you and @Vaermina as well as @LordsFire and @Husky_Khan like to admit I was entirely correct on casualty rates? JCS Chariman Milley now says Ukrainian casualties are well above 100,000 total; if you will recall, I said in late July/early August I thought they were around 117,000 already based on their public statements and U.S. intelligence sources:

WASHINGTON — Russia’s war in Ukraine has left more than 100,000 of Moscow’s troops dead or wounded, and Ukraine has probably suffered a similar number of casualties, the United States’ most senior general said this week.​
“You’re looking at well over 100,000 Russian soldiers killed and wounded,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in remarks at the Economic Club of New York on Wednesday. “Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side.”​

"The Russians have effectively unlimited arms and troops!"

Entirely confirmed, as it was recently revealed Russian daily losses in Tanks/AFVs are about five a day but production rates are at about 55 per day. They're gaining in strength, both in manpower and materially, as revealed by surging Russian war production. As for things like missiles, Russian hypersonics entered mass manufacture in August and this NYT headline speaks volumes about the claims they were close to ever running out of munitions:





Yet they're buying weapons from Iran and NK,

It's bought drones and missiles from Iran, and supposedly artillery shells from North Korea. Meanwhile Ukraine needs the West for everything from air defense, tanks, shells, helmets, clothing, small arms, and even rations from the West to sustain its military. They are simply not comparable at all, and this becomes more comical of a claim when you realize the United States had to approach Slovenia for T-55s for the AFU and South Korea for artillery shells too.

Can we make the same claims about the American industrial base as you are asserting for Russia, based on those facts?

and launched probably the most dramatic failure of a mobilisation in literally the entirety of human history.

I too remember the early days of Ukraine's mobilization:



Your central mistake is the same as I made in the Spring in reverse; you assume current problems are static and can't be rectified when it comes to mobilizing resources.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Indeed, they took back Kherson but, once again, failed to achieve the encirclement of Russian forces. If Kherson was being besieged in September, when I posted that, explain the lack of any major encirclements of Russian troops? Likewise, Surovikin's announcement of tough decisions preceded the official start of the Ukrainian offensive on Kherson in late October/early November by almost two weeks. The decision to abandon the city had been made in advance of any military realities on the ground. 19fortyfive explains why this was the case well:

As part of Putin’s response to the deteriorating situation in his Ukrainian war effort, he announced a mobilization of 300,000 reservists in September. Despite significant difficulties and shortcomings by the Russian state in conducting the effort – and reportedly up to 700,000 Russian men fleeing the border to avoid serving – there are now more than 200,000 new troops (82,000 of the 300,000 mobilized reservists have already been deployed to Ukraine) preparing for a winter offensive that could completely change the nature of this war.​
By surrendering Kherson city without a fight and blowing the bridges over the Dnipro, Surovikin has preserved 30,000 of his best-trained and experienced troops for use in the coming offensive, sealed off the southern front from a risk of a Ukrainian flanking action and will soon have a massive new force to employ (I will publish a separate analysis next week looking at potential objectives of this offensive).​
Once this force is ready to launch Putin’s winter offensive (likely in late December/early January when the ground has sufficiently frozen), it will likely be preceded by a massive new attack on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure to plunge the country into darkness, cripple the remainder of its electrified rail system, and significantly hamper the government’s ability to supply its troops with basic needs, complicate their ability to move troops around the battlefield, and most critically, degrade their ability to communicate with troops in the field.​
Further evidence of this:



Normally i would agree.Kgb could not be that stupid,so all their defeats must be part of their genial scheme to take over Europe,or even entire world.
Problem is - your friend failed so many times,that it is really hard to belive.

Of course - they could have army of apemans personally sired by putin hidden in underground cities on Ural with 2000 Armata tanks and hipersonic missiles - BUT... it is not likely.

Personally,i belived that kgbstan would win in 2-4 months.Now,i think they would keep loosing till somebody kill putin ,and made deal with USA over Ukraine corpse.
So - long live comrade colonel.Becouse any other leader would be as bad - but USA would sell Europe to him.
Yes,i hope that putin would live till last postsoviet tank burn or be taken by ukrainians.
Then he could die.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Russia is just being spiteful by this point. Causing as much misery as possible to get Ukraine to capitulate when it’ll make them even more hated by basically everyone. Congratulations Putin you incompetent tyrant, you’ve played yourself and you keep playing yourself.
Good for rest of the world.Competent tyrant would made deal with USA against China,eat Ukraine bit by bit,and later go for baltics and Poland.
Remember,how Biden 19.2.2022 almost begged him to not attack in full force,claiming that small aggresion mean small sanctions? he still wanted sell Ukraine to him.
But our many bearrider refused and go for everything.
I hope,that he would live few years more,so he could manage to dissolve his state.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
The main question is how Russia succeeded in invading Ukraine. Did Ukraine just roll over like Putin expected? Was the Russian military ROB'd into not being shit? Was there a fantastically unlikely set of early breaks that let them pull it off?

Russia trying to invade Finland with its RL pre-war military is going to look very different to trying invade with one that's actually been properly maintained.

Having months to reflect on it, I think the biggest issue was their initial success on the Southern axis.

According to reports I've gotten, the Kherson city government cut a deal with the Russians, which allowed them to take the city so easily back in March. This allowed them to rapidly expand their advance towards both Krivy Rog and Nikolaev in the following weeks, until Ukrainian reserve mobilization and their own over-extension forced them back. Still, even after months of fighting on this axis, their recent withdrawal across the Dneiper freed up 30,000 troops from this axis as they anchored their lines on the natural barrier of the aforementioned river.

Why does this matter? To quote SecDef Austin:

This is a war of choice -- it's a war of choice for Russia. They embarked on a tremendous strategic mistake. They made a choice in February of this year to illegally invade a country that posed no threat to Russia. In making that choice, Russia established several objectives. They wanted to overthrow President Zelenskyy and his government. They wanted to secure access to the Black Sea. They wanted to capture Odessa. They wanted to seize all the way to the Dnipro River, pause, and then continue to attack all the way to the Carpathian Mountains.
This matches entirely with what CSIS was predicting Pre-War, with their mapping of hypothetical Russian advance avenues:

220113_Jones_UkraineRussia_Map1_0.png

220113_Jones_UkraineRussia_Map3.png

Both these maps and Lloyd Austin's commentary match up; the initial plan was to punch through to the Dnieper and what happened was they got victory disease based off their success around Kherson. Rather than stick to the plan, they got mission creep and made the lunge for their goals across across the Dnieper before completing their goals on the Eastern side of the river. This was a critical mistake, as it meant they were too tied down across the river that they didn't have the resources to do the finishing blow required in Figure 2A, which was the encirclement of the JTO in the Donbass by taking Pavlograd:



By early April, they had Izyum, cutting off the Northern route into the region, and needed only to push on and take Pavlograd to cut the last logistic route into the Donbass. The JTO-the best equipped, best trained and largest Pre War force of the AFU at an estimated 70,000 men-would've had to abandon much of its equipment and retreat on open roads covered by the RuAF Highway of Death style or it would've been encircled. Russian aerial tempo was on the increase and Ukrainian temp on the wane at this time too:



So, the best way to achieve the "how" is to have the SBU react in the first week to arrest the officials in Kherson, thus preventing the deal. Ukrainians blow the bridges to prevent the Russian push on the city, but in reverse this forces the Russians to stick to their original plan and thus have 30,000 troops advance on Pavlograd in March-April just as they were taking Izyum to the North. With JTO encircled or effectively destroyed Falaise Gap-style, the Russians would've had the prime opportunity to go for Dnipro and Kharkov as the Kiev axis forces were being redeployed to the Donbass sector to exploit this success:

 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
Normally i would agree.Kgb could not be that stupid,so all their defeats must be part of their genial scheme to take over Europe,or even entire world.
Problem is - your friend failed so many times,that it is really hard to belive.

Of course - they could have army of apemans personally sired by putin hidden in underground cities on Ural with 2000 Armata tanks and hipersonic missiles - BUT... it is not likely.

Personally,i belived that kgbstan would win in 2-4 months.Now,i think they would keep loosing till somebody kill putin ,and made deal with USA over Ukraine corpse.
So - long live comrade colonel.Becouse any other leader would be as bad - but USA would sell Europe to him.
Yes,i hope that putin would live till last postsoviet tank burn or be taken by ukrainians.
Then he could die.

Basically, the fundamentals of the war remain in the Russian favor, both in material and manpower terms. Ukraine can't sustain the 1:1 overall ratio seen to date, given their opponent has the higher resource base. It's a war of attrition, and that favors the Russians. It's why Milley and others have started moving to encourage peace talks, simply because there is no long term path to victory:



 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Uh, we can produce more then enough.

And we arnt running out.
If we were we wouldn't be getting ready for the war. Training would be on the backburner. It isn't
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top