""Collapse" of Ukrainian defense in the Kursk region" Topic

So… the fear is WW3?…

So the best thing to do is let China whathever they want, because they are much bigger and more powerful than Russia, do it… and also soon any other country that could ignite that war, like Iran or North Korea… the best thing to do is to take refuge at home and pray that everything turns out well…

Never count on what the Ukrainians really want… not war… but to liberate their own soil and stop massacring the civilian population… if surrender is the only path… I don't think they'll take it… they have the courage that others lack.

Armand

Apparently because the Ukrainians do not want war, they overthrew the legally elected president, insulting his Russian-speaking voters. And when they decided to defend their rights, the Ukrainians simply began to destroy them and shell their cities with cannons. For eight (!) years. And despite Russia's numerous attempts to resolve this conflict through negotiations, the Ukrainians refused to engage in any dialogue with the regions that did not want to submit to the rebels. They declared their desire to join NATO, although they knew that Russia would not tolerate it.
And all this with the direct assistance of the West, that is, at its will.
Not very peaceful behavior towards Russians (including their own citizens) and Russia.
He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind…

before accusing Russian troops of weak combat capability, they must first demonstrate better results in combat operations of a similar scale against a similar enemy in similar conditions… I don't know of any such precedents. Do you?

Did I miss something ? From a strictly military standpoint it is well known to most in the West that the Russians did not perform well. With Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

I'm listening to what mostly retired US and UK Senior Officers have to say. You may call it Western propaganda, etc. But again, based on my experience and training + the study of military history and what the GENs/ADMs Ret. report. E.g. as one US Army 4 Star GEN Ret. reported, the Russians are marginal at best.

I'll stick with that …

So… the fear is WW3?…

When you embark on any project or venture, or WAR, you need to have an achievable end-goal in mind. Then from there you can decide what you need to do and what commitments and trade-offs you need to make -- weight the risks and rewards, resources and repercussions.

So what's the achievable end-goal in Ukraine? Can you tell me what that is?

Legion 4, ok. Then the opposing armies in the First World War were also marginal)))
By the way, how do your generals know what tasks the Russians set for their army throughout the war? From the Ukrainian press?)))

Anyways, we are divided into two camps -- those who want to give peace a chance and those who want to fight until the last drop of Ukrainian blood is spilled and the missiles fly.

"…When you embark on any project or venture, or WAR, you need to have an achievable end-goal in mind…"

Like Vietnam?… or Afghanistan?… or Korea?…

The goal in Ukranie?… that the Russians failed to take the country and to fight to the end for their independence… as so much other countries for sure did and will do…

Armand

The goal in Ukranie?… that the Russians failed to take the country and to fight to the end for their independence

Then rejoice, because Ukraine ALREADY WON! Ukraine won in 2022 by defeating the Russian invasion.

Everything since then has been a painful waste of time, lives and money…and indeed has put Ukraine onto the slippery slope to utter collapse and defeat.

I guess I'll let Quark provide a simple explanation.

YouTube link

Then the opposing armies in the First World War were also marginal)))

That was the dawn of modern warfare. Military tactics didn't keep up with tech. E.g. breach loading FA and MGs, etc., then later in the war airplanes and tanks. Tactics didn't evolve until high tech forced them to. The Germans IMO with their Stosstrupen tactics that were used much later in the war. Was really one of the most original concepts to evolve from the trenches of WWI. Which was something of a precursor to the WWII Blitzkrieg.

But generally, WWI was fought with massive amounts of bodies charging/attacking across into No Man's Land. After long heavy FA bombardments. But the Armies of WWI did learn some lessons. But to say they were all marginal would be a bit of stretch … IMO …

how do your generals know what tasks the Russians set for their army throughout the war?

Well I no longer have a TS, etc. And the Pentagon does not keep it touch. Regardless ,I have a general knowledge, etc. of knowing about some of methods of intel gathering is used.

However, with evolving tech out there today, I'm sure some there are some new pieces of equipment, I have no knowledge of. But we were taught and learned how to observe, etc. how an enemy operates, their strengths, weaknesses, predilections etc.

I'm sure those GENs, their staffs, etc. could evaluate some of what the Russians were doing not too long after the war started.

Interesting article about the North Koreans in Ukraine. Some things I didn't know …

link

Legion 4, You've probably heard the phrase: "Generals always prepare for the last war"? From the point of view of recent major wars, the Russians acted quite effectively. Let's imagine that in the place of the Ukrainians there were, say, Iraqi troops during the "Desert Storm" period. Without space and electronic intelligence of the West, without highly effective communications from Elon Musk, without all-round economic assistance from the West… The "fog of war" factor disappeared – now the enemy could see your actions almost instantly, reacting just as quickly to any change in the situation not only on the front line, but also in your rear. The result of the Russian offensive would have been exactly the same as that of the coalition in Iraq, if not for this.
No one has ever fought like this. The Russians faced a situation where any breach in the defense was visible to the enemy and immediately exploited. It was impossible to destroy the intelligence and control means of the supposedly neutral West due to the reluctance to escalate the conflict to the size of a world war. The Russians found themselves in a situation where they had to control the entire captured territory with armed force, for which they simply did not have the necessary amount of infantry. Any offensive with weakly covered flanks would immediately result in defeat, and the defender in such conditions had a huge advantage. The superiority in aviation was nullified by the high efficiency of modern air defense with the support of the same West. The Russian plane was just taking off, and the Ukrainian air defense system was already being brought to full readiness and receiving data to repel the attack.
A little later, we all saw the "drone revolution" on the battlefield, which nullified the role of tanks as a means of breaking through defense, turning them simply into mobile artillery pieces, and also successfully replacing the usual artillery and aviation in many ways.
No one has ever fought in such conditions. In this regard, the situation is most similar to the situation during the First World War, when offensive means are significantly inferior to defensive means at this stage of military development. If the Russians could attack Western satellites and long-range reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, this war would have ended long ago….

"Generals always prepare for the last war"?

Yes, of course, it was often said at the US Army Infantry School at Benning[now Moore], Combined Arms School at Leavenworth, etc.. etc.

Otherwise I understand what you are saying in the rest of your post. BUT … again I've got to go with those US GENs Ret., etc. What they say makes sense based on my training, experience, study, etc.

However, we were trained to think and plan ahead for what the next war may look like. And again, tech evolves very quickly today. Yes, e.g. drones …

So to say fighting the last war, would mean at Benning, etc. You were not properly prepped for next war. When we were being evaluated, which seemed very often. You better have your 💩 together/wired tight. Fighting the last war would be considered a big NO GO …

Of course we have to learn lessons from past conflicts. But some things we learned e.g. about dismounted patrolling. Were tactics and techniques used effectively in WWII, etc. Or even Vietnam …

So I'm not going to cut the Russian Military any slack on their overall performance during this war in Ukraine. Again, I'll go with what the GENs Ret. have to say …

West due to the reluctance to escalate the conflict to the size of a world war

Yes part of that was concern about starting WWIII. However, as I have said many, many times here. The last POTUS and Admin were very risk adverse and feared escalation. Which Putin, etc. saw early on during the war. And took advantage of it. As anyone with any common sense or Not suffering from dementia, etc. would.

Again the last POTUS, VP, Admin, many in Congress/DC, etc. did not have the right stuff. They were not fighting the last war. They wouldn't let the military and intel assets do their jobs, etc. I don't know what the academics, woke progressives, etc. etc. were doing in DC/WH. As that had no idea how to fight a war or what to do to avert one from escalating. And still be effective. I have will never have anything positive say about the last POTUS, Admin, some members of Congress, etc.

Legion 4, I have little interest in US domestic politics. In any case, politics is dictated by economics. In my opinion, Biden was a supporter of left-radical globalism and he saw the United States as just part of a general global left-liberal system in which supranational world structures and interests rule. Including to the detriment of US interests. Trump is a patriot, that is, he is a natural opponent of the current version of globalism. And it is on this basis that they have a coincidence of interests with Putin. They have a common enemy – left-wing radical globalism, the enemy of any sovereign state.
But you deal with your leaders yourselves. Meanwhile, we are looking at our own))) How Putin, quite skillfully, gradually but steadily, is pushing the globalist creature formed in the Russian government out of power in Russia, while trying to avoid any aggravation of the internal conflict between "patriots" and "globalists." What you can't take away from him is that he is a good strategist.

As for the US participation in the war in Ukraine and its refusal to fully support this war, this is precisely the reluctance to destroy the existing balance of power in the world. The United States, in fact, did not want victory over Russia, but to strengthen its position in a future clash with China. To do this, it was necessary to either subjugate Russia or make it its ally (which, in turn, led to a clash of interests with the EU, which did not want Russia to return to a full-fledged political presence in Europe and the world). The first opportunity was used – and it did not work. Russia did not weaken, but on the contrary, it strengthened. Then the United States switched to plan B…
And a war until "absolute victory" over Russia was never included in the US plans, rather the opposite. Unlike Europe. And now the globalists have also been forced to retreat from the US to Europe …
I think these guys will end up with a series of conservative revolutions in European countries. And God willing, these revolutions will not develop into large-scale civil wars…

I have little interest in US domestic politics

Understand … however the previous POTUS, his admin, etc. thru their weakness, incompetence, etc. were not feared nor respected by our enemies. And our enemies took advantage of this. And now the new POTUS, et al have to somehow fix this major "cluster…

In my opinion, Biden was a supporter of left-radical globalism and he saw the United States as just part of a general global left-liberal system in which supranational world structures and interests rule. Including to the detriment of US interests. Trump is a patriot, that is, he is a natural opponent of the current version of globalism. And it is on this basis that they have a coincidence of interests with Putin. They have a common enemy – left-wing radical globalism, the enemy of any sovereign state.

Generally on this I can agree … 👍👍

As well as much of the rest of your post …

Legion 4, I disagree with some kind of "Biden weakness". The king is always played by his retinue… Behind every leader there is a certain group of interested parties, whose interests this leader expresses and serves. The role of the individual, of course, exists, but it plays a role mainly only at the tactical level. The general vector of actions is set by the "retinue". A change in the first person does not change the interests of the group of people that this first person expresses.
Trump's victory is the rejection by the overwhelming majority of US citizens of the policy that was carried out by the people whose interests Biden expressed.
Leaders are just a cover for an existing trend in society…
Although the brightness of the cover also plays a role)))

Subject: Ian Miles Cheong on X: "Patrick Lancaster, an American journalist embedded with Russian troops, films an insane getaway from an armed drone as they take it down with shotguns. t.co/HdwaLgZ90Y / X

Like skeet shooting

link

I disagree with some kind of "Biden weakness". The king is always played by his retinue… Behind every leader there is a certain group of interested parties, whose interests this leader expresses and serves.

No Biden was weak, feeble, suffering from mental decline, etc. Did not show a dynamic leadership. He was a puppet of the far-left woke progressive socialists that paid for his election. And he would do anything the wanted.

Trump's victory is the rejection by the overwhelming majority of US citizens of the policy that was carried out by the people whose interests Biden expressed.

Biden was not carrying out the will of the people. He was a tool for the wealthy far left. And he suffered from some mental defects. And many in middle America, the Heartland saw this and didn't like what he was selling.

There's far, far more wealth behind Trump.

Isn't the whole electoral system designed in such a way that big money wins, no matter who gets elected? That's why I don't believe in democracy under the traditional Western electoral system…

35thOVI, this is a common practice now. But it's better to discuss it in the appropriate thread:
TMP link

Caprum2 Da#n good thing the US isn't a democracy than. 😉

Lately I have not seen any large democratic countries (in the classical sense of the term))) I only see an imitation of democracy.

There's far, far more wealth behind Trump.

Check the stats. Harris outspent Trump by the millions if not billions, IIRC. The Dems mantra about Trump's rich BFFs, etc. is not really an accurate statement. There are as many if not more millionaire and billions behind the Dems.

good thing the US isn't a democracy than

Yes, it is actually a Republic …

And generally, Democracies are fairly new. E.g. many nations were during WWI were still monarchies or dictatorships. Even today most Arab nations are still under Kings or Military dictators.

Democracy died in the West when the interests of the majority began to be subordinated to the interests of the minority… Although it's no less disgusting when the majority have come to terms with it.

The West fought for democracy in Syria and brought Islamic extremists to power. Now they are killing unarmed Christians and Alawites by the thousands, and European leaders are justifying it… European female politicians are being blurred on TV screens and in newspaper photos… And you call this democracy (just one of hundreds of examples)? This sucks and is degenerate…

The West only recognizes elections and referendums that suit it, simply denying dissent. Is that democracy?

Democracy is dead and decayed.

Democracy in Syria. European Emirates))) support Islamic terrorists:

link

"Lately I have not seen any large democratic countries (in the classical sense of the term))) I only see an imitation of democracy."

To my knowledge, only a few spots in Switzerland have "true" Democracies. No one really trusts the masses.

That is true in every country in the world, including Russia. 😉

There is no democracy in Russia either. But there never was one here. There was nothing to lose On the contrary, now there is maximum freedom compared to the past.

As I said, true democracies, don't really exist. The US never was one and those who claim that have always been wrong. The founders did not want one and made sure we were not.

Democracy did not really work well for Athens when they became larger than a city.

OVI +1

Cuprum2

So is Putin close to death? That of course changes everything. Dr. Zelensky says he is.

Reminds me of that "Holiday Inn Express" Commercial

"Are you a doctor?"
"No I'm Not A Doctor. But I Did Stay at A Holiday Inn Express last night"
😉

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stunningly predicted that Russian President Vladimir Putin will die soon as his health is deteriorating.

Zelenskyy made the sensational prediction in an interview Wednesday, when the Ukrainian leader also called on the U.S. not to bring Russia in from the global political wilderness amid ongoing peace talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.

"He will die soon, that is a fact, and everything will be over," Zelenskyy told Eurovision News in Paris, according to a partial translation of the interview by the Kyiv Independent. "

I've been hearing stories about Putin's death since 2022. Zelensky just needs something to hope for. For him, a lost war is physical death. The Nazis he and his predecessors fostered will never forgive him for losing. They'll kill him.

Putin certainly won't live forever, but there's a chance that the next Russian president will be a bigger problem for Zelensky than the previous one.

By the way, Putin is younger than Trump)))

If anyone is interested, the HistoryLegends channel has released the second part of the review of the Kursk operation of the Ukrainian troops:

link

Caprum what are they saying in Russia about the car blowing up?

Do you mean a fire in a car from a government garage? They don't say anything special. Judging by the video, it was a regular fire due to a short circuit. There was no one in the car. The engine compartment caught fire. Eyewitnesses put out the fire.

link

I looked at the details. According to preliminary information, the "Aurus Senat" in unarmored version, belonging to the Presidential Property Management Department, was on fire. That is, it is definitely not Putin's car. The car was parked on a street where there are many prestigious restaurants, apparently one of the high-ranking officials visited the restaurant in it.

Pay attention to several fire extinguishers lying and a fireman with an ax, which was used to open the hood of the car.
There is no police, no special services, traffic on the street is not blocked. This is not a terrorist attack.

Interesting. Some media I read portrayed it as a possible terrorist bomb and that the Russians were investigating to see if it was.

Yes I knew Putin was not in it.

Thanks

Oh… An investigation is mandatory in any case. Even in the case of an ordinary accident. To receive insurance, you will need a police report (or in this case, a fire department report).

Yes, I thought reading the incident from both sides would be interesting. I have not seen anything this morning, so assumed it was nothing.

Thanks