Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

[badger2]

Breakthrough @ Bahmut

 

[Silver Cat]

Ukraine was a long way from becoming a part of NATO or the EU...at least a decade away. Largely in part because of the Russian Oligarchs still pulling their corrupt strings of power inside of Ukraine. (Most of which have now left or been traded for prisoners)

And that's going to continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future. Russia has continually run a very specific program of disinformation and disparaging information on subjects in order to destabilize the government it wishes to invade....it's what happened in Crimea and Ukraine.
Because of a traitor in the Ukranian Government (he believed to propaganda)...Putin's troops had almost free unhindered access to the South Eastern portion of Ukraine during its Blitzkrieg. (Which it still holds today)

It takes time for any people group to really understand what a Transparent Democratic government is all about. It has good merits as well as demerits. The Ukranians were still under Russia's thumb until Zelinsky. The EU was thrilled. Russia was angry. And the rhetoric and propaganda teams went into overdrive trying to discredit Zelinski immediately.
I completely agree that if it wasn't for Russian expansion plans there wouldn't be a war today...but I still say that the USA as a whole bears the blame as well because of NPA under the Clinton years.

Technically, Zelenskiy is just another corrupted Russian-speaking Jew Oligarch, and Biden didn't bought him - he can only rent him. Actually, I'm not sure, that Biden even rented him, may be, Xiden just do it for China's profit (or because being blackmailed by the Ukrainians).

 

[BackAgain]

And the thread headline is still wrong over a month later.

 

[skye]

One of the latest interviews by Colonel MacGregor! Informative and amazing as always!

Douglas Macgregor - Ukrainian Soldiers WIPED OUT in BAKHMUT​

 

[Kruska]

Russia wants and demands Crimea's ports because all of Russia's ports are literally frozen in the winter months. Their trade by cargo ships of oil and gas and other goods is limited by their ports being frozen in the winter. Also Russia has not been paying fair global trade prices for Ukraine groceries....but had blocked Ukranians groceries from being sold on the open global market. When Zelinski came along with global trade for Ukranians agricultural products it infuriated Russia to no end. The manufacturing of rocket engines is of secondary military importance....not primary.

That Russia (Putin) considers Crimea not to be part of an artificial Ukraine is understood. That he considers Ukraine not to have any logical/historic basis for being a sovereign nation - especially by claiming the borders of the former Soviet Republic Ukraine is also understood.

Secondly,
NATO is purely defensive in nature. Defensive troops and munitions are NOT the same as Offensive troops.

You are living in the past. Latest since 1990 NATO had lost it's primary objective. Since 1990 "Iraq" NATO has become an offensive acting force that is integrated into the USA's global agenda and military adventures. Iraq - Operation desert-storm wasn't a defensive operation but a brilliantly conducted all out offensive operation including several NATO members.

Due to the USA global military operations since 1991 NATO completely changed it's military layout - adapting it towards "how to wack and kick inferior countries and their military" with as little as possible efforts - especially in regards towards avoiding large scale conventional ground operations. This is why the concept of BTG's was developed in view of operational ground forces, and where it originated from. Due to the defense $$ budget pressure suddenly vanishing (no more massive Soviet and Warsaw-Pact, military) All Western European NATO countries slashed their military sizes down.

E.g. Germany - brought down its forces from around 750,000 to now 220,000. The present Bundeswehr Heer only constitutes of three "planed" divisions (around 8-10 Brigades) factually the Bundeswehr can presently (as of today) can hardly even muster 2 Divisions - even if they wanted to - due to the miserable maintenance standard - the Bundeswehr isn't even able to conduct a large scale maneuver that would include just 2 divisions. However due to NATO's restructuring towards BTG's such maneuvers were not "envisioned" anymore - until Putin last year did something about it.

I have been studying this for a long time as an armchair military strategist. What is really required to invade and conquer another country militarily?. NATO munitions and equipment and soldiers have no Offensive capabilities as per the treaties. Any and all exercises are about the repelling of invading forces....namely China and Russia because of their regular, publicly stated goals and ambitions that they have willingly demonstrated on a regular basis.

Okay, so please enlighten me as to how you define e.g. the German Armed Forces to be solely or primarily "Defensive"

And take some time to read up on NATO Able Archer 83 - that almost spun into WW3 - due to not having been a defensive operation/exercise. ( I was serving at that time with what can be considered to be NATO's ultimate weapon system) - due to obvious reasons I wont forward details - but it wasn't a "defensive" maneuver/exercise at all. The character of that exercise even resulted into the Soviet-Union downing Flight KAL 007.

You really need to get away from MSM and get some "neutral and factual" information's.

NATO had lost it's defensive operational character and changed entirely towards an offensive layout of it's forces since 1983 - when the "defensive" - aka retaliation concept was replaced with the NATO forward doctrine (rightfully IMO). which was officially titled: NATO Forward Defensive Strategy.
Just because a countries government is not committed towards attacking another country - doesn't mean at all that its' respective military-forces aren't - equipped and trained for offensive operations.

Yes China's military doctrine is directed towards defense of the PRC and it's immediate strategic military interests towards it's immediate neighborhood. So you have reasons to believe that the PLA doesn't have the necessary military equipment and training to e.g. attack any of it's immediate neighbors? come on. - and Taiwan isn't an immediate neighbor but a part of the PRC.

Russia has failed at invading Ukraine in all truth. Why on earth they thought that this was going to work is a bit of a mystery to me. Especially with such limited Offensive capabilities and known backlash of consequences. They were completely unsuccessful in destroying communications or command and control leadership. They only had successfully created one traitor in the Southeast.

Yes correct - because Putin's plan involved traitors (Putin would refer to them as rightful sympathizers) right down into Kiev itself - in order to avoid a large scale war - for which Russia was and still is not prepared. For some reason the "traitor" in Kiev wasn't around or didn't stick to the plan. And just as Ukraine, Russia is now gearing up for a large scale war.

Nobody in NATO wants Russia to be conquered by anybody. Nor does NATO want Russia to be a Vassal State. We don't want to fill Russia with immigrants or any other such fool thing. We have a treaty to stand together as a wall against the many times Russia and China have invaded and looted other countries because their Communist Plutocracy is a model for failure and we don't want to be looted.

Nonsense - when did China attack anyone since 1984? (And for Vietnam, China even had justifiable international law on it's side including the USA) The PRC changed it's political and economic concept entirely upon reforming the CPC via Deng Xiaoping in the 80's.
Same goes for Russia, aside from supporting Russian separatists in Georgia and conducting anti-terrorist operations in the Caucasus - Russia had not occupied or attacked anyone from 1990 - to 2014.
NATO doesn't have the ability to conquer Russia - what the heck are you talking about? they are presently trying to destroy Russia economically - aka financing a proxy war on behalf of Ukraine's destruction.
NATO and the EU want to primarily use their "democratic" means (destroying existing cultures and their heritage by making use of political lobbies aka corruption to gain political influence in the respective country) - just as they have done with a dozen countries since 1990. If they can't succeed in that manner they construe reasons to attack those countries. Where do you live - on planet Venus?

If Russia can actually survive the summer and Fall I will be very surprised. Their financial reserves are on target to be depleted by June or July and the Ruble is falling again to historic lows. The war is far from over for Ukraine...they have newly highly trained troops and equipment and are preparing for not one but two counteroffensive attacks. Ones Russia is ill prepared for. Their logistics and finances are not capable of keeping up with the entire western world.

The future will show the final result. If there will be a final result at all - I personally doubt it very much.

And lets keep in mind that this thread is about Bahkmut - and not global dirty politics

 

[krichton]

That Russia (Putin) considers Crimea not to be part of an artificial Ukraine is understood. That he considers Ukraine not to have any logical/historic basis for being a sovereign nation - especially by claiming the borders of the former Soviet Republic Ukraine is also understood.

You are living in the past. Latest since 1990 NATO had lost it's primary objective. Since 1990 "Iraq" NATO has become an offensive acting force that is integrated into the USA's global agenda and military adventures. Iraq - Operation desert-storm wasn't a defensive operation but a brilliantly conducted all out offensive operation including several NATO members.

Due to the USA global military operations since 1991 NATO completely changed it's military layout - adapting it towards "how to wack and kick inferior countries and their military" with as little as possible efforts - especially in regards towards avoiding large scale conventional ground operations. This is why the concept of BTG's was developed in view of operational ground forces, and where it originated from. Due to the defense $$ budget pressure suddenly vanishing (no more massive Soviet and Warsaw-Pact, military) All Western European NATO countries slashed their military sizes down.

E.g. Germany - brought down its forces from around 750,000 to now 220,000. The present Bundeswehr Heer only constitutes of three "planed" divisions (around 8-10 Brigades) factually the Bundeswehr can presently (as of today) can hardly even muster 2 Divisions - even if they wanted to - due to the miserable maintenance standard - the Bundeswehr isn't even able to conduct a large scale maneuver that would include just 2 divisions. However due to NATO's restructuring towards BTG's such maneuvers were not "envisioned" anymore - until Putin last year did something about it.

Okay, so please enlighten me as to how you define e.g. the German Armed Forces to be solely or primarily "Defensive"

And take some time to read up on NATO Able Archer 83 - that almost spun into WW3 - due to not having been a defensive operation/exercise. ( I was serving at that time with what can be considered to be NATO's ultimate weapon system) - due to obvious reasons I wont forward details - but it wasn't a "defensive" maneuver/exercise at all. The character of that exercise even resulted into the Soviet-Union downing Flight KAL 007.

You really need to get away from MSM and get some "neutral and factual" information's.

NATO had lost it's defensive operational character and changed entirely towards an offensive layout of it's forces since 1983 - when the "defensive" - aka retaliation concept was replaced with the NATO forward doctrine (rightfully IMO). which was officially titled: NATO Forward Defensive Strategy.
Just because a countries government is not committed towards attacking another country - doesn't mean at all that its' respective military-forces aren't - equipped and trained for offensive operations.

Yes China's military doctrine is directed towards defense of the PRC and it's immediate strategic military interests towards it's immediate neighborhood. So you have reasons to believe that the PLA doesn't have the necessary military equipment and training to e.g. attack any of it's immediate neighbors? come on. - and Taiwan isn't an immediate neighbor but a part of the PRC.

Yes correct - because Putin's plan involved traitors (Putin would refer to them as rightful sympathizers) right down into Kiev itself - in order to avoid a large scale war - for which Russia was and still is not prepared. For some reason the "traitor" in Kiev wasn't around or didn't stick to the plan. And just as Ukraine, Russia is now gearing up for a large scale war.

Nonsense - when did China attack anyone since 1984? (And for Vietnam, China even had justifiable international law on it's side including the USA) The PRC changed it's political and economic concept entirely upon reforming the CPC via Deng Xiaoping in the 80's.
Same goes for Russia, aside from supporting Russian separatists in Georgia and conducting anti-terrorist operations in the Caucasus - Russia had not occupied or attacked anyone from 1990 - to 2014.
NATO doesn't have the ability to conquer Russia - what the heck are you talking about? they are presently trying to destroy Russia economically - aka financing a proxy war on behalf of Ukraine's destruction.
NATO and the EU want to primarily use their "democratic" means (destroying existing cultures and their heritage by making use of political lobbies aka corruption to gain political influence in the respective country) - just as they have done with a dozen countries since 1990. If they can't succeed in that manner they construe reasons to attack those countries. Where do you live - on planet Venus?

The future will show the final result. If there will be a final result at all - I personally doubt it very much.

And lets keep in mind that this thread is about Bahkmut - and not global dirty politics

Iraqi freedom did have some small nato member states involved among a large allied coalition from all over the globe, but does that actually mean NATO itself was involved? NATO was only involved in afghanistan because it was believed the taliban was harboring Al Queda, which perpetrated the 911 attacks.

 

[Kruska]

Iraqi freedom did have some small nato member states involved among a large allied coalition from all over the globe, but does that actually mean NATO itself was involved? NATO was only involved in afghanistan because it was believed the taliban was harboring Al Queda, which perpetrated the 911 attacks.

I don't think that e.g. the UK or France can be considered to be a small NATO members during Desert-storm. Those that were not militarily involved e.g. Germany paid/contributed billions to the USA.
What about all the other NATO participation's? Somalia? E.g. all those former Yugoslav states? yes all UN mandated but executed foremost by NATO member states. Even though some from the e.g. Malaysian Armed forces also participated. No surprise since NATO's new job from 1990 onward had become that of the world assistant police dude to the big sheriff from the USA.

Lastly Serbia itself being attacked by NATO. Same goes for NATO member attack actions onto Syria and Iraq in 2004, right down to Libya. All coordinated by the USA and executed by NATO "defensive" members. Lastly NATO member Turkey's military attack enterprise in Syria. Whereby the latter can be kind of excused taking into account that Turkey had already attacked an own NATO member some decades before.

There is no denying that NATO - originating as a sole military deterrent pact towards the Soviet Union - has become an active war making party from 1990 onward. Certainly not as active as the USA but still trying their best.

 

[gipper]

Excellent column from David Stockman.

David Stockman on Imperial Washington — The New Global Menace​

David Stockman on Imperial Washington — The New Global Menace

 

[Kruska]

afghanistan because it was believed the taliban was harboring Al Queda, which perpetrated the 911 attacks.

Sorry but that's an absolute wrong/false interpretation.

It was known that the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. Since Afghanistan at the time, now again was a sovereign state - the USA alone or in accordance with the UN could have send an extradition request to Afghanistan.
Afghanistan as a sovereign nation has the right to reject such an extradition demand - which AFAIK they did - stating that they have their own laws to deal with this case.
USA's aka Bush jun's reaction: attack and devastate the place

I mean after all the USA and NATO are constantly pointing out international law if it serves their purpose - right? So let's condemn Russia for their non - international law abidance. in regards to attacking Ukraine, because only the USA and NATO have a right to do so.
And this is were exactly countries such as China, India or Brazil come in - via staying neutral, but being completely aware that what Putin did is exactly as to what Bush jun. did in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. - and the UN and NATO members couldn't give a shit about the USA having acted against international law. Is there an international law that states non-democratic countries are free to be attacked?
It's called western double standard in e.g. China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc. etc. - mate.

So lets be fair to Putin and let him have his "special operation" for the next 20 years in Ukraine fighting terrorists and Nazi's who had killed thousands of Russians in the twin towers...ah...Donbas etc.

 

[krichton]

I don't think that e.g. the UK or France can be considered to be a small NATO members during Desert-storm. Those that were not militarily involved e.g. Germany paid/contributed billions to the USA.
What about all the other NATO participation's? Somalia? E.g. all those former Yugoslav states? yes all UN mandated but executed foremost by NATO member states. Even though some from the e.g. Malaysian Armed forces also participated. No surprise since NATO's new job from 1990 onward had become that of the world assistant police dude to the big sheriff from the USA.

Lastly Serbia itself being attacked by NATO. Same goes for NATO member attack actions onto Syria and Iraq in 2004, right down to Libya. All coordinated by the USA and executed by NATO "defensive" members. Lastly NATO member Turkey's military attack enterprise in Syria. Whereby the latter can be kind of excused taking into account that Turkey had already attacked an own NATO member some decades before.

There is no denying that NATO - originating as a sole military deterrent pact towards the Soviet Union - has become an active war making party from 1990 onward. Certainly not as active as the USA but still trying their best.

You have your wars mixed up. Iraqi freedom isn't desert storm. Iraqi freedom took place over 10 years after the first gulf war and did not involve NATO.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Kruska]

You have your wars mixed up. Iraqi freedom isn't desert storm. Iraqi freedom took place over 10 years after the first gulf war and did not involve NATO.

OMG - get a history book - and check out participants (coalition partners) during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.
None of the two involved NATO, (which I never claimed or stated) but NATO members. - then come back to me - thanks.

 

[gipper]

OMG - get a history book - and check out participants (coalition partners) during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.
None of the two involved NATO, (which I never claimed or stated) but NATO members. - then come back to me - thanks.

NATO should have been dissolved after the fall of the USSR. Sadly, we can’t have peace when war makes so money for the corrupt capitalists and politicians.

 

[para bellum]

We note Witte's assessment: reinforcements will not be sent to Bahmut.

"Russia has transfered elite paratroopers to Bakhmut due to the huge losses of Wagner PMC", spokesman of the Eastern Group of Forces Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty said. He added that Russian elites are also taking high casualties and are being replenished by mobilized soldiers."

 

[gipper]

"Russia has transfered elite paratroopers to Bakhmut due to the huge losses of Wagner PMC", spokesman of the Eastern Group of Forces Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty said. He added that Russian elites are also taking high casualties and are being replenished by mobilized soldiers."

Yeah sure thing.

 

[para bellum]

Yeah sure thing.

Same thing was reported by western OSINT sources a couple days ago. VDV re-positioned from Kreminna.

 

[gipper]

Same thing was reported by western OSINT sources a couple days ago. VDV re-positioned from Kreminna.

Any establishment media reports on the war from western sources, are suspect.

 

[para bellum]

Any establishment media reports on the war from western sources, are suspect.

I don't read or cite journalists. I'm only interested in source material.

Media reports on source material, so journalists bring my attention to some things, but I'm not interested in any journo's version of events.

 

[badger2]

"Russia has transfered elite paratroopers to Bakhmut due to the huge losses of Wagner PMC", spokesman of the Eastern Group of Forces Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty said. He added that Russian elites are also taking high casualties and are being replenished by mobilized soldiers."

You did not read Witte. He was talking about Ukraine reinforcements.

 

[badger2]

NATO should have been dissolved after the fall of the USSR. Sadly, we can’t have peace when war makes so money for the corrupt capitalists and politicians.

'The Birth of the Biosecurity Agenda.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1988-1991, the military-industrial complex began rummaging about for a more reliable enemy to permanently justify its hefty share of the GDP. While most Americans eagerly awaited the ballyhooed "peace dividend," Pentagon mandarins and their emporium of contractors may have considered with dismay that someone else would be spending money that was rightfully theirs.

The peace dividend never materialized. Beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and culminating in 9/11, Islamic terrorism replaced the Soviets as the essential adversary in U.S. foreign policy....Since terrorism is a tactic and not a nation, an imprecisely defined "terrorism" had the allure of an enemy that could never be vanquished....By 1999, some farsighted Pentagon planners were already looking ahead to the more exuberant and sustainable prosperity that would come with a war on germs.'
(Kennedy, The Real Anthony Fauci, p. 379)