Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

[Litwin]

Here's a video that explains the problem with Private military companies.
This guy is NOT partisan and gives a very balanced view of the war and an explanation of these PMCs.

GREAT !

 

[toomuchtime_]

I hope it’s unlikely!

But, anyway, your analysis of why it’s unlikely begins with a suppressed premise. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it seems like you are saying “all leaders including Putin will base their decisions on logic.”

Sadly, life has taught us (and Potato being President confirms for us) that some leaders aren’t too bright to begin with and are seriously lacking in logic, critical thinking capacity, or foresight. This can be even worse under major stress.

And both the US and Russia have been living with that risk, but the issue has been studied by both governments so thoroughly that there is no possibility any leader would be able to hope for a good outcome to a nuclear war.

 

[Litwin]

Here's a video that explains the problem with Private military companies.
This guy is NOT partisan and gives a very balanced view of the war and an explanation of these PMCs.

friend, many errors , dont watch it

 

[toomuchtime_]

The problem is that in recent thirty years American nuclear arsenal significantly degraded, and Russia's - improved. When we calculate the situation, not just declare it, we see, that nowadays American second strike capability doesn't guarantee "destruction" of both Russia and China simultaneously, or even just Russia.
Two boomers survived in the Atlantic (and ready to attack Russia) plus three boomers survived in the Pacific (and ready to attack China) won't destroy Russia and China anyway (especially if their cities are already evacuated and ABD, Emercom and National Guard are ready), and this is if we are talking about optimistic scenario of the Russian attack. In the realistic scenario we have one boomer survived in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. In the pessimistic (it's unlikely, but still possible) scenario the USA have almost no nukes after the well prepared Russian attack.


There are bad news. Russia and/or China don't need to win a flawless victory. They need a lesser evil.

You clearly have no idea how stupid you sound.

The problem is that in recent thirty years American nuclear arsenal significantly degraded, and Russia's - improved. When we calculate the situation, not just declare it, we see, that nowadays American second strike capability doesn't guarantee "destruction" of both Russia and China simultaneously, or even just Russia.
Two boomers survived in the Atlantic (and ready to attack Russia) plus three boomers survived in the Pacific (and ready to attack China) won't destroy Russia and China anyway (especially if their cities are already evacuated and ABD, Emercom and National Guard are ready), and this is if we are talking about optimistic scenario of the Russian attack. In the realistic scenario we have one boomer survived in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. In the pessimistic (it's unlikely, but still possible) scenario the USA have almost no nukes after the well prepared Russian attack.


There are bad news. Russia and/or China don't need to win a flawless victory. They need a lesser evil.

The problem is that in recent thirty years American nuclear arsenal significantly degraded, and Russia's - improved. When we calculate the situation, not just declare it, we see, that nowadays American second strike capability doesn't guarantee "destruction" of both Russia and China simultaneously, or even just Russia.
Two boomers survived in the Atlantic (and ready to attack Russia) plus three boomers survived in the Pacific (and ready to attack China) won't destroy Russia and China anyway (especially if their cities are already evacuated and ABD, Emercom and National Guard are ready), and this is if we are talking about optimistic scenario of the Russian attack. In the realistic scenario we have one boomer survived in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. In the pessimistic (it's unlikely, but still possible) scenario the USA have almost no nukes after the well prepared Russian attack.


There are bad news. Russia and/or China don't need to win a flawless victory. They need a lesser evil.

Clearly, you have no idea how stupid you sound. For many years now the US has maintained a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia three times over in case of a Russian first strike. Russia's nuclear threats are intended to compensate for the fact its conventional forces are clearly only a pale shadow of what the world had thought they were before Putin's fiasco in Ukraine, but no one is paying attention to Putin's nonsensical nuclear threats. The fact that you now feel the need to include China in a US Russia conflict shows you don't believe your own nonsense about Russia "winning" a nuclear war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Actually, there are targets which worth a nuke (like, say, bridges), but yes. It's highly unlikely, that the Russians will use nukes in the "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine. But there is no doubts that they will use nukes against military targets (first of all nuclear targets like, say, HMNB Clyde in Scotland) in the European war, or against the USA in the case of the large-scale war.

Bullshit. MAD, mutually assured destruction, is a fact that won't go away just because Russia's conventional forces are no match for NATO. The only way for Russia not to be defeated by the West is not to go to war with the West.

 

[BackAgain]

And both the US and Russia have been living with that risk, but the issue has been studied by both governments so thoroughly that there is no possibility any leader would be able to hope for a good outcome to a nuclear war.

You again assume logic and sanity.

 

[JohnDB]

friend, many errors , dont watch it

I don't know about that....he seems to give both sides viewpoints and makes clear assessments based on third parties and corroboration.


But interesting to note today is that Google has suspended many YouTube accounts today in an effort to stop Russian propaganda. These accounts have links and ties directly to the Kremlin's propaganda networks.

Then there's the rumors that FBI and CIA are going directly after those involved with propaganda networks with investigations....espionage, treason, and other crimes for those in the USA and just some snuffing out of those outside (like Canada and abroad)

I bet we see some names and proponents of Russia just stop posting one day for some inexplicable reason soon.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You again assume logic and sanity.

Only a very small amount. Any leader, whether Russian or American, will be confronted by a vast number of facts and analyses that will show there is no advantage to starting a nuclear war. While Putin has clearly shown very poor judgement in Ukraine, it is just as clear that he is not insane.

 

[Litwin]

FBI and CIA are going directly after those involved with propaganda networks

is it any chance to get in contact with FBI & CIA?

 

[Litwin]

I don't know about that....he seems to give both sides viewpoints and makes clear assessments based on third parties and corroboration.


But interesting to note today is that Google has suspended many YouTube accounts today in an effort to stop Russian propaganda. These accounts have links and ties directly to the Kremlin's propaganda networks.

Then there's the rumors that FBI and CIA are going directly after those involved with propaganda networks with investigations....espionage, treason, and other crimes for those in the USA and just some snuffing out of those outside (like Canada and abroad)

I bet we see some names and proponents of Russia just stop posting one day for some inexplicable reason soon.

PS, 1991 N2 )))

 

[Litwin]

 

[Litwin]

 

[BackAgain]

Only a very small amount. Any leader, whether Russian or American, will be confronted by a vast number of facts and analyses that will show there is no advantage to starting a nuclear war. While Putin has clearly shown very poor judgement in Ukraine, it is just as clear that he is not insane.

It’s not clear at all. If he were actually same, he’d have stopped his efforts to bomb civilian cities and so forth. He’s a raging rabid scumbag and if your counting on him being sane, toss in his likely physical condition (cancer).

 

[JohnDB]

Russia lost more ground today in Bahmut.

I don't think that the title of this thread is ever going to be correct.

Especially as there are reports of a flanking maneuver north of Bakhmut and those wanting to encircle are themselves being encircled. Just saying.

 

[badger2]

Bahmut

 

[toomuchtime_]

It’s not clear at all. If he were actually same, he’d have stopped his efforts to bomb civilian cities and so forth. He’s a raging rabid scumbag and if your counting on him being sane, toss in his likely physical condition (cancer).

He has shown terrible judgement, but bombing cities is not an irrational act. As morally repugnant as these acts are, they are intended to break the spirit of the resistance and show poor judgement but are quite rational.

 

[BackAgain]

He has shown terrible judgement, but bombing cities is not an irrational act. As morally repugnant as these acts are, they are intended to break the spirit of the resistance and show poor judgement but are quite rational.

Which is very debatable in its own right yet still beside the point. It isn’t rational to be a bloodthirsty cocksucker as he is.

But when things get tough, how much would it take to push him into a precipitous and possibly irreversible action like trying the idea of a “tactical” nuke?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Which is very debatable in its own right yet still beside the point. It isn’t rational to be a bloodthirsty cocksucker as he is.

But when things get tough, how much would it take to push him into a precipitous and possibly irreversible action like trying the idea of a “tactical” nuke?

Although it is morally reprehensible to bomb cities, it is neither rational nor irrational to be a bloodthirsty cocksucker. If following a moral code prevents you from getting what you want, are your actions rational or irrational? The answer is it has nothing to do with rationality but with values. Given one set of values, logic would lead you to one set of actions but given another set of values, logic would lead you to another set of actions.

Arguably, Putin is a sociopath who has based his decisions and actions on false assumptions about the resolve of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine's western allies to resist the invasion, but given those assumptions and his deeply flawed character, his actions have been quite rational.

I would agree with you that Putin would have no moral qualms about nuking millions of Ukrainians or Europeans or Americans if he believed it would bring him some benefit, but the Russians have studied the consequences of a nuclear as carefully as the US has and they have come to the same decision that no benefit would accrue to either side, so there is no possibility that Putin would be able to convince himself that Russia would in any way benefit from firing off nukes.

 

[BackAgain]

Although it is morally reprehensible to bomb cities, it is neither rational nor irrational to be a bloodthirsty cocksucker.

I couldn’t agree LESS.

In any event, your assumption that leaders will behave rationally is belied by history.

 

[para bellum]

Bahmut

That's Russians for you. This shit will only ramp up the assistance from the west.

Prigozhin has plenty of ammunition- it's fighters he's running out of.