Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

[Silver Cat]

Your table comes from a study by

As always, nothing but bullshit in your post. The tables you are showing come from a computer simulation by a group of anti war scientists who put together a computer simulation based on current arsenals which shows European Russia, in which 75% if the Russian population lives, would be virtually obliterated, meaning that the Russian losses from the initial exchanges would certainly number in the tens of millions, perhaps as high as 70 million, and that would be only the deaths that resulted from the explosions and many more Russians would die from radiation, starvation and disease in the ruins of European Russia during the humanitarian crisis that would follow.

Home | Princeton Science & Global Security

sgs.princeton.edu

Simulating Nuclear War | Princeton Science & Global Security

This project is aimed at developing a new simulation to explore nuclear war between the United States and Russia and the role of the current fleet of 400 on-alert silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in U.S. nuclear strategy and plans. The United States intends to replace its...

sgs.princeton.edu

PLAN A | Princeton Science & Global Security

SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.

sgs.princeton.edu

There is nothing here that supports your absurd claim about only one million Russian casualties.

If both sides commited anti-value attack, and don't care about ABD, civil defense, and evacuation - may be.
But in reality nor Americans, neither Russians are suiciders. We prefer to save our own civilians rather than kill civilians of other side. Thats why the first strike is counter-force. You destroy significant part of his nukes, and then you suggest him to surrender or other, more or less acceptable peace terms. If your counter-force strike was really effective - you may demand unconditional surrender. If your strike was not that effective, but still effective - you may demand Crimea and Novorossia (or Alaska and California), if your first strike was not effective - ok, you have the problems, and you'd better to surrender yourself (or agree on more or less acceptable peace terms of defender).

 

[Silver Cat]

No one is predicting a Russian victory except creepy propagandists like yourself.

You see, the Russian declaration that they can choose to use nukes in this conflict, and the American declaration that they won't use nukes in this conflict, means that the Russians can win just by raising bets. And the only question here is what the price they will pay for their victory.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Man, the Russians started their Special Military Operation because they thought the open conflict (however escalated) is much more safe than waiting for Ukrainian attack against Donbass, WMD-production or joining NATO.
You may like it or not like it but it was a result of their calculations and their analysis of the situation.

The only security threats Russia faced came from the Kremlin, not from NATO or Ukraine.

If both sides commited anti-value attack, and don't care about ABD, civil defense, and evacuation - may be.
But in reality nor Americans, neither Russians are suiciders. We prefer to save our own civilians rather than kill civilians of other side. Thats why the first strike is counter-force. You destroy significant part of his nukes, and then you suggest him to surrender or other, more or less acceptable peace terms. If your counter-force strike was really effective - you may demand unconditional surrender. If your strike was not that effective, but still effective - you may demand Crimea and Novorossia (or Alaska and California), if your first strike was not effective - ok, you have the problems, and you'd better to surrender yourself (or agree on more or less acceptable peace terms of defender).

Again, you repeat your absurd fantasies about winning a nuclear war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You see, the Russian declaration that they can choose to use nukes in this conflict, and the American declaration that they won't use nukes in this conflict, means that the Russians can win just by raising bets. And the only question here is what the price they will pay for their victory.

So, in your demented mind, Russia's path to victory is to commit a second genocide against the Ukrainian people.

 

[Silver Cat]

So, in your demented mind, Russia's path to victory is to commit a second genocide against the Ukrainian people.

Sure, no. As well as nuclear and non-nuclear strategic bombing of Japan were not "genocide".
And, if there is a choice - to kill the enemy or allow him to kill your people, the choice is simple. If the genocide of Ukrainians, or Germans, or Japans, or Americans is the only way to prevent genocide of the Russians - ok, they will choose that way.
But, we all know, that even if a nation is ready to fight up for their last man, it definitely not ready to fight up the their last woman and child. Therefore, almost any nation (Ukrainians, Russians, Americans) will finish any organised resistance long before they lost 75% of their population.

And no, it's not "Russian genocide", it's "Ukrainian suicide".

 

[Silver Cat]

The only security threats Russia faced came from the Kremlin, not from NATO or Ukraine.

Again, you repeat your absurd fantasies about winning a nuclear war.

They are not mine, and they are not fantasies.

 

[Litwin]

 

[para bellum]

Biden's decision to support Kievan regime was stupid, and Putin knew about it. This conflict makes NATO and the USA weaker, not stronger.

That decision came 6 weeks after the invasion. Biden was dragged along by the rest of NATO.

NATO countries have provided surplus equipment and stockpiled ammunition, and there is a massive increase in manufacturing capacity for conventional munitions underway. Everything the US has sent is being replaced with newer updated versions and new factories are being built.

NATO countries have returned to cold war defense spending levels, and Russia's NATO border has doubled. Russia has lost 2/3 or better of their post-2010 modernized equipment and can't replace it.

No. NATO and the US are not weaker- they are stronger, and Russia is much weaker than before the invasion.

It's quite possible that Putin will have to order another mass mobilization, and the outdated equipment and untrained troops will be sent to the meat grinder, just like the last 5 months. 100K Ru casualties, there will be another 100K before the year is out if Putin doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine.

 

[Litwin]

 

[Silver Cat]

That decision came 6 weeks after the invasion. Biden was dragged along by the rest of NATO.

NATO countries have provided surplus equipment and stockpiled ammunition, and there is a massive increase in manufacturing capacity for conventional munitions underway. Everything the US has sent is being replaced with newer updated versions and new factories are being built.

NATO countries have returned to cold war defense spending levels, and Russia's NATO border has doubled. Russia has lost 2/3 or better of their post-2010 modernized equipment and can't replace it.

No. NATO and the US are not weaker- they are stronger, and Russia is much weaker than before the invasion.

It's quite possible that Putin will have to order another mass mobilization, and the outdated equipment and untrained troops will be sent to the meat grinder, just like the last 5 months. 100K Ru casualties, there will be another 100K before the year is out if Putin doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine.

Wishful-thinking, as usual.

 

[Litwin]

Wishful-thinking, as usual.

sure ivan

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sure, no. As well as nuclear and non-nuclear strategic bombing of Japan were not "genocide".
And, if there is a choice - to kill the enemy or allow him to kill your people, the choice is simple. If the genocide of Ukrainians, or Germans, or Japans, or Americans is the only way to prevent genocide of the Russians - ok, they will choose that way.
But, we all know, that even if a nation is ready to fight up for their last man, it definitely not ready to fight up the their last woman and child. Therefore, almost any nation (Ukrainians, Russians, Americans) will finish any organised resistance long before they lost 75% of their population.

And no, it's not "Russian genocide", it's "Ukrainian suicide".

With everry post you sound crazier and crazier. You propose nuking Ukraine out of existence and then compare that to the bombing of Japan and then claim Ukraine would commit genocide against Russia and this makes you certifiable as both an idiot and insane.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They are not mine, and they are not fantasies.

Of course they are your fantasies, you fucking lunatic.

 

[Silver Cat]

With everry post you sound crazier and crazier. You propose nuking Ukraine out of existence and then compare that to the bombing of Japan and then claim Ukraine would commit genocide against Russia and this makes you certifiable as both an idiot and insane.

No. I said, that if necessary, Russia may finish existence of Ukraine as an independent state (as well, as the existence of Poland and Germany) and occupy their lands. It doesn't mean mass murder of Ukrainians, Poles, or Germans. Most of them can live under foreign rule, or even as the full citizens of Russia.
And this option (from the Russian point of view) is much better than allow Ukrainians, Poles or Germans kill the Russians (both in Russia or in Ukraine).

And yes, Russia officially declared, that they consider "forced Ukrainisation" as a form of genocide.

 

[Silver Cat]

Of course they are your fantasies, you fucking lunatic.

Have you read, for example, the article of Fazletdinov and Lumpov - "The Role of Strategic Missile Forces in Countering NATO's Strategic Multi-Domain operation"?
Edited, attachment was in a foreign language-meister

 

[Silver Cat]

sure ivan

View attachment 782792

The problem is that Russia is economically backed by other countries, first of all, by their BRICS partners.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No. I said, that if necessary, Russia may finish existence of Ukraine as an independent state (as well, as the existence of Poland and Germany) and occupy their lands. It doesn't mean mass murder of Ukrainians, Poles, or Germans. Most of them can live under foreign rule, or even as the full citizens of Russia.
And this option (from the Russian point of view) is much better than allow Ukrainians, Poles or Germans kill the Russians (both in Russia or in Ukraine).

And yes, Russia officially declared, that they consider "forced Ukrainisation" as a form of genocide.

In an earlier post you tried to defend committing another Russian genocide of Ukrainians and now you claim you never said it. With each post you sound crazier and crazier.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Have you read, for example, the article of Fazletdinov and Lumpov - "The Role of Strategic Missile Forces in Countering NATO's Strategic Multi-Domain operation"?
View attachment 782816

This has nothing to do with your bizarre fantasies about Russia winning a nuclear war.

 

[BackAgain]

Meanwhile, all this time later and the Russian forces STILL haven’t won the battle as claimed in the erroneous thread headline.

 

[Silver Cat]

In an earlier post you tried to defend committing another Russian genocide of Ukrainians and now you claim you never said it. With each post you sound crazier and crazier.

Ok. One more time. From the Russian point of view, genocide of the Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Americans, whoever else, is much more preferred than the genocide of the Russians.
But, the Russians believe, that the genocide won't be necessary if the Western countries, first of all, the USA, will accept the peace on the Russia's terms.