Billy, thank you for posting this article. I have a question on this article, it states that the Israel attack could be an "imperial war against BRICS, especially Russia-China".
If true or even remotely true, why would Russia and to lesser extent China, sit back and let Iran be decimated like Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon? As an American it is hard to fathom why Russia particularly, is content on West reducing their sphere of influences to ashes. Has Putin not learned anything since 1990's and West grave intentions for Russia?
They're not going to. Both Russia and China are flying in aid - whether military advice or equipment is not known - and they know for a fact that all the US can do is bomb - there is no way whatsoever the US can bring enough troops over for an invasion, and Israel sure as shit doesn't have those numbers.
All that Iran has to do is survive, and guess what? When a country is attacked by it's most hated enemy, one live-streaming a genocide as we speak, that brings the population *Together*. They may not like the illiberal nature of their Govt, but they damned well know for sure it is lightyears ahead of anything that the US would impose if it fell.
If the US or Israel use nukes, then we are in a different world. Even if the DPRK and Pakistan don't launch theirs in reprisal, as they have promised to do.
There's nothing that R or C can do to help prepare Iran for a nuclear attack.
They also know that if it kicks off, every naval vessel for hundreds of miles will be on the sea-bottom within hours. So much for those common naval exercises.
There is no doubt that R & C see Iran as a redoubt, one the American Empire will break itself against.
True though Iran has ten x the population and a dislikes military, plus a rather large arsenal of missiles, as it’s told. It would not be the cake walk Libya was. On the other hand, it depends on how far the American fascists and their proxy are willing to go.
True, they used their "Islamic" proxies instead, for ground troops. Moving them from Syria especially.
But Libya is a low-population, highly concentrated nation, with almost no military to speak of (The Tuaregs provided much of the muscle to Gadhaffi's govt), and there is simply nowhere that the US could enlist the 500,000+ troops needed just to invade successfully, let alone defeat and pacify the entire country of Iran. The place is VAST (I've been from the Turkish border to the Pak border, and back again, and let me tell you this takes a considerable time, even on the highways).
Needless to say, had the US/Zionazi 'decapitation strikes' have succeeded in collapsing the regime there, creating a "Failed state" would have been a no.1 priority for the West.
There isn't an impending war with Iran, Saul. It began as soon as you guys bombed the embassy in Damascus. It's been ongoing for quite a while, hasn't it. And you're not on your own, unlike the Iranians. Your tightly knit group of European ex powers and the declining Hegemon are all joined at the hip with Zionist zealotry.
Yours is only a part of a much bigger war. It connects numerous conflicts over a number of years. This has been brewing since the US was defeated in Afghanistan. The attack on Russia, which failed, the Syrian operation, Lebanon, the attacks on Yemen, the push to wind down the Ukraine conflict, even the provocation pitting Pakistan against India.
These are all probing attacks to manoeuvre and gather intel. Unfortunately for Israel it seems like you are the next proxy to be thrown under the burning bus. I truly feel sorry for you and your Jewish brethren. I hope the Iranians are merciful. I expect the Palestinians to be much less so.
Keep it up, Simp. We need to keep abreast of the SMO even if the news of the ME war seems to take the spotlight. Though I must say, I suspect Russians are quite happy that Ukraine news has taken a back seat as they can move without as much oversight from the public.
Entertaining? This was a very brutal summary that shows just how horrible war is. The war will go on for a very long time. It also makes it quite clear that if the west really wanted to have a legitimate chance to push Russia back, the earliest time that a decent force could be put together would be about next spring, and that the west would need to bring a LOT of troops and logistics together.
Of course in that case, Russia / China / NK would step up their game and counter that and defeat the west anyways. It's hard for me to imagine just how long the Russian-Ukrainian front line is. This summary is about the best that can be done to communicate what it is like.
If you want Iran update, check the internet and media yourself. Nothing else Simplicius is doing (and thanks once more for this article after lots of good ones before), he does not get information by witchcraft or magic. So do not whine because you are lazy. Maybe donate a significant sum.
They would have nuked Poland in 2022 if they were truly conscious about casualties.
So no.
The reason is drones.
And the only solution to the drone problem is again to nuke Poland. Or to threaten it with nuking in such a credible way that it agrees to shut the border down.
It is not easy to move into the nuking business. Recall the early 1950s. Russia was in a very early stage, they just tested their first nuclear explosion in 1949. China's first bomb was tested in 1956. The Chines sent a million men army to North Korea and for the US it would have been the easy way to wipe them out at the transportation hubs. THEY DID NOT DO IT! Because they were concerned about the long term public effects, home and abroad. I think they made the right decision at the time.
Yes, WIKI wins :)) Below is a quote from my own research study concerning the issue. Commie Girl Joan Hinton mentioned below (American, daddy a lawyer, mammy a progressive) has realized that coming back to America after helping China with the bomb was a bad idea, so she stayed there forever.
Joan Hinton, an American physicist with active participation in the Manhattan Project most likely had a major role in the early phases of the Chinese program (Reed, et al, 2010, p-87). She participated as a co-worker of Enrico Fermi and moved to China in early 1948, never to be seen again in America. It testifies to the competence level and generally poor technological environment of the Chinese that after receiving detailed technical descriptions and technological help from various American, English and Soviet sources they were only able to arrive to their first experimental nuclear bomb on October 16, 1964 (Reed, et al, 2010, Ch-7). Regardless, in the following decades China has created a nuclear deterrent force that they proudly started to display to their American visitors in 1990.
So they just obliterated North Korea anyway so that the public effect was less or did I miss something Kman. North Koreans have suffered enormously for 2 generations and finally maybe doing a little better. The US never considers anything except achieving the goal.
Yes, you are right. North Korea received a terrible treatment. The US Air Force was pounding them until they had to bring back the bombs as there were no more standing buildings large enough to bomb. I had seen enough evidence showing that poisons were used against the general population as well. In other words they were placed on a path where they had seen the light, realizing that building a nuclear force was an existential issue. They worked on it for many decades. It was actually the major invasion of China and minimal Soviet help that saved them at the end. Stalin was afraid to get seriously involved although he was also threatened by the possibility of a hostile neighbor under US occupation.
The Korean War like many wars, invasions and regime changes initiated by the country of free and brave should never have happened.
"... In 1949, Owen Lattimore, a member of the Carnegie and Rockefeller-funded Institute for Pacific Relations and an advisor to the State Department on East Asian issues, wrote: "The thing to do is let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed it."
When General MacArthur, leading the UN forces, managed to repel the North right to the Chinese border, he was prevented from completing the mission by Truman, who would not authorize any operations north of the Soviet-held 38th parallel unless there was no chance of confrontation with either Chinese or Soviet forces. MacArthur, shocked by this development, wrote in a letter years later : "Such a limitation upon the utilization of available military force to repel an enemy attack has no precedent either in our own history or, so far as I know, in the history of the world. ..To me it clearly foreshadowed the tragic situation which has since developed and left me with a sense of shock I had never before experienced in a long life crammed with explosive reactions and momentous hazards."
There is no way that a nuclear attack on Poland or any other NATO member doesn't result in a nuclear counter strike against Russia. casualties run into the millions and WWIII starts.
Listen to the video of Putin in this very post, in the very end, he straight away says he very much doubt that US will start nuclear exchange in case Russia attacks Europe with nukes. So you here implying that he is wrong and you are right?
He doesn’t say that “he very much doubt that US will start nuclear exchange in case Russia attacks Europe with nukes”.
What he said was,
“if those with whom we engage with such conflicts cease to exist, will the American participate in this conflict at the level of strategic weapons or not?
I have serious doubts about it”
he also said
“When talking about Europeans any logic seems possible.”
and
“casualties could potentially mount indefinitely”
None of that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the Kremlin believes that there will be no nuclear counterstrike against a Russian nuclear first strike in Europe. The French and the British also have nuclear weapons.
Also, it is the job of any leader to present the best case for their people, it is not their job to tell the stone cold truth in public. Any leader is perfectly capable of rhetorical evasion, obfuscation or just straight up lying.
Your nuking scenario only works when only one country possesses such nukes like the US did back when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reality is that the west has plenty of them and if you are going to nuke a western country then you should expect mutual annihilation.
the rules of the game, the internal logic of nuclear exchange
using nukes changes the rules, in a completely unknown way, that is hard even to understand, whoever does it first, becomes a target of retaliation, for years to come
using nuke against someone means that you are willing to kill all the citizens all individuals of the nation. Hitler did it with Jews, Israel is doing it with Palestinians, we are ready to kill all of you...
Threats are useless if not aimed directly at the head of the snake,
if Russia nukes anyone short of London and Washington, Russia is showing its weakness
if nukes are to be used only Washington and London as targets make sense
but threats do not make much sense
but if you contemplate nuking Washington and London,
it is a very difficult decision
and it is better not to let the enemy prepare
so
do not threat London and Washington
if you decide that you have to do it, do it without any warning threats
the only sensible option is to prepare a proxy
someone with much to gain, little to lose,
like North Korea, or like Iran
that will be believed when they threaten US and London
best move Russia can make, in coordination with China,
is to help Iran connect with North Korea
and help both get precision missiles
(that should be improved to 10.000 miles, to be able to reach UK and US)
and nuclear weapons
This is risky, but all other pathways lead to even greater risk
in all other scenarios, Russia will be attacked and destroyed
Just nuking Poland is in real life possible only as a would be proxy of the US & UK
they would sacrifice Poland, temporarily, to get Russia on their side
"Nukes" have been a grift and a scam since inception.
Never used. Not even when it would have been a perfect set-piece situation (e.g. Chinese armor and infantry push south of the Yalu in 1950). MacArthur begged authorization to use them, but was rebuffed, then fired. Can't use something that does not exist.
And no, Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't "nuked." Standard garden variety firebombing.
Akio Nakatani blew the lid off in 2015 with his book "Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax." It's hilarious to see all the hand-waving and pussy-footing around "why" nukes can't/won't be used. Literally one of the most dead-simple weapons to build (bash two pieces of metal together).
Iran has been "weeks away" from a "bomb" for 40 years.
As Vox Day just wrote: "Either Iran has a nuke or nobody does."
Very clearly and succinctly: "nuclear weapons" -do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist.-
This is not a new concept. I figured it out independently back in 2012.
Others, such as the engineer Anders Bjorkman of Sweden and Miles Mathis also deduced it some time ago.
It is important to remember that most of the 20th century is complete fraud.
I posted a link to Japanese scientist Akio Nakatani's book. He works/worked for Fujitsu, and is not a "conspiracy theorist." He decided (just for fun) to use one of the most powerful supercomputers at the time to run a "numerical modeling" simulation of the "Little Boy" device. This wasn't hard, as every single detail (except for 5 variables comprising the "secret sauce") are public domain. Those 5 remaining variables constituted a relatively small "numerical space," and took the supercomputer about 2 minutes to completely test all possible combinations of variables.
The results: the device did not (and could not) work. It is important to remember that in 1944, the sum total of the computing power of the world was roughly equivalent to a Texas Instruments personal computer from 1984. The entire "Manhattan Project" could be duplicated on an average laptop in about a day.
The Fujitsu supercomputer was a MFLOPS capable device (look up what the means). So it took 2 minutes.
Do your own due diligence. I posted a link to the book. Read the whole thing. Read Anders Bjorkman's site here:
G'day Kman, has there been an extreme lowering of the casualties at a corresponding level over the increased time frame of this not a war, obviously that is rhetorical as no one knows the total though work is done to clear the fog.
Reports suggest Iran are going full throttle with attacks on Isreal, why do we not see this all the time in greater Ukraine?
Look at the result of attempted negotiations with The empire and its quislings re a look over there nuclear weapon yet will negotiations continue between Puti and Trump I wonder.
We are dealing with apples and oranges here, two very different wars. Iran is engaged mostly in missile/drone exchange while Russia vs Ukraine is a multidimensional act. I also find the Russian advances are on the slow side but I have difficulty to second guess their leadership with the limited information on hand. Is it possible that they rather allow for a slow, deliberate act taking into consideration their own public opinions? It is also a fact that Russia looks at the Ukraine population as their own, and historically speaking they are actually correct there.
Thanks for the reply, well second guessing is all part of any comment we make if not they would all be like Andrew Korybiko who only reports the machinations of the geopolitical sphere yes with a slight bias. John Helmer showed polling that suggest people want an end to the war but acquiesce as the message they get is that victory is at hand and the large financial windfall for the families of the dead help too.There is a large nationalist position who want greater action but it is not really expressed in non Russia but Putin supporting altmedia and is threatened by the Kremlin think Girkin and Mozgovoi etc.if they reach a large enough audience.
Why is the situation different between Russia and Iran except that Russia has a nuclear arsenal, they are both threatened with destruction by the West.
Medinsky stated public opinion has further leaned towards strong action and may I suggest finishing off the not a war so no more civilians be killed, I hadn't watched all the videos when I commented on yours.
Maybe there has been a qualitativel change in the public mind which might move the Kremlin, well at least we can hope.
If the Russians chose strategic attrition, it wouldn't matter where it took place, only that it did more damage to the US-Ukronazis. I can't help noticing that American Caesar has been defeated in detail and is trying to fob it off on the Euronazis.
Tactical nukes on logistics between Ukraine and Europe would have simultaneously:
1) Barely killed anyone
2) Physically isolated Ukraine
3) Sent a very powerful message and forced the West to back off.
If the West didn't back off, the next step is to nuke Europe, this time strategically. Maybe in two steps -- first the immediate belt of countries, then the rest, if they still don't get the message.
The US will not take this to a strategic exchange, because then it dies itself too. European proxies are disposable.
Again, it is not just me saying it, it is Putin saying it. Did you watch the video?
As the bumper sticker says: 'A single nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.' Do you really want to live in a world where nukes fly like bird doo-doo around?
A relatively recent problem KM, at least imo; is this concept of the " Strategic Nuke", tiny, laser focussed Nukes, that effect hardly any damage at all, except upon the baddies, or very limited areas of the Battlefield. I'm not exactly sure when i first heard about it, perhaps under O'bomber's administration but by no means certain. One malign impact was its attempt to alter the Public's perception of the damage Nukes cause, as the great majority have only ever seen pictures of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and heard the related testamonies. Others, to a lesser degree have seen programmes like Threads or the Day after Tomorrow or seen John Pilger's excellent piece about the impacts of testing on the Marshall Islands. But now, the fix is in to try and sell Joe Public that Nukes ain't that bad after all.
It truly is hilarious reading exchanges such as this. Here we are, 80+ years on, and -nuclear weapons have never been used.-
Not once. And more telling, -exactly zero "explosive accidents."- Statistically speaking, given the alleged number of "devices," there would have been a non-zero number of "explosive failures" in 80 years.
All things mechanical will, inevitably, fail. Look at how many nuclear reactors have either failed or had "near misses."
Nuclear weapons, -if they existed,- would have exhibited a similar statistical curve. And no, I don't buy the whole "we are just -that- good."
Humans are fallible. And I have a hard time believing that a Pakistani (or Indian, or Chinese, etc.) "nuke" is engineered with the same care and regard for safety as, say, and alleged American or Russian or French device.
Nukes are literally the most hilariously fake "weapon" ever devised. But the purpose wasn't to be used. The purpose was to -not- be used:
1. To justify draconian and unconscionable measures "because of the threat of nuclear war."
2. To justify massive grift, graft, and fraud (read "The 5 Trillion Dollar Cold War Hoax" by Eustace Mullins for just a taste). No accountability due to the "top secret" nature of these alleged weapons.
3. To squash the threat of popular uprisings "you'd need nukes and F-15s to beat the .gov." How many nukes and F-15s did Korea/Vietname/Afghanistan have?
Take away "nukes" as a casus belli for "State of Israel" launching this craven and NaZi-esque sneak attack? It's pure, naked, unjustified aggression.
Nuclear weapons not only do not exist, they cannot exist, simply due to very simple (and elementary, literally) laws of physics (primarily the incompressibility of metals, something we all supposedly learned in high school physics). And no amount of bloviating or hand-waving or equivocating will alter these laws.
Read the Nakatani book for a full disclosure on the hoax:
You must be six stealing time on your mother's phone with that limited level of thinking. Russians do plan to live in the world your fantasy level thinking is attempting to deny them.
Hmmmmm, seems you have become the grammar policing authority. Well it's the same crawl as that has been the strategy since the beginning attrition not taking territory. One must look at the gory details as all the territory Russia holds are territory that all Ukrainian soldiers have been liquidated. So consider it this way Russia is slaughtering their way through Ukraine Kilometers at a time. That's ugly work in my opinion that should take time.
Cancel culture is the way to go now grrr but don't reply now as freedom of speech is only someone else's you decide on. Isn't that what Trump and his red cap brigade were upset about and look at America now with another Kent state uni incident around the corner if you demonstrate again him.
There are several different aspects to any war (strategic, political, economic, cultural etc) and this one is no different. Some commentators seem to misunderstand the nature of the conflict - this is not WWII revisited and is not a war of annihilation. Therefore, Russian progress is more focused on attrition of Ukrainian forces (and political defeat of the Government) rather than outright crushing of the Ukrainian people and destruction of their major cities. Ukraine is not viewed as Germany in 1945. Completely different approach.
In reply to 2), which I read as basically saying "Why isn't this war going faster" or "Why doesn't Putin press the button on his desk marked "Win the war today"?
The broad strategy is war of attrition, the destruction of the threat, namely, the military, the men, the weapons and the capacity to build them in such a way that it just can't be rebuilt in any time frame less than a full generation, say 20~25 years.
The first phase of the war was an attempt at a deep strike maneuver "coup de main" to knock out the whole regime. That didn't work and with the element of surprise gone it can't be attempted again.
The gears shifted to a long term war of attrition on many fronts, not only the Ukraine battlefield but also the international and domestic economy, world wide diplomacy and the info-war. All of those have to be kept running and synchronized.
To use a gambling analogy, if you go "all in" on a single hand even a very strong one, you risk going bust. But if you have a strategy that guarantees a 2-3% advantage on every hand the correct path is to play as many hands as possible and draw it out over time. If you can, then your victory is inevitable.
In the real world, even with a marked deck, you still cannot win every poker hand... and drawing a Proxy conflict out may be a low cost way to win over Ukraine, but leave you vulnerable to the Masters of the Proxy for a longer period of time.
The attacks on the long range radars and the Strategic bombers in Russia serve as a kinetic warning of a potential first strike and/or nuclear decapitation strike on a larger scale than Iran has just been subjected to.
It is not as if you can trust the word of the Proxy Master.
It was only ever an analogy not meant to be correct in every detail.
But the gambling analogy still holds if you have a verified and consistent edge.
The casino's edge is between 2 and 5% for roulette. They want as many spins of that wheel as possible not one huge bet. The casino doesn’t need to win your money all at once. It just needs you to keep playing.
That's the advantage that Russia has in a war of attrition
I am afraid you are setting up a real world, multi-threat (and multi-probability) situation as if it is an isolated event (war), and not even a proxy war.
It might be just a matter of playing the probabilities of 1 game of Ukraine vs. Russia, if it only a matter of Ukraine vs. Russia. In fact, the game is the US + most of EU + NATO and assorted other vassal States against Russia; not just a Russia vs Ukraine contest.
SO while Russia may have benefits of relying on the odds like a casino relies on their built-in edge against Ukraine, there are other games being played on other fronts AGAINST Russia by the Hegemon and its satellites, in other places.
THAT is why taking it slow in Ukraine with the attention and assets need to be deployed, takes away from the resources that can be used elsewhere. Some suggest that Russia had to allow the regime-change in Syria, because it was focused on Ukraine. Among other things, this allowed Israel to use Syrian airspace to more easily attack Iran and now Russia's attention and assets are once again diverted (in potentially a variety of ways, with an unknown timeline).
While the diversion may not be enough degrade the preferred level of progress in Ukraine, yet, it will potentially limit Russian response if/when another flare-up, in a third or fourth trouble spot opens up. For example, failed bunker busters in Iran may lead to trying nukes, and that may make attritional warfare in the Ukraine theater less of a priority.
Worth bearing in mind that this conflict will NOT end once Ukraine capitulates. This is a war against NATO/US, and they will strike whenever they see an opportunity, and they will definitely continue to use terrorism.
So from Russia's perspective does it really matter how long this battle takes? It won't end the war on them.
Agreed. It will not end with capitulation, within Ukraine, in Europe, of from the US who sees the strength and/or independence of others as an affront to its Hegemony.
The denazification of Ukraine via the demilitarization of the country is probably one of the tactical reasons for the slow progress in Russia taking territory.
Russian goals are reached more efficiently if the Ukrainian side moves its people from the west to the eastern front, where Russia is deeply entrenched and has the shortest supply lines... compared to the Russians moving west faster, stretching their supply lines and having to find the targets.
Not to mention moving west faster means having to depopulate more large cities, have more risks at their flanks, and upsetting their quasi-pacifist BRICS+ friends for involving civilians too much.
How rude. It took me years to remember the word Avdeevka. Ignoring the correct spelling of a remote culturally very different spot is perfectly normal. Using the ortography as a validation argument is a rethorical trick for sophists and liars. Mr nuke is back with his Russia is losing song, occupying the comment section.
It's the slow crawl that has created that 10-1 advantage. And we're still talking about 100,000 Russian casualties - no picnic, and no western country has seen anything like this since WW2. And the pace is picking up considerably now.
But Ukraine is a vast country, even the amount that Russia has taken already is over half the size of the entire UK.
And behind Ukraine is the entire NATO.
Slow and steady gets it done, flash in the pan gets lots of people killed.
>Putin says unlike Russia and the US, Europe is defenseless against ballistic missiles, and European leaders should understand this:
The more important thing he says is at the end. Which is the exact same thing I have been harping on about here for months -- Russia can nuke Europe and the US with stand down. This is not me saying it, Putin said it, so if you don't believe me for being an anti-Putinist, and you subscribe to the Putin-as-our-savior cargo cult, well, here it is, straight from the leader of your cult's mouth.
The question then is why hasn't Putin finished the Ukraine war quickly and is instead sacrificing hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians (on both sides) for no reason?
The reason Mr. VVP doesn't want to hurry up is because he is using the SMO. as a learning curve to develop military technology to the next level.
Reports are just surfacing that Russians are testing combat lasers in action. Functional lasers require an enormous source of power, and the Russians have an edge on this tech. Very soon, we're going to see fried Brits all over the place where they're trespassing. Even you, the biggest crybaby, will be impressed with the progress. You should listen to the advice of some of the NATO leaders and start learning Russian. You can improve yourself, so we can exchange some colorful cussing words.
- he does not give a s***t if the whole country is blown up to pieces (unlikely if you have property, friends, relatives, pets, former lovers etc.)
- he totally lacks respect for VVP and is not afraid of calling him a traitor - which is extremely un-Russian (even Prigozhyn would treat VVP with respect)
- he writes short sharp sentences - which could not come out of the meandres of the Russian soul through which thoughts have to flow while being formulated and then expressed.
Most likely he got his current job after he was kicked out of Santa's toy factory for putting shrapnell or radioactive materials in children soft toys.
GM is a cartoon character. He wakes up, gets dressed, goes to the kitchen and makes himself a bowl of oatmeal. He takes a bite, chews, and thinks: "Hmmmm. Boring! Needs some Strontium-90 for flavor!"
To your point sandor, this recent post by Borzzikman gets into the weeds re the Russian battlefield lasers. Borzzikman also posts frequently and offers an interesting perspective.
for no reason? Is this the same song that the "unprovoked" Russian invation? Your point keeps being "Putin is a traitor". "Bring down Putin". Regime change is the cheapest outcome, right?
A lot of commentators designate you as a nutcase. I dont. I read what you write.
I cant welcome using Nukes in a surprise attack against either Ukraine, Europe or US.
Although Putin seems a bit arrogant he has done serious business during 25 years. A lot of good. But many mistakes. One of them in believing his western ”partners”, beliveing in righteousness and transparancy. Russia was weak after Jeltsin so it was right to choose battle to fights and others to stay passive. I dont think anyone else had done it better.
But now we are here.
You could be a troll or controlled opposition or a nutcase. Or you could be a ordinary guy with good analytics. To change the current tide of events spiraling away it could very well be a good idea to throw a dozen nukes. Just to call attention in this sleep-walking zombiworld we live in…
Because the real nutcases is those in the governments. A wake-up is neccessary.
>I cant welcome using Nukes in a surprise attack against either Ukraine, Europe or US.
It wouldn't be a surprise attack initially.
And it would not kill anyone.
What I have long, long, very long advocated for as a first step is nuking the transport links between Poland and Romania and Ukraine so that the flow of weapons stops. That would kill barely anyone, and would hopefully cut off the escalation cycle, by demontrating seriousness to get to that level and by the real physical effect on logistics.
And again, I am not the sole lunatic thinking about this, already back in 2023 I think it was Kartapolov (head of the State Duma Defense Committee) who said something like this in person (or if it wasn't him, it was someone else similarly ranking).
If that does not work, the next step is nuking Poland and Romania themselves, that is correct, countervalue, total annihilation. But it would not be a suprise attack, they would be given a clear ultimatum to shut the borders or else.
Just because you think 3 years is a long time, doesn't make it a long time.
Maybe, just maybe, nuking everything might kill a hell of a lot more people.
Nuclear bombs don't get used. They've only been used 80 years ago - once. So just get with the program. Not even Israel, that breaks every international law and basically gets away with everything, are using nukes to nuke Iran.
So that should explain that nukes are just for very very special, end of world scenarios, where we all die!
Nobody wants to be the first to use even a teeny weeny leetle tactical nuke, in case it precipitates a full blown strategic nuclear armageddon. Is that clear?
Nuking isn't like making toast, or using a microwave, or even assassinating other countries' generals...it's way way out of bounds. It's not a practical solution. It's not normal. It's not a suggestion. It's dumb to talk about it...shhhhh.
that was an interesting tour of the reservoir - will it be rebuilt ? And also an interesting tour of the downstairs of the forest. Funny when he said that once you get outside it - its hard to find it again.
Ukraine's fate appears sealed as US aid inevitably pivots to its "primary client state" Israel. The more pressing strategic question is Russia's potential role in a protracted Iran-Israel conflict. Given Moscow's deepening military-industrial partnership with Tehran, would we see:
3) Nuclear umbrella posturing if Iran's program faces Israeli strikes?
Putin has already demonstrated in Ukraine that hybrid wars can be sustained for years. A Middle Eastern SMO-style conflict would likely follow similar asymmetrical playbooks - but of course with far greater regional escalation risks.
Equally impossible for Israel or their decrepit client state (haven’t recovered from getting kicked out of Afghanistan by a few guys with machine guns mounted on Toyotas). Iran has a bit more than that, plus China and Russia backing it.
dont think so... Russia will be soon challenged in Syria and kicked out of the Mediterranean in a humiliating way. Where is Hezbollah? The plan Wesley Clark unveiled is finishing, 18 years later.
I still find it hard to believe Ze is walking around free and happy, travelling to Canada and doing some shopping, whilst Israel's enemy leaders are hiding in bunkers or dead.
I really think Putin's inaction is creating the very society rift in Russia that he seems terrified to create by making a decision. Seems too scared to make a move and wants to play this SMO safe. I just don't get why he gives away the initiative all the time as Ukraine can still blow up in Russia's face, its just a matter of time. Why allow that time to Ukraine.
Putin should be making a play now, while USA is focused on the middle east. Stop talking and negotiating, no western government ever keeps its word for long. Blast those "decision making centers" you always talk about - but never do.
You seem to believe that israel is the gold standard in fighting wars. Perhaps Russia should be deliberately slaughtering tens of thousands of civilian women and children as they do. Russia’s leadership has human values , even in time of war, the Israeli leaders and people have none and proved themselves subhuman.
Judging from the huge differences in body counts in the graph, Putin might think that Zelensky should be left in his position. As Napoleon mentioned: 'Never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake!'
Napoleon Bonaparte at his peak was a strategic, tactical and political genius, even his enemies said that having him on the battlefield was like the French having another 20,000 men. He was at the level of Julius Cesare or Genghis Khan, a once in a thousand years sort of man.
Zelensky is nothing like that, not even close. He was a moderately successful comic actor who was placed in the big seat by a corrupt clique with a very clever political psy-op. That psy-op can never be run again. A fourth series of "Servant of the People" will not revive his fortunes.
If Putin kills Zelensky he will just have to face another, probably better president, plus have to deal with the diplomatic effects of being a president who kills presidents.
Going back to Napoleon, it's interesting to consider why he wasn't executed when capture but rather just exiled (twice).
The reason is that if the precedent was made that a King or Emperor can be killed for doing the sort of stuff that Kings and Emperors always do, then all the other Kings and Emperors would have their heads in a noose.
the SMO is beneficial for Russia. It has welded the Russians over the nation, cleaned foreign operators, reindustrialised, recapitalized, repopulated, and denazified hopeless banderites. A long SMO is in the Russian interest.
At this time it's hard for me to believe anything that comes from either side. The fact (on the ground) is Russia can't decisively win militarily—except by waiting for Ukraine to run out of resources. There are thousands of fortified villages and towns more before the Dnieper, where Ukrainians will fight until death. Odessa won't go back to Russia (at least not in this war). Either way, the victory will be Pyrrhic, and after the war, the real difficulty begins for Putin.
war is fought by soldiers on the ground, Ukraine is not a small state, around 40-45 million before the war, it is the third million of soldiers that is hard to replace...A first million has been spent already, dead or seriously wounded, a million is fighting, and the third million is unwilling...AWOL, emigration,
and economic power, behind Ukraine is the golden billion, West, US, EU, Japan, South Korea
The war in Ukraine cannot be won/lost on economic ground, a golden billion has more than enough money, they lack motivation, and consequently men.
Russia has successfully kept Turkey out of the war, and Turkey is the only real danger for Russia, fighting on NATO side. Not the Finns or Swedes. Not the Poles or Romanians.
Russian strategy is based on keeping everyone out of the war, except for the willing Russians and Ukrainians, and the number of willing Russians is 3-5 times the number of willing Ukrainians.
Ukraine can prolong the time to defeat, hoping that as long as the fight goes on, something might happen, NATO might join in, and change the inevitable course of the war.
It is not very reasonable, but if the Ukrainian elites were reasonable, they would have accepted neutrality.
but everyone born in former Yugoslavia, and especially if born as a Croat, or a Serb, a Montenegrin, a Bosnian, a Macedonian, Slovenian, Albanian
has an understanding of the world based on understanding of our tragedy, of the level of manipulation used to incite wars, a wisdom that helps you see through the fog of lies.
Sadly, as British have shown hundred of times, again and again , to Russians and Ukrainians, Serbs and Croats, to Indians and Pakistanis, to Tutsi and Hutu, an endless list, actually, you do not need that much to start a war between neighbours, between often brotherly nations
It is relatively simple, and not too costly.
The basic ingredient is lack of trust between different nations, groups, and the second reluctance, refusal of the stronger one, because there is always a stronger one, to treat the weaker one as equal, according to the same rules. It can be played like chess, if you are stronger, it's like you have white figures, you make the first move, you make the rules, but then you have to obey them...This usually works, and even possible parting of ways, divorce is non violent.
Intelligent and wise leaders are not easy to find.
SO, yes British are deadly, but there is a solid foundation for conflict, hate, violence, that exists and if left unrecognised can lead to manipulation, conflict, war in almost every neighbourhood around the world.
Scandinavia is a possible example how Balkans could grow out of conflicts.
How did you discover that I was Balkanoid? We are unable to reach that level (Serb). Too preoccupied with little disputes. In a century, perhaps. In the 1920s and 1930s, agriculture accounted for almost 90% of the economies of the Eastern European and Balkan nations, whereas in the 1850s, industry, transportation, and manufacturing accounted for the remaining 40% in Britain and other nations.
Yes, but they found themselves in a situation where they could either withdraw or escalate, and
escalation in 2022 means mobilisation, and de facto accepting political obligation to win, and win quickly. Escalation was a scenario that West has been prepared for, since 1945. Answer each step with further escalation in aid support, and make the war war of attrition, for Russia.
Putin chose to withdraw, and get back to the root logic of the SMO, defence, Russia is defending itself, from an existential threat, NATO missiles on borders and continuous efforts on regime change, and is defending Russian speakers in Donbass.
The key strategic moment was counteroffensive, the momentum shifted, Ukrainians under the guidance of the West took the obligation to win, and win quickly and decisively. Impossible, and politically wrong.
Each step of this conflict echoes in Ukrainian political, and public space, Russian public and military space, and Westerns public.
Ukrainians and Russian know what are they fighting for, and no one is a fool, Ukrainians are hoping to do a reverse Khmelnytsky from Russian to Western, NATO, US & British protection. They do not trust neutrality, they need a master who is strong and distant, an ally, and will fight under his flag.
Russians understand that Ukrainians might now be an enemy, and are not willing to grant them borders that encompass Russian speakers, and vital territory, but most of all knowing once Ukrainians have become a proxy against Russia, they have to be confronted and defeated.
Russian attack in February 2022 united most of Ukrainians behind the flag, especially when it turned out resistance was successful, next step in public discourse, conscience will come when result on the battlefield becomes really bad. Ukrainians speak about Crimea, Donbass but deep down are more than satisfied to end the war if they can keep Harkov and Odessa. But the British will not let them make peace. Will push them into war until the last Ukrainian. And then the war will end.
Axtually, Russia had lots of troops it wasn't using in 2022.
For that matter, even after the entirely predictable Istanbul fiasco, Russia did bonehead things like pull units out of the line to participate in military olympics.
It's all one war, Ukraine and Israel, and Russia can kill every Ukrainian soldier and still lose the war. If Iran falls, there goes BRICS and apparently India has been taken out already, and Brazil is "?". Russia was bigger into Iranian missile defense earlier. Where was there phased array radar they used last time to scare off the F35s.
Iran and Russia is just signing a new agreement today. I don't really know what is in there. China just landed two giant military cargo planes in Teheran. I do not believe they were delivering candy bars and soda.
Thanks Kman, seems a good step in the right direction. You better not reply you might cop a sanction from grrr as I don't completely toe the party line.
yes, BRICs is a joke. But the international north south trade corridor is not. Probably the biggest project of the XXI century. Central Asia, the Indian Ocean and Africa are at stake. Its clear the Iranian regime is heavily infiltrated an rotten. If it falls, China is toast.
I do see the logic there. However, already two fully loaded large Chinese military cargo planes landed in Teheran. They flew in from Pakistan direction. It was a mixed load of weapons, ammunition and missiles.
Good. That stands to reason. It is very much in China’s interests to get Iran’s air defences fully back in action and the Israelis and USSA driven off. If they don’t, and Iran and its oil and territory fall to US control, they’ll be the next on the list.
That would be the responsible thing to do. It has really come to something, when the world has to depend on a nuclear-armed Pakistan to maintain stability and world peace.
I’ve also read somewhere, years ago, that Saudi Arabia did much to help finance Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent - on the confidential proviso that it was to be regarded as a pan-Islamic asset (i.e. a deterrent against Israel). If that’s true, they may be calling in that marker.
It's all conventional, all the time, always has been. Always will be.
The crux is, hypersonics are literally one of the most complex weapons systems in the world. Four powers have them: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
"United Statesea" (District of Columba/Semiramis/Astarte), Great Britain Inc., Germany, etc. do not.
Yet we are told that Iran can't build "the bomb," which is 1930's tech, able to be constructed without digital computers, out of readily available materials?
That is specious logic. And Occam's Razor stipulates that either Iran has "nukes..." or nobody does, because they are a bluff. Based on the extant data, the latter is the more likely supposition.
Which of course means that "State of Israel" also does not have them. Which leaves them in the precarious situation of having a busted flush.
Another interesting point to touch (that I had considered a decade ago), was re-purposing the otherwise useless " I See BM" (the hilarity never ends with Clown World) missiles. Even though their payload capacity was too small to carry much in the way of chemical explosives, their terminal velocity was such that they could function as much cheaper "Rods From God" (orbital kinetic munitions). Apparently some Russian engineers felt the same way, and voila, the Oreshnik.
This is actual "money," and something that the actual factual American government (which is not even vaguely the same as the "US Government") has been working on for the last 10 years.
The foreign "British Territorial United States" has been impersonating The American government for 160 years.
But enough Americans stepped forward, and here we are.
And the same thing can be done in other countries. If enough people correct their status, and form their unincorporated governments, this madness ends.
Thanks Simplicius, the most telling item here is the graph on the returned body counts for each side. The indication is that from May, 2023 to present there is a huge disparity there. From March of 2024 the rate of returned bodies to Ukraine kept growing rapidly. That shows the development of drone and gliding bomb technology on the Russian side. From October 2024 to present the body count ratio is hugely favoring the Russian side. Is it possible that Russia places a very high priority on saving soldiers lives and this causes the slow advance of the front? Theoretically, since the Russian army is constantly advancing their rate of losses should be lot higher than the Ukrainians’ who are in defensive positions.
These charts and number counting failed in Vietnam. Westmoreland thought they were winning…
Stop with this nonsens!
Uki-soldiers doesnt care about their own dead and they sure dont risk their life for a russian body.
The reason Russia has 2:1 or 10:1 advantage in men is that they can rotate the forces facing the stubborn Ukrainian defence. Day 1 they have 5:1 advantage, day 7 the advantage is halved and day 14 they are rotated to be replaced with next batch of meat.
You cant have it both ways; 10:1 advantage and a chart with body counts indicating Ukrainian are losing 10:1 against Russia but still no breaktrough….
Ukraine soldiers might or might not care about their own dead but family members surely do. I think the main factors in the lower casualty rates of the Russians is in the extensive air and artillery attacks prior to foot attacks and in the attitudes in their own commanding officers.
Agree. Arty and bombs doing much of the killing. But I dont doubt that Ukrainians kill quite a lot of Russians too. Therefore I dislike this SMO-narrative.
War should be short and forceful unless you are at disadvantage. Russia clearly is.
"Short and forceful" (are you describing your flagellation sessions?) You mean like the US or your best friends the Israeli's ?? My fellow Americans prove just how stupid they are, every time they either open their mouth or type on a keyboard. And it has 0 to do with this UkroNazi propaganda that Simp is now pushing.
"What Putin /Russian state is doing to their own people will hunt them for years. It is inexcuseable."
Take your meds. Russia's people are strongly behind what Putin and the Russian state are doing *for* them. Quality of life has skyrocketed with dramatically healthier, happier and wealthier people. The economy continues to do very, very well, better than any Russian alive can remember. Stores are full of products from Russia and all over the world and there's tremendous dynamism and optimism in the air. Civic infrastructure continues to get better and better in everything from better schools and hospitals and playgrounds to better roads and absolutely fabulous cell and Internet service.
Life is good here in Russia. No, it's more than good, it's really great. And people give Putin and his team a lot of credit for that. So go take your troll story to the West, where people are stupid enough to believe such nonsense.
You mean like "shock and awe"? How did that work out for the US? A month of bombing everything to hell, killing loads of civilians and then declaring "Mission Accomplished!" Then leaving 10 years later in defeat.
What idiots in US call their operations has no bearing on reality.
US bribed their way into Bahgdad. And they did numerous War crimes by destroying water-supply and waste-water cleaning, powerstations, infrastructure and killing civilians.
Anyway, "but insurgency!" is just more cope. The one thing every successful insurgency has in common is a young population. The media age in Yemen is 19. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that from before the war.
Isn't the disparity partly because the Russians are advancing and the Ukrainians are retreating? The majority of the dead in any battle, both Russian and Ukrainian, would be on land controlled by Russians. I do agree that Russian troops are killing more Ukrainian troops than vice versa, but I don't think this particular statistic is a measure of it?
Simplicius covered this very line of reasoning in a prior report:
"Of course, it is true Russia is likely picking up more dead and thus the 8:1 ratio is probably skewed somewhat in accordance to this; I’m simply arguing that the ‘retreating’ myth is not entirely responsible for it. Maybe instead of 8:1 the real ratio is 5:1 or whatever it may be, but we have every indication it’s still greatly in Russia’s favor"
"Is it possible that Russia places a very high priority on saving soldiers lives and this causes the slow advance of the front? "
Yes, that's one of the factors. That factor is really one of the aspects of the "grown up," professional approach Russia takes to combat, which is the complete opposite of the propaganda for morons spouted by western governments and media.
Russia is fighting a limited operation that seeks to achieve the stated aims with the minimum of violence and damage both to Russians and to the population of Ukraine. It's often remarked that the combat is happening in regions occupied primarily by ethnic Russians but I think Russia would be taking the same approach even if the combat was in Lvov.
Russia also has no need to sacrifice anybody to please Western handlers or donors or to enrich private interests that are opposed to the interests of the country. That's the exact opposite of the Kiev regime, which happily killed over 75,000 men in a suicidal, horrifically counterproductive Kursk operation just to provide feedstock for propaganda for morons that ensured billions of dollars more would flow into Kiev's coffers, from which the money could be skimmed into the foreign bank accounts of the Kiev junta.
Kiev cannot admit to its Western donors the asymmetrically huge casualties Russia has inflicted upon the junta's armies. Instead, they keep talking about a mere 40K dead while Russia supposedly has had a million killed. If they told the truth, like over 700,000 dead with many places on the front only defended by a few men per kilometer, the West would cut off the money that is enriching the junta's elite. So instead they lie and leave their men in horrifically overextended positions where they will take huge casualties.
What they should be doing is what Russia did when early in the war a few scouting battalions took entire regions. Russia knew that when NATO entered the war in force it did not have nearly enough men to defend such huge territories, so it pulled back from places like Kharkov to a smaller territory that the relatively tiny army Russia had invaded with could defend. Kiev isn't doing that. It's leaving its men in overextended positions where they get slaughtered.
"Theoretically, since the Russian army is constantly advancing their rate of losses should be lot higher than the Ukrainians’ who are in defensive positions."
That's true in theory only if the defenders have enough forces to defend those positions. Then yes, you really want to attack with much greater force than the defenders have, and you should expect to take significant casualties.
But all that goes out the window if there are insufficient defenders for minimal defenses. In a region where there's one guy per kilometer on the front line, that one guy will die when the attack comes. In fact, if it's 100 guys per kilometer facing hugely disproportionate odds those 100 guys will die.
The junta's "PR comes first" warfighting approach is also very hard on defenders because instead of pulling them back when they can do so in good order, the junta waits for far past when retreats can happen in good order. And that's when another rule of thumb, that massive, disproportionate casualties happen during a rout, takes effect. When defenders are routed and have to drop their weapons and run for their lives, that's when they get really slaughtered while the attackers often take zero casualties.
Kiev's "not one step back until after I cash that next check" battle plan means lots of disorderly retreats and that's why you see so many FPV drone videos of Ukrainian troops fleeing in disarray getting killed by artillery and other fire.
Which brings up the last point, the massive disparity in weapons. A lot of the asymmetric killing is happening because Russia has an overwhelming advantage in offensive weapons. Those offensive weapons are causing most of the casualties, not hand to hand clearing of trenches and bunkers. It's all the artillery that pounds the life (literally) out of defenders to depths of 40 km from the front, the 3000 pound FABs, and the overwhelming Russian advantage in attack drones. Nobody dies on the Russian side when a FAB atomizes a hundred of Kiev's troops at a time.
Remember One of the Russians particular tricks is to make a small numerical superiority look huge by local concentration combined with deception. Also that nazis have long had a habit of blaming defeat on crushing superiority in numbers. 😁
Punk…
Would you fuck off please?
The fuggoff again
Please share your thoughts about the impending war with Iran, next!
Report this spam and scum
This thread seems to be about Ukraine.
Yes, but I’m merely using the opportunity to put forward the request
@Saul Badman
There ARE just a few others on Substack posting analysis of that other front?
https://thinkbrics.substack.com/p/beyond-nuclear-what-israel-really?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
Billy, thank you for posting this article. I have a question on this article, it states that the Israel attack could be an "imperial war against BRICS, especially Russia-China".
If true or even remotely true, why would Russia and to lesser extent China, sit back and let Iran be decimated like Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon? As an American it is hard to fathom why Russia particularly, is content on West reducing their sphere of influences to ashes. Has Putin not learned anything since 1990's and West grave intentions for Russia?
They're not going to. Both Russia and China are flying in aid - whether military advice or equipment is not known - and they know for a fact that all the US can do is bomb - there is no way whatsoever the US can bring enough troops over for an invasion, and Israel sure as shit doesn't have those numbers.
All that Iran has to do is survive, and guess what? When a country is attacked by it's most hated enemy, one live-streaming a genocide as we speak, that brings the population *Together*. They may not like the illiberal nature of their Govt, but they damned well know for sure it is lightyears ahead of anything that the US would impose if it fell.
If the US or Israel use nukes, then we are in a different world. Even if the DPRK and Pakistan don't launch theirs in reprisal, as they have promised to do.
There's nothing that R or C can do to help prepare Iran for a nuclear attack.
They also know that if it kicks off, every naval vessel for hundreds of miles will be on the sea-bottom within hours. So much for those common naval exercises.
There is no doubt that R & C see Iran as a redoubt, one the American Empire will break itself against.
The US did not need to invade Libya in order to achieve its goal of turning that country into a failed state.
True though Iran has ten x the population and a dislikes military, plus a rather large arsenal of missiles, as it’s told. It would not be the cake walk Libya was. On the other hand, it depends on how far the American fascists and their proxy are willing to go.
* disciplined ..stupid fkn autocorrect can be counted on to embarrass me every time :)
True, they used their "Islamic" proxies instead, for ground troops. Moving them from Syria especially.
But Libya is a low-population, highly concentrated nation, with almost no military to speak of (The Tuaregs provided much of the muscle to Gadhaffi's govt), and there is simply nowhere that the US could enlist the 500,000+ troops needed just to invade successfully, let alone defeat and pacify the entire country of Iran. The place is VAST (I've been from the Turkish border to the Pak border, and back again, and let me tell you this takes a considerable time, even on the highways).
Needless to say, had the US/Zionazi 'decapitation strikes' have succeeded in collapsing the regime there, creating a "Failed state" would have been a no.1 priority for the West.
That's what Azeris, Kurds, etc. are for.
There isn't an impending war with Iran, Saul. It began as soon as you guys bombed the embassy in Damascus. It's been ongoing for quite a while, hasn't it. And you're not on your own, unlike the Iranians. Your tightly knit group of European ex powers and the declining Hegemon are all joined at the hip with Zionist zealotry.
Yours is only a part of a much bigger war. It connects numerous conflicts over a number of years. This has been brewing since the US was defeated in Afghanistan. The attack on Russia, which failed, the Syrian operation, Lebanon, the attacks on Yemen, the push to wind down the Ukraine conflict, even the provocation pitting Pakistan against India.
These are all probing attacks to manoeuvre and gather intel. Unfortunately for Israel it seems like you are the next proxy to be thrown under the burning bus. I truly feel sorry for you and your Jewish brethren. I hope the Iranians are merciful. I expect the Palestinians to be much less so.
It began when the Jew terrorists started to infiltrate and steal the land of Palestine.
Boring 😴..
Iran update needed
Sorry I couldn't 'entertain' you, let me go get my dancing shoes and monkey suit
Clearly the goons need fresher meat, Simplicius - their ADHD-driven instant gratification programming needs warmer bread and more frenetic Circus!
The western mind and its crippling addiction to dopamine skinner boxes.
Good point. This is information not cabaret.
No short frilly skirts and leg kicks, I must have subscribed to the wrong group Jack.
I would LOVE to dance with you! Old lady with a virtual cat❤️🐈⬛🇷🇺💙 Shine, brother, for the LOVE of the Mother/Father Land🔥
Keep it up, Simp. We need to keep abreast of the SMO even if the news of the ME war seems to take the spotlight. Though I must say, I suspect Russians are quite happy that Ukraine news has taken a back seat as they can move without as much oversight from the public.
Iran only for paying subscribers
Entertaining? This was a very brutal summary that shows just how horrible war is. The war will go on for a very long time. It also makes it quite clear that if the west really wanted to have a legitimate chance to push Russia back, the earliest time that a decent force could be put together would be about next spring, and that the west would need to bring a LOT of troops and logistics together.
Of course in that case, Russia / China / NK would step up their game and counter that and defeat the west anyways. It's hard for me to imagine just how long the Russian-Ukrainian front line is. This summary is about the best that can be done to communicate what it is like.
Thank you for this article.
There's a piano over there, and you don't need that suit. Ukraine is going to need a new Leader soon, and we all know the selection process....
Oh F&&*^!
That was a hit!
Monkey Brains apparently has the attention span of a goldfish to boot
If you want Iran update, check the internet and media yourself. Nothing else Simplicius is doing (and thanks once more for this article after lots of good ones before), he does not get information by witchcraft or magic. So do not whine because you are lazy. Maybe donate a significant sum.
He's working on my iran update as we speak
We all look forward to more of your incisive and erudite commenterary, I am sure.
>In the Dnipropetrovsk region, there are 10 Russian fighters per 1 Ukrainian soldier — Ukrainian battalion commander
1) Spell the names correctly, please
2) How come Russia has 10:1 advantage and yet it's the same painful slow crawl as always?
Is it possible that they are extremely conscious about casualties?
They would have nuked Poland in 2022 if they were truly conscious about casualties.
So no.
The reason is drones.
And the only solution to the drone problem is again to nuke Poland. Or to threaten it with nuking in such a credible way that it agrees to shut the border down.
It is not easy to move into the nuking business. Recall the early 1950s. Russia was in a very early stage, they just tested their first nuclear explosion in 1949. China's first bomb was tested in 1956. The Chines sent a million men army to North Korea and for the US it would have been the easy way to wipe them out at the transportation hubs. THEY DID NOT DO IT! Because they were concerned about the long term public effects, home and abroad. I think they made the right decision at the time.
China's first nuclear weapons test was 16 October 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_China
I think you right. I should check real records anyway, wiki is often messing it up also.
Yes, WIKI wins :)) Below is a quote from my own research study concerning the issue. Commie Girl Joan Hinton mentioned below (American, daddy a lawyer, mammy a progressive) has realized that coming back to America after helping China with the bomb was a bad idea, so she stayed there forever.
Joan Hinton, an American physicist with active participation in the Manhattan Project most likely had a major role in the early phases of the Chinese program (Reed, et al, 2010, p-87). She participated as a co-worker of Enrico Fermi and moved to China in early 1948, never to be seen again in America. It testifies to the competence level and generally poor technological environment of the Chinese that after receiving detailed technical descriptions and technological help from various American, English and Soviet sources they were only able to arrive to their first experimental nuclear bomb on October 16, 1964 (Reed, et al, 2010, Ch-7). Regardless, in the following decades China has created a nuclear deterrent force that they proudly started to display to their American visitors in 1990.
So they just obliterated North Korea anyway so that the public effect was less or did I miss something Kman. North Koreans have suffered enormously for 2 generations and finally maybe doing a little better. The US never considers anything except achieving the goal.
Yes, you are right. North Korea received a terrible treatment. The US Air Force was pounding them until they had to bring back the bombs as there were no more standing buildings large enough to bomb. I had seen enough evidence showing that poisons were used against the general population as well. In other words they were placed on a path where they had seen the light, realizing that building a nuclear force was an existential issue. They worked on it for many decades. It was actually the major invasion of China and minimal Soviet help that saved them at the end. Stalin was afraid to get seriously involved although he was also threatened by the possibility of a hostile neighbor under US occupation.
The Korean War like many wars, invasions and regime changes initiated by the country of free and brave should never have happened.
"... In 1949, Owen Lattimore, a member of the Carnegie and Rockefeller-funded Institute for Pacific Relations and an advisor to the State Department on East Asian issues, wrote: "The thing to do is let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed it."
When General MacArthur, leading the UN forces, managed to repel the North right to the Chinese border, he was prevented from completing the mission by Truman, who would not authorize any operations north of the Soviet-held 38th parallel unless there was no chance of confrontation with either Chinese or Soviet forces. MacArthur, shocked by this development, wrote in a letter years later : "Such a limitation upon the utilization of available military force to repel an enemy attack has no precedent either in our own history or, so far as I know, in the history of the world. ..To me it clearly foreshadowed the tragic situation which has since developed and left me with a sense of shock I had never before experienced in a long life crammed with explosive reactions and momentous hazards."
Again with the nukes.
There is no way that a nuclear attack on Poland or any other NATO member doesn't result in a nuclear counter strike against Russia. casualties run into the millions and WWIII starts.
Listen to the video of Putin in this very post, in the very end, he straight away says he very much doubt that US will start nuclear exchange in case Russia attacks Europe with nukes. So you here implying that he is wrong and you are right?
He doesn’t say that “he very much doubt that US will start nuclear exchange in case Russia attacks Europe with nukes”.
What he said was,
“if those with whom we engage with such conflicts cease to exist, will the American participate in this conflict at the level of strategic weapons or not?
I have serious doubts about it”
he also said
“When talking about Europeans any logic seems possible.”
and
“casualties could potentially mount indefinitely”
None of that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the Kremlin believes that there will be no nuclear counterstrike against a Russian nuclear first strike in Europe. The French and the British also have nuclear weapons.
Also, it is the job of any leader to present the best case for their people, it is not their job to tell the stone cold truth in public. Any leader is perfectly capable of rhetorical evasion, obfuscation or just straight up lying.
It is an essential part of public diplomacy
Your nuking scenario only works when only one country possesses such nukes like the US did back when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reality is that the west has plenty of them and if you are going to nuke a western country then you should expect mutual annihilation.
I often defend you, but this is foaming lunacy
GM
the rules of the game, the internal logic of nuclear exchange
using nukes changes the rules, in a completely unknown way, that is hard even to understand, whoever does it first, becomes a target of retaliation, for years to come
using nuke against someone means that you are willing to kill all the citizens all individuals of the nation. Hitler did it with Jews, Israel is doing it with Palestinians, we are ready to kill all of you...
Threats are useless if not aimed directly at the head of the snake,
if Russia nukes anyone short of London and Washington, Russia is showing its weakness
if nukes are to be used only Washington and London as targets make sense
but threats do not make much sense
but if you contemplate nuking Washington and London,
it is a very difficult decision
and it is better not to let the enemy prepare
so
do not threat London and Washington
if you decide that you have to do it, do it without any warning threats
the only sensible option is to prepare a proxy
someone with much to gain, little to lose,
like North Korea, or like Iran
that will be believed when they threaten US and London
best move Russia can make, in coordination with China,
is to help Iran connect with North Korea
and help both get precision missiles
(that should be improved to 10.000 miles, to be able to reach UK and US)
and nuclear weapons
This is risky, but all other pathways lead to even greater risk
in all other scenarios, Russia will be attacked and destroyed
Just nuking Poland is in real life possible only as a would be proxy of the US & UK
they would sacrifice Poland, temporarily, to get Russia on their side
You can't use something that does not exist.
"Nukes" have been a grift and a scam since inception.
Never used. Not even when it would have been a perfect set-piece situation (e.g. Chinese armor and infantry push south of the Yalu in 1950). MacArthur begged authorization to use them, but was rebuffed, then fired. Can't use something that does not exist.
And no, Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't "nuked." Standard garden variety firebombing.
Akio Nakatani blew the lid off in 2015 with his book "Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax." It's hilarious to see all the hand-waving and pussy-footing around "why" nukes can't/won't be used. Literally one of the most dead-simple weapons to build (bash two pieces of metal together).
Iran has been "weeks away" from a "bomb" for 40 years.
As Vox Day just wrote: "Either Iran has a nuke or nobody does."
https://voxday.net/2025/06/17/iran-has-nukes/
And he's 100% correct.
Read Akio Nakatani's book here: https://archive.org/details/8d-0de-2
At this juncture, it comes down to "how many people can use logic and deduction, and figure out they have been scammed?"
Please explain what do you mean.
Korky,
Very clearly and succinctly: "nuclear weapons" -do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist.-
This is not a new concept. I figured it out independently back in 2012.
Others, such as the engineer Anders Bjorkman of Sweden and Miles Mathis also deduced it some time ago.
It is important to remember that most of the 20th century is complete fraud.
I posted a link to Japanese scientist Akio Nakatani's book. He works/worked for Fujitsu, and is not a "conspiracy theorist." He decided (just for fun) to use one of the most powerful supercomputers at the time to run a "numerical modeling" simulation of the "Little Boy" device. This wasn't hard, as every single detail (except for 5 variables comprising the "secret sauce") are public domain. Those 5 remaining variables constituted a relatively small "numerical space," and took the supercomputer about 2 minutes to completely test all possible combinations of variables.
The results: the device did not (and could not) work. It is important to remember that in 1944, the sum total of the computing power of the world was roughly equivalent to a Texas Instruments personal computer from 1984. The entire "Manhattan Project" could be duplicated on an average laptop in about a day.
The Fujitsu supercomputer was a MFLOPS capable device (look up what the means). So it took 2 minutes.
Do your own due diligence. I posted a link to the book. Read the whole thing. Read Anders Bjorkman's site here:
https://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Miles Mathis has several papers:
https://mileswmathis.com/gay.pdf
https://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf
https://mileswmathis.com/bikini.pdf
https://mileswmathis.com/oppen.pdf
It becomes very obvious once you break the "wordspelling" that you have been subjected to your entire life.
A much simpler solution - destroy every bridge in Ukraine, starting from the Polish border.
No logistics = no drones. No nukes needed, and you seem to fetishize them.
He does seem to think "Huge bangs" are mighty impressive and solve all the problems.
I think GM is the kind of person sci-fi would warn about when considering interplanetary warfare with extraterrestrial colonies.
Like, he's literally every bad guy ever. "We have a probl..." "Nuke the fuckers now!".
Have to say, I hope IRL he's not in charge of the IDF's nuclear forces.
FF
you have been to Ukraine, Ukraine is a plain,
part of the history of Ukraine, but also Russia, and also Poland is that
Ukraine, Russia, are giant plains
Mongols rode horses for thousands of kilometres from deep in Eastern and Central Asia to Kiev
you cannot destroy a bridge and stop someone on a giant plane
If/when Russia is that strong, it will come to the river, and NATO will be destroying bridges
Dnieper is a giant river, an European river, like Don, or Volga
but
if you observe carefully, Dnieper, Don, Volga have never been really incorporated into European mindset
In minds of most (western) Europeans the greatest European river that is in the East is Danube...
More east than Danube is like northerner/more north than Hadrian's wall, or more towards Arctic than Hyperborea
That's the problem if you are obsessed with looking towards the west, you do not see the East
G'day Kman, has there been an extreme lowering of the casualties at a corresponding level over the increased time frame of this not a war, obviously that is rhetorical as no one knows the total though work is done to clear the fog.
Reports suggest Iran are going full throttle with attacks on Isreal, why do we not see this all the time in greater Ukraine?
Look at the result of attempted negotiations with The empire and its quislings re a look over there nuclear weapon yet will negotiations continue between Puti and Trump I wonder.
We are dealing with apples and oranges here, two very different wars. Iran is engaged mostly in missile/drone exchange while Russia vs Ukraine is a multidimensional act. I also find the Russian advances are on the slow side but I have difficulty to second guess their leadership with the limited information on hand. Is it possible that they rather allow for a slow, deliberate act taking into consideration their own public opinions? It is also a fact that Russia looks at the Ukraine population as their own, and historically speaking they are actually correct there.
Thanks for the reply, well second guessing is all part of any comment we make if not they would all be like Andrew Korybiko who only reports the machinations of the geopolitical sphere yes with a slight bias. John Helmer showed polling that suggest people want an end to the war but acquiesce as the message they get is that victory is at hand and the large financial windfall for the families of the dead help too.There is a large nationalist position who want greater action but it is not really expressed in non Russia but Putin supporting altmedia and is threatened by the Kremlin think Girkin and Mozgovoi etc.if they reach a large enough audience.
Why is the situation different between Russia and Iran except that Russia has a nuclear arsenal, they are both threatened with destruction by the West.
Medinsky stated public opinion has further leaned towards strong action and may I suggest finishing off the not a war so no more civilians be killed, I hadn't watched all the videos when I commented on yours.
Maybe there has been a qualitativel change in the public mind which might move the Kremlin, well at least we can hope.
If the Russians chose strategic attrition, it wouldn't matter where it took place, only that it did more damage to the US-Ukronazis. I can't help noticing that American Caesar has been defeated in detail and is trying to fob it off on the Euronazis.
Don't feed the troll.
You may get your wish for the end of mankind in nuclear fire soon, GM. Especially if Israel initiates the first launches.
We actually got to this point precisely because of years of "restraint" and "strategic patience."
"Nuke early, nuke often" would have pre-empted escalation.
If anyone can up the ante on retardation it is General Moron!
Nothing retarded about it
Tactical nukes on logistics between Ukraine and Europe would have simultaneously:
1) Barely killed anyone
2) Physically isolated Ukraine
3) Sent a very powerful message and forced the West to back off.
If the West didn't back off, the next step is to nuke Europe, this time strategically. Maybe in two steps -- first the immediate belt of countries, then the rest, if they still don't get the message.
The US will not take this to a strategic exchange, because then it dies itself too. European proxies are disposable.
Again, it is not just me saying it, it is Putin saying it. Did you watch the video?
As the bumper sticker says: 'A single nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.' Do you really want to live in a world where nukes fly like bird doo-doo around?
A relatively recent problem KM, at least imo; is this concept of the " Strategic Nuke", tiny, laser focussed Nukes, that effect hardly any damage at all, except upon the baddies, or very limited areas of the Battlefield. I'm not exactly sure when i first heard about it, perhaps under O'bomber's administration but by no means certain. One malign impact was its attempt to alter the Public's perception of the damage Nukes cause, as the great majority have only ever seen pictures of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and heard the related testamonies. Others, to a lesser degree have seen programmes like Threads or the Day after Tomorrow or seen John Pilger's excellent piece about the impacts of testing on the Marshall Islands. But now, the fix is in to try and sell Joe Public that Nukes ain't that bad after all.
It truly is hilarious reading exchanges such as this. Here we are, 80+ years on, and -nuclear weapons have never been used.-
Not once. And more telling, -exactly zero "explosive accidents."- Statistically speaking, given the alleged number of "devices," there would have been a non-zero number of "explosive failures" in 80 years.
All things mechanical will, inevitably, fail. Look at how many nuclear reactors have either failed or had "near misses."
Nuclear weapons, -if they existed,- would have exhibited a similar statistical curve. And no, I don't buy the whole "we are just -that- good."
Humans are fallible. And I have a hard time believing that a Pakistani (or Indian, or Chinese, etc.) "nuke" is engineered with the same care and regard for safety as, say, and alleged American or Russian or French device.
Nukes are literally the most hilariously fake "weapon" ever devised. But the purpose wasn't to be used. The purpose was to -not- be used:
1. To justify draconian and unconscionable measures "because of the threat of nuclear war."
2. To justify massive grift, graft, and fraud (read "The 5 Trillion Dollar Cold War Hoax" by Eustace Mullins for just a taste). No accountability due to the "top secret" nature of these alleged weapons.
3. To squash the threat of popular uprisings "you'd need nukes and F-15s to beat the .gov." How many nukes and F-15s did Korea/Vietname/Afghanistan have?
Take away "nukes" as a casus belli for "State of Israel" launching this craven and NaZi-esque sneak attack? It's pure, naked, unjustified aggression.
Nuclear weapons not only do not exist, they cannot exist, simply due to very simple (and elementary, literally) laws of physics (primarily the incompressibility of metals, something we all supposedly learned in high school physics). And no amount of bloviating or hand-waving or equivocating will alter these laws.
Read the Nakatani book for a full disclosure on the hoax:
https://archive.org/details/8d-0de-2
You must be six stealing time on your mother's phone with that limited level of thinking. Russians do plan to live in the world your fantasy level thinking is attempting to deny them.
luckily you're just a ridicule armchair general
Thank you, General MacArthur. Very cool!
EDIT: LMAO now I know what GM actually stands for!
Yes he may indeed although it will start with the Jooz. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/is-washington-preparing-war-u-s-air-force/
As always the Jew is the problem.
General Melschitt is back from watching the charge of the light brigade movie.
Brilliant!
With a wheelbarrow of Ukrainian soil that he "liberated" personally, while flying a surveillance drone above his head for the realism effect. ;)
Hmmmmm, seems you have become the grammar policing authority. Well it's the same crawl as that has been the strategy since the beginning attrition not taking territory. One must look at the gory details as all the territory Russia holds are territory that all Ukrainian soldiers have been liquidated. So consider it this way Russia is slaughtering their way through Ukraine Kilometers at a time. That's ugly work in my opinion that should take time.
“How come Russia has 10:1 advantage and yet it's the same painful slow crawl as always?”
How many times do you need to see this has been answered numerous times before you quit asking this question?
Yep, and that there is proof it is a troll. It should be denied interaction. Ignore it. Starve it.
Cancel culture is the way to go now grrr but don't reply now as freedom of speech is only someone else's you decide on. Isn't that what Trump and his red cap brigade were upset about and look at America now with another Kent state uni incident around the corner if you demonstrate again him.
There are several different aspects to any war (strategic, political, economic, cultural etc) and this one is no different. Some commentators seem to misunderstand the nature of the conflict - this is not WWII revisited and is not a war of annihilation. Therefore, Russian progress is more focused on attrition of Ukrainian forces (and political defeat of the Government) rather than outright crushing of the Ukrainian people and destruction of their major cities. Ukraine is not viewed as Germany in 1945. Completely different approach.
Exactly, that is the main reason. Plus, Putin is very conscious about the rate of the Russian body count as well.
Because ww2 was a war for the Jew and Russian against Ukraine is a war against the Jew.
In reply to 2), which I read as basically saying "Why isn't this war going faster" or "Why doesn't Putin press the button on his desk marked "Win the war today"?
The broad strategy is war of attrition, the destruction of the threat, namely, the military, the men, the weapons and the capacity to build them in such a way that it just can't be rebuilt in any time frame less than a full generation, say 20~25 years.
The first phase of the war was an attempt at a deep strike maneuver "coup de main" to knock out the whole regime. That didn't work and with the element of surprise gone it can't be attempted again.
The gears shifted to a long term war of attrition on many fronts, not only the Ukraine battlefield but also the international and domestic economy, world wide diplomacy and the info-war. All of those have to be kept running and synchronized.
To use a gambling analogy, if you go "all in" on a single hand even a very strong one, you risk going bust. But if you have a strategy that guarantees a 2-3% advantage on every hand the correct path is to play as many hands as possible and draw it out over time. If you can, then your victory is inevitable.
In the real world, even with a marked deck, you still cannot win every poker hand... and drawing a Proxy conflict out may be a low cost way to win over Ukraine, but leave you vulnerable to the Masters of the Proxy for a longer period of time.
The attacks on the long range radars and the Strategic bombers in Russia serve as a kinetic warning of a potential first strike and/or nuclear decapitation strike on a larger scale than Iran has just been subjected to.
It is not as if you can trust the word of the Proxy Master.
It was only ever an analogy not meant to be correct in every detail.
But the gambling analogy still holds if you have a verified and consistent edge.
The casino's edge is between 2 and 5% for roulette. They want as many spins of that wheel as possible not one huge bet. The casino doesn’t need to win your money all at once. It just needs you to keep playing.
That's the advantage that Russia has in a war of attrition
I am afraid you are setting up a real world, multi-threat (and multi-probability) situation as if it is an isolated event (war), and not even a proxy war.
It might be just a matter of playing the probabilities of 1 game of Ukraine vs. Russia, if it only a matter of Ukraine vs. Russia. In fact, the game is the US + most of EU + NATO and assorted other vassal States against Russia; not just a Russia vs Ukraine contest.
SO while Russia may have benefits of relying on the odds like a casino relies on their built-in edge against Ukraine, there are other games being played on other fronts AGAINST Russia by the Hegemon and its satellites, in other places.
THAT is why taking it slow in Ukraine with the attention and assets need to be deployed, takes away from the resources that can be used elsewhere. Some suggest that Russia had to allow the regime-change in Syria, because it was focused on Ukraine. Among other things, this allowed Israel to use Syrian airspace to more easily attack Iran and now Russia's attention and assets are once again diverted (in potentially a variety of ways, with an unknown timeline).
While the diversion may not be enough degrade the preferred level of progress in Ukraine, yet, it will potentially limit Russian response if/when another flare-up, in a third or fourth trouble spot opens up. For example, failed bunker busters in Iran may lead to trying nukes, and that may make attritional warfare in the Ukraine theater less of a priority.
Worth bearing in mind that this conflict will NOT end once Ukraine capitulates. This is a war against NATO/US, and they will strike whenever they see an opportunity, and they will definitely continue to use terrorism.
So from Russia's perspective does it really matter how long this battle takes? It won't end the war on them.
Agreed. It will not end with capitulation, within Ukraine, in Europe, of from the US who sees the strength and/or independence of others as an affront to its Hegemony.
The denazification of Ukraine via the demilitarization of the country is probably one of the tactical reasons for the slow progress in Russia taking territory.
Russian goals are reached more efficiently if the Ukrainian side moves its people from the west to the eastern front, where Russia is deeply entrenched and has the shortest supply lines... compared to the Russians moving west faster, stretching their supply lines and having to find the targets.
Not to mention moving west faster means having to depopulate more large cities, have more risks at their flanks, and upsetting their quasi-pacifist BRICS+ friends for involving civilians too much.
A very shrewd and savvy post, particularly the last par.
The reason they are 10:1 is because they are preserving lives of their troops as far as possible. The queer midget Jew cokehead on the other hand...
Also, most likely the 10:1 ratio is a fiction, a cope.
Everyone always claims to be vastly outnumbered.
Their victories are the result of overwhelming numbers. Our victories are the result of superior training and skill.
Everyone says this.
He is quoting from a text, you are being ridiculous
How rude. It took me years to remember the word Avdeevka. Ignoring the correct spelling of a remote culturally very different spot is perfectly normal. Using the ortography as a validation argument is a rethorical trick for sophists and liars. Mr nuke is back with his Russia is losing song, occupying the comment section.
It's the slow crawl that has created that 10-1 advantage. And we're still talking about 100,000 Russian casualties - no picnic, and no western country has seen anything like this since WW2. And the pace is picking up considerably now.
But Ukraine is a vast country, even the amount that Russia has taken already is over half the size of the entire UK.
And behind Ukraine is the entire NATO.
Slow and steady gets it done, flash in the pan gets lots of people killed.
>Putin says unlike Russia and the US, Europe is defenseless against ballistic missiles, and European leaders should understand this:
The more important thing he says is at the end. Which is the exact same thing I have been harping on about here for months -- Russia can nuke Europe and the US with stand down. This is not me saying it, Putin said it, so if you don't believe me for being an anti-Putinist, and you subscribe to the Putin-as-our-savior cargo cult, well, here it is, straight from the leader of your cult's mouth.
The question then is why hasn't Putin finished the Ukraine war quickly and is instead sacrificing hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians (on both sides) for no reason?
The reason Mr. VVP doesn't want to hurry up is because he is using the SMO. as a learning curve to develop military technology to the next level.
Reports are just surfacing that Russians are testing combat lasers in action. Functional lasers require an enormous source of power, and the Russians have an edge on this tech. Very soon, we're going to see fried Brits all over the place where they're trespassing. Even you, the biggest crybaby, will be impressed with the progress. You should listen to the advice of some of the NATO leaders and start learning Russian. You can improve yourself, so we can exchange some colorful cussing words.
AFAIK, GM is Russian
Maybe a citizen, but his heart? FSB should check on him!
how do you know?
It's easy to tell hearts....just read the lines and between the lines. No AI needed.
Unlikely. He writes like an American does. Wants to nuke everything, like an American
@Ravishing Rudey, GM is most likely not Russian:
- he does not give a s***t if the whole country is blown up to pieces (unlikely if you have property, friends, relatives, pets, former lovers etc.)
- he totally lacks respect for VVP and is not afraid of calling him a traitor - which is extremely un-Russian (even Prigozhyn would treat VVP with respect)
- he writes short sharp sentences - which could not come out of the meandres of the Russian soul through which thoughts have to flow while being formulated and then expressed.
Most likely he got his current job after he was kicked out of Santa's toy factory for putting shrapnell or radioactive materials in children soft toys.
GM is a cartoon character. He wakes up, gets dressed, goes to the kitchen and makes himself a bowl of oatmeal. He takes a bite, chews, and thinks: "Hmmmm. Boring! Needs some Strontium-90 for flavor!"
I wonder if he's MI6? Also, there's more than one writer. One is good at punctuation, the other is shit.
To your point sandor, this recent post by Borzzikman gets into the weeds re the Russian battlefield lasers. Borzzikman also posts frequently and offers an interesting perspective.
https://youtu.be/df2pGQU12T4?si=0rmp9VltC1oxK85s
for no reason? Is this the same song that the "unprovoked" Russian invation? Your point keeps being "Putin is a traitor". "Bring down Putin". Regime change is the cheapest outcome, right?
A lot of commentators designate you as a nutcase. I dont. I read what you write.
I cant welcome using Nukes in a surprise attack against either Ukraine, Europe or US.
Although Putin seems a bit arrogant he has done serious business during 25 years. A lot of good. But many mistakes. One of them in believing his western ”partners”, beliveing in righteousness and transparancy. Russia was weak after Jeltsin so it was right to choose battle to fights and others to stay passive. I dont think anyone else had done it better.
But now we are here.
You could be a troll or controlled opposition or a nutcase. Or you could be a ordinary guy with good analytics. To change the current tide of events spiraling away it could very well be a good idea to throw a dozen nukes. Just to call attention in this sleep-walking zombiworld we live in…
Because the real nutcases is those in the governments. A wake-up is neccessary.
>I cant welcome using Nukes in a surprise attack against either Ukraine, Europe or US.
It wouldn't be a surprise attack initially.
And it would not kill anyone.
What I have long, long, very long advocated for as a first step is nuking the transport links between Poland and Romania and Ukraine so that the flow of weapons stops. That would kill barely anyone, and would hopefully cut off the escalation cycle, by demontrating seriousness to get to that level and by the real physical effect on logistics.
And again, I am not the sole lunatic thinking about this, already back in 2023 I think it was Kartapolov (head of the State Duma Defense Committee) who said something like this in person (or if it wasn't him, it was someone else similarly ranking).
If that does not work, the next step is nuking Poland and Romania themselves, that is correct, countervalue, total annihilation. But it would not be a suprise attack, they would be given a clear ultimatum to shut the borders or else.
If Israel uses nukes in Iran,
nukes will explode in Europe, too.
Whether what you describe will happen or not depends on
A. China and Russia successfully help Iran defend itself, Iran surviving
B. Israeli/US reaction to de facto defeat in Iran
if Israeli reaction is nuke
nukes will be used in Europe, on NATO borders, or border states
Agree.
That is exactly correct.
Russia might be waiting for the West to make that mistake. Then it will take care of business in Europe once the taboo is lifted.
Yes, something is needed to break the stalement. But as you have advocated; it is something rotten in Denmark (Kreml).
Because nuclear weapons are the only way to destroy transport links.
Those in government are not nut cases but Jew puppets. Zion don is example #1
Just because you think 3 years is a long time, doesn't make it a long time.
Maybe, just maybe, nuking everything might kill a hell of a lot more people.
Nuclear bombs don't get used. They've only been used 80 years ago - once. So just get with the program. Not even Israel, that breaks every international law and basically gets away with everything, are using nukes to nuke Iran.
So that should explain that nukes are just for very very special, end of world scenarios, where we all die!
Nobody wants to be the first to use even a teeny weeny leetle tactical nuke, in case it precipitates a full blown strategic nuclear armageddon. Is that clear?
Nuking isn't like making toast, or using a microwave, or even assassinating other countries' generals...it's way way out of bounds. It's not a practical solution. It's not normal. It's not a suggestion. It's dumb to talk about it...shhhhh.
If it wasn’t clear before, now there’s no question…Ukraine must surrender.
Zelensky is most valuable to Russia exactly where he is and exactly what he does.
There sure is a lots there long warred.
that was an interesting tour of the reservoir - will it be rebuilt ? And also an interesting tour of the downstairs of the forest. Funny when he said that once you get outside it - its hard to find it again.
Ukraine's fate appears sealed as US aid inevitably pivots to its "primary client state" Israel. The more pressing strategic question is Russia's potential role in a protracted Iran-Israel conflict. Given Moscow's deepening military-industrial partnership with Tehran, would we see:
1) Full-scale arms transfers (ballistic missiles, drone tech, air defense systems)?
2) Volunteer' deployments mirroring Syria/Wagner patterns?
3) Nuclear umbrella posturing if Iran's program faces Israeli strikes?
Putin has already demonstrated in Ukraine that hybrid wars can be sustained for years. A Middle Eastern SMO-style conflict would likely follow similar asymmetrical playbooks - but of course with far greater regional escalation risks.
No there is no possibility of a ground war , unless it is actually in Syria. 1500 km between Israel and Iran also make that impossible
I mean deployment to Iranian soil.
Equally impossible for Israel or their decrepit client state (haven’t recovered from getting kicked out of Afghanistan by a few guys with machine guns mounted on Toyotas). Iran has a bit more than that, plus China and Russia backing it.
Sorry I mean deployment of Russian advisor to Iran.
dont think so... Russia will be soon challenged in Syria and kicked out of the Mediterranean in a humiliating way. Where is Hezbollah? The plan Wesley Clark unveiled is finishing, 18 years later.
Yep, we know, Russia is losing. Iran too. Two weeks to flatten the curve!
Don’t think so , welded on US/Zionist tripe lacking any factual basis
Of course they are, and Taiwan is attacking China mainland to liberate the people from Chinese Commies...
I still find it hard to believe Ze is walking around free and happy, travelling to Canada and doing some shopping, whilst Israel's enemy leaders are hiding in bunkers or dead.
I really think Putin's inaction is creating the very society rift in Russia that he seems terrified to create by making a decision. Seems too scared to make a move and wants to play this SMO safe. I just don't get why he gives away the initiative all the time as Ukraine can still blow up in Russia's face, its just a matter of time. Why allow that time to Ukraine.
Putin should be making a play now, while USA is focused on the middle east. Stop talking and negotiating, no western government ever keeps its word for long. Blast those "decision making centers" you always talk about - but never do.
You seem to believe that israel is the gold standard in fighting wars. Perhaps Russia should be deliberately slaughtering tens of thousands of civilian women and children as they do. Russia’s leadership has human values , even in time of war, the Israeli leaders and people have none and proved themselves subhuman.
Judging from the huge differences in body counts in the graph, Putin might think that Zelensky should be left in his position. As Napoleon mentioned: 'Never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake!'
Napoleon Bonaparte at his peak was a strategic, tactical and political genius, even his enemies said that having him on the battlefield was like the French having another 20,000 men. He was at the level of Julius Cesare or Genghis Khan, a once in a thousand years sort of man.
Zelensky is nothing like that, not even close. He was a moderately successful comic actor who was placed in the big seat by a corrupt clique with a very clever political psy-op. That psy-op can never be run again. A fourth series of "Servant of the People" will not revive his fortunes.
If Putin kills Zelensky he will just have to face another, probably better president, plus have to deal with the diplomatic effects of being a president who kills presidents.
Going back to Napoleon, it's interesting to consider why he wasn't executed when capture but rather just exiled (twice).
The reason is that if the precedent was made that a King or Emperor can be killed for doing the sort of stuff that Kings and Emperors always do, then all the other Kings and Emperors would have their heads in a noose.
Yes, Napoleon was a true military genius. Zelensky would not even qualify to clean his horse.
Or even clean up what comes out of his horse.
brilliant
the SMO is beneficial for Russia. It has welded the Russians over the nation, cleaned foreign operators, reindustrialised, recapitalized, repopulated, and denazified hopeless banderites. A long SMO is in the Russian interest.
At this time it's hard for me to believe anything that comes from either side. The fact (on the ground) is Russia can't decisively win militarily—except by waiting for Ukraine to run out of resources. There are thousands of fortified villages and towns more before the Dnieper, where Ukrainians will fight until death. Odessa won't go back to Russia (at least not in this war). Either way, the victory will be Pyrrhic, and after the war, the real difficulty begins for Putin.
"fact is..."? That's a "fact" you just made up
El dragon,
war is fought by soldiers on the ground, Ukraine is not a small state, around 40-45 million before the war, it is the third million of soldiers that is hard to replace...A first million has been spent already, dead or seriously wounded, a million is fighting, and the third million is unwilling...AWOL, emigration,
and economic power, behind Ukraine is the golden billion, West, US, EU, Japan, South Korea
The war in Ukraine cannot be won/lost on economic ground, a golden billion has more than enough money, they lack motivation, and consequently men.
Russia has successfully kept Turkey out of the war, and Turkey is the only real danger for Russia, fighting on NATO side. Not the Finns or Swedes. Not the Poles or Romanians.
Russian strategy is based on keeping everyone out of the war, except for the willing Russians and Ukrainians, and the number of willing Russians is 3-5 times the number of willing Ukrainians.
Ukraine can prolong the time to defeat, hoping that as long as the fight goes on, something might happen, NATO might join in, and change the inevitable course of the war.
It is not very reasonable, but if the Ukrainian elites were reasonable, they would have accepted neutrality.
You have some great comments Korkyrian!!
Thank you,
but everyone born in former Yugoslavia, and especially if born as a Croat, or a Serb, a Montenegrin, a Bosnian, a Macedonian, Slovenian, Albanian
has an understanding of the world based on understanding of our tragedy, of the level of manipulation used to incite wars, a wisdom that helps you see through the fog of lies.
Sadly, as British have shown hundred of times, again and again , to Russians and Ukrainians, Serbs and Croats, to Indians and Pakistanis, to Tutsi and Hutu, an endless list, actually, you do not need that much to start a war between neighbours, between often brotherly nations
It is relatively simple, and not too costly.
The basic ingredient is lack of trust between different nations, groups, and the second reluctance, refusal of the stronger one, because there is always a stronger one, to treat the weaker one as equal, according to the same rules. It can be played like chess, if you are stronger, it's like you have white figures, you make the first move, you make the rules, but then you have to obey them...This usually works, and even possible parting of ways, divorce is non violent.
Intelligent and wise leaders are not easy to find.
SO, yes British are deadly, but there is a solid foundation for conflict, hate, violence, that exists and if left unrecognised can lead to manipulation, conflict, war in almost every neighbourhood around the world.
Scandinavia is a possible example how Balkans could grow out of conflicts.
How did you discover that I was Balkanoid? We are unable to reach that level (Serb). Too preoccupied with little disputes. In a century, perhaps. In the 1920s and 1930s, agriculture accounted for almost 90% of the economies of the Eastern European and Balkan nations, whereas in the 1850s, industry, transportation, and manufacturing accounted for the remaining 40% in Britain and other nations.
Russia had Kiev surrounded in 2022, and that with a token force.
Yes, but they found themselves in a situation where they could either withdraw or escalate, and
escalation in 2022 means mobilisation, and de facto accepting political obligation to win, and win quickly. Escalation was a scenario that West has been prepared for, since 1945. Answer each step with further escalation in aid support, and make the war war of attrition, for Russia.
Putin chose to withdraw, and get back to the root logic of the SMO, defence, Russia is defending itself, from an existential threat, NATO missiles on borders and continuous efforts on regime change, and is defending Russian speakers in Donbass.
The key strategic moment was counteroffensive, the momentum shifted, Ukrainians under the guidance of the West took the obligation to win, and win quickly and decisively. Impossible, and politically wrong.
Each step of this conflict echoes in Ukrainian political, and public space, Russian public and military space, and Westerns public.
Ukrainians and Russian know what are they fighting for, and no one is a fool, Ukrainians are hoping to do a reverse Khmelnytsky from Russian to Western, NATO, US & British protection. They do not trust neutrality, they need a master who is strong and distant, an ally, and will fight under his flag.
Russians understand that Ukrainians might now be an enemy, and are not willing to grant them borders that encompass Russian speakers, and vital territory, but most of all knowing once Ukrainians have become a proxy against Russia, they have to be confronted and defeated.
Russian attack in February 2022 united most of Ukrainians behind the flag, especially when it turned out resistance was successful, next step in public discourse, conscience will come when result on the battlefield becomes really bad. Ukrainians speak about Crimea, Donbass but deep down are more than satisfied to end the war if they can keep Harkov and Odessa. But the British will not let them make peace. Will push them into war until the last Ukrainian. And then the war will end.
Axtually, Russia had lots of troops it wasn't using in 2022.
For that matter, even after the entirely predictable Istanbul fiasco, Russia did bonehead things like pull units out of the line to participate in military olympics.
It's all one war, Ukraine and Israel, and Russia can kill every Ukrainian soldier and still lose the war. If Iran falls, there goes BRICS and apparently India has been taken out already, and Brazil is "?". Russia was bigger into Iranian missile defense earlier. Where was there phased array radar they used last time to scare off the F35s.
Iran and Russia is just signing a new agreement today. I don't really know what is in there. China just landed two giant military cargo planes in Teheran. I do not believe they were delivering candy bars and soda.
Thanks Kman, seems a good step in the right direction. You better not reply you might cop a sanction from grrr as I don't completely toe the party line.
Is that the guy who runs grrrgraphics.com ?
No, I don't think so....
yes, BRICs is a joke. But the international north south trade corridor is not. Probably the biggest project of the XXI century. Central Asia, the Indian Ocean and Africa are at stake. Its clear the Iranian regime is heavily infiltrated an rotten. If it falls, China is toast.
I do see the logic there. However, already two fully loaded large Chinese military cargo planes landed in Teheran. They flew in from Pakistan direction. It was a mixed load of weapons, ammunition and missiles.
Good. That stands to reason. It is very much in China’s interests to get Iran’s air defences fully back in action and the Israelis and USSA driven off. If they don’t, and Iran and its oil and territory fall to US control, they’ll be the next on the list.
I believe Pakistan is on the record saying if Israel uses nuke they will respond.
That would be the responsible thing to do. It has really come to something, when the world has to depend on a nuclear-armed Pakistan to maintain stability and world peace.
I’ve also read somewhere, years ago, that Saudi Arabia did much to help finance Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent - on the confidential proviso that it was to be regarded as a pan-Islamic asset (i.e. a deterrent against Israel). If that’s true, they may be calling in that marker.
Not sure. The perverts that run Saudi Arabia are owned by the Jew.
Let's be clear, Peter.
Nobody is "nuclear armed."
It's all conventional, all the time, always has been. Always will be.
The crux is, hypersonics are literally one of the most complex weapons systems in the world. Four powers have them: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
"United Statesea" (District of Columba/Semiramis/Astarte), Great Britain Inc., Germany, etc. do not.
Yet we are told that Iran can't build "the bomb," which is 1930's tech, able to be constructed without digital computers, out of readily available materials?
That is specious logic. And Occam's Razor stipulates that either Iran has "nukes..." or nobody does, because they are a bluff. Based on the extant data, the latter is the more likely supposition.
Which of course means that "State of Israel" also does not have them. Which leaves them in the precarious situation of having a busted flush.
Another interesting point to touch (that I had considered a decade ago), was re-purposing the otherwise useless " I See BM" (the hilarity never ends with Clown World) missiles. Even though their payload capacity was too small to carry much in the way of chemical explosives, their terminal velocity was such that they could function as much cheaper "Rods From God" (orbital kinetic munitions). Apparently some Russian engineers felt the same way, and voila, the Oreshnik.
That turned out to be rumor and wishful thinking. (Fact is, Pakistan and Iran do not have good relations.)
BRICs is simply a glorified dorm room bull session.
Regardless, we should support them. They are the only viable alternative.
Well, no. The best alternative is to adopt the Bi-Lateral/Blue Dot Banking system and the American Federation Dollar:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/revolutionizing-your-wallet-gold-backed-afd-currency-debuts-to-restore-financial-freedom/ar-AA1yY0jU
This is actual "money," and something that the actual factual American government (which is not even vaguely the same as the "US Government") has been working on for the last 10 years.
The foreign "British Territorial United States" has been impersonating The American government for 160 years.
But enough Americans stepped forward, and here we are.
And the same thing can be done in other countries. If enough people correct their status, and form their unincorporated governments, this madness ends.
compared to the jew 7?
Thanks Simplicius, the most telling item here is the graph on the returned body counts for each side. The indication is that from May, 2023 to present there is a huge disparity there. From March of 2024 the rate of returned bodies to Ukraine kept growing rapidly. That shows the development of drone and gliding bomb technology on the Russian side. From October 2024 to present the body count ratio is hugely favoring the Russian side. Is it possible that Russia places a very high priority on saving soldiers lives and this causes the slow advance of the front? Theoretically, since the Russian army is constantly advancing their rate of losses should be lot higher than the Ukrainians’ who are in defensive positions.
These charts and number counting failed in Vietnam. Westmoreland thought they were winning…
Stop with this nonsens!
Uki-soldiers doesnt care about their own dead and they sure dont risk their life for a russian body.
The reason Russia has 2:1 or 10:1 advantage in men is that they can rotate the forces facing the stubborn Ukrainian defence. Day 1 they have 5:1 advantage, day 7 the advantage is halved and day 14 they are rotated to be replaced with next batch of meat.
You cant have it both ways; 10:1 advantage and a chart with body counts indicating Ukrainian are losing 10:1 against Russia but still no breaktrough….
Ukraine soldiers might or might not care about their own dead but family members surely do. I think the main factors in the lower casualty rates of the Russians is in the extensive air and artillery attacks prior to foot attacks and in the attitudes in their own commanding officers.
Agree. Arty and bombs doing much of the killing. But I dont doubt that Ukrainians kill quite a lot of Russians too. Therefore I dislike this SMO-narrative.
War should be short and forceful unless you are at disadvantage. Russia clearly is.
"Short and forceful" (are you describing your flagellation sessions?) You mean like the US or your best friends the Israeli's ?? My fellow Americans prove just how stupid they are, every time they either open their mouth or type on a keyboard. And it has 0 to do with this UkroNazi propaganda that Simp is now pushing.
What fellow Amerikanski? What Putin /Russian state is doing to their own people will hunt them for years. It is inexcuseable.
"What Putin /Russian state is doing to their own people will hunt them for years. It is inexcuseable."
Take your meds. Russia's people are strongly behind what Putin and the Russian state are doing *for* them. Quality of life has skyrocketed with dramatically healthier, happier and wealthier people. The economy continues to do very, very well, better than any Russian alive can remember. Stores are full of products from Russia and all over the world and there's tremendous dynamism and optimism in the air. Civic infrastructure continues to get better and better in everything from better schools and hospitals and playgrounds to better roads and absolutely fabulous cell and Internet service.
Life is good here in Russia. No, it's more than good, it's really great. And people give Putin and his team a lot of credit for that. So go take your troll story to the West, where people are stupid enough to believe such nonsense.
You mean like "shock and awe"? How did that work out for the US? A month of bombing everything to hell, killing loads of civilians and then declaring "Mission Accomplished!" Then leaving 10 years later in defeat.
What idiots in US call their operations has no bearing on reality.
US bribed their way into Bahgdad. And they did numerous War crimes by destroying water-supply and waste-water cleaning, powerstations, infrastructure and killing civilians.
How about Fall Weiss, Weserubung and Fall Gelb?
Shock and awe did what it was intended to do.
Anyway, "but insurgency!" is just more cope. The one thing every successful insurgency has in common is a young population. The media age in Yemen is 19. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that from before the war.
Nobody cares what ukrainian family members think. They scream impotently, but the press gangs continue sweeping warm live bodies.
Your logic is retarded
Isn't the disparity partly because the Russians are advancing and the Ukrainians are retreating? The majority of the dead in any battle, both Russian and Ukrainian, would be on land controlled by Russians. I do agree that Russian troops are killing more Ukrainian troops than vice versa, but I don't think this particular statistic is a measure of it?
Simplicius covered this very line of reasoning in a prior report:
"Of course, it is true Russia is likely picking up more dead and thus the 8:1 ratio is probably skewed somewhat in accordance to this; I’m simply arguing that the ‘retreating’ myth is not entirely responsible for it. Maybe instead of 8:1 the real ratio is 5:1 or whatever it may be, but we have every indication it’s still greatly in Russia’s favor"
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-122124-things-heat-up-in-kherson?utm_source=post-banner
"Is it possible that Russia places a very high priority on saving soldiers lives and this causes the slow advance of the front? "
Yes, that's one of the factors. That factor is really one of the aspects of the "grown up," professional approach Russia takes to combat, which is the complete opposite of the propaganda for morons spouted by western governments and media.
Russia is fighting a limited operation that seeks to achieve the stated aims with the minimum of violence and damage both to Russians and to the population of Ukraine. It's often remarked that the combat is happening in regions occupied primarily by ethnic Russians but I think Russia would be taking the same approach even if the combat was in Lvov.
Russia also has no need to sacrifice anybody to please Western handlers or donors or to enrich private interests that are opposed to the interests of the country. That's the exact opposite of the Kiev regime, which happily killed over 75,000 men in a suicidal, horrifically counterproductive Kursk operation just to provide feedstock for propaganda for morons that ensured billions of dollars more would flow into Kiev's coffers, from which the money could be skimmed into the foreign bank accounts of the Kiev junta.
Kiev cannot admit to its Western donors the asymmetrically huge casualties Russia has inflicted upon the junta's armies. Instead, they keep talking about a mere 40K dead while Russia supposedly has had a million killed. If they told the truth, like over 700,000 dead with many places on the front only defended by a few men per kilometer, the West would cut off the money that is enriching the junta's elite. So instead they lie and leave their men in horrifically overextended positions where they will take huge casualties.
What they should be doing is what Russia did when early in the war a few scouting battalions took entire regions. Russia knew that when NATO entered the war in force it did not have nearly enough men to defend such huge territories, so it pulled back from places like Kharkov to a smaller territory that the relatively tiny army Russia had invaded with could defend. Kiev isn't doing that. It's leaving its men in overextended positions where they get slaughtered.
"Theoretically, since the Russian army is constantly advancing their rate of losses should be lot higher than the Ukrainians’ who are in defensive positions."
That's true in theory only if the defenders have enough forces to defend those positions. Then yes, you really want to attack with much greater force than the defenders have, and you should expect to take significant casualties.
But all that goes out the window if there are insufficient defenders for minimal defenses. In a region where there's one guy per kilometer on the front line, that one guy will die when the attack comes. In fact, if it's 100 guys per kilometer facing hugely disproportionate odds those 100 guys will die.
The junta's "PR comes first" warfighting approach is also very hard on defenders because instead of pulling them back when they can do so in good order, the junta waits for far past when retreats can happen in good order. And that's when another rule of thumb, that massive, disproportionate casualties happen during a rout, takes effect. When defenders are routed and have to drop their weapons and run for their lives, that's when they get really slaughtered while the attackers often take zero casualties.
Kiev's "not one step back until after I cash that next check" battle plan means lots of disorderly retreats and that's why you see so many FPV drone videos of Ukrainian troops fleeing in disarray getting killed by artillery and other fire.
Which brings up the last point, the massive disparity in weapons. A lot of the asymmetric killing is happening because Russia has an overwhelming advantage in offensive weapons. Those offensive weapons are causing most of the casualties, not hand to hand clearing of trenches and bunkers. It's all the artillery that pounds the life (literally) out of defenders to depths of 40 km from the front, the 3000 pound FABs, and the overwhelming Russian advantage in attack drones. Nobody dies on the Russian side when a FAB atomizes a hundred of Kiev's troops at a time.
I foresee fog machines and sapping making a huge comeback in modeen war, and the unmanned systems branch is way better than space force.
Remember One of the Russians particular tricks is to make a small numerical superiority look huge by local concentration combined with deception. Also that nazis have long had a habit of blaming defeat on crushing superiority in numbers. 😁
Strategic mobility. The Mongols and Napoleon were masters at it.