WW3 Europe front. UPDATE page 532 -February 2024, the decisive month

The Russian General in charge of the nuclear central said "either this will be Russian land or it will be scorched land" he was not playing with words.
It was the purpose of this operation from the start - and "scorched" really means "scorched, and badly so".

That is why I asked for your take on it, Sir.
I didn't say that I agreed with him.

However, the last sentence was mine.

Putin has yet to PROVE exactly who he is.
You even said yourself several weeks ago that you needed to see the action,
not words.
Have you seen the action, the proof?
Or have you just caved into your own rhetoric?

Then, again maybe the answer(s) come all at once,
because this can't be done in a series of steps.

The quoted analyses, which was based on a article published in a Russian news outlet, is not the first talking about how the economic alliance between Russia and China is not the panacea most are making of it. Andrei Martyanov already hinted at this same issue, that China is NOT overtly defying US sanctions to help Russia.

They are buying oil and gas from Russia, and lots of it, but then, even the US is buying Russian oil. But beyond that, things are a lot more complicated and not straightforward as most believe.

Also this doesn't imply that the there is no Alliance between both, only that said alliance did not yet reach the maturity point where there is this wide and truly unrestricted economic support from China that everyone expects.

I'm following all the updates so far (and looking forward to the next one) and agree that to sort this point would require an analyses/review of multiple info sources which would require a long post indeed. The unfolding of events and the future updates will bring more data and naturally set things straight.

For now, I'm skeptical of China's resolve to, in the short term at least, settle the Taiwan crap or to make any move that would unsettle the balance of its economic ties with the US, although they ARE truly preparing for war with the US, in certain ways even more so than Russia seems to be preparing:

[link to warnews247-gr.translate.goog (secure)]

This article (and there is many similar from different sources) gives a quick rundown of all the preparations for actual war China is making, and it looks like they are fucking serious. But they will only act if they feel "provoked". And what they will consider a fucking red line and when... this may give ample room for the US to game this issue for a long time. And I'm starting to doubt that Xi have the balls to react even when all the conditions are met. The bully logic I referred previously applies but we will see. Maybe I'm just too fucking impatient lol

Maybe it's just me, but if someone is shooting at me, as a consequence of govt decisions/actions, I don't care how they label it, to me, it would be a war.

I am sure that for Ukraine, this is a state of war. I am also sure that for Russia, isn't.


As someone on Russian TV said, using a veterinarian that is de-worming someone's pet : for the worms, it is war, for the veterinarian, it's an operation.



Everyone is asking why Russia didn't bombed Ukraine to hell and back, why they didn't go in with a million troops and be over it, why they didn't do this, or that. The answer is pretty simple : Russia is not in a state of war.


This is why I said I don't do semantics, just trying, as an observer, to categorize this conflict, comparing it with other conflicts, historically.



Personally, I believe that Ukrainian conflict is similar to Iraq intervention. Almost a war, but not actually one.


Again, considering objective reasons, as observers, that aren't part of the conflict.

Putin invaded Ukraine. No semantics in that.

[link to warnews247-gr.translate.goog (secure)]
Kraken forces melt down – Order to Russian Army: “Take Kharkiv at all costs” – Priests bless Russian forces

If this is accurate, Russia is going "all in" to take Karkov. It didn't seem to me that Karkov would be a priority right now. The above article explains why and how the take-over is about to be executed. Some excerpts:
--

What is now certain is that the Russian Army has orders to capture Kharkiv at all costs. Russian analysts explain their reasons below, noting that the city must pass into Russian hands as soon as possible.

Many Russians wonder why Kharkiv, which is only a few tens of kilometers from our border, has not yet been captured. This is a city of over a million, the former capital of Nezalezhnaya, until recently a major industrial center, the loss of which will be a heavy blow to the economy, and to the morale of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Ukrainian public.
...
For Russia, it will be the most important transport and logistics center, an integral part of the restoration of direct rail communication between Moscow and Crimea. But, unfortunately, everything is not as simple as we would like.
...
Kharkiv itself has so far proved too tough a nut to crack.

...

As you can understand, we will not take Kharkiv with small forces. The key to the liberation of the city lies in the successful completion of the operation in the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk regions and their liberation from the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Only after that, from the south, can the supply lines of the Kharkiv garrison be effectively cut off.

But waiting indefinitely doesn't do us any good either. Sooner or later, but Kyiv will start receiving more modern weapon systems from NATO countries – UAVs, attack helicopters and fighter jets.

Due to the peculiarities of its terrain, the Kharkiv region is an almost ideal "airfield" through which the Ukrainian Air Force will be able to attack the territory of Russia at an ever greater depth. And, undoubtedly, they will do it," Russian military experts conclude
--

Since the last 8 weeks or so I was paying close attention to the Kramatorsk node. Taking it down will be key to many things, including Karkov too it seems. It also will mean the "progress bar" of completely liberating donbass will be close to 100% (I would guess 90% or so), concluding the phase 2 and opening the way for new developments and a change of pace.

But taking the city of Karkov, a million+ urban area.... we will see how this will unfold. Not gonna be easy without numerical advantage of troops.

Op you're right saying that for Russia this is not a war

But maybe this is a mistake from the Russian side. Russia would have been right if the operation was limited to the donbass to help local resistance. But when you are fighting the entire Ukrainian army (probably the most powerful in Europe, since it was part of the red army) sustained by the entire Nato, I think this is a war. Overconfidence is always a mistake

If you are at war and you refuse to admit it, this is not a sign of strength

I have already said that China is not going to make a move towards war before a direct conflict between Russia and NATO.


As long as there isn't a direct conflict between Russia and NATO or between China and NATO, neither China nor Russia will defend the other one, simply because there is no need to.


Russia isn't giving free oil and gas to China, China isn't giving Russia everything that they want. This doesn't mean that China and Russia aren't "really allies". This just means that the current situation gives both China and Russia WIGGLE ROOM to continues doing business almost as usual.


Russia is selling oil at 30% discount, just not full price. China is selling to Russia plenty of stuff that they NEED, just not everything that Russia WANTS.



If Russia and China would not be allied in this...Russia wouldn't see oil to China at discount, and China would only sell Russia what isn't sanctioned.



Militarily speaking, Russia and China conduct common air patrols on the far East. That is a serious military sign that both are trusting each other at the level that is between the U.S. and the U.K., for example.



The fact that China did not adhere to the sanctions is far more important then anything else, economically speaking. China said that the level of cooperation between the two (China and Russia) is at ALL LEVELS and will EXPAND accordingly.


This means that China, at any point, can trade with Russia anything and everything, and they will piss on any sanctions.



Ofc China is trying to balance between the West and Russia. And why wouldn't they do it at this point, or for the near future?



To put it simply : IF A DIRECT CONFLICT between Russia and the West starts, will China side with the West, or with Russia?


Clearly, we don't know, but also clearly we can assume that China will be forced to take a side. Neutrality is impossible.



And the highest chances are, based on anything we know, that China will side with Russia, both economically and militarily, up and including a direct conflict between China and the West.


Speculations and fantasy aside (China will invade Russia and take Siberia), it is irrelevant HOW WE PERCEIVE the alliance between Russia and China at this point, what is relevant is that China will increasingly strengthen their alliance with Russia, with every escalation between Russia and the West and between China and the West.

All Toyota are cars.


Not all cars are Toyota.



All wars are armed conflicts.


Not all armed conflicts are wars.



Russian Army (not Putin) invaded Ukraine. THAT IS CORRECT.


But there is still no state of war between the two.



Everyone have the right to their opinion, and I am not debating that. All I am saying is that compared to previous armed conflicts, the current Russia-Ukraine conflict cannot be qualified as a war, the same way the 2003 intervention in Iraq was not a war, but the 1991 intervention was a war.


This is probably the best comparison I can give : 1991 vs 2003 Iraq interventions.

Semantics aside, the differences between the two are critical in differentiating, because if we are observers, and not emotionally involved (as you clearly are), we can easily categorize one as being a war, and the other as being anything BUT a war.

It might well be a mistake, and I also considered to be a mistake, but once Mariupol fell, and especially after Severodonetsk, I no longer consider it to be a mistake.


Russia is using 10-15% of its military power in Ukraine, which mans that at ANY POINT, they can escalate.


Does NATO help, militarily and financially, had any meaningful impact? Nope. The Russian forces are still advancing, the Ukrainian forces suffer losses very high rates, compared to Russian forces, and the outcome was pretty damn clear since Mariupol : Russia is going to win, and will do it with their current forces.



There is no overconfidence on part of Russia, just a clear, cold assessment that they will achieve their goals with current forces, and no matter HOW LONG will it take, their economy can easily sustain this conflict as long as needed.



IF THERE WILL BE AN ESCALATION, Russia can and will quickly respond.



There is simply no scenario where Russia losses, including limited nuclear war.



The West was the overconfident one, and this is the reason why Europe, at least, is in deep shit, once winter comes : the West was SO SURE that the sanctions will crumble Russia and stop the in Ukraine, that now they can't GO BACK, but only deeper into the shitter.

The bolded parts give you your answer : it is fake news, simply because Russia doesn't have the numbers to take on Kharkov, for now or near future.

10-15% lol absolute nonsense, the only thing they are holding back is of course their nuclear arsenal and their bombers. They of course know that bombing campaigns will only increase the likelihood of the US and NATO getting more involved and it essentially puts Russia into a position where it's all in and no way out but total war.

Apart from that Russia is using almost everything it has at it's disposal, arty, missiles, armour, jets, attack helis, naval assets etc.

Shit they haven't even established air superiority over Ukraine with the local AA still causing them problems and the Ukrainians still having working airfields and air assets.

[link to www.zerohedge.com (secure)]
US Sends Two Warships Through Taiwan Strait In 1st Since Pelosi Visit

"These ships (are transiting) through a corridor in the strait that is beyond the territorial sea of any coastal state. The ships’ transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the United States’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The United States military flies, sails, and operates anywhere international law allows," the 7th Fleet statement continued.

..

Eastern Theater Command slammed the "provocation" and said it is actively monitoring the US vessels.

"Troops of the (Eastern) Theater Command are on high alert and ready to foil any provocation at any time," a spokesperson for the People Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command said.
-----------

Well I guess that's it. China made a lot of noise with the Pelosi thing and.... looks like it's business as usual already. If weapons shipments from US to Taiwan continue, China will have accomplished nothing with it's unnecessary bravado, while losing a lot of credibility. Next time it "calls wolf" nobody will believe.

Very good analyses of the last events.
The video starts at a relevant part. Worth watching entirely.

Or outright disinfo as most likely what Russia really wants right now is to pin ukraine's forces in Kharkov, preventing them to reinforce the other fronts.

Also possibly to prevent attacks inside Russia's borders, but taking the city is not required for that.

Very true

Nonsense?


So...the U.S. and U.K. intelligence services, while they are absolutely a propaganda tool, with the clear intent of making Russia look bad and weak in the same time, which are saying the same thing as I say, are nonsensical as well?



Russia is using everything at their disposal, that is correct, but you have NO IDEA how much Russia have at their disposal, and how much they actually use in Ukraine.


Let's start with the obvious "CONTRADICTING YOURSELF" : on one hand, you said that Russia didn't even achieved air superiority, and on the other hand you said that they are using ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal, and this also means...every JET and HELI at their disposal, right?



THIS IS A NONSENSE : using and in the same time being UNABLE to use your "almost everything" air power.




Let's continue with Western intelligence prior to invasion : Russia amassed 210 BTG's at the borders. A Russian BTG is between 600 and 800 people (depending on mission), so a medium of 700 troops per BTG.


That is a grand total of 147,000 troops. Russia's active personnel : just a tad over 1 million people. Russia's total reserves : over 2 million.


If we go for active personnel only, Russia, PRIOR to invasion, selected under 15% of it's manpower. But you are saying ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal...so, we kinda need to reflect that, which means 147,000 of 3 million active + reserve personnel.


And that is UNDER 5% of their "ALMOST EVERYTHING" manpower at their disposal.



Now, let's go to naval assets.


Only the Black Sea fleet is involved in operations, the landing ships from Caspian and Baltic Sea fleet are only involved in logistic, but hey, let's add them as well.


Black Sea fleet is about 40 surface ships and 7 subs (2 of them are actually in the Mediterranean Sea). Add 8 more landing ships from Caspian/Baltic Sea fleets. That is a total of 48 surface ships and 5 subs. 53 in total.


Total strength of Russian Navy : 300+ surface ships and 51 subs. 351+ in total.


So, Russia is using about 15% of their navy, in numbers, but in fire power? Less then 10% of their navy firepower.



Tanks. 10 tanks per BTG.


210 BTG's, that is 2,100 tanks. According to Western intelligence, at the PEAK of operations in Ukraine (April-May, Russia only used 109 BTG's. Most of the time, Russia is using a THIRD of their BTG's, so that is about 700 tanks used in operation.


Russia have at least 20,000 operational tanks, and since you said ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal...Russia allocated 2,100 tanks for Ukraine, used at peak around 1,000, and most of the time, around 700 tanks.


I am sorry, but that is 11%, 5.5% and 3% respectively of ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal.



Missiles.


According to Ukraine, Russia used 3,600 missiles. According to Russia, around 2,000. According to independent sources, 2,400 to 2,500 missiles, of all types.


Even if we accept Ukraine's number (which is propaganda, obviously, to paint Russia as bad as possible), 3,600 missiles is NOTHING, when Russia had a stockpile of roughly 20,000 before invasion and is producing 30-35 missiles per week since.


Well, it's not nothing...but it surely isn't ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal. It is more like 15% of their stockpile.



Artillery.


Except the few times when Russia goes ham on certain locations, using 70-80k artillery shells per day (and keep in mind, mortar shells are also included here), Russia is using between 40k and 50k arty shells on a daily basis.



That might sound a lot, but in late 80's , the U.S.S.R. arty shells stockpile was around 2 BILLION, of which half were decommissioned (due to age and improper storage), but once Putin came to power, the production drastically increased, and it is very safe to assume that before invasion, Russia had at least 800 million artillery shells in stockpile.


185 days since February 24th, with a median of 50k shells per day, and we have a grand total of 9,250,000 shells used since invasion started, which represents just over 1% of their stockpile. Pretty FAR OFF your ALMOST EVERYTHING at their disposal...


Now, how many artillery pieces Russia is using in Ukraine? We have no idea, but if we go for 50,000 shells / day, and assume a normal usage of 3 hour per piece every 24 hours, firing one shell every 4 minutes (mortars included which have fast fire rates due to very fast loading, but also big ass 152mm, 155mm, 203mm, 300mm, which have a serious loading time), we have an usage of 45 shells per artillery piece every 24 hours, which is roughly 1,200 artillery pieces.


We can add an additional 20% in reserve (NATO standards, and we can assume the same for Russia), and Russia is using about 1,300 artillery pieces (including mortars) in Ukraine.



How many artillery Russia have, you ask?


Well, EXCLUDING MORTARS, Russia have almost 11,000 ACTIVE artillery pieces, and about 16,000 in RESERVE. Mortars close to 8,000 active and god knows how many in reserve.


So, Russia is BARELY using 13% of their ACTIVE artillery (excluding mortars) or roughly 10% (including mortars), OR LESS THEN 3% of their TOTAL artillery assets.




I don't know if you are good at math or not...but looking at the numbers, AND I USED WESTERN and UKRAINIAN info, as well as OFFICIAL KNOWN numbers from various sources, regarding Russia's military, I can safely say that Russia is CLEARLY USING, AT PEAKS, in Ukraine, MAXIMUM 15% of their military CONVENTIONAL POWER.



And that is even a stretch, because it's closer to 10% then 15%.




I don't know how you or anyone can actually BELIEVE anything else.



NOTE : as you can see, I didn't went into aircraft numbers, because they barely use them, according to your BELIEF that Russia didn't achieved air superiority, HENCE, they barely use their air power.



But if you want to go there...Russia allocated 180 jets (of all types) and 240 helis (of all types) for operations in Ukraine, for a total of 420.


Russia have over 4,200 ACTIVE aircraft in it's military forces, which means that Russia allocated under 10% of their air power for Ukraine...quite far from ALMOST EVERYTHING.

Last Edited by Recollector on 08/29/2022 07:13 AM

Now that's an idea! Pure genius!

Putin is essentially a veterinary, on a deworming operation. That must be why he calls it a "special" operation, I guess.

Remains to determine whose pet Ukraine is?

And how long and deworming will be effective, and how deep it goes?

OP says it wasn't Putin, it was the Russian army.

lol

Aren't we lucky to have someone to tell us the real truth.

That's an excellent summary of Russia's actual investment in the SMO. They are certainly getting an excellent return in territory gained and enemy troops killed for this relatively modest investment. It helps understand the logic behind their decision. The main drawback is that the progress while steady and consistent, will be slow or should I say "slower" than desired given the circumstances (ie. that not being an Ukraine only issue, but a segment of a much larger and dangerous threat for Russia). Yes this is very much debatable with lots of folks predicting that this is indeed the best and smartest strategy etc.... I will reserve judgment on this for the future when it will become clear if this was indeed the "winner" strategy, not in the limited context of Ukraine, but on the much larger scope of this being the prelude to kinetic WW3.

What's happening here, OP? Did in the quoted posts the usernames interchanged?

It is obviously you did not write the post that was nevertheless quoted as being authored by "Recollector".

Never trust a quote text. Forums allow you to quote edit anything using any username.

In this case, the original quote is from a post by AC Australian 83640529 that was edited incorrectly or intentionally and appeared to be from the OP.

Thread: Three dead, six ill with mystery pneumonia ‘very similar to Covid’ in Argentina

bump

So Russia have cut the gas supply to Europe just as Autumn/ Fall begins. Could this push NATO to move?

do you mean euro countries sending their little armies to the first line in ukraine? LOL

The Western globalist powers are continuing their plans for Great Reset, just on a smaller scale (only Western countries, of which all are enslaved - for now - to the globalist masters).


The Great Reset implies, first and foremost, massive scale bankruptcy, massive unemployment, huge inflation, total economic collapse, in order to, first, reduce the population through poverty, lack of food, lack of medical care, etc., as a continuation of bio-weapon release (Covid + vaccines), and secondly, to nationalize or sell all bankrupted companies to mega-corporations.



This plan was rushed, as I said from the beginning of this thread. The globalists are hurrying to complete it, since they have to do it fast, and not slowly dispersed over 2-3 generations, and this means massive shocks to the economy and society.


In these conditions, the societal reaction will be BRUTAL, and cannot be controlled. The protests will not last long, before they become ultra-violent.



This time, we're talking about lack of food, heat, energy, and when it will be available, it will be very expensive. Human beings will quickly be downgraded to their primal instinct of SURVIVAL, and this is something that can and will trigger, in current conditions, fall of the globalists all over the Western world.



However, if a war would to break off BEFORE that, the population can be brainwashed into accepting a number of sacrifices, albeit for a while only, because we are directly affected by war.



If there is no war, the globalist won't be able to control the people, who won't accept the disaster just because some Russians are fighting some Ukrainians somewhere far, in Eastern Ukraine.



The globalists will start the NATO vs Russia/China war (WW3) when the social pressure from Western European countries will come close to transform the protests into uprisings, or, when Ukraine is about to lose the war.



At one of those points, direct and total WW3 will start.

Last Edited by Recollector on 09/04/2022 06:37 AM