Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Russia really needs 2 things to fight the long war and potentially win

W

WizardofSoda

Mythic
★★
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Posts
4,687
Online
208d 23h 0m
1. Russia needs China to bankroll the war, and to provide Chinese manufacturing and Chinese technology. China is really the key. Without China I viewed from 2 weeks into the war that Russia won't be able to economically keep up with the war costs. Or to compete with Western technology.

2. To stay in this thing in the long run, its going to go beyond Ukraine. If Ukraine were to start losing from here, the US/UK will send in the Polish and Romanian armies. Russia is going to need shitloads of soldiers, more I view than they can come up with in Russia. They are going to need allies who can put up 100's of thousands of soldiers.

Russia does have allies who will provide soldiers. Just at the moment the view is Russia doesn't have the resources to use them. Thats where China comes in again - China does have the economic resources to fund those other armies.

This is the view on why Russia isn't mobilizing more soldiers. Russia probably doesn't have the economic resources to field more soldiers than it is already using. So what would be the point of mobilizing more soldiers - there wouldn't be one.
 
5ft4ropeconnoisseur

5ft4ropeconnoisseur

NATIONAL RODGERIST
★★
Joined
Apr 4, 2022
Posts
1,188
Online
36d 1h 55m
All Russia needs to do is mobilize the entirety of their armed forces instead of having like 200,000 dudes do all the fighting. Even with the Russians only using a small amount of their manpower Ukraine is unable to push them back. Not sure what Putin is waiting for
 
W

WizardofSoda

Mythic
★★
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Posts
4,687
Online
208d 23h 0m
All Russia needs to do is mobilize the entirety of their armed forces instead of having like 200,000 dudes do all the fighting. Even with the Russians only using a small amount of their manpower Ukraine is unable to push them back. Not sure what Putin is waiting for

Ya if Russia had say the current 200,000 it has in Ukraine + say 200,000 more even as light infantry, then Ukraine would be in very big trouble.
 
wgm24

wgm24

This Thing of Ours
★★★
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Posts
1,257
Online
20d 5h 22m
Russia needs to cut the bullshit and nuke Ukraine. It's not like the US will do anything about it their to busy with china. Also bomb Israel while you're at it
 
verzetn

verzetn

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 25, 2022
Posts
446
Online
2d 7h 2m
putin is indecisive :lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes:

hes unlike adolf hitler, who would gamble. but even adolf hitler made many huge mistakes. germany didnt fully mobillize until 1943. big mistake.

idk if this war can even be won by russia at this point :feelsugh: how can russia take Kiev, for example?

russia need to take out the kike zelensky. cut off the head. :feelsokman:
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
All Russia needs to do is mobilize the entirety of their armed forces instead of having like 200,000 dudes do all the fighting. Even with the Russians only using a small amount of their manpower Ukraine is unable to push them back. Not sure what Putin is waiting for
And leave the rest of their border completely unprotected :feelshaha:
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
putin is indecisive :lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes::lasereyes:

hes unlike adolf hitler, who would gamble. but even adolf hitler made many huge mistakes. germany didnt fully mobillize until 1943. big mistake.

idk if this war can even be won by russia at this point :feelsugh: how can russia take Kiev, for example?

russia need to take out the kike zelensky. cut off the head. :feelsokman:
Low IQ post. Germany had already mobilised by 1939 and the German Army was at its peak in 1942. The only mistake Hitler made was invading the USSR and not be satisfied his gains in Mainland Europe and Africa.
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
Russia needs to cut the bullshit and nuke Ukraine. It's not like the US will do anything about it their to busy with china. Also bomb Israel while you're at it
I like it when cucks for Russia seethe when it becomes obvious that Russia is weak. :feelskek:
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
@WizardofSoda If Russia requests support from China of such scale, this is what Eurasia is going to look like by 2030
1659774258345
 
phantom447

phantom447

low iq studymaxxer
★★★
Joined
May 26, 2022
Posts
714
Online
23d 10h 32m
russia was almost had Kiev in the first week, and were making tons of progress, but now they're barely gaining ground. Jewtin is such a fucking retard why did he pull his troops out of the north of Ukraine? They were doing wonderful
 
K

kaang

Captain
★★
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Posts
1,641
Online
78d 19h 40m
Russia just needs to wait until the rest of the world moves on to the next thing.
 
Glerforpus

Glerforpus

Major
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
2,349
Online
7d 9h 44m
Russia needs more supplies tbh
 
verzetn

verzetn

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 25, 2022
Posts
446
Online
2d 7h 2m
Low IQ post. Germany had already mobilised by 1939 and the German Army was at its peak in 1942. The only mistake Hitler made was invading the USSR and not be satisfied his gains in Mainland Europe and Africa.
no germany was not fully mobilized :feelsseriously:

by mobilization it not only meant military but also civilian. germany didnt mobilize the civilian populatio, didnt have a war time economy, unlike britain ussr and the US.
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
no germany was not fully mobilized :feelsseriously:

by mobilization it not only meant military but also civilian. germany didnt mobilize the civilian populatio, didnt have a war time economy, unlike britain ussr and the US.
Because their leadership didn't believe they had a reason to:feelsseriously:.
The only time when it became obvious that Germany needed to mobilise its civilian population was in late 1941, and civilian mobilisation doesn't exactly happen instantly.
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
All Russia needs to do is mobilize the entirety of their armed forces instead of having like 200,000 dudes do all the fighting. Even with the Russians only using a small amount of their manpower Ukraine is unable to push them back. Not sure what Putin is waiting for
jfl
he is afraid of arming russians
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
g
Low IQ post. Germany had already mobilised by 1939 and the German Army was at its peak in 1942. The only mistake Hitler made was invading the USSR and not be satisfied his gains in Mainland Europe and Africa.
germany got fully mobilised only in 1943, xd
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
1. Russia needs China to bankroll the war, and to provide Chinese manufacturing and Chinese technology. China is really the key. Without China I viewed from 2 weeks into the war that Russia won't be able to economically keep up with the war costs. Or to compete with Western technology.

2. To stay in this thing in the long run, its going to go beyond Ukraine. If Ukraine were to start losing from here, the US/UK will send in the Polish and Romanian armies. Russia is going to need shitloads of soldiers, more I view than they can come up with in Russia. They are going to need allies who can put up 100's of thousands of soldiers.

Russia does have allies who will provide soldiers. Just at the moment the view is Russia doesn't have the resources to use them. Thats where China comes in again - China does have the economic resources to fund those other armies.

This is the view on why Russia isn't mobilizing more soldiers. Russia probably doesn't have the economic resources to field more soldiers than it is already using. So what would be the point of mobilizing more soldiers - there wouldn't be one.
For russia to win Putin has to remove all churkas from the government. (Shoygu, Kirienko, Lavrov at first)
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
g

germany got fully mobilised only in 1943, xd
"Only". :feelswhat:
First of all, Germany fully mobilised in 1942, I don't know why you guys keep spewing out 1943.
Secondly, full mobilisation doesn't happen instantly, you dumbasses.
 
Subhuman100

Subhuman100

Socially Crippled
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Posts
2,414
Online
79d 19h 20m
Low IQ post. Germany had already mobilised by 1939 and the German Army was at its peak in 1942. The only mistake Hitler made was invading the USSR and not be satisfied his gains in Mainland Europe and Africa.
It wasn't a mistake. Russia was going to invade them anyway
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
It wasn't a mistake. Russia was going to invade them anyway
Germany could have tried to make a form of peace deal with the UK after France's fall, by less harsh conditions (mainly Britain being left completely intact) and public opinion in Britain was against the war at the time. If that were to happen, the USSR's plans to invade Germany were to be executed in 1943 (earliest date). This would give Germany nearly two years of preparation and when the USSR would invade, Germany would hold out and reach a peace deal eventually.
 
ethniccel1

ethniccel1

Veteran
★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Posts
1,332
Online
53d 1h 5m
1. Russia needs China to bankroll the war, and to provide Chinese manufacturing and Chinese technology. China is really the key. Without China I viewed from 2 weeks into the war that Russia won't be able to economically keep up with the war costs. Or to compete with Western technology.

2. To stay in this thing in the long run, its going to go beyond Ukraine. If Ukraine were to start losing from here, the US/UK will send in the Polish and Romanian armies. Russia is going to need shitloads of soldiers, more I view than they can come up with in Russia. They are going to need allies who can put up 100's of thousands of soldiers.

Russia does have allies who will provide soldiers. Just at the moment the view is Russia doesn't have the resources to use them. Thats where China comes in again - China does have the economic resources to fund those other armies.

This is the view on why Russia isn't mobilizing more soldiers. Russia probably doesn't have the economic resources to field more soldiers than it is already using. So what would be the point of mobilizing more soldiers - there wouldn't be one.
Hmmm you know these military folks in leadership are not there because they are low iq. The Russians would have to go on major offensives with massive amounts of resources in all areas. As you said that costs billions and continually.

Perhaps they are playing to a different strategy? Think about this lets just formulate a hypothesis just for argument sake and to get our brains thinking on an abstract level. Say the Russians realised early that NATO were trying to lure Russia into a trap, a black hole in which they would pump endless resources for nothing. So they pulled back and thus are flipping the script and letting NATO pump endless resources into a shit hole Ukraine.

Russia was already a shit hole before all this kicked off so to them it makes no difference how much NATO try to economically punish them. But the joke is now on NATO who not only have to deal with China and Iran but now are caught up in Ukraine.

Just saying though on an abstract level.Say Russian leadership are super confident that they can defend the gains they made now against naything and everything NATO and Ukraine throw at them on the battle field. After NATO throw their blows then in the pause after that which NATO needs to catch their breath and prepare for the next blow then Russia captures a few more cities and villages, defend them then rinse and repeat. At least in the areas in which they enjoy local support.

As I said Russia was and is a shit hole so the question is how long can NATO financially sustain this war? All the while China is happily gaining strength without disturbance while NATO bleeds themselves dry. For example Europe is already fucked, infaltion going crazy, rising unemployment, rising energy prices etc etc etc. Will the EU populace still support the war come spring next year? I personally doubt, dont forget Europe has nothing in terms of resources except coal, wine and cheese. Maybe Amerimutts will still support the war come spring next year, I dont know but in the EU nobody will at least the working class wont because life is already approaching shit hole life for them having to flip each cent 3 times i.e they are struggling as is.

It is all hypothetical. I would have to write a 20 page essay to cover all areas of this hypothesis but you seem to be interested in military stuff so you know war is not just on the batlle field but also mind control,physcology, economics, education, propoganda, strategy, tactic etc etc etc. So yeah thats the way the Russians could be playing this one out.
 
Last edited:
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
5,588
Online
136d 12h 32m
russia was almost had Kiev in the first week, and were making tons of progress, but now they're barely gaining ground. Jewtin is such a fucking retard why did he pull his troops out of the north of Ukraine? They were doing wonderful
He needed to sent more troops to capture Kiev. Retreating is very retarded move.
 
refmd

refmd

awol
★★★★
Joined
Feb 8, 2018
Posts
2,346
Online
7d 10h 55m
Germany used 1.5 million men to invade poland, and germany army was the most disciplined well trained tactical army of it's time in the world at the point and it still took them at least a month to defeat poland.

Russia thinking they were just going to "blitkzkrieg" into ukraine capital and take kiev in like a week or two with maybe 200k troops spread out over the entire east and north ukraine border was a joke, they extended their lines too far without the support to back it up and their tanks just became javelin fodder because they weren't even backed up with troop support.

They can probably hold the east of ukraine but now they are stuck in basically a permanent war and permanent sanctions.
 
Last edited:
Subhuman100

Subhuman100

Socially Crippled
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Posts
2,414
Online
79d 19h 20m
Germany could have tried to make a form of peace deal with the UK after France's fall, by less harsh conditions (mainly Britain being left completely intact) and public opinion in Britain was against the war at the time. If that were to happen, the USSR's plans to invade Germany were to be executed in 1943 (earliest date). This would give Germany nearly two years of preparation and when the USSR would invade, Germany would hold out and reach a peace deal eventually.
Cope UK was never going to accept any deals after they invaded Poland and France, Germany was a threat to UK and they wanted to destroy Germany to keep their power/influence over the world.
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
Cope UK was never going to accept any deals after they invaded Poland and France, Germany was a threat to UK and they wanted to destroy Germany to keep their power/influence over the world.
The UK alone could never defeat Germany unless they brought 100 million Indian soldiers to Europe or something :feelshaha:. Hitler shouldn't have pissed off other nations' leaders.
 
sub human

sub human

the wizard of loneliness
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
6,630
Online
37d 19h 35m
The only mistake Hitler made was invading the USSR and not be satisfied his gains in Mainland Europe and Africa.
Shit take. Hitler came to power telling everybody he was gonna invade Russia. If he pussied out he would lose a lot of support at home. Furthermore the entire German economy was built around looting in war, if Germany stopped invading places the economy would tank again catastrophically. Finally nobody was gonna let germany just take most of europe. A war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. If anything, Hitler fought the soviets at the perfect time because he caught them off guard and encircled so many of their armies and their officers were dogshit because all the good ones got purged
 
sub human

sub human

the wizard of loneliness
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
6,630
Online
37d 19h 35m
The fact they didn't blitzkrieg thru in a month is embarrassing:feelsjuice:
Fr ong I used to be a Russian fanboy but I just can’t anymore they jobbed so hard
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
Shit take. Hitler came to power telling everybody he was gonna invade Russia. If he pussied out he would lose a lot of support at home. Furthermore the entire German economy was built around looting in war, if Germany stopped invading places the economy would tank again catastrophically. Finally nobody was gonna let germany just take most of europe. A war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. If anything, Hitler fought the soviets at the perfect time because he caught them off guard and encircled so many of their armies and their officers were dogshit because all the good ones got purged
No, he came to power telling everybody that he was going to put the Aryan race to its rightful place and destroy Judeo-Marxism.
We have no idea what the German economy would look like in peace time had they made a peace treaty. Also, yes many people would let Germany take most of Europe. Americans were more intelligent and isolationist at the time and the British couldn't take on Germany without help, nor could the Germans defeat the British Navy. The reason why the Axis lost in Africa was because the bulk of the German Army was fighting the USSR. It's true that Stalin had planned to declare war on Germany in the mid-1940s, however the Soviets were terrible at offensive campaigns and the end result would be a stalemate.
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
The fact they didn't blitzkrieg thru in a month is embarrassing:feelsjuice:
it's because putin is a turboretard, on the first days of "SVO" they promoted "the save ukrainian soldier" thing, they didn't strike the baracks with calibre and iskander missiles, russian intel completely failed because it expected hohols to surrender:feelsthink:
 
Unfortunate Son

Unfortunate Son

Greycel
Joined
May 10, 2022
Posts
24
Online
17h 8m
"Only". :feelswhat:
First of all, Germany fully mobilised in 1942, I don't know why you guys keep spewing out 1943.
Secondly, full mobilisation doesn't happen instantly, you dumbasses.
I think he's referencing the transition to a total war economy which happened in 1943, which was way too late to make a difference. Nonetheless the policy was effective since German military industrial output didn't reach its peak until 1944, well after the war was already lost. But the increased output didn't help since the Soviets and Americans were also in total war mode by that point and Germany could never hope to compete with them
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
I think he's referencing the transition to a total war economy which happened in 1943, which was way too late to make a difference. Nonetheless the policy was effective since German military industrial output didn't reach its peak until 1944, well after the war was already lost. But the increased output didn't help since the Soviets and Americans were also in total war mode by that point and Germany could never hope to compete with them
When a nation has to transition to total war economy, it means that the war is likely going to be lost. It really wasn't required for the Allies to transition to a total war economy given the heavy advantage they had in logistics.
 
Unfortunate Son

Unfortunate Son

Greycel
Joined
May 10, 2022
Posts
24
Online
17h 8m
When a nation has to transition to total war economy, it means that the war is likely going to be lost. It really wasn't required for the Allies to transition to a total war economy given the heavy advantage they had in logistics.
The Soviets very much were in total war mode since 1941, but the United States wasn't in a desperate enough situation to warrant the same measures as the USSR or Germany. But even with the US economy mobilised to a lesser extent, the industrial output still dwarfed Germany's
 
Unfortunate Son

Unfortunate Son

Greycel
Joined
May 10, 2022
Posts
24
Online
17h 8m
A war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. If anything, Hitler fought the soviets at the perfect time because he caught them off guard and encircled so many of their armies and their officers were dogshit because all the good ones got purged
Agreed. 1941 was arguably the only window for Germany to achieve victory over the USSR, since the Soviets were completely unprepared. Even then, Friedrich Paulus (the German general who surrendered at Stalingrad) oversaw wargames simulating an invasion of the USSR in 1940 and concluded that victory would be impossible if the Germans couldn't force a decisive Soviet defeat in Belarus and Ukraine. Beyond that point he argued that the logistical issues alone would make prolonged fighting impossible. And he was basically right, since the two major German defeats that ended their strategic initiative in the war (Moscow and Stalingrad) were both beyond the logistical "safety" of Ukraine and Belarus

They did destroy entire armies in Belarus and Ukraine, but they vastly underestimated the Soviet ability to recover, which I think was due to Stalin's industrialisation programs in the 1930s that allowed Soviet industry to kick into gear. If Stalin hadn't done that in the 30s then the Red Army may have been completely destroyed in 1941
 
Unfortunate Son

Unfortunate Son

Greycel
Joined
May 10, 2022
Posts
24
Online
17h 8m
Ya if Russia had say the current 200,000 it has in Ukraine + say 200,000 more even as light infantry, then Ukraine would be in very big trouble.
The only explanation is that they don't have the supplies/logistics to support it. Russia has 1+million active soldiers trained to fight, but they're only using around 200,000 in Ukraine and clearly struggling. If they had the capability I'm sure they would have sent at least another 100,000 men to the front, since they have the manpower to support it. There's also a clear opening on the Belarussian border, an invasion from there would probably overwhelm the Ukrainians who are desperately trying to hold on in the east and south.

The North Koreans have offered them 100,000 volunteers, perhaps that would be more acceptable since they are foreign - who cares if the Koreans are not as well-equipped since they are basically cannon fodder
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
The only explanation is that they don't have the supplies/logistics to support it. Russia has 1+million active soldiers trained to fight, but they're only using around 200,000 in Ukraine and clearly struggling. If they had the capability I'm sure they would have sent at least another 100,000 men to the front, since they have the manpower to support it. There's also a clear opening on the Belarussian border, an invasion from there would probably overwhelm the Ukrainians who are desperately trying to hold on in the east and south.

The North Koreans have offered them 100,000 volunteers, perhaps that would be more acceptable since they are foreign - who cares if the Koreans are not as well-equipped since they are basically cannon fodder
>1+million active soldiers trained to fight
dude, what drugs are you on?
 
Unfortunate Son

Unfortunate Son

Greycel
Joined
May 10, 2022
Posts
24
Online
17h 8m
>1+million active soldiers trained to fight
dude, what drugs are you on?
yup, I misremembered that one. Guess Russia is a lot weaker than I thought, must've been thinking about China
 
P

porridge

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Posts
97
Online
15h 7m
yup, I misremembered that one. Guess Russia is a lot weaker than I thought, must've been thinking about China
also take the tooth to tale ratio in consideration, in modern armies it's around 1:2, during vietnam war mutts had a ratio of 1:17

it's a number of people who actually fight compared to the amount people who don't fight but still work for army
 
ReconElement

ReconElement

GOC-in-C, V Corps, Death is for me
★★
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Posts
4,161
Online
141d 19h 14m
Russia should invoke the spirits of the Gigachad steppe Aryans, they'd rise up from their massive graves and would repeat what they did in the bronze age with heavenly chariots they'd rape every busty stacey in Eurasia
 
LesscoBlob

LesscoBlob

Head of the Interplanetary Unitary Regime.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
4,301
Online
24d 17h 51m
The Soviets very much were in total war mode since 1941, but the United States wasn't in a desperate enough situation to warrant the same measures as the USSR or Germany. But even with the US economy mobilised to a lesser extent, the industrial output still dwarfed Germany's
That's true, but the USSR was saved largely from having a lot more land (and resources) and a much larger population. Granted, it didn't have good leadership, but morale was not completely dead. Especially from 1942 onwards when the US joined the war too.
 
W

WizardofSoda

Mythic
★★
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Posts
4,687
Online
208d 23h 0m
Hmmm you know these military folks in leadership are not there because they are low iq. The Russians would have to go on major offensives with massive amounts of resources in all areas. As you said that costs billions and continually.

Perhaps they are playing to a different strategy? Think about this lets just formulate a hypothesis just for argument sake and to get our brains thinking on an abstract level. Say the Russians realised early that NATO were trying to lure Russia into a trap, a black hole in which they would pump endless resources for nothing. So they pulled back and thus are flipping the script and letting NATO pump endless resources into a shit hole Ukraine.

Russia was already a shit hole before all this kicked off so to them it makes no difference how much NATO try to economically punish them. But the joke is now on NATO who not only have to deal with China and Iran but now are caught up in Ukraine.

Just saying though on an abstract level.Say Russian leadership are super confident that they can defend the gains they made now against naything and everything NATO and Ukraine throw at them on the battle field. After NATO throw their blows then in the pause after that which NATO needs to catch their breath and prepare for the next blow then Russia captures a few more cities and villages, defend them then rinse and repeat. At least in the areas in which they enjoy local support.

As I said Russia was and is a shit hole so the question is how long can NATO financially sustain this war? All the while China is happily gaining strength without disturbance while NATO bleeds themselves dry. For example Europe is already fucked, infaltion going crazy, rising unemployment, rising energy prices etc etc etc. Will the EU populace still support the war come spring next year? I personally doubt, dont forget Europe has nothing in terms of resources except coal, wine and cheese. Maybe Amerimutts will still support the war come spring next year, I dont know but in the EU nobody will at least the working class wont because life is already approaching shit hole life for them having to flip each cent 3 times i.e they are struggling as is.

It is all hypothetical. I would have to write a 20 page essay to cover all areas of this hypothesis but you seem to be interested in military stuff so you know war is not just on the batlle field but also mind control,physcology, economics, education, propoganda, strategy, tactic etc etc etc. So yeah thats the way the Russians could be playing this one out.

You really understand the key aspects of what is going on in the big picture. Something I view is that to hold Europe over the long run, the US is going to have to much more directly run the EU countries and the EU. After 1990 when the West Europeans had gotten to near parity with the USA in GDP per capita, and the Cold War was ending, the US has sort of let them make their own decisions economically.

Even as the US had been running Western Europe for 45 years, from 1945 to 1990. Then since 1990 the US has mainly been letting the West Europeans run themselves, as we weren't as interested with the Cold War ending, and America focusing on other areas - like the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, and the Middle East. With things going so well in Western Europe it didn't make much sense to focus on them and they appeared to be equal to us with their GDP per capita the same as us.

I never believed however that the West Europeans had learned to be as smart as us. Ya when we were running their countries and put in place our full system in Europe, you get the same results. But what happens when we aren't running their countries.. they start changing our system and going for their own dumb ideas. This is a national security issue because countries where the average people of the country their standard of living is going downhill, if that continues it will eventually go beyond discontent to never ending wars and revolutions. Aka like Europe's past before we got there. Just the discontent weakens the Empire. A lot of the reason the Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join us in the 1990's was they saw how incredibly wealthy the West Europeans were in the early 90's. And not just a few very wealthy people, but the average person being that well off.

For Ukraine it is the same they see how Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania all their economies have grown 3-4 times since 1990, as they are in the West. And they want that too.


I view the European energy crisis was a long time in the making. We were telling them from the US for like 20 years, don't become dependent on Russia for that much of your energy needs because sooner or later it will get cut off, or you will become taken over by Russia.

And I'm not an electrical engineer.. but it was obvious to me that if you want to use natural gas instead of coal, because the natural gas is so clean, which seems smart to me that you do a couple of things.

-get diversity of supply
-get massive, massive storage

-above all don't tear down the coal power plants, and also keep the coal mines and coal transport systems operational, grid connections with the coal plants etc.


And on top of those things, an electrical systems operating normally with normal amounts of plants down for maintenance should provide 15-20% surplus capacity for the highest electrical demand day of the year as a minimum.


Anyway the EU should be ran by the US. With actual power engineers and GE and experienced electrical utility people designing, building and running the grid in Europe. So all people in our European Empire can get affordable, abundant and reliable power without having to think about it.
 
sub human

sub human

the wizard of loneliness
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
6,630
Online
37d 19h 35m
The only explanation is that they don't have the supplies/logistics to support it. Russia has 1+million active soldiers trained to fight, but they're only using around 200,000 in Ukraine and clearly struggling. If they had the capability I'm sure they would have sent at least another 100,000 men to the front, since they have the manpower to support it. There's also a clear opening on the Belarussian border, an invasion from there would probably overwhelm the Ukrainians who are desperately trying to hold on in the east and south.

The North Koreans have offered them 100,000 volunteers, perhaps that would be more acceptable since they are foreign - who cares if the Koreans are not as well-equipped since they are basically cannon fodder
lmfao that name is clever

it aint me it aint me
 
ethniccel1

ethniccel1

Veteran
★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Posts
1,332
Online
53d 1h 5m
You really understand the key aspects of what is going on in the big picture. Something I view is that to hold Europe over the long run, the US is going to have to much more directly run the EU countries and the EU. After 1990 when the West Europeans had gotten to near parity with the USA in GDP per capita, and the Cold War was ending, the US has sort of let them make their own decisions economically.

Even as the US had been running Western Europe for 45 years, from 1945 to 1990. Then since 1990 the US has mainly been letting the West Europeans run themselves, as we weren't as interested with the Cold War ending, and America focusing on other areas - like the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, and the Middle East. With things going so well in Western Europe it didn't make much sense to focus on them and they appeared to be equal to us with their GDP per capita the same as us.

I never believed however that the West Europeans had learned to be as smart as us. Ya when we were running their countries and put in place our full system in Europe, you get the same results. But what happens when we aren't running their countries.. they start changing our system and going for their own dumb ideas. This is a national security issue because countries where the average people of the country their standard of living is going downhill, if that continues it will eventually go beyond discontent to never ending wars and revolutions. Aka like Europe's past before we got there. Just the discontent weakens the Empire. A lot of the reason the Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join us in the 1990's was they saw how incredibly wealthy the West Europeans were in the early 90's. And not just a few very wealthy people, but the average person being that well off.

For Ukraine it is the same they see how Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania all their economies have grown 3-4 times since 1990, as they are in the West. And they want that too.


I view the European energy crisis was a long time in the making. We were telling them from the US for like 20 years, don't become dependent on Russia for that much of your energy needs because sooner or later it will get cut off, or you will become taken over by Russia.

And I'm not an electrical engineer.. but it was obvious to me that if you want to use natural gas instead of coal, because the natural gas is so clean, which seems smart to me that you do a couple of things.

-get diversity of supply
-get massive, massive storage

-above all don't tear down the coal power plants, and also keep the coal mines and coal transport systems operational, grid connections with the coal plants etc.


And on top of those things, an electrical systems operating normally with normal amounts of plants down for maintenance should provide 15-20% surplus capacity for the highest electrical demand day of the year as a minimum.


Anyway the EU should be ran by the US. With actual power engineers and GE and experienced electrical utility people designing, building and running the grid in Europe. So all people in our European Empire can get affordable, abundant and reliable power without having to think about it.
Okay I hear you. The question is, is the US willing to provide Europe with cheap gas and energy resources? Simply put what does Europe gain from sticking with the US if their energy costs triple because of this loyality? Why wouldnt they ditch the US and just work with Russia? A Euro-Russo alliance.

To put my question in simple terms , is the US leadership willing to supply Europe with cheap gas? If so then Europe will happily remain in the US camp if not then maybe the populace will force the elites in Europe to shift alliances. Just a question of economics as usual. I am sure the US will supply the EU with cheap gas but that at the end of the day is decided by the US leadership. But as of now Europe is on the edge of their capabilities based on the current circumstances.
 
RandomGuy

RandomGuy

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 20, 2018
Posts
6,490
Online
152d 22h 3m

$86 BILLION: UKRAINIAN 4-MAN TEAM GOES INTO FIGHT WITH ONE AK-74 AND TWO CARTRIDGES

 
MediumDiploma

MediumDiploma

Supervising Supervisor of Burger King
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Posts
57
Online
1d 40m
Russia is relying more on artillery now.
 
BardakTheGreat

BardakTheGreat

ExtERminator of foids, fags and NT's
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Posts
4,030
Online
12d 4h 5m
W

WizardofSoda

Mythic
★★
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Posts
4,687
Online
208d 23h 0m
Okay I hear you. The question is, is the US willing to provide Europe with cheap gas and energy resources? Simply put what does Europe gain from sticking with the US if their energy costs triple because of this loyality? Why wouldnt they ditch the US and just work with Russia? A Euro-Russo alliance.

To put my question in simple terms , is the US leadership willing to supply Europe with cheap gas? If so then Europe will happily remain in the US camp if not then maybe the populace will force the elites in Europe to shift alliances. Just a question of economics as usual. I am sure the US will supply the EU with cheap gas but that at the end of the day is decided by the US leadership. But as of now Europe is on the edge of their capabilities based on the current circumstances.


Thing is the US isn't leaving unless it gets defeated militarily. Its too strategically important and the investments in the EU are so vast by the US/UK, there is no way we are walking away from that without a world war level fight.

You are right the US has to make it so Europe gets supplied with the energy it needs, namely natural gas. So the US and Canada are building LNG export plants and the Europeans are building LNG import plants right now. And the US allies in the Gulf Arab countries are moving forward with very large LNG export facilities. The Russians before the war supplied 40% of Europe's natural gas. Which natural gas is the main energy source of the 21st century.

In the UK they are moving forward with more LNG in the North Sea, and same with Norway. And in the EU they have coal plants that can be brought back online, all this just takes time though.

For the US there is a cost in this, before the war natural gas in the US was like $2.50 a thousand cubic feet (tcf). And now its $8.00 per tcf. Although the US as a whole is getting a lot of money from LNG exports now. But still for US consumers including industrial natural gas users the price is way up.

China really wants the Russian natural gas flowing into China. Because otherwise they have to keep generating all their electricity with coal. Which is so polluting its why Europe and the US went off coal in the first place.


My point about the long run what the US has to do in Europe though also matters. Because the US has to think of the long horizon in Europe. People with abundance, prosperity, opportunity, security and freedom are never going to rise up. But poor and desperate and angry people that is going to break apart sooner or later.

There is this art to it. The US has to allow a lot of autonomy or just telling people in Europe to do all the time in their own country is going to build resistance. On the other hand not stepping in when they make horrible decisions then we get the problems we see now with energy.

The US was telling Europe for like 20 years now not to shut off their coal until they could get alternative sources available for the natural gas if Russia one day shut the gas off. But the US didn't force the issue. And probably politically couldn't have forced it. But that weakness has now created the divide you are talking about.
 
ethniccel1

ethniccel1

Veteran
★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Posts
1,332
Online
53d 1h 5m
Thing is the US isn't leaving unless it gets defeated militarily. Its too strategically important and the investments in the EU are so vast by the US/UK, there is no way we are walking away from that without a world war level fight.

You are right the US has to make it so Europe gets supplied with the energy it needs, namely natural gas. So the US and Canada are building LNG export plants and the Europeans are building LNG import plants right now. And the US allies in the Gulf Arab countries are moving forward with very large LNG export facilities. The Russians before the war supplied 40% of Europe's natural gas. Which natural gas is the main energy source of the 21st century.

In the UK they are moving forward with more LNG in the North Sea, and same with Norway. And in the EU they have coal plants that can be brought back online, all this just takes time though.

For the US there is a cost in this, before the war natural gas in the US was like $2.50 a thousand cubic feet (tcf). And now its $8.00 per tcf. Although the US as a whole is getting a lot of money from LNG exports now. But still for US consumers including industrial natural gas users the price is way up.

China really wants the Russian natural gas flowing into China. Because otherwise they have to keep generating all their electricity with coal. Which is so polluting its why Europe and the US went off coal in the first place.


My point about the long run what the US has to do in Europe though also matters. Because the US has to think of the long horizon in Europe. People with abundance, prosperity, opportunity, security and freedom are never going to rise up. But poor and desperate and angry people that is going to break apart sooner or later.

There is this art to it. The US has to allow a lot of autonomy or just telling people in Europe to do all the time in their own country is going to build resistance. On the other hand not stepping in when they make horrible decisions then we get the problems we see now with energy.

The US was telling Europe for like 20 years now not to shut off their coal until they could get alternative sources available for the natural gas if Russia one day shut the gas off. But the US didn't force the issue. And probably politically couldn't have forced it. But that weakness has now created the divide you are talking about.
Yeah I am sure the US of A will pull through at the end of the day but they have to subsidize the gas. As the saying goes you gotta pay the cost to be the boss.

We see a EU rearming now so who knows what tricks they could have up their sleeves when they reach parity with the US in some years. Those French and Germans are sneaky.

But yeah it all depends on affordable gas. All right take care luv ya.
 

Similar threads

W
Replies
22
Views
318
WizardofSoda
W
W
Replies
21
Views
632
FarCel
FarCel
W
Replies
13
Views
315
LesscoBlob
LesscoBlob
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top