Russian special military operation in Ukraine #54

GarryB wrote:the only time you would drop the bridges is when they are retreating.

Romans , I think , used to decimate their enemies ! They could have done a meat grinder and killed every enemy member . But they found that by letting some live and tell a tale to others , that this would achieve better results . The ISIS in Syria , were defeated and lost territory and retreated . Until the hard-core and die-hard members were encircled in the desert . At this point in time , these irreconcilable members , had to be eliminated . They would fight to the death . Similarly , I think , a retreat should be allowed for the Orcs . They have by now learnt their lesson , or most should have ! Let them retreat to rear areas , let them rebel and go awol . Let them turn into rebels and fight the Orcs ! Well it is worth a try , as an empirical experiment ? Weak bridges can be left for them to cross .

These people are just fine starting WW3 without even realizing they are doing so.

And this is what scares me most.
Today NATO armies, principally all of them, are manned with yes, sir generation.
Only to hear a difference that represents an ex-chief of our general staff who graduated in Moscow versus his actual equivalent is a shock.
We are talking two different classes of officers, no matter that the first one is well in his 70's.

Also, Russia is already Killing "Unofficial" NATzO personnel in Ukraine, there will be no difference when they are tagged as "Official" NATzO personnel, they will still return home in cold body bags attack

Russkie are kicking their arses for so long, so hard, and in so many places, that they had to figure out an entirely imagined "killing Wagners in Syria" case to scratch their backs
The number of killed mercs, advisers, and operators of advanced NATO standard equipment is being measured in thousands.

Russia may ‘track & target’ SCALP, Storm Shadow deliveries to Ukraine – UK media

This is some sort of divertive crap.

One of the "news" was that Scalp/Storm Shadows are  being delivered to 404 using civilian cars.
Audi Q7 was called by name.
There is only one issue with that.
A whole Q7 is shorter than SS by five centimeters.
I just love some of the press releases, proving the jurnos being brainless.


You can see the effect of cluster bombs with glide kits in videos showing forested areas being hammered and plastered in submunitions... the number of explosions pretty clearly showing most of the munitions are exploding. US artillery shells with submunitions had big gaps in the small explosion patterns... likely to be a UXO problem for later... but they didn't care about that.

The case has been already well covered at a peak of "cluster shells" hysteria.
US produced 155mm cluster ammunition proved to have about 25% of dudes. As a new ones.

I don't think this time Putin can bluff really

Putin never bluffs.

are manned with yes, sir generation.

So many problematic words in that sentence. 

NATO forces plan to block off Odessa 

NATO has nearly run out of ammo, armored vehicles, artillery and AD systems.
And good luck with sending fighter jets against Russian AD systems.

Putin's nuclear warning turned out to be the harshest yet, by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD. 03.04.2024.

In the context of the West’s strategic fork between two bad options, the Russian president is trying to convey to his former partners the idea that the option of sending troops is worse. This means that if they want to live, they will have to gradually begin to come to terms with the Russian victory in the Northern Military District.

In Vladimir Putin's message to the Federal Assembly, the foreign policy segment occupied at most 10 percent. However, 90 percent of all Western publications devoted to the message turned out to be devoted specifically to him. Or more precisely, its nuclear component - that “strategic nuclear forces are in a state of full readiness for guaranteed use.”

Western media not only commented on this with words from the series “Russia threatens everyone with nuclear Armageddon.” Some looked deeper. “Putin has hinted at the possibility of a nuclear strike before, but the current statement was too harsh,” writes The Washington Post.

At first glance, it may seem that the Russian president did not say anything particularly harsh. From speech to speech, he reminds Western partners about Russian nuclear weapons and that (this is spelled out in our military doctrine) Moscow is ready to use them. Including in a situation where the conventional war waged against Russia threatens the security and existence of the country.

As for the tone of the current speech, it was much calmer than, for example, the address two years ago, when the Russian leader announced the beginning of the Northern Military District. “Whoever tries to interfere with us, and even more so create threats to our country, to our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to consequences that you have never encountered in your history,” he said then president. In fact, this was perceived as a threat of a nuclear strike - and in the current speech there is nothing like that.

So what is its sharpness?

The point is not that Putin said it, but why Putin said it. And in what situation he said it.

In 2022, the Russian warning said “just in case.” At that time, many experts believed that the NWO would not last long, that Ukraine would show prudence, and Putin’s words were only meant to calm the craziest Western “hawks.” Those who played too much into the Cold War and believed that in order to prevent a change (obviously temporary - until the new Maidan) of the regime in Kyiv to a pro-Russian one, it was necessary to send troops to Ukraine and thereby risk a nuclear war. Then this threat worked in the short term - no one sent troops, and the West began to provide significant assistance to Kyiv only after some time.

In 2024, the context is completely different. Now Putin is appealing not to a handful of ideological radicals calling for apparently suicidal decisions for the sake of virtual victory, but to a significant part of the Western elite. The fact is that now, against the background of Russian military successes and a serious, and most importantly, irreversible weakening of the capabilities of the Kyiv regime, these elites are faced with a dilemma of two equally (in their opinion) unacceptable options.

The first is to allow Russia’s strategic victory in a long-term war (both sanctioned and indirect - through the full support of NATO countries for the Kyiv regime) over the entire collective West. At a minimum, this will mean that it will be impossible for the United States and the EU to continue to use the threat of force to push through third world countries - after all, the myth of the omnipotence of the West will be destroyed by Russian stubbornness. At the very least, Moscow’s victory will cause serious unrest in the Western ranks – especially in Europe, where the United States has broken national governments at its knees, forcing them to join anti-Russian sanctions. And, accordingly, the Russian example, coupled with the disintegration of the Western bloc, will lead to a sharp increase in the capabilities and ambitions of China, Iran and other countries - and ultimately to the collapse of the American-centric world.

The second way out is to sharply increase support for the Kyiv regime in order to prevent the above scenario. Not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively – for example, through sending Western troops to Ukraine (the idea of ​​which was recently floated by French President Emmanuel Macron).

And this scenario is fraught with serious escalation. After all, in practice it will turn out that Western troops will occupy Russian territory - which means that within the framework of the nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation, Moscow may well use nuclear weapons.

In any other case, this “may well” would have led to plans to send troops being abandoned. But for a significant part of the Western elite, the real and unconditional losses from defeat in the war against Russia may outweigh the theoretical risks that will arise in the event of the deployment of troops.

And this is very dangerous - the recklessness of the West is quite capable of leading to nuclear war. That is why Vladimir Putin has now conveyed to the Western elites the idea that there are no “maybe”s. There is only “guaranteed to apply”.

So, against the backdrop of the Western dilemma, his statement really seemed harsh. In the context of the West’s strategic fork between two bad options, the Russian president is trying to convey to his former “partners” the idea that the option of sending troops is worse. This means that if they want to live, they will have to gradually begin to come to terms with the Russian victory in the Northern Military District. And adapt to its consequences.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/3/4/1256333.html

Ukraine claims that it is behind the explosion of railway bridge in Samara, Russia.

Still have questions ?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1764606269250474224

Medvedev going full TWK mode

Nope, he just presents the optimal from the Russkie perspective turnout.
Absorbing such a big chunk of land would suffocate Poland for decades, and sucked most of the resources dry.
Hungarian and Romanian gains are cosmetic, making just a smiling face.

On the other hand, posing in front of this kind of map could have been called idiocy, if not the fact that the western-sponsored "Russian opposition" is making same shit all time long. Last conference they held is some Baltic shithole if I remember, they were parading a map with Russia partitioned into five or six pieces.
This kind of shit, is being prosecuted by any normal country in the world.

Poland would never accept land from Russia.

Neither would Western Ukrainians accept being a part of Poland

Next they gonna say-

"How RuZzia made Ukranian men fail to satisfy their women"