What is your obsession anyway with nuclear strikes and nuclear war?
Posted by: James M. | Mar 10 2024 6:33 utc | 302

SB and other CIPSO plants supporting him here are creating reference points for the Western AgitProp. They say:
“Russia supporters demanding nuclear war” – and provide links for sb craziness here.
They say:
“Russia supporters hate Putin” – and provide links for sb craziness here.
They say:
“Russia supporters are sure that Russia loses war” – and provide links for sb craziness here.
That is what is SB’s function here.

Posted by: Poslan1 | Mar 10 2024 7:02 utc | 303

Recent headline reads “Pope urges Ukraine to negotiate.” Alright, if anyone still listens to him, maybe he can do some good. I doubt it will make any difference. But the headline we ought to be seeing is “Pope excommunicates Biden” – if not for his advocacy and direct support of mass murder in Ukraine, then for his advocacy and support of mass murder elsewhere.

Posted by: Dalit | Mar 10 2024 7:11 utc | 305

g wiltek | Mar 10 2024 6:51 utc | 303
Will be interesting to see if this leads anywhere after the Russian election. Frogs in Ukraine recently became road kill so the banker boy is angry about that.
The Brits have ramped up hitting behind the lines in the lead up to the Russian elections to try and make the voters angry with Putin – to influence the election which is a stupid thing to do. Or at least a stupid way to go about trying to influence the election as if it succeeds (which it wont), the Russian would be more likely to elect someone who will have no second thoughts about erasing UK.
Then we look at the US, Nuland booted out, replaced by a so called China hawk, deep state now backing Trump. Brits and Euro elite desperate to get US back in the fight against Russia and that is where there is danger of escalation.
Larry Johnson seems to think there is a danger of Europe escalating to direct conflict.
2025 was the year being bandied about some time ago for the war with China so I guess US would be happy enough with Russia being tied up for a bit with a war with Europe. The problem for Europe is it does not have the manufacturing power to last any more than a week perhaps several weeks in a conventional war with Russia, and that is assuming Euro forces were not downgraded to road kill before logistic went dry.
Plenty of variables here as to what occurs over the next months and year.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Mar 10 2024 8:13 utc | 307

Posted by: LightYearsFromHome | Mar 10 2024 0:20 utc | 267
I meant the Eastern border will be the river, in south RF is going to take all the coast till Odessa, or they would like to.

Posted by: Mario | Mar 10 2024 8:25 utc | 309

Posted by: kanenas | Mar 10 2024 8:37 utc | 312
I believe one of the Patriot PAC-3 systems was caught 40km behind the front around Pokrovsk. Some sort of recon drone caught a cluster of 2 PAC-3 and an S-300 in close proximity and then they were promptly struck.
Remember, if you double the radius of searchable area, you quadruple the area of searchable area.
So for instance as a practical example, most artillery systems are 25 – 30 km range. If you search for enemy artillery barrels within a 30km range on a 60 degree arc, your searchable area is 471 square kilometers.
That means if you would search for Himars at a 60 km radius, your searchable area on same arc would be 2000 square kilometers. The arc could be even wider in this case since there’s more leeway on what direction from the front it could be placed.
The air defense system was about 40km from the front giving perhaps around 850km 2 search area.
Obviously, if the system is used then it would probably leave a trail of smoke and reveal it. Patriot systems are not known for their quick deployment or quick pack-up times.

Posted by: unimperator | Mar 10 2024 9:08 utc | 311

Over the past week, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have counterattacked our troops in settlements trapped in Avdeevka. They used units that were not fully restored and threw them here in order to stop or delay the advance of the Russian army until a new line of defense was prepared west of Avdeevka.
In connection with this, the Russian army, which had not stopped the offensive since the assault on Avdeevka, temporarily went on the defensive in the Berdychi – Orlovka – Tonenkoye sections. Combat capability was restored and supplies were replenished. The enemy at this time abandoned their Abrams and Bradleys for slaughter.
Under artillery and air strikes, the enemy failed to knock us out of these populated areas. And now, as of yesterday, we can say that the defense has coped, and the initiative in this section of the front has again passed to the Russian army.
https://twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/1766756858285408525

Summarizing, AFU threw just-mobilized troops to counter-attack which was thwarted, RUAF took a breather and went into defense/resupply mode and will probably tackle the next line of defense soon.

Posted by: unimperator | Mar 10 2024 9:30 utc | 313

Europe cannot fight a war against Russia. The biggest drawback Germany had in the WW II, was a lack of fuel. There are no substantial suppliers of fuel to Europe in a war against Russia, with the exception of maybe Norway. It is pure hot air, to claim that Europe could sustain a war against Russia, simply on this reason alone.
Europe would have to gain access to Russian oil to be able to fight Russia. Macron, Boris, Stoltenberg, Rutte, Frederiksen et al are talking absolute nonsense. Apart from that, the manpower available is not cut out for war and suffering. Too decadent and woke.
Most people in Europe are too brain washed to see it. But that does no affect the outcome.
A return to sanity would be a lesson well learned, the sooner the better.

Posted by: g wiltek | Mar 10 2024 9:46 utc | 315

Interesting on twitter – https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1766689428121297314
Masterful takedown by Dominique de Villepin, former French Prime Minister, of Macron’s utterly irresponsible rhetoric on sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine (Villepin himself calls it irresponsible).
“For this debate [over sending ground troops] to have been useful, it would have first been necessary for us to be able to answer 5 questions. Five risks associated with this escalation, this step we would be taking if we were to send ground troops, send fighters. Five risks.
1.The first is the expansion of the conflict.
2. Second major question: new front. Risk of a new front. I warned, I was among the few voices to say ‘be careful, Ukraine is a dangerous situation but what happens if another front opens?’
3. Third risk which is important: the terrorist risk. I am not thinking of terrorism that would come from our opponents in Ukraine, I am thinking of opportunistic terrorism.
4.Fourth risk: we are on the eve of an American election that will determine the new world order. It’s a safe bet that we are heading for a new era of isolationism and protectionism like the world has never seen
5. And then there’s one last element that may be one of the most important, which is the nuclear risk. I know the good experts, the great experts who speak on this subject and I respect them immensely. But sending ground troops, fighters, places us in a situation in terms of deterrence that we have never known. Forty years of Cold War: the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces never clashed. And it’s not by chance: it’s because of a reality that relates to the grammar of nuclear.
Maybe some sanity in France??

Posted by: Aslangeo | Mar 10 2024 10:13 utc | 317

Mario:
1. The problem is you are conflating (openly here) “are going to” with “want to”. I want a date with a supermodel on the Moon. I ain’t getting it.
2. It’s telling that you mangled the Odessa and Dnieper thing. It’s not just a verbal thing…you don’t think about geography.
3. Most of the Odessa commenters aren’t even aware that Kherson City is right next to the Russian lines, is a major city on the Black Sea and is part of the “annexed” Kherson oblast! And that the Russians have made zero move to conquer it (even abandoning it because it was too hard to hold). So…without even understanding Kherson, you plan on Odessa.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 10 2024 12:04 utc | 319

Posted by: shаdοwbanned | Mar 10 2024 5:44 utc | 299

Not responding to a cheap shot by a nuclear-armed alliance in a tit for tat situation doesn’t diminish Russia. There are other leverage points Moscow can use: asymmetrical responses, ground operations, propaganda, election meddling, economic and legal leverage, proxies, etc. if, and it is still a monumental if, a NATO member openly attacks Russia. A nuclear strike isn’t necessarily the first option.
Posted by: James M. | Mar 10 2024 4:57 utc | 293
I can’t believe what I am reading.
The nuclear arsenal is not going to exist once the facilities needed to replenish it have been bombed to bits. How hard is that simple point to grasp?
What kinds of weapons is Iraq producing today? Or Lybia?

I can’t believe what I am reading. 🙂
such a twisted mendacious argumentation !
which facilities in russia needed to replenish the nuclear arsenal have been destroyed ; have been bombed to bits?
think about it:
– First, the facilities needed to replenish the nuclear arsenal are destroyed.
– Than this means that the nuclear arsenal no longer exists ( it is not used afterward, can no longer be maintained; it simply disappears over time )
in his stupidity he goes on to equate Iraq and Libya with Russia !!
these countries were attacked exactly because they DON’T possessed a nuclear arsenal

Posted by: ghiwen | Mar 10 2024 12:17 utc | 321

Posted by: Tim | Mar 10 2024 7:13 utc | 308
Posted by: Poslan1 | Mar 10 2024 7:02 utc | 305
Ah that is an interesting take. Sounds plausible. Thank you.
I agree with the plausibility of Poslani on this. I would also reiterate that on the previous thread (a couple of days ago) I conjectured that SB and others with similar presentations and (in the main)sentiments are probably “five eyes” operations using collectives of academics in history etc. Given that their posts often display a degree of familiarity with current battlefield developments, an input from real intelligence sources is indicated. Thus their contributions are composed using a variety of (usually) pretty accurate information, and this is why (IMO) their contributions read as being credible.
But, just why they are making this effort escapes me, unless it is an elaborate training exercise for some future contingency.
I do not think is feasible that SB and others beating the drum that RF must attack the West with nukes is going to precipitate a popular revolution against the Kremlin anytime soon. Likewise beating poor old Vlad around the head with charges of military incompetence, corruption or treachery etc. seems like a pointless exercise if it is designed to sway the general Russian population in the near future.
Perhaps I’m missing something but I think it goes deeper than the outline expressed by Polani at 305. I’ll keep pondering on this – at least till I get bored or realise that it is probably futile until the general troll narrative changes.

Posted by: Barrel Brown | Mar 10 2024 12:27 utc | 323

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 10 2024 12:04 utc | 322
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear, possibly because I’m not a native English speaker.
I didn’t conflate anything.
On the south the target of RF is Odessa, that is the desired outcome.
If they will achieve it and how it’s not clear, maybe they won’t even need to get there military.
The Dniepr is simply a natural border easier to maintain.
If you take a look at the ‘famous: map you will see that it resembles what i’ m tryinh to express except that that map indicates some territory in the western part going to Poland and others.

Posted by: Mario | Mar 10 2024 12:32 utc | 325

Posted by: vargas | Mar 10 2024 12:22 utc | 325
Quite naif, in my opinion.
Think about it, granted it was a different situation and different weapon system but it took nazi Germany 49 missions on a more or less 2 years to destroy the 60 production plant in Gorky using bombs up to 2tond.
Do you really think that an handful of conventional rockets will do beyter?
By the way ussr rebuild the entire plant in 4 months, go figure.

Posted by: Mario | Mar 10 2024 12:45 utc | 327

Posted by: Mario | Mar 10 2024 12:32 utc | 328
I have not been following your exchange with Anonymous in detail, but you are correct that the Dneiper is a natural barrier which must be crossed before Odessa can be captured. That Odessa is gained by RF is a must before any peace talks can be seriously entertained.
Also any stalemate or “frozen conflict” on the Dneiper would only encourage the West to beef up Ukraine again.
The Dneiper is a problem for the RF but the Soviet army established several bridgeheads on the river (certainly at a high cost) before pushing the Axis forces further West in 1943.

Posted by: Barrel Brown | Mar 10 2024 13:00 utc | 329

You don’t like shadow’s posts don’t read them!
Posted by: canuck | Mar 10 2024 12:09 utc | 323

May I suggest you stick to your own advice? You don’t like Rudi Ruessel’s posts don’t read them! Or now YOU are God?

Posted by: Poslan1 | Mar 10 2024 13:19 utc | 331

Posted by: Jake Blanchard | Mar 10 2024 13:09 utc | 333
1. Mirror image cope of the Ukrops. “Let them get territory as a trap to attrite them.”
2. Ignores the commanding height difference the Ukrop side of the river in Kherson has.
3. No comment on how/where RFA will cross the Dnieper after a Zap offensive.
4. Plus it ignores that you will STILL have vulnerable supply lines at that crossing, as they did in Kherson.
5. Also ignores the very significant distance needed (when RFA can’t even move from Avdiivka to Berdiche).
6. Plus, here we are 3 weeks later and they can’t even take Rabotyne. Got their asses kicked out of there, when they tried. But…sure Zap offensive is really clicking!

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 10 2024 13:43 utc | 333

g wiltek@303….well, might be easier than you think. The west needs a symbolic victory, it will not come by force….. basically the ‘west’ will drop the Crimean Bridge, thump their chests, declare victory and sue for peace.
Outside that, they have the Black Sea Fleet cornered, trapped really. When does a lake, become a barrel? New highway from Kherson down along the coast to Romania. Not very far and easy to do. The US built a four lane black top from Bassara to Irbil all the while fighting a war, it only took six months to build.
Lots of war left to go, for heaven’s sake they haven’t even rolled out the Big Guns on either side, although Russia says theirs are on
standby.
Cheers M

Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Mar 10 2024 13:50 utc | 335

Posted by: Poslan1 | Mar 10 2024 7:02 utc | 305
Congratulations on finding a sensitive nerve to jab!

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Mar 10 2024 14:10 utc | 337

“Posted by: malenkov | Mar 10 2024 12:40 utc | 329”
Actually, I knew almost nothing about excommunication except by way of rumor, so I looked it up. Figures there would be ten thousand rules about it, including that it is automatically applied to anyone who proposes or accepts a duel (whether anyone dies or not) or assists with a duel in any way. So it seems that killing someone is frowned upon in at least one other circumstance than you mentioned.
Anyway, from what I read, it seems that the Pope has the authority to simply declare excommunication of anyone who is catholic, which includes Biden. If he did so, and stated the reasons, that would have a real-world effect which his pointless “urging Ukraine to negotiate” could never have.
But he won’t. Not only does the Pope lack the human decency necessary to want to do this action that would make a difference and save lives, but even if he did, he doesn’t have the guts to do so.

Posted by: Dalit | Mar 10 2024 14:39 utc | 339

Posted by: Blind Bridge Troll | Mar 10 2024 14:38 utc | 341
Good point of view. Obviously the ‘war bonds’ will directly go on to finance US companies, further deteriorating the collective current account deficit in EU and force further austerity measures across EU countries.
We will have to see how the system holds up, but some sort of civil war type situations in certain western European countries is possible.
There are two major forces holding up the EU. One is bribes for national politicians, and the other is threats toward national politicians from the Trans Atlantic community. The citizens will pay the price. That is why fracturing on the fringes could occur, in areas that are not so strongly controlled by Trans Atlanticists. But the whole system is a dictatorship so no one can really know how this all will play out.

Posted by: unimperator | Mar 10 2024 14:45 utc | 341

@ Mario, §253:
Avdeyevka fell more quickly than expected largely because of the daring Russian infiltration of the “Tsar´s Hunt” restaurant and complex, largely through a sewerage pipe, behind the Ukrainian lines.
No way will RF accept a “Korean solution”: that is what NATO hopes for.
The Dniester, not the Dnieper, is more likely. This would include Odessa.
My take is that Russia will establish the pre-1939 border and then consider talks.

Posted by: John Marks | Mar 10 2024 14:54 utc | 343

re: Victoria Nuland
she always reminded me of the awful Space Jew character Kai Win, from Star Trek : Deep Space 9.
https://comicbook.com/startrek/news/louise-fletcher-kai-winn-adami-ds9-star-trek-villain-greatest/

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 10 2024 15:03 utc | 345

Cheers fellow bar patrons! Toasts to Poslan1 and Barrel Brown.
They (shadowbinned and his narrative supporters) continue to come here and engage in crisis discourse, especially when the Ukros are on the backfoot.
To me, they are the canary in the coal mine. They project western failure and panic regarding their Ukraine misadventure.
Like all propaganda discourse, they double down when they are failing in their goals.
I see that some people, genuinely or otherwise try to engage in rebuttals. This unfortunately only prompts ther prepared deluge of garbage that will follow. A little dialectical theatre/manipulation methinks!

Posted by: Spinworthy | Mar 10 2024 15:53 utc | 347

Posted by: John Marks | Mar 10 2024 14:54 utc | 346
Doubt RF will go for the whole Ukraine.
To much troubles controlling a large territory far less ‘friendly’ than the eastern part.
But what I know.

Posted by: Mario | Mar 10 2024 16:18 utc | 349

Anonymous@335…ah, the War of Flags. Moving flags is easier said than done, as we see, small gains along the LOC, incremental. Talk of taking Zap, Kherson…..on to Odessa….sure. Ukie makes good use of cluster munitions, slows the Russian advance. It only takes one defender to tie up ten attackers, that’s where Ukie is now, just slowly attrite the Russian forces, who have yet to cross the ‘wide’ open fields and lack height advantage. Will the Russians FAB their way to Odessa? Lots of math; time vs distance and the like add in a few guesses for contrast.
Many posters feel it’s not about territory, but Russia and it’s representatives have said they need a buffer zone….open to interpretation I suppose. But with longer range weapons coming into play…150 mile buffer zone is wee
buns, it won’t cut the Col. Mustard.
On the other hand Russia can’t deliver a decisive conventional blow(s), to where, on what, far too many diversified western targets and at present Russia is being surrounded from many sides.
But, but, but….like many posters here, they believe the Russian financial rope a dope is all that is required…..we wait, we hope, long time coming…..meanwhile death knocks on every door in the Ukraine.
Cheers M

Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Mar 10 2024 16:38 utc | 351

The general line that Russia is losing, taking critical losses must resort to nukes ect has been typical western propaganda since one or two months into the SMO and also what the assorted shadow spammers are pumping.
The likes of Girkin and the cook became poster boys boys for western propaganda.
Canuck, if you want to read that trash and constantly have to research every word they write just for balance, it can be found anywhere. I skim the headlines of the MSM every day, sometimes reading an article – for ‘balance’ as you call it. I’msick of the trash pumped out by western politicians and don’t come here to read it it.
Its the same as any slipper propaganda I have read in the past, a few paragraphs or sentences might have elements of facts, but then an entire fictional story is built round them.
There have been days when entire pages of Ukraine threads have been filled with long posts one after the other of spammer trash.
This has long been the only site where I still read the comments but since the SMO, although a few of the new usernames have added good contributions, the majority of SMO refugees are shallow thinking knuckle dragging knee jerkers that haven’t done their homework,spammers and straight out trolls. Because of so many comments, b stopped policing the comment section so the scum now have free reign.
Since 2015 or so I had been certain Russia was preparing to make its stand against the US. That came February 2022. As Bhadrakumar said, Putin is a sophisticated speaker, and after studying him for eight years and how he pulled Russia out of the 90’s, watching the operation in Syria, studying the Putin Chechen relationship and many other thing, sophisticated is an understatement.
But as for the spammer, anyone that happens to stumble on this blog on a day when spammer is swamping the threads, they are going to see that yes indeed, Putin is incompetent and desperate, unstable enough to resort to nukes just as the mainstream media has been portraying.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Mar 10 2024 16:56 utc | 353

Well all the power to you but, in my humble opinion, to understand a given subject well I believe you need to see both sides of the coin to make a cogent idea about the subject.
Hence, by ignoring a point of view one does not like impoverishes one’s full understanding of any subject.
Posted by: canuck | Mar 10 2024 16:03 utc | 351
We get Shadowbanned’s point of view – he never deviates from it. Never changes his opinion. The first hundred times he said it we got it. The problem is his viewpoint isn’t grounded in reality. Do you honestly believe that nuclear weapons are going to fly in this conflict? There are multiple steps to even get to that threshold, and the Ukraine war isn’t even halfway there.
Yet, he/she/it still thinks a sound policy for Russia is a first nuclear strike against a NATO member state. What do you think the response to that would be? Assured retaliation, and it is a policy specifically designed to ensure the non-usage of nuclear weapons. The US, UK, and France have enough weapons to destroy Russia, and all bets are off once a first strike hits.
If Russia does initiate a first strike, they’d have to launch enough weapons to ensure no second strike is sent. That means knocking out all of the US’s nuclear weapons – SSBNs, bombers, silos, everything. And if Russia does survive a second strike, they’d have to launch a third strike to mop up. You see where this leads? Each warhead could probably kill up to five million people over a heavily populated area, so you’re looking at a death toll in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions before its over.
But that’s the policy Brave Sir Shadowbanned is advocating with nearly every post. It is either madness, stupidity, or he enjoys trolling, but he isn’t a serious poster. Fortunately, policy-makers are more level-headed than he/she/it is, and thankfully Shadowbanned is far, far from those circles.

Posted by: James M. | Mar 11 2024 0:00 utc | 355