I also think that the Russian advance is slow because it is planned that way. Imo, more for tactical and less for strategic reasons. An invasion of Europe is mentioned by various prophetic sources. Further escalation could well create a realistic scenario for this. I suspect that if the Russians were forced at some point to fire missiles at military bases on NATO territory, i.e. if the only answer is total escalation, then that would only make sense if there were a simultaneous invasion and occupation of European countries. The Russians are preparing for this eventuality. With knowledge of prophecy, I definitely interpret some informations in this direction. It could be a long time before that happens, depending on how the West acts. Btw, the Russian spokeswoman clarified the flight of a government plane to the USA. According to her, it was a routine exchange of diplomats and had nothing to do with covert negotiations. We will see.
Since 1994, NATO has been relentlessly advancing in a hostile manner towards Russia. The reason for the invasion of the Ukraine is the attempt to bring her into NATO, with the likelihood of nuclear missiles being placed there. This hostile advance is a matter of existential survival for Russia. They have no logical need to invade Europe except as a matter of self-defense. On the other hand, neo-cons such as Lindsay Graham are quite explicit that their advances are for the purpose of stealing Ukrainian and Russian resources (something they had already done during the era of their drunken puppet, Yeltsin). As the late President Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying, the United States is the most war-like nation in the world. I am well aware of the prophecies of Russian invasion of Europe. They are Church-approved, so they're very plausible. If it happens, it will be Europe's own fault for provoking it. On a day that 'hate-speech' legislation has been introduced here in Ireland, I think I'd be unbothered by the defeat of the 'woke', effete EU/NATO. The prophecies tell us that a great Catholic leader will rise in France and drive the Russians back, with the final end of the power of the liberal, globalist perverts running Europe. "Bring it on!"
Russia is also haemorrhaging money and equipment, but also troops. It’s forces and equipment are in a decrepit state. You don't win a war that way. Wars are won by decisive victories. Contrary to the propaganda in the western media, this war was not started by Russia but massive and aggressive NATO expansion and placing NATO bases right up to the Russia borders from 1999 to now. Ukraine had a pro Russian government until the western backed Maidan coup of 2014 to install the a western controlled government. Western Ukraine then started shelling ethic Russians in eastern Ukraine. After 14,000 had been killed in in the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, and after being begged by the ethic Russians in the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk to protect them, Russia finally, with no choice sent its troops in on a large scale in February 2022. After intial rapid advance, Russia has been struggling for almosst 3 years now to take the last few hundred miles to secure Luhansk and Donetsk. Fortunately for Russia the Ukrainian forces are as decrepit and badly trained as they are. The war is stuck at a WWI trench situation, because neither side for decades has any sufficient capability, training and equipment to launch modern air warfare at any sufficient scale. This war would never have occurred if Trump had been in power, and one of Trumps first actions will be to broker a ceasefire, and Russia gets to keep control of Luhansk and Donetsk to protect the ethic Russians there, and he’s hinted at that many times. Marie-Julie predicted (1850 –1941) predicted numerous chastisements for sin that would fall first on France then spread to the rest of the world. These include: earthquakes, unprecedented destruction through storms, failed harvests, unknown plagues that would spread rapidly plus the cures for them, a "Blood Rain" that would fall for seven weeks, civil war in France that apparently would be started by conspirators in the government, the persecution of the Catholic Church with the total closure of all churches and religious houses, persecution and slaughter of Christians, the destruction of Paris, a Two Day period of Darkness that would come circa a month before the so called Three Days of Darkness. The coming of the Great Monarch would also be announced by signs in the sky. She also had visions of the Angelic Pontiff who would reign at the same time of the Great Monarch, and that both these great leaders were destined to restore the Catholic Church. Her private revelations have never been approved by the actual Catholic Church. In 1875, Bishop Fournier of Nantes expressed a favourable opinion regarding Marie-Julie's early mystical experiences (but not her later prophecies) in a private letter, noting: "The reports that I receive daily on Marie-Julie show me more and more the action of God on this soul. He grants her graces of an obvious supernatural order." However, this private correspondence does not constitute formal ecclesiastical approval. The Diocese of Nantes, in an offical 2019 statement, advised caution regarding groups on the internet promoting her messages, indicating that a review called for prudence. Perhaps Russia is going to sweep over the whole of Europe someday and a French Catholic King is going to conquer it all back, but it's not going to be anytime in the realistic near future.
One don't win a war out of air warfare. One can reduce regions to rubble, yes, but the Russian military strategy is different. Manoeuvre and fire, not just firing.
That's not what I was saying. Air power is not just about reducing regions in Ukraine to rubble, Russian artillery already can do that. You still then have troops to contend with. While it is true that airpower alone may not win wars, its role is not negligible. All armies work on the principle of fire and manoeuvre (it's not manoeuvre and fire). Air superiority will decisively influence outcomes over enemy defences, providing close air support to ground forces, disrupting supply lines, and gathering intelligence. With all other things being equal, if Russia had any sufficient air capability against modern forces, and they don't, they would have won long ago as Ukraine has next to none. If either side were to gain clear air superiority, it would completely change the dynamics of the war. The fact that Russian can't even dominate the skies of Eastern Ukraine on it's own border, never mind all of Europe, should be another clue as to the likelihood of Russia being able to militarily conquer all the counties of Europe, as the media in the west like to pretend that Russia is trying to, whereas Russia are barely surviving an existential war for Russia on their border. Ukrainian troops have even managed to cross the Russian border and invade the Russian region of Kursk and Russia has been struggling for 5 months to repel them back across the Russian border. The notion being peddle by western media, the US and European weapons industry, and western arms dealers, and the money lenders, that Russia is still a world superpower in convential warfare terms is a myth.
China made trillions with the last one and so did the US pharmaceuticals. It's a win win for them all and the ordinary people pay the price. All they have to do next time is release one that's genuinely fatal in the long run, and then they will be able to wipe out anyone who is religious or anti-government, as they will refuse to take any vaccine after the last debacle.
If you see it as a fact that Russia has no air superiority, that Russia will hardly survive the war and is conventionally inferior, then you and I have completely contradictory information. If your information is the right one, we would be in an extremely precarious situation. The Russians know that their sovereignty and existence are at stake. The use of nuclear weapons would become unavoidable, if this is actually under threat. Since you like to argue in detail, which I generally like, maybe tomorrow I will search for sources that refute your "facts". I don't have the energy for that tonight. And forgive me if I don't feel like it tomorrow either. I don't know yet. I wish you a good transition into the new year.
It’s not about what anyone personally thinks, we're personally irrelevant to the situation—it’s a matter of the facts on the ground. Right now, Russia doesn’t have air superiority in Ukraine. Neither side does. Both Russia and Ukraine(thanks to the west) have strong air defense systems that keep the airspace contested, hence the trench warfare. This isn’t just opinion; it’s supported by analyses from respected military experts, like the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). As for the bigger picture, Russia isn’t the superpower it once was during the Cold War. It’s a strong regional power but not on the same level as the US or NATO when it comes to conventional military strength. If the West directly invaded Russia, yes, Russia would struggle to defend itself conventionally. However, that’s not the strategy here. NATO isn’t trying to invade or occupy Russia because that could push things into a nuclear conflict—something everyone wants to avoid as it's neither in Putin or the US interests. The West’s actual approach is aimed at cyincally using Ukraine (and Ukrainian lives) to weaken Russia’s ability to project any power while hoping for regime change within Russia, and an ousting of Putin by his own people. However, this strategy hasn’t worked. Many Russians, including the military, still support Putin, especially because he’s the only one seemingly capable of stabilising the country compared to the chaos and basket case it was in the 1990s. In the end, this war is devastating for both Ukraine and Russia. Putin is a ruthless and pragmatic leader who will do whatever he thinks serves his interests and those of his country. The West isn’t trying to directly occupy Russia to directly topple Putin because that would lead to unpredictable and dangerous consequences. Instead, it’s a battle of attrition, with sanctions and support for Ukraine meant to pressure the Russia people into regime change over time. It’s a complex situation, and there are no easy answers. Let’s hope for a peaceful resolution in the future.
Instead of spending time looking for sources, I'd rather answer from memory in more detail. And I would like to answer you now, not tomorrow. I don't want to contradict your argument as to why air power is important in war. The Russians use them for exactly that. Their air supremacy is a fact for me. But the course of this war has some characteristics that other wars in recent decades have not had. The Russians had not prepared or planned this war over a longer period of time. From their point of view, they were forced into it at relatively short notice. They tried to wage a kind of blitzkrieg and were close to Kiev. Shortly after the war began, peace negotiations were successfully concluded in Istanbul. The Russians therefore withdrew from Kiev as a sign of goodwill. But then Zelenslki was persuaded by the West, in particular by Boris Johnson, who appeared in person, that it was not yet time to end the conflict. As a result, the Ukrainian military was massively equipped and supported by NATO states. Also by NATO/USA officers with war experience. Until then, the Russians themselves had no experience of war, neither the leadership nor the ordinary soldiers. At the beginning of the hot phase, the Russians fell behind and the Ukrainian side was on a par due to the strong support of the West. Thanks in part to the deployment of battle-hardened mercenary troops - Wagner - the Russians gradually succeeded in decimating the Ukrainian side. The Russians completely converted their economy to a war economy, developed new tactics based on their experience and received military support from their allies. A completely new type of conventional warfare has emerged. The Russians have air superiority not only through their fighter jets, but also through the unprecedented use of cheap drones on a large scale. They flew attacks with dozens of drones on kiev, for example, and forced the ukrainian air defence to shoot cheap products out of the sky with expensive missiles. Ukraine had to fire cannons at sparrows. The Russians also developed the tactic of using cheap drones to attack and paralyse NATO's million-dollar tanks. The Russian side does not have as many high-tech tanks in service, but it has been shown that relatively old tank systems are more robust and easier to repair. And the Russians have by far the largest tank fleet in the world. Moreover, even the western media have already admitted that NATO cannot keep up with the amount of ammunition produced by the Russians. And as I've said before, the Russians have been acting less with firepower and more with manoeuvres for some time now. I have seen videos of training operations where Russians on motorbikes train to attack enemy positions. And I have seen drone videos in which ‘crazy’ Russian soldiers practise this in real operations. This is a different kind of war than the USA was able to wage in Iraq, for example, where they bombed everything flat with their firepower. Or as the Israelis are currently doing in Gaza and Lebanon. The Russians use fire to prevent the replacement of Ukrainian soldiers at the front. They also sometimes use larger bombs to eliminate larger positions and groups of soldiers. But a lot is done via drone tactics. For some time now, the Russians have been using fibre-optic cable drones whose signal cannot be jammed. They even use them to fly into underground enemy positions. Everything documented on dozens of videos. The Ukrainian front has been collapsing piece by piece for months. Even the Ukrainians admit that. And unlike the Ukrainians, who drag everyone to the front who can't flee fast enough, the Russians try to conserve material and personnel. There are many dead people on both sides, There is no doubt in my mind that the losses on the Ukrainian side exceed those on the Russian side many times over. The Ukrainian media are talking more and more openly about the fact that they are running out of manpower. What I wanted to say is this - the Russians will win the war conventionally. Nobody denies that anymore. The NATO media have so far avoided stating this clearly, but the West knows it. Incidentally, the Ukrainian soldiers who invaded Russia in the direction of Kursk were mostly NATO mercenaries. But even this action will not influence the outcome of the war. And as I said - the Russians are taking their time, they are trying to conserve personnel and material as much as possible. So now I'll end by saying that one could mention that God doesn't like bossiness. Sometimes I can't resist wanting to be right. I don't think you can either Let's just think of it as a discourse between fellow believers... And once again - I wish you a good start to the next year.
Yes, it is. For both of us, it's about what we both think. Which of us can claim to know the facts with certainty? By the way, I'm impressed by the scope of your answers. It's almost of AI proportions
That is my understanding of events. With respect to the airpower debate, an example would be the reluctance of NATO to deploy what is their primary fighter, the F16. I have read articles that argue convincingly that the most modern Russian fighters are now superior to a US aircraft that has, astonishingly, been in service since the seventies. We also know that the Russians gave advance notice of their launch of their Oreshnik missile to the Americans, lest it be mistaken for a nuclear launch. Yet, the latter were wholly unable to intercept it. This all seems to indicate Russia is no longer technically inferior to NATO. It is also my understanding that it is NATO, not Russia, that has run out of artillery shells. The price of Russian currency on the international market, which is used to claim that her economy is much smaller than that of the West, is deceptive. This only ultimately effects her cost of imports, which is not very relevant in a country that is more materially self-sufficient than any other. As regards the IISS, if one looks at its addresses on its website, they are all Western. Definitely not 'neutral', I would think. For myself, I have come to believe that practically all the mainstream media narratives that we are subjected to in the West are false and fraudulent. Not just political and military lies, but scientistic lies regarding 'climate change' and those promoting atheism such as Evolutionism and Determinism. How can the the United States take upon itself the authority to force regime change in other countries, when it is 'led' by a man who they are now admitting was suffering from dementia from the beginning of his presidency? It would do better to get its own dysfunctional house in order and leave other countries alone. I think it is the hope of many that President Trump will take this route. Happy New Year, to all!
It's not "my argument", it's established worldwide miliary doctrine that air superiority is a very important aspect of modern warfare. It's also simply fact that Russia does not have air superiority in Ukraine, neither side does. I personally don't care which one does or doesn't. I'm not a Russian/Ukraine/US/NATO/EU fanboy, I'm only interested in what the reality is. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysi...no-air-of-superiority/?utm_source=chatgpt.com The Russians never got as far as Kiev before their very hasty retreat. Whether it was a diversionary attack, a failed attack to quickly dislodge the pro western government and install a pro Russian one, or a "goodwill" withdrawal, even the Russian sources themselves cannot agree on. Yet this is the Russia the western media and US/NATO pretends is going to soon steamroll across all of Europe, hold it, and then garrison and run it. That's not the issue, yes Russia will, if given enough time, and dispite it's lack of air superiority, take it's objective of Luhansk and Donetsk provences. The actual central point is the patent nonsense of the western propaganda that Russia was and is trying to invade all of Europe instead of moving to protecting ethnic Russians in Luhansk and Donetsk and secure the most vulnerable area of it's western borders in the process. I don't care who is right or wrong, You, Russia, Ukraine, or the US-NATO or which one of them "wins". The only winners will be the global arms companies and the financers playing all sides. The losers will be, as usual, all the ordinary people of Ukraine, Russia, and Europe. I'm only interested in the actual subject, what is actually happening and why, and what is factual and what is not, according to the best available information we can find. And a Happy New Year to you and yours as well. I've been called and accused of lots of things before whenever people are not addressing the actual points, and attempt the ad homiem. I'm not interested in anything personal about you, or your misassumptions about me, or any other logical fallacies or strawmanning. I'm interested in the actual subject, using the best professional analysis from the best sources available to us, to find out to the best of our abilities what is actually happening and has been happening. If you have any actual reputable sources to back up your claims of Russian air superiority in Ukraine post them. If you keep going down the personal route, and want to make about who is posting instead of what, it's not providing any useful information to the subject and I'll leave you to it. See the more productive conversation with DeGaulle below, where it's about the actual subject, and neither of us needs to make it about the other person or comment on them. If you can do that, I'm very happy to continue the actual discussion. If not, I'm not interested.
It takes years to train pilots, groud crew and all the other logistics needed for fighter jets of that level. Just handing large numbers of f16's to Ukraine would be useless. Russia do not have air superiority in Ukraine, that is not a claim or an opinion, it's international consensus by observers with the necessary expertise to determine so. Hence the war is the way it is. It's not, but in terms of quantity, production, support and availability, Russia is completely inferior to US-NATO. Otherwise Russia would be launching them day in day out. "Currently, 25 missiles per year of this class could realistically represent the total production capacity of the Russian defense industry " https://tsn.ua/en/ato/how-many-ores...nse-express-provided-information-2717556.html Neither NATO nor Russia has completely run out of artillery shells. NATO’s shortages reflect logistical pressures and the need to scale up production, not total depletion. Russia’s issues stem from its enormous consumption of shells and the degradation of older stockpiles, compounded by sanctions affecting production. Ultimately, both sides are adapting to the supply demands of high-intensity warfare, but NATO has a far stronger industrial base to replenish supplies in the long term. The central point, contrary to what the western media tries to claim, Russia does not have the military or economic capability to invade and over run of Europe like we have been told it plans to do by the western media. If there is data to prove that the Russia economy is in fact currently larger than the US-NATO-EU one combined, I'm all ears. If Russia had actual air superiority, Ukraine would not be able to adequately supply their troops and sustain their supply lines, and Russia would not be stuck fighting in trenches fo 3 years on an extremely slow moving front. If you have a better set of professional analysists that claim Russia have in fact air superiority in Ukraine, even Russian or Chinese, post it up. What is your source that Russia have air superiority in Ukraine? Ordinary media is a largely a waste of time. There is some chance with reputable academic and specialist sources, and very little with the media. Because like most poltical leaders today in the west, he's a mere puppet for his financers interests. There's high hopes Trump will force a ceasefire and an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, and hopefully so for everyone's sake, even if it's an imperfect one for now, for both sides. Whether he will be able or not remains to be seen. And Happy New Year to you as well !
We'll have to broadly agree to somewhat disagree. You do make a good point about the fear-mongering of the Western media with respect to Russian ambitions in Europe, but this is the same media that mocked Russia for their military inferiority and incompetence at the beginning of the war. They lied that Russian casualties were around ten to the one Ukrainian until the Pentagon leak and Ursula van der Leyen let the cats out of the bag. I get most of my information about this war from 'Mundabor', the staunch Catholic blogger. Wherever he gets his information, and I would say he is highly connected, it usually turns out to be right. I also get a lot of information/speculation from sites such as ZeroHedge and Moonofalabama. Finally, you should beware of insufficiently overestimating the folly and cowardice of the politicians running most countries in Europe.
If you took what i wrote ("almost of AI proportions ") as an offend, I apologise. Take it as a compliment! Where in my lengthy post on the current topic did I argue ad hominem or strawmanning? I find this kind of discussion interesting on the one hand, but exhausting on the other. I have stated my opinion on the actual topic, without any comment on your personality. If you are of the opinion that you and only you know the absolute facts, there is no need for any further conversation on this topic for me at the moment. I can't guarantee that I will always stay out of it. I see what we do here as an exchange of (reasoned) opinions, and as for me personally, I confess that I like to be right.
I don't, it's not their cowardice the ordinary people of Europe should be concerned with, it's their ignorance, folly and arrogance. From the very start of the war, the west wanted to escalate the nuclear threat to Putin, the west was the first to start threating nuclear, it's the west, not Russia, that are playing the dangerous game of brinkmanship, and that have time and time again continually escalated and pushed this conflict at every opportunity, from what should have been just a regional one into a global nuclear one, and no, before anyone tries any more misassumptions and mischaracterisation, I'm not a fan of Russia either, but of the two actors, the west is far more culpable.
I think we're only disagreeing on certain details, while agreeing on our principles...which is very healthy, because it's very difficult for anyone to know what's going on. I am just posting a link to a comment by one John Galtsky, an American living in Russia, on a speech by Alexander Borodai (just click on '13 replies', below Simplicius' article and scroll down a bit): https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/onward-ho-end-of-year-wrap-up-and/comment/83901417 I think Galtsky's comment is insightful-it displays how very unfazed and unbothered by this conflict are the Russian people and their economy. I do not perceive Galtsky as lying or dissimulating. It has the ring of truth, as far as I can see. I took the link to Simplicius from Vox Day, whose review of the past year (with the exception of his 'imposter' theory-but, hey, you never know!), segues neatly with how I have come to see the world: https://voxday.net/ Since the Enlightenment (and, truth be told, even back to the Reformation; and even the Renaissance, when Europe became obsessed with Greece, without the necessary filter of Aquinas), Europe and America have evolved into an 'Empire of Lies'. A great Catholic author, Robert Sungenis has made what seems a very plausible and comprehensive (about 3,000 pages of detailed argument, with notes) case that Galileo was wrong, but was opportunistically used as a weapon against the Church. The Mickelson/Morlay experiment of the late nineteenth century, designed to measure the speed of the movement of the Earth around the Sun, thus confirming Galileo, found that the Earth wasn't moving at all. This result has been replicated hundreds of times, though you'll read it in no textbook. Very conveniently for the scientific establishment, who continually lie to us about 'Evolution' and the nature and origins of Physical Reality ('to prevent God from putting a foot in the door' as expressed by one of the more honest of the atheist scientists), Albert Einstein managed to fudge the Earth/Sun relationship with his increasingly doubtful Theory of Relativity.
The most dangerous lie propagated by Western media and governments, intended to sustain the massive money lending, arms trading, and the escalation of conflict at the expense of all ordinary European citizens, is the claim that Russia’s conventional forces possess both the capability and the intent to sweep across and capture Europe if they are not stopped from taking control of the ethnically Russian provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, and therefore must be stopped from doing so, no matter the cost to us all. In reality, Russia’s conventional forces are struggling. It has been a significant source of embarrassment for Russia, as well as an exposure of its conventional military weaknesses, that Ukraine has managed to invade Russian territory, hold the Kursk region for an extended period of time, and continue to launch missile attacks deep within Russia—attacks that Russia has been unable to neutralise. The fact that US-NATO-EU allowed, encouraged, and supported Ukraine in all this escalating, instead of confining Ukraine to defending their own territory, should be extremely concerning to any neutral. While it is true that Russia will eventually expel Ukrainian troops from its territory and, barring a Trump induced ceasefire or other peace agreement, Russia will take Luhansk and Donetsk as originally planned, but it is clear that the current Russia is far from the massive dangerous conventional global superpower Western narratives suggest. To his credit, Putin has never claimed or pretended that modern-day Russia holds such a position, as per the days of the massive Soviet Union and Warsaw pact. The biggest true threat to all of us at the moment are the reckless parties in the US-NATO-EU who are hell bent on taking all of us right up to the brink of a nuclear event. Thank you for the links, I'll definitely take a look at those. Geocentrism and Creationism would both make interesting threads of their own. I lean towards both, but in a more abstract manner than the normal proponents of both views .. but that's for another day and thread.
