/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>2299
>So why are they still fighting
Because they're mopping up the internals of the regions and taking the remaining territories they are aiming for, suppressing the Ukrainian military bit by bit, as stated before, using velvet gloves to try and minimize civilian casualties and remove Nazis.
>where's your source that they're conscripting women now?
1) you don't provide jack shit for sources yourself
2) They'd been doing it since December
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/12/30/ukra-d30.html
https://www.rt.com/russia/557750-ukraine-draft-convicts-women/
People literally hide from recruiters to avoid being drafted.
>This source is just a Russian telegram channel saying they captured a HIMARS, with no photo or video evidence
<If its not le based ukrops saying it its not real
Anon, there's literally video and photos of the HIMARS being destroyed and the idea of them taking a HIMARS system after capturing thousands of examples of "Western Aid" in the form of APCs, Artillery, Javelins and more, makes it plenty plausible.
>This isn't proof at all that the Russians are moving into Northern Ukraine again.
Anon I….
>his isn't a strike on a decision-making center IN KIEV
Playing semantics and ignoring the hits IN KIEV that have happened repeatedly, is fucking obtuse denial.

>>2328
>they're mopping up
Seems like they've been mopping up since a few months now, so tell me when does this war end?

>>2337
>circular shitting again
Nah, go fuck yourself and stop playing video games you're confusing your Clash of Clans for real life.

>>2298
>your point?
<bl bla bla I can't read
My point is made, if you don't understand it, then you're too young for this site
>the only one that brought up the Western press
You literally use their rhetoric, you obtuse tit.
>It was a ruse because they said it was a training exercise up until the last minute
Already explained this, you're incorrect, learn geopolitics better. The idea that something like that is a ruse is fucking laughable to any special operative or experienced politician, but then again Westerners don't tend to think critically and hypocritically take things both at face value, yet can push hysteria about an incoming invasion any moment now, since 2014.
>They had other training exercises in previous years near Ukraine without invading
Because the threat abated or the target of the demonstration hadn't been Ukraine, you nitwit.
>didn't leave as a gesture of good will
No, faggot. They left it as neutral ground, because it no longer has strategic impact on operations, so wasting troops to sit on the island is pointless. The only purpose they'd serve is to enforce a blockade on grain transport routes in the sea, but Russia and Ukraine made an agreement over that, before they left snake island.
>They were closer to Kharkov in February than they are now
They're literally surrounding Kharkov, you're making no sense
>Kharkov is right next to the Russian border LMAO no, you have no perspective of distance on maps do you?
>the Donbass is mostly under control of Russia and the republics no one said otherwise
reallydude.jpg
>If that's true then how are they still fighting
Did you not read the second post you linked, idiot? It literally explains the disunified assaults. Ukraine's army numbers at ~700,000 people against Russias ~200,000 troops committed, yet Russia has lost (according to the CIA) 15,000 troops dead and roughly 3x injured (totaling at 60,000), and Ukraine has 200,000 casualties as of June. Ukraine is losing troops massively, pulling forced conscription, women and condemned criminals, such as rapists and murderers, to fight, in ad hoc units because they literally have no unity and are just tossing troops into a grinder in the hopes of slowing Russia. And Russia has slowed to methodically eliminate this wave of people.
>literally didn't cite anything
sourced, semantics.
>Medvedev said in that link I posted that the "decision-making centers" are the Ukrainian government buildings in Kiev, which they haven't striked
And as I told you, that was said specifically if HIMARS are used against Russian territory
>not an ultimatum
It is a warning of tit for tat.
>why does Russia keep using it as a threat
They said it 2x and the Medvedev thing is specifically in regards to HIMARS, you're intentionally ignoring that.
>they did attack Russian territory with other weapons, and Russia didn't retaliate by attacking decision-making centers in Kiev like they promised
They did and you're just playing semantics, as I've explained for the dozenth time.
>Why would they just abandon Ukraine
Because R&D. Just as in Iran, or S.Vietnam or other countries that did not successfully maintain themselves, or like Afghanistan could never stop the fighting, then they'd pull out their resources so as to not waste them, leaving maybe some sleeper agents.
>not foment a guerrilla insurgency there
<implying that'd work
Anon, this isn't Afghanistan, such groups are not going to survive long.
>the CIA training Ukrainian paramilitary forces in preparation for the invasion
And? The CIA trained forces for Bay of Pigs, and dozens of other operations that failed.
>Operation Gladio
Anon, I literally wrote the effort posts on these CIA operations in /edu/ I KNOW the capabilities of the CIA in regards to such actions and the situation is not the same. This isn't like "Soviet Ukraine after 1945" This is going to be closer to "East Germany after 1945". Not to mention that the "stay-behinds" were only expected to cause strife, and not actually significantly impact things.
>Mariupol isn't part of the southern front, it's part of the Donbass
>Yes it is part of the Southern front, since it is in the SOUTH of Ukraine, and had not been in Donbass control at all.
>drawn out siege
The actual city got taken with high-speed building sweeping, and the only siege had been at Azovstal, you can see it in the video interviews by Patrick Lancaster, WarGonzo and Graham Phillips among others.
>it is a stalemate because the frontline between Russian-controlled Kherson and Ukrainian-controlled Mykolaiv has been static for a long time now
Because Russia has been digging in and rotating forces in preparation, and ahs been creeping on as they do so.
>the Russians were advancing towards Mykolaiv in February but then pulled back.
Because they hadn't taken out Mariupol.
>maps also show that Sumy Oblast is still completely controlled by Ukraine
Didn't say it isn't, I said they're beginning to move in that front again
>hy aren't they just melting away like the Iraqis in 2003
Because it's not a flat desert, and if you recall 2003, they took the cities by bombing them into utter rubble and killing people indiscriminately to eliminate threats fast. As I said repeatedly, Ukraine's army as a unified force is busted, it's not a united army in the modern sense, it's a bunch of loose groups, divisions at most, that fight on their section of the front but have little intercommunication, and cannot fight 1 on 1 in pitched battle and have to rely on ambushes and guerilla tactics, because they don't have the infrastructure or unity to do proper maneuvers.

The big lesson here is to not listen to whatever some weirdo twitter account says, you have to learn to be wise and not notice

>>2356
Everyone claims that 'rusha sed it'd take Kiev in 3 dayz' or some shit like that, even though only some Russian supporters and NATO PR 'analysts' claimed that.
Russia isn't losing or doing badly and minor losses are offset by the overall gains.
https://southfront.org/us-marine-corps-officer-expresses-admiration/

ASU-85 Self-propelled gun used by Ukraine. A former exponate of a memorial in Poltava. It´s a desant-VDV vehicle used prior to the BMD series as fire support and transport.
- https://rusvesna.su/news/1663425116
- https://rg.ru/2022/09/19/ukrainskie-boeviki-sniali-s-pedestala-redkuiu-desantnuiu-asu-85.html

A replacement for the ASU-57 of the 1950s Soviet Union, the ASU-85 today can function as second-line mobile fire support or acting as a movable pillbox to reinforce a defensive position and ambushes, the extremely low profile helps. The 85mm gun is capable of knocking out any Russian light armor even frontally, and it can serve an anti-infantry or general artillery role with HE shells. It also has HEAT-FS rounds which could even penetrate the sides of earlier MBTs like the T-62M. Vietnam returned theirs into service back in 2015.

The real problem here is locating 85mm ammunition in Ukraine as their only options are going to be a couple small stockpiles.

>>2357
Additional analysis from 2 months ago discussing the reason Russia appears to retreat.
https://thesaker.is/some-very-basic-stuff-about-russian-defenses-in-the-smo/

>>2618
Dumb blogger cope, also I can't take seriously those right wingers writing in "memes".
Some of the seven advantages he listed for Russia are debatable to say the least, but he also says time is on Russia's side… but is it really?
The US is ramping up weapon production and training of Ukraine troops while giving them more and more capable systems. What happens for Russia in 2024-25 when they have to face divisions of professionally trained soldiers fielding Abrams mbts, when their supply lines are systematically being torn apart by long range precision munitions, when their fleet can't operate in the Black Sea and when their cruise missiles can't penetrate Ukraine airspace without being intercepted anymore?
And when you compare the economic status of both countries both are on lifeline, only Ukraine has the benefit of virtually infinite western gibs to keep things afloat while the neoliberal leaders of Russia are forced to nationalize, and there's only so much capitalists they can throw of balconies and requisitions they can make before seriously stirring internal troubles.
Nothing is certain for now, all we can say is that it's a strategical stalemate and there are too many factors to safely predict one outcome or the other.

The big lesson of this war is don't be an idealist, whatever your interpretation is (inter imperialist conflict, war of conquest, struggle for multipolarity etc..) forget morals, don't put your feelings in the way of hard data, believing x is bad and y is good doesn't have to make you fall for a biased narrative.

>>2626
>The US is ramping up weapon production
Except the cannot exceed a certain production level in peacetime and many production lines are irretrievable, as they are destroyed after production ends, that's the reason no Bradleys can be made from scratch, their production line is gone as part of a federal law that demands termination of production lines that have ended, same reason the F-22 can never be renewed. Moreover officials have stated that nearly a decade's worth of Javelin production has been expended and more in terms of Stinger MANPADs. The latter is especially funny considering that Stingers are failing to do anything outside of superficial damage to a couple choppers and Su-25s.
>training Ukrainian troops
Takes months at minimum and has had little effect considering that US aid has been drone striked and counter-artilleried to hell. The US has expended over a hundred billion on Ukraine in the past year, and the impact has been minimal.
>is it really
Yes, Russian economy and military are only gaining from this, their losses are paltry compared to Ukraine despite a massive numbers disadvantage and the conflict has made the Russian economy ramp up to meet the demands put on people. It has weeded out closeted liberals and 5th columnists and forced them out of the country helping clean out some corruption and plenty of foreign spying.
>the economic status of both countries both are on lifeline
Laughable nonsense
>What happens for Russia in 2024-25
LMAO
>face divisions of professionally trained soldiers fielding Abrams mbts
NATO training is a fucking shit show, their standards have gone plummeting since the USSR fell because everyone relaxed their anuses. Training exercises in Britain expended reserve ammunition in a week of fighting a scenario of open conventional conflict against Russia. Germany literally has most of its tanks be older Leo-IIA4s and A5s that are very vulnerable to current Russian tanks and more importantly even older Soviet ATGM systems as Turkey's losses prove. On top of that, even before the Ukraine war the army critically lacked guns to the point that training involved black-painted broom-sticks to imitate.
Abrams had horrific losses to old RPG-7s and Konkurs ATGMs, literal 1970s anti-tank rockets that are outdated as hell. Moreover the Abrams is shit, it's a massive air target and only the USA's enormous air force and the facing of much smaller and poorly armed forces has kept them from being open targets to strike fighters in the past. Their performance against tanks is also comical as only the latest M1A2s are actually a match for current Russian or even late-80s Soviet tanks, and the majority of tanks in US use are M1A1s. Not to mention enormous numbers of them have been outright mothballed or decommissioned.
>their supply lines are systematically being torn apart by long range precision munitions
Nice fantasy NATOid, the irony is that is exactly the thing happening to Ukraine right now.
>their fleet can't operate in the Black Sea
LMAO, the Black Sea belongs to Turkey and Russia and the USA cannot insert a carrier into that area. The Ukrainian navy is nonexistent and the ships proposed to be sent are held back because the Brits fear they'll be sunk in Odessa harbor before they can even be transferred officially.
>when their cruise missiles can't penetrate Ukraine airspace without being intercepted anymore
There exists no SAM system on earth currently capable of taking out hypersonic missiles. Only Russia and China have actual hypersonic missiles in production. The USA still can't do that. US air defense is horrible. The older missiles in Russian use are upper-super sonic and are considered some of the most advanced systems to exist even today. The subsonic kalibr has been almost completely unimpeded in Ukraine against their air defenses. You can't set up an advanced air defense if they get destroyed on arrival.

The Stinger is outdated a fuck and even brand new barely took out early Mi-24s and soon defeated by countermeasures developed back in the 80s and still effective today. The THAAD is a strategic system for intercepting ballistic missiles and strategic bombers primarily and is not something for wide export. The Patriot has failed repeatedly. Back in the 80s they couldn't take out a single Scud missile launched by Saddam at Israel and similarly failed against terrorist missiles launched in Saudia Arabia. The NASAAMS is the only system of any note and its not even a US only development. I'm not even mentioning that these things take years of training to be any good and are massive beacons to any anti-RADAR system, good luck avoiding a Zircon from your fixed SAM position. Panzer Gepard? A fucking joke that is barely any better than a Shilka a decade its senior and having terrible firing rate for an AAA system today. Russia had turned the Bayraktar meme and aped the Ukrainians by destroying most of their large drones an using theirs in massive attacks that Ukrainian SAM systems including US deliveries have failed to intercept.
>Ukraine has the benefit of virtually infinite western gibs
>"I can't take seriously those right wingers writing in "memes""
<Types out in memes
Ok /uhg/ fag
>forget morals
Yes Himmler-san.

TL;DR: You've said nothing but fantasy and middling generic liberal tripe spouted by NATO sock-puppets. I'm sure the Ghost of Khuev thanks you.

I tapped out of the war threads like 2 or 3 months in but I'm glad to see ziggas still cope by responding to completely normal posts with unhinged wall of texts calling out the imaginary NATOids like my man here >>2635
I really wanna know what ziggaz make of Russia's recent losses but I don't feel like sorting through the actual shit that are the Ukraine threads to find out lmao

>>2635
I'm not gonna answer point by point because I'm not that much of a weapon nerd. But why "LMAO" at the question of how the war will go in 2024-2025? Even if you believe Russia will probably break that stalemate that's something to think about, military thinking is about hoping for the best and planning for the worst after all.
It's also pretty deranged to think Russia economy and military are gaining from this, besides their GDP shrinking and the hundreds of thousands of people not being in the workforce anymore but on the front line or outside the country, they lost a lot of their most elite troops in the beginning of the war, a few thousands tanks and mbts, more than a hundred aircraft, their flagship is on the bottom of the black sea etc. The only things they really gained is some (industrial) territory and military experience, but at the expense of being sanctioned left and right, and their military being revealed as a potemkine force that had no right being ranked 2nd in the world.
Now there's talks of Russia closing the border to male citizens, launching another wave of mobilization and maybe declaring martial law for the beginning of the year, which imo they would certainly need to break the stalemate. Only their troops seem to be facing shell rationing and moral issues while there is a rivalry between the army and the pmc so I'm skeptic about their capability to mount successful large offensives in the coming months.

>>2636
LMAO ok samefag, you totally didn't lurk here for a response to make the same salty, 'no u' reply
>Retar text wall
LMAO, because >>2626 isn't a textwall?
Also pic rel.
>zigga
<n-no I'm not another centrist closeted NATO stan really!
Cope

>>2637
>I'm not gonna answer point by point because I'm not that much of a weapon nerd
Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll make a BS response anyhow.
>why "LMAO" at the question of how the war will go in 2024-2025
The idea of it going to 2025 is laughable. It's barely 2023 and Ukraine has had 8 years of training assistance an prep-time, as former presidents Merkel, Poroshenko and Holland mentioned in regards to the Minsk Agreements being a delay tactic. Even after all that and 120 billion dollars in aid since February 2022 specifically, and a numbers difference of roughly 6:1 in Ukrainian troops favor, they still are suffering heavier losses in human and tech casualties. Moreover this is in spite of Russia being very careful to reduce civilian casualties on top of that.
>deranged to think Russia economy and military are gaining from this
Except it isn't. The economy has been forced to use only local resources and local development, forcing them to be more self-sufficient in terms of production. The lack of an export economy is also making the domestic market more important, forcing them to expand and improve conditions, production and products for the home markets. On top of this the military is in an active conflict and so making large orders for modernizations of older tech, reactivation of mothballed tech, production of new tech and replacement of existing or lost tech. They also get to test out new weapons and gain experience and make counters to Western systems and tactics and capture them for study.
>military thinking is about hoping for the best and planning for the worst
True, doesn't mean that 2024-2025 statement is at all a realistic consideration
>GDP
Lurk Moar, GDP doesn't mean shit in reality.
>hundreds of thousands of people not being in the workforce
You do realize Russia is a massive country that has over a hundred million people right? You don't think they don't have people to take up work positions left behind by people taken into service? This is laughable shit comparable to ant-labour-law Senators complaining about the same shit in America.
>their troops seem to be facing shell rationing and moral issues while there is a rivalry between the army and the pmc
Stop looking at Western news sources, they can't tell a lie to save their ass. The Russians have been doing the exact opposite in terms of shelling, firing larger salvos than the Ukrainians. The fantasy of Russia lacking ARTILLERY and AMMUNITION is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in years, the country that has Soviet stockpiles and even after the USSR has stockpiled ammunition like Judgement Day is coming, is running out of shells? Give me a break. If anything it's a projection of Western stockpiles being low. Soldier morale is mostly pretty high, dozens of independent journalists and others do interviews on the frontlines and none are doubtful about their victory.
>a few thousands tanks and mbts
LMAO no. Maybe a hundred or 2 but a couple thousand? Get the fuck out.
>a hundred aircraft
Unless you're counting drones that's just no true, not to mention Ukraine has practically no air force or aerial capability, their drones are the only thing they have and even they aren't too effective, getting shot down almost immediately.
>flagship
And in the meantime the Ukrainian navy doesn't exist badum tsss
>the expense of being sanctioned
sanctions don't mean shit and haven't for a long time
https://southfront.org/russias-economy-performed-much-better-than-the-west-expected-despite-sanctions/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/end-age-sanctions
>their military being revealed as a potemkine force
Laughable nonsense of redditoid armchair analysts.

PS
Patriot missile systems are a long time to train, even longer considering the difference in tech in NATO and Soviet systems. They aren't going to be ready until 2024 at best
https://southfront.org/ukraine-wont-be-ready-for-patriot-missiles-until-2024-advisory-body-warns-u-s-congress-of-high-risks-from-deliveries/

Minsk agreement sham
Holland: https://southfront.org/france-confirmes-peace-agreements-for-ukraine-are-lie/
Merkel: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml
Poroshenko: https://www.rt.com/russia/557307-poroshenko-comments-minsk-agreement/

Civilian casualties during the conflict: https://southfront.org/russia-conducts-operation-with-minimum-civilian-casualties-study-shows/

>>2642
Ukraine had time to train but they didn't take the threat of war very seriously thus didn't prepare as they should have done. For example their NCO corps is basically non existent because of their inexperience and lack of training, they often do debates to take decisions on the tactical level, therefore their morale is high but the discipline is lacking.
If you think autarky is good for a capitalist country that can't build a lot of high end goods it needs on its own you do you, why not, could turn for the better in the future. Furthermore GDP actually means shit for capitalist countries, you're just coping about that by crying spook in this instance because you're infatuated with a particular capitalist country, and I'll bet you'll be jizzing in your pants when the capitalist countries you don't like announce a recession this year, which will tell us everything we need to know about how much of principled socialist you are.
You can diminish and deny the losses Russia incurred all you want, by saying Ukraine is in a worse position for example, but the point of this war, that I believed was even agreed upon by both Russia and US stans, is that it's a proxy conflict. The US didn't loose anything besides the weapons that were designed and built to take out Russian men and materiel. BTW my sources for the seemingly russian hardships in shell rationing are telegram channels of soldiers complaining, I'm not getting that from CNN.
I'm sure Cuba and Venezuela will be happy to know sanctions don't mean shit, you should go and tell them. Also I don't really care about how morally good russia is at avoiding killing people, even more so if it's an internet blog that wants me to "take the red pill" that's telling me that. Geopolitics are amoral, Russia is not "good", Russia is a country that wants to do things benefiting itself, Russia avoided hitting civilian centers in the beginning because they thought an easy victory was possible and wanted subsequently to diminish the amount of popular anger against their rule and profit from an intact economy. The moral sugarcoating like nazi killing or national liberation is like in any capitalist war mainly a propaganda narrative meant to garner support. I don't care about agreements and who was in the legally wrong or what ultimately caused the war, it's mostly irrelevant, you only need to know who claims what to more accurately understand and predict their behavior. This thread is about military analysis and the lessons of war, you should abandon idealist thinking.

>>2641
>>2636
Don't be obnoxious. Take a nap and compose your thoughts without deepfrying it in memespeak.

>>2645
>Ukraine had time to train but they didn't take the threat of war very seriously
Cope excuse
>their morale is high
their morale is rockbottom to the point that they execute suspected deserters on the frontlines.
> inexperience and lack of training
No, they're just fucking incompetent.
>a capitalist country that can't build a lot of high end goods
That's not Russia, you really have no comprehension of Russia's industrial might
>you're just coping about that by crying spook in this instance because you're infatuated with a particular capitalist country
Nah, nice projection though idealist
>You can diminish and deny the losses Russia incurred
Nothing to deny, pic rel
>tell us everything we need to know about how much of principled socialist
Never claimed to be one, funny that, Mr.Ideologue.
>my sources for the seemingly russian hardships in shell rationing are telegram channels of soldiers complaining
Ah yes, just like those videos of "DPR" troops making high-loss claims only to be revealed to be fakes agitating for pro-ukrainian talking points? Telegram isn't Russian-only, it's free to use and anyone can make a post.
>Cuba and Venezuela will be happy to know sanctions
false equivalency. Cuba has a BLOCKADE and Venezuela is recovering. Cuba is not too bad off either.
>an internet blog that wants me to "take the red pill"
Tell me more on how I know you can't read. You're just copy-pasting generic twitter responses and using ad hom deflection. You've not provided shit for an argument
>N-no not morality being important!
Ok, keep polishing Keitel's knob some more.
>moral sugarcoating like nazi killing or national liberation
*Laughs in actual socialist movements* you are the picture of armchair arrogance, bravo.
>Russia avoided hitting civilian centers in the beginning because they thought an easy victory was possible
You prove again you read NONE of what you responded to and have no comprehension of military strategy and tactics. You're General McArthur levels of deranged.
>I don't care about agreements and who was in the legally wrong or what ultimately caused the war
<The cause of military conflict is unimportant
This is the most undialectical, ignorant nonsense I've seen so far. You try to gaslight me with gotcha's about "le capitalist cuntry support" being unprincipled, even though I haven't stated such anywhere, and then you go on to outright disregard the importance of dialectic analysis so you can pigeonhole your inanities as "truf". This is no different to the historical ignoramuses that claim the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance.
> This thread is about military analysis and the lessons of war, you should abandon idealist thinking.
The sheer irony of this Pot-meet-Kettle statement is amazing, I refuse to believe any sane, educated adult is this ignorant an not just intentionally being obtuse.

>>2641
>samefag
schizo lmao
>LMAO, because >>2626 isn't a textwall?
No, it's a paragraph friend. Meanwhile your replies are borderline unreadable bile not too dissimilar to the WV schizo that visits leftypol from time to time
I suppose I got my answer about what ziggaz think of recent events, this being denial and screeching, just like I 'member
>>2642
>And in the meantime the Ukrainian navy doesn't exist badum tsss
The fact that they sunk Russia's flagship without a navy is even more embarrassing. I remember when that news came out, ziggaz were saying Ukraine is lying and it's just some random boat they sunk, which makes it even funnier
>>2648
Can ziggaz understand that skepticism regarding Russia's war effort is not an endorsement of the other side lmfao. What makes you think you'll look any sillier than this dude >>1832 6 months from now, or the dudes at the start saying this was gonna take a couple of weeks?
>deflection ad hom armchair ad hom undialectical idealist ad hom
This post is literally half memespeak and buzzwords what the actual fuck man, not to mention a stunning lack of self awareness since your entire post is ad hominem-ing the other dude
>Nothing to deny
Did picrel just not happen in your mind? Inb4 they didn't need those territories anyway and just fought for them for shits and giggles
<N-no not morality being important!
>Ok, keep polishing Keitel's knob some more.
I can't tell if you're unironically endorsing moralism here, but if you are, that is really fucking funny

>>2648
If your sources are Kyiv Independent and SouthFront I don't think I can do anything for you man, you're just another liberal.

To get back on track, and about the general issue of ammunition production that is experienced by both sides, here's an analysis of Russian journos on Russian ammo
https://nitter.kylrth.com/RALee85/status/1611034054899470336
Bottom line is they need millions of rounds per year, but only produce a few hundred k, and they were somewhat late in ramping up production/refurbishment. There's the question of converting civilian industry, and the problem of some shells having defects.

>>2650
>Kyiv Independent
??? No mention of that from me, moron.
>Muh Southfront
<Oh no a site references a common online termin for independent truth in a intro line, the horror!
not an argument

The liberal is you.

>>2652
why did you take the left pill

>>2651
This is idiotic; you can't go from "There's a 2.6 million ton stockpile of ammunition (caliber undefined)" and then switch to "production is 300 thousand rounds (caliber undefined)", that tells us NOTHING about the number of rounds in storage and the lack of a caliber makes it even more confusing. Even a single 125mm roundcan range from 4kg to 20kg alone; just going by 125mm an assuming heaviest ammunition that 2.6 million tons of stockpile is going to be 130000000 rounds - 130 MILLION. Various artillery calibers get used more or less than others. 125mm is probably the heaviest in use right now, the 152mm the heaviest after that. More recently the 240mm is gaining more usage in counter-battery mortar shelling.

More importantly Murakhovsky is not saying that Russia is lacking ammunition at the moment, but that if it can't raise production that is a possible future problem due to infrastructure being unprepared. He also states that this isn't critical and can be caught up.

>>2653
I didn't.

>>2654
Now don't be so selective in your reading!
I'm gonna spell it out for you: the russian soldiers and mercenaries complain about shell hunger, the problem is so prevalent russian milblogers and journos are now complaining about shell hunger: Russia has a shell problem.
They don't know if they can solve it fast enough, making workers manufacture them around the clock isn't enough, furthermore the 2022 vintage has defects. And some of those people are really dubious in the capabilities or even the will of the russian government to convert civilian industry and find engineers and specialists to make enough of what they need.
>bu-bu-but the 1xxmm and the billions of stocks
Sure go tell the russian artillery men, with their shortage of shells they'll probably take the time to listen to you.

>>2656
Yeah unlike you I can read it in Russian instead of half-ass translations.
> russian soldiers and mercenaries complain about shell hunger
No, a sourceless telegram post claims that there is a lack of shells, and then other telegram posts parrot that posts' claim.
Everything else being claimed is also just more hearsay and BS speculation, not concrete fact.
>Muh 1xxmm
Not an argument. The posts are fucking shite because they don't provide real information that can actually be compared. 2.6 million tons of shells is meaningless to compare to 300k shells produced, because you can't compare tonnage to number of shells. This is basic mathematics for fucks sake.
>tell the russian artillery men
Don't have to, there's literally hundreds of interviews and combat footage that have Russian artillerymen fire constantly from morning til night and have the shell casing piles to prove it.

>>2657
Ah yes, the posts are shit now they don't fit in your red pill. The point is that the trillions tons of shells they have are old and unusable as is, the need for their refurbishment necessitates work.
On an unrelated note what are your feelings if I tell you more than 20 millions soviet people died during WW2 and the Americans landed on the moon in 69?

>>2658
>the posts are shit now they don't fit in your red pill
<now
No they're shit because they're a terrible and poorly misinformative, using set of non-correlating information to push a false narrative. As an aside, your constant "muh reed pill" is literally the left figure of pic rel.
>point is that the trillions tons of shells they have are old and unusable as is
No, you're just changing goal posts, first they are running out of shells, then its production is too low, now it's "lotsa shells are unusable", ignoring that roughly 3/4 of several hundred million rounds for artillery stockpile are in usable condition.
>the need for their refurbishment necessitates work
The military ALWAYS has something needing refurbishment, that's been true of every gorran military ever since complex technological systems became a major part of warfare.
>what are your feelings if I tell you more than 20 millions soviet people died during WW2
Yeah I know that, and?
>Muh moon landing
Looks fake as shit, don't care either way.

>>2661
>Bradley IFVs
Those are the ones made of aluminium iirc?

>>2661
>RIM-7 Sea sparrow missiles that can be fired from retrofitted BUKs
As the HARM missile failure reveals, that means little. The conversion mounts aren't enough to interface completely different systems, if anything the effectiveness is going to be less than conventional BUK missiles
>AMX-10 RC light tanks
artillery fodder, their speed isn't going to be any use in that terrain, especially in the current season and they're very vulnerable to most heavy systems, such as the 14.5 an 12.7mm machine guns and RPGs. The cannon is nice but too small a caliber to destroy a modern tank and is likely to get tagged by a BMP-2s 30mm canon, as it is to tag a BMP. Utterly defenseless against an attack chopper. Just like the Caesar and other French systems sent it's a nothingburger.
>Bradley
LOL, LMAO even. The bradley is out of production and has no replacement in the US military. It's a fucking lemon and there's a couple posts on the board talking about it. 155mm shells are about the only real threat and even then, it's not a high enough amount to significantly change things.

>>2662
Aluminum isn't a factor in itself, the particular aluminum used on Bradley's has a tendency to light up under incendiary impact though.

>>2649
>t's a paragraph
<It's only a paragraph if I do it!
Ok
>your replies are borderline unreadable bile
Sure, ok
>denial and screeching
Projection
>The fact that they sunk Russia's flagship
They didn't and it's been disproven ITT.
>ziggaz were saying Ukraine is lying and it's just some random boat they sunk,
Nope, noone said that, you're just making shit up.
>skepticism regarding Russia's war effort is not an endorsement of the other side
Predictably the bothside-fag falls back on the "it's not an endorsement" platitude
>This post is literally half memespeak and buzzwords
<misrepresent the post, then claim "muh memespeak"
dialectics are not memespeak, neither is pointing out ad hominum, cretin.
>picrel
You're shifting goalposts again for another "gotcha lol"
>M-morals are le bad
Typical 'nu-age' leftism, utterly disregarding important grass-roots parts of leftist appeal and direction. Read Castro you utter ignoramus

>>2664
>Nope, noone said that, you're just making shit up.
I don't remember if they had cyclical threads back when it happened, but if they happened to be archived you're free to check for yourself what people were saying back when it happened lmao. I like that you ignored that post (yours?) from last year that aged like complete shit – much like every other zigga prediction. Getting news from ziggaz is as reliable as getting them from ukrop sources.
>bothside-fag
What both sides? You treat politics no different than team sports
>dialectics are not memespeak
You spouting the latest buzzwords you learned in a youtube video is not dialectics, it's verbal garbage coming out of a retard
>shifting goalposts
Who? Where? What did I shift goalposts from?
Tell me honestly instead of avoiding the question, how did those territorial losses happen if Russia is on top? Is it all according to their keikaku?
>M-morals are le bad
No, they just don't matter
>Typical 'nu-age' leftism
Memespeak
>utterly disregarding important grass-roots parts of leftist appeal and direction
Non-sequitur
>Read Castro you utter ignoramus
No thanks, my reading list is already filled by amoralists such as Marx and the Bolsheviks

>>2666
>Satan trips
<n-no morality
Marx wrote theory, he also made inaccurate statements.
>f they happened to be archived you're free to check for yourself what people were saying back when it happened
Until Fall I posted in those threads. People said a lot, but not that.
>like that you ignored that post
I like that you ignored that it isn't incorrect. Ukraine lacks any large army groups, they're forced to be small and mobile, because large units get trapped like Azov. The Ukrainians are constantly losing territory, the map you posted doesn't prove shit, Russia took Kherson, but not the majority of those Purple highlighted territories, and has consistently been pushing out Ukrainians. Any "regain" Ukraine made, gets pushed back again soon after.
>Getting news from ziggaz is as reliable as getting them from ukrop sources
Spoken in true bad faith
>What both sides? You treat politics no different than team sports
Feigning ignorance to make a false claim, another fallacious argument
>You spouting the latest buzzwords
<muh youtube
Unlike you I don't get my information from youtube vloggers, I actually read the theory. None of the things I said are buzzwords, nor are they "latest" considering leftypol refers to them constantly for years. You expose yourself as a n00b.
>it's verbal garbage coming out of a retard
Stop looking in a mirror then
> instead of avoiding the question
You are avoiding my point by making a false comparison, your 'question' is gaslight
>how did those territorial losses happen
Already answered in several posts prior. You claim I argue like things are 2 sports teams, yet approach the concept of warfare exactly like that, proving your projection.
>they don't matter
>"A chekist can only be a man with a cold head, a hot heart and clean hands. Anyone who becomes cruel and whose heart remains insensitive to prisoners must leave here. Here, as in no other place, you need to be kind and noble." - Iron Felix
>January 19, 1945 Stalin signs a general directive which forbids harsh treatment of enemy population by the army. It was duplicated by commanders of multiple fronts, for example, commander of the 2nd Belarussian Front Rokossovsky issued an order to execute all looters and rapists on sight.
>https://espressostalinist.com/2013/08/11/v-i-lenin-on-communist-morality/
>"What has fascist Germany gained and what has she lost by treacherously tearing up the pact and attacking the USSR? She has gained a certain advantageous position for her troops for a short period, but she has lost politically by exposing herself in the eyes of the entire world as a blood-thirsty aggressor. There can be no doubt that this short-lived military gain for Germany is only an episode, while the tremendous political gain of the USSR is a serious lasting factor that is bound to form the basis for development of decisive military successes of the Red Army in the war with fascist Germany." - Stalin, speech of 1941 to the people of the USSR https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/stalin-speaks-to-the-people-of-the-soviet-union-on-german-invasion-july-1941
I can go on and on about the importance of ethics and morality for leftism and war. Point is your attitude is exactly the kind of sociopathic ideology that every real communist revolutionary has rejected. Morality =/= liberal pacifism or handwringing. So kindly, get therapy you psycho.
>Memespeak
Not an argument
>such as Marx and the Bolsheviks
I guarantee that you read The Communist Manifesto and excerpts of shit that fits your amoral idealism

>>2667
>BUKs have been very useful for air defrnse
They aren't, MANPADS have been the most effective (not very much at that) but have little impact against high-flying jets. Not to mention the utter failure against Russian drone striking.
>Ukraine is not running out of ammo for them
An SAM is not like a machine-gun, the type of rocket matters. Ukraine's systems are old models that had been obsolete by 1995. Not to mention large amounts of their stockpile had been taken out by cruise missile strikes.
>they could get effectively get up to 5 patriots
1) The Pentagon itself states that 2024 is the soonest the systems are going to be ready
2) The Patriot missile system is garbage
https://archive.is/zjL9K
https://archive.vn/KdUNc
https://archive.is/Nze9e
>S-300
Old models that, like the Buk Russia is extremely familiar with and has the countermeasures for.
>Russia can't produce that much missiles
Says who? Some BS blogposts and sourceless news articles?
>I'm dubious in their capability to sustain their strategic bombing campaign
<Russia, a country famous for insanely large stockpiles and that has been ramping up production since the Syrian war is going to run out of bombs
This is too funny
>you have a cope for each item
<C-cope
Cry more.
>Muh T-72 carousel meme
And the 4ch/k/ ignoramus reveals themselves

Out of all the items your pic lists, the m113 is the best one, and the narrow tracks have trouble in mud, Ukrainian videos of that already exist. Several already delivered M113s have already been captured or destroyed.
>The Bradley
Literally cannot be replaced in the US military and like any other vehicle on the list, is an easy airstrike target
>Muh artillery
The Panzer 2000 has already proven to be no better than any existing Soviet systems in Ukrainian service + the shit barrel life makes it no use in long term. The M777s have been taken out consistently and are outranged by their contemporary Soviet equivalents. Polish Krab mobile artillery has been taken out one after the other. M109s are going to change nothing. A single Ukrainian artillery gun unit goes through roughly 100s of rounds per day. Multiply that across all artillery and that 70,000 is going to get used up in a week and that's ignoring shell stockpiles needing to being delivered to the front, the fact that Russia has consistently targeted these stockpiles, and the effective counter-battery fire Russia has. This is only for 155mm. 105mm is a joke, the range is pathetic, penetration ineffective against any current Russian tanks. Even the T-62M requires more advanced rounds to be penetrated at range like the M111.
>HIMARS
HIMARS has a small salvo, it's range is comparable to the Uragan, but the throw weight is less than half. A single missile has a small explosive yield, and as a famous Ukrainian bridge proves, the impacts get repaired literally hours later.
>MRAPs / Humvees
Ukrainian posts demonstrate them getting stuck in the mud. Several got destroyed already. Humvees are also fodder
>Ammo
Russia has hit stockpile locations repeatedly and cut off supply lines. TOW missiles are no better than anything else - Javelin's are better and still aren't as effective as memed, Konkurs and other ATGMs have equivalent performance. Not to mention TOW relay lines are a major problem in wooded areas.

>>2669
>Marx wrote theory, he also made inaccurate statements.
What a meaningless statement lmao
>Unlike you I don't get my information from youtube vloggers, I actually read the theory
You absolutely do not, unless you consider moving your eyes across a page to be reading
>None of the things I said are buzzwords
They are when you use them as such, but I agree there's always been retards saying undialectical idealist material conditions without understanding what any of it means
>Already answered in several posts prior.
Where?
>I guarantee that you read The Communist Manifesto and excerpts of shit that fits your amoral idealism
I guarantee you have not read even that
>>amoral idealism
you are beyond fucking retarded holy shit
>I can go on and on about the importance of ethics and morality for leftism and war.
Thank you for not doing that
>Point is your attitude is exactly the kind of sociopathic ideology that every real communist revolutionary has rejected
You are either retarded or speaking out of your ass, or both. Marx deliberately made an amoral analysis of capitalism and avoided morality altogether, the Bolsheviks were hardcore amoralists, understaning that morals were nothing but a reflection of the dominant class beliefs. You cannot make revolution by appealing to morality.
<picrel
Literally arguing against moralism

>>2669
>>2671 (me)
(cont.)

I find it interesting that you quoted Dzerzhinsky of all people, who was not the stupid moralist you make him out to be:
>"We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession?"
Frankly, despite the man's kind demeanor, the man has said things that you would have called psychopathic:
>"We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible."
In the first quote, incidentelly, he happens to mirror none other than Marx himself, who, based on the example of the French Revolution, stated:
>"There is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means—revolutionary terror."
If you recoiled in shock at these statements or think they are way too much, you are a liberal moralist. Incidentally, Lenin explains morality way better than I could have in the link you yourself provided:
>In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?
>In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.
>We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.
>We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.
I.e. what is good or bad depends on whether they advance proletarian interests, morals are entirely subjective and arise out of necessity – not the other way around.
The rest of what you linked are just thinks that you think were morally good, I presume, which… good for you? But I once again question your capability to read if you managed to post things that go against your own point. I wanted to call you a certain word but I think you get the point already.
You might think this is a strange thing to insist on in the Ukraine thread, but if you have built your understanding of Marxism on such shaky moralist foundations then it really is no wonder you would fall into a manichean worldview.
As for the war, thank you for answering my questions. I now can fully understand the conflict: the Moskva did not sink (???), or it sank on its own (even more embarrassing), Ukraine's army is decimated and cannot take any territory, but also they took Kherson, but it's okay because Russia will just take it back (don't question how they lost it in the first place!), as they are simply mopping up 1 year later after they destroyed Ukraine's armored forces. I'm starting to think I made the right choice in joining my peers in not giving a single fuck about the war the moment Azovstal finally fell if these are the kind of schizos I would have to discuss the conflict with lmao.

>>2671
>meaningless statement lmao
It isn't and the reason is self-obvious
>You absolutely do not
Yes, I do, stop projecting your illiteracy unto me.
>Where?
Scroll up, I'm not spoonfeeding you things ITT
>I guarantee you have not read even that
I've read all of that and more.
>you are beyond fucking retarded
No, I'm not. Your statement about moral high-ground is ignorant and speaks of an utter disconnect from actual blue collar workers.
>Marx deliberately made an amoral analysis of capitalism
because he was making an objective, socio-economic analysis. Ethical analysis is a separate matter entirely.
>he Bolsheviks were hardcore amoralists
No, they rejected tsarist traditionalism/reactionary rhetoric, but among their most important rallying points is their rejection of the AMORAL, INHUMANE behavior of the White Guard and corruption of the Church. Lenin literally came in on Land. Peace. Bread. Material benefits alone are not going to appeal to people but neither are ideological platitudes.
>You cannot make revolution by appealing to morality.
LMAO some of the biggest revolts to happen are caused by outrage over a regime pushing their inhumane an immoral treatment too far. Literally this is the reason the Russian Revolution began, after the Czar's troops massacred a peaceful protest and the same can be said for the Decembrist revolt, begun out of the immoral and oppressive abuse of soldiers in Imperial Russia. Moreover moral high ground is important for morale in troops, it is important to a population in war. That's the reason Vietnam is such a big deal in the USA, the troops had no moral high-ground and were condemned for it, rightly so, including/especially by communists. But apparently morality is unimportant because "psychological and social influence is for squares bruh"

Just an FYI - the entire concept of human rights is based n ethics and morality, and human rights are an inherent part of real leftist movements, not the theoretical analyses in someone's head or literature.

>Literally arguing against moralism
No it argue's against ideological idealism in regards to ordinary people that have their own aims and concerns ethical or material that may not follow some leftist purism.

>>2673
>Dzerzhinsky of all people, who was not the stupid moralist you make him out to be
<stupid moralist
Projection and being obtuse is not an argument
>Terror against the upper class is the same as immorality
It is not immoral to strike fear into an enemy, it is immoral to be inhumane if you are doing so.
>despite the man's kind demeanor, the man has said things that you would have called psychopathic
No I wouldn't because I literally grew up on this blood and steel literature, in the original language no less. No mercy to an enemy is not the same as being immoral or casting it aside thoughtlessly. You fundamentally have no comprehension of this topic and your "highlights" only 'highlight' this lacking and frankly /pol/-tier view of leftism.
>French Revolution
And if you recall the French Terror resulted in a revolt because they stopped having regard and empathy for their fellow people, leading to the eventual rise of Napoleon THE EMPEROR whose empathy to his troops is among the reasons for their loyalty.
>If you recoiled in shock at these statements or think they are way too much, you are a liberal moralist
If you think any of these things is even remotely new to me, then you're a cherrypicking moron
>I.e. what is good or bad depends on whether they advance proletarian interests
Yeah, nice goalpost shift faggot. Now instead of "morals don't matter" it's "Only proletarian morals don't matter" something that has no relevance to the argument at hand. Textwalling your longwinded attempt to dismiss and belittle me is not an argument and is just derailing and deflection.
>if you have built your understanding of Marxism on such shaky moralist foundations
I have not, you are projecting such because of your utterly self-limited understanding of me, this conflict and the issues of leftist theory and practical application/appeal to the proletariat. I live in reality - the people are not motivated by "Grug sez morality no matter" that you are saying. People in the Donbass don't CARE about Putin's Russia being "le porky" because it's not about Putin's government, it's about Russia as a people, and as soldiers helping them against an enemy that has dehumanized and brutally murdered them. The Nazi regime wasn't hated for being economically inefficient, they're hated for being immoral pieces of shit, and they recognized this subconsciously, and so used every excuse in the book to justify their immorality, thus Goebbels' propaganda having a ministry.
>the Moskva did not sink (???), or it sank on its own
It suffered a fire that caused an explosion. The damage made it vulnerable to a heavy squall that sank it after the crew was evacuated. This is only "important" because it happened during the conflict. military accidents are common. The USA has had just as many as Russia, shit happens in a military numbering millions of people.
>they took Kherson
They didn't, they had forces enter briefly for some PR photos, but they aren't staying there, primarily because the moment they tried Russian aviation took out a massive number of them in a single strike. Russia has already taken city after city and has done so every day.
>don't question how they lost it in the first place
Tactical withdrawal. Again already discussed ITT or links ITT thread.
>they are simply mopping up 1 year later after they destroyed Ukraine's armored forces
Yes. The USSR spent more than that mopping up Nazi and other terrorist forces and this is after the complete defeat of the Nazis.
>made the right choice in joining my peers in not giving a single fuck about the war
<S-schizo!
Your understanding of war being poor doesn't make people schizo. Similarly if you enter a Calculus discussion but have no comprehension of theoretical velocities at an exact time, you're going to think the mathematical calculations used are all made up technobabble. As for not caring, I only started to post ITT again after someone (probably you) made a retarded reee-post. I haven't been in the Ukraine General since September and don't care to start again.

Those hohol and westoid weapons systems are obsolete! Useless! Garbage! Doesn't work in the mud! They have defaults!
And yet Russia can't seem to be capable of taking a small town like Bakhmut in 6 months of combat. Really makes you think.

>>2674
>It isn't and the reason is self-obvious
Lmao
>im not you are no u no u projection no u no u
ok bro, sure
>No, I'm not. Your statement about moral high-ground is ignorant and speaks of an utter disconnect from actual blue collar workers.
What are you actually saying here, that blue collar workers are motivated by morality, and not by… y'know, putting bread on the table? I'll get back to this
>because he was making an objective, socio-economic analysis. Ethical analysis is a separate matter entirely.
Agreed. Fortunately, nobody is doing an ethical analysis because it is completely and utterly worthless, that is, except for the liberals who think ethics is what shapes society. Hey, at least you admit morality and ethics are out of the realm of objectivity.
>scroll up
I even CTRL+F'd, I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass
>No, they rejected tsarist traditionalism/reactionary rhetoric, but among their most important rallying points is their rejection of the AMORAL, INHUMANE behavior of the White Guard and corruption of the Church.
Are you confusing immoral with amoral? Is this the problem here? Also, no, the Bolsheviks rejected bourgeois morality altogether, as the link you provided states, in favor of proletarian morality based on proletarian interests. Not only that, but in the interests of the world proletariat as a whole, not a particular proletariat'. German socdems made the argument that waging the war was in German proles interests, like a certain renegade, and similar justification came from other "Marxists" of the time.
The Whites being complete pieces of shit sure helped to drive the point home, though.
>Lenin literally came in on Land. Peace. Bread.
Yes. He appealed to the actual material interests of Russian proles and peasants you complete and utter retard. He never went "um, guys, war is le bad???? and immoral and shit", him and the Bolsheviks as well as every other actual revolutionary communist at the time merely pointed out to the proles that said war was fought at their expense for the interest of a small minority, or even for no actual purpose at all.
>LMAO some of the biggest revolts to happen are caused by outrage over a regime pushing their inhumane an immoral treatment too far.
As in, it is in the people's interest to do away with a regime doing them harm. What a concept
>Just an FYI - the entire concept of human rights is based n ethics and morality, and human rights are an inherent part of real leftist movements
L M F A O no shit that human rights, a bourgeois concept, are based in le ethics an morality, and the reason every bourgeois filth ever hides behind "human rights" every single time. Don't the bourgeoisie have human rights? Fuck bro guess I can't be a gommie
>No it argue's against ideological idealism in regards to ordinary people that have their own aims and concerns ethical or material that may not follow some leftist purism.
Word gore. I legitimately cannot understand what you are saying here
>>2675
>It is not immoral to strike fear into an enemy, it is immoral to be inhumane if you are doing so.
Says who, you? Or this objective Morality™ in your head?
How can you even type this and not realize that what is "moral" depends on person to person, and is largely, or even solely, influenced by their class interest? Moreover, you saying this goes completely against those "optics" things you've quoted a post prior
>And if you recall the French Terror resulted in a revolt because they stopped having regard and empathy for their fellow people, leading to the eventual rise of Napoleon THE EMPEROR whose empathy to his troops is among the reasons for their loyalty.
Thermidorean propaganda? In MY leftypol?
They didn't "stop having regard and empathy for their fellow people", they were carrying out the simple, revolutionary task of ruthlessly putting down the counter-revolution. Moreover, the excesses of the Terror happened while Robespierre was away, done by people who were actively trying to frame them on him – less a revolt, more of a deliberate sabotage.
In addition, you'd recall that the Thermidorean reaction that put down the "dictator" Robespierre resulted in its own revolt on 1 Prairie III, by the sans-culottes, the heart and soul of the revolution. There was no "people" that all acted in unison, there are only different classes with separate interests– ones that wanted Robespierre dead, and ones that wanted the Revolution carried out to the end.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop here otherwise this'll evolve into another 100 posts where I fuckin beat the shit out of you and put your head on a pike for spreading this ahistorical filth out here



>Yeah, nice goalpost shift faggot. Now instead of "morals don't matter" it's "Only proletarian morals don't matter" something that has no relevance to the argument at hand.
I felt the need to single this out from the rest of the post, because I think it's important. Answer me honestly, and I ask this without any kind of malice or bad faith at all: are you legitimately diagnosed with some sort of mental disability, or are you actually trolling me?
Nobody said "proletarian morals don't matter" and I am actually at a loss for words how this is what you got out of the post. Morals, in general, don't matter, because they are simply secondary to class interests, the real driving force of society. The former are a pale reflection out of the latter. Proles don't revolt against capitalism because it's morally good, but because it is in their interest to do so. Likewise, bourgeoisie don't exploit proles because they're LE BAD, but because they are acting in rational self-interest. Of course, to a prole, organizing a strike seems good and workers rights seem like a moral imperative, but to a porky it seems like a moral atrocity that infringes on their sacred property rights. The influence morals have on society is simply in playing second fiddle to basic. material. interests.


>I live in reality - the people are not motivated by "Grug sez morality no matter"
No fucking shit. People are not influenced by "GUYZZZ morality is super important, it would be super duper moral if we did this!" either. Nor are they influenced by people telling them anything, they are motivated by self interest you actual invertebrate. Some people may be swayed by moral arguments to action, an infintismally small amount, and yet no event in history has been caused by moral indignation.
>People in the Donbass don't CARE about Putin's Russia being "le porky" because it's not about Putin's government, it's about Russia as a people, and
And the crown jewel you thought to finish this with is to spout nationalistic bile, wonderful.
Please, if you are Russian, don't do any of that "revolutionary defeatism" ultra bullshit; do the moral, virtuous thing to do by fulfilling your duty to your nation and enlist.
>The Nazi regime wasn't hated for being economically inefficient, they're hated for being immoral pieces of shit, and they recognized this subconsciously, and so used every excuse in the book to justify their immorality, thus Goebbels' propaganda having a ministry.
Immoral according to who, again? The Nazis considered what they were doing to be entirely moral, moreover, a moral imperative, for the biological survival of their race. Once again, what's moral and what's not is a second-hand justification for pre-existing interests.
Moreover, Slavs, Jews, Roma, communists etc. didn't oppose Nazis because they were immoral, they fought them because it was a matter of life or fucking death lmao. People
>They didn't take Kherson
Sure buddy
>Tactical withdrawal
Yup, I believe you. You've gone and convinced me. Guess we can end this here now.

>>2679
>all this shit
<No actual point, because the goalposts have reached orbit and its just repeating basic facts an twisting them to fit your inane narrative to veil your ignorance of the real world
>blue collar workers are motivated by morality, and not by… y'know, putting bread on the table
<You can't have both!
If you aren't aware the majority of people that care for morality/ethics tend to be proletarian, the rich are psychopathic or sociopathic exploiters by the nature of their class, that's the reason welfare capitalism and idpol movements exist, to appeal to moral/ethical principles and stave off revolution. This is a direct response to socialism appealing to proletarians through material and moral reasoning and prompting anti-capitalist movements post-1917. Or is the CIA sabotaging socialist movements for giggles?
I am a blue-collar worker, at an 8-6 job doing heavy labour and under the poverty line. I read and educate myself, and analyze everything, because I live in reality, not eternally behind a computer. Purely material motivation has never been successful in the long-run and is especially ignorant in regards to geopolitical real politik that should be the concern of any leftist and especially in regards to a situation like the current Ukraine conflict.
Moreover I guarantee that if Russia had not been trying to maintain a moral high-ground, you ideologues would bitch about that too, you already fell for literal fakes and false-flags before.
>Fortunately, nobody is doing an ethical analysis because it is completely and utterly worthless
And with that you've proven that you have nothing productive to contribute. Morality on its own is not the point, but to dismiss it entirely is ignorant and arrogant, because morality in itself arises from historical and material dialectics and influences them.
>Bolsheviks rejected bourgeois morality altogether
You say that as if there aren't morals that are in essence universal for both. The bourgeois are not aliens or inhuman beings, they are people that have rational self-interests.
>German socdems made the argument that waging the war was in German proles interests
So? Russia has literally been avoiding a war for 8 years. Your thinly-veiled false equivalence fails.
>CTRL+F
No fag, you just can't read. You can lead a horse to water…
>at least you admit morality and ethics are out of the realm of objectivity.
No they are not, they are outside the realm of pure logic at times but not rationality. Tossing this aside, is discarding a trait that fundamentally makes humanity people and the traits that let societies and social groups form in early humans to begin with - the ability to cooperate and empathize. There is a reason that evil is often stated to be rooted in a lack of empathy to ones fellow.
>He appealed to the actual material interests
And yet again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension. Land Peace and Bread are not just MATERIAL, they are in rational self-interest. This alone is not a motivating factor for a revolution or a long-term unified people, if anything it leads to interconflict of interests. The other side of it is simple - People sided with Lenin because he was good to them, and in layman's terms morally better than any other group that may have promised similar bait or only platitudes, such as the Right SRs or the White Guard. The USSR fundamentally rejected purely materialistic motivation because that is literally the root leading to exploitation and hierarchies. Propaganda is the most effective method of carrying across a widespread message and its purpose is to appeal emotionally, because emotions are a key part of humanity. They are meant to rally people to a just and good cause, and it must have truth to it to resonate. Look at any Cuban, Soviet, Vietnamese or Chinese poster meant to motivate people, not a single one is using purely economic motive, because that kind of cold utilitarian logic comes off as reprehensible.
>He never went "um, guys, war is le bad???? and immoral and shit"
Not the point, nor relevant
>him and the Bolsheviks as well as every other actual revolutionary communist at the time merely pointed out to the proles that said war was fought at their expense for the interest of a small minority, or even for no actual purpose at all
Yes, AND this appealed to people because they FELT WRONGED for it. If you're going to go purely by absolute material logic then there is absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism because 'unfairness' is irrelevant. That's the reason Marx's analysis is SOCIO-ECONOMIC, because society and its behavior is important, and morality, no matter how Marx brushes over it (among many other things) is a major part of society and humanity until the point that we become soul-less automatons.
>it is in the people's interest to do away with a regime doing them harm
No shit Sherlock, you figure that out finally?
>human rights
<a bourgeois concept
Lenin, Mao, Castro, Che, Allende, Stalin and every communist revolutionary to live, spit in your face. The concept of human rights is not bourg and your claim as such is ignorant and inhuman
>Fuck bro guess I can't be a gommie
No /pol/, you cannot be one.
>Muh human rights is this strawman about le bougs so it makes it not reel!
Human rights are the reason you can post on this site and not languish in a jail for treason. Human rights are the reason society actually has organization and ancapistan is an unfeasible fantasy.
>every bourgeois filth ever hides behind "human rights"
Except that's fallacious, consequences for actions are not defended by human rights.
>Word gore
<I legitimately cannot understand
Because you are a literal cretin that can't read, or rather is being cognitively dissonant, because your psychopathic mentality can only be justified by trying to demean metaphysical concepts inherent to societies and hide behind cherry-picked excerpts from influential people of the ideology you're bandwagoning on.
>Says who, you
Says every communist regime and their leaders - Stalin, Felix, Mao, Castro etc. All of whom presided over periods of purges and anti-capitalist internal action such as terror. There is a reason Yezhov and Yagoda were punished.
>what is "moral" depends on person to person
No you absolute moron. An entire facet of communist appeal is that it is meant to unite the people on the grounds that there are many central parts of humanity that are universal and so almost everyone has something in common. An individual having beliefs that are not the same as another's is not dichotomous, it is literally a duality of society.
>Thermidorean
Those that ignore history reap the consequences
>they were carrying out the simple, revolutionary task of ruthlessly putting down the counter-revolution
Yes and then completely lost sight of that and began to persecute people in a manner no better than the Royalists that had come before. They became just as bad as the "no-good monarchy" they got rid of, prompting the people, not the monarchists, to overthrow them, and support the rising Napoleon.
>the excesses of the Terror happened while Robespierre was away, done by people who were actively trying to frame them on him – less a revolt, more of a deliberate sabotage.
Robespierre was dead because he was executed for his heavy-handed approach within the convention, sparking a reaction to get rid of him, spiraling into MORE terror as wrongthink got punished harder still. This is barely different to the liberals of the Kerensky regime infighting and reneging on their promise to fix the wrongs of Nicholas II and his regime, and then cracking down on dissent in the face of that.
>There was no "people" that all acted in unison, there are only different classes with separate interests– ones that wanted Robespierre dead, and ones that wanted the Revolution carried out to the end.
Yeah, neither are The People, and so The People stopped supporting these groups, that's my fucking point.
>where I fuckin beat the shit out of you and put your head on a pike
Sure, internet tough-guy. The only ahistorical tripe here is yours.
>I'm gonna stop here
Sure…

>>2679
Holy text wall batman
>Nobody said "proletarian morals don't matter"
<earlier in the thread: "(morals) don't matter" - Post No 2666
Prior to this a post dismissed the need to fight nazis and the obligation of people to liberate people from them as moral sugarcoating.
>Morals, in general, don't matter
Yes they do, as I explained above. Morals of the proletariat are PART OF CLASS INTERESTS FFS
Everything else you're saying is just backtracking and attempting to obfuscate this.
>Proles don't revolt against capitalism because it's morally good, but because it is in their interest to do so
I already addressed this. Proles don't JUST revolt against it for moral reasons, but moral reasons are part of the motivation to act on their interests. Morals and morale are heavily linked, thus strikebreakers are often supported by propaganda attempting to attack the morality of the strike as well in the public image. Technically white proles get nothing from supporting the rights of black proles, but it is morally right to support our proletarian bretheren, that is class unity and heavily relies on the moral concept of it being wrong to be prejudicially discriminatory. Almost no average joe knows or frankly cares about the economic details
of, say, immigrant labour (extensive debunk on /pol/s attitude to this and higher minimum wage at >>>/edu/4466 by yours truly). But morally appealing to them that these are just people desperate to make ends meet (just like them) is a moral/ethical position that appeals an unites them. This is an important social mechanic that drives the success or failure of a movement to gain popular support. That's the reason liberal idpol has little support among most proletarians (especially outside America0, they can't relate to middle-class entitled liberals complaining about inane first-world complaints - their bitching and moaning relies on false moralizing, no different to the cretins in /pol/.
>to a porky it seems like a moral atrocity that infringes on their sacred property rights.
Hence the rejection of bourg morals. Then tell me, how is nazi killing and LIBERATION of PEOPLE bourg morals? If Russia had been saying this but clearly not attempting to save any infrastructure but industrial (like the US Army in Iraq did), then yeah, there's something fishy, but they're clearly not, as the heavy hitting of Azovstal and Ukrainian non-civilian infrastructure proves.
>People are not influenced by "GUYZZZ morality is super important, it would be super duper moral if we did this!" either.
Nice false equivalency. People appeal to morality constantly in their arguments, its inherent. If you make it devoid of that you remove 90% of motivational appeal. This is seen in the US military, recruitment has plummeted because, in spite of all the benefits, the moral appeal is nigh nonexistent, nobody wants to fight imperialist conflicts, even though they'd gain all sorts of stuff that theoretically should make it a good idea in their rational self-interest.
> no event in history has been caused by moral indignation
I gave examples of the opposite and more exist. Hell, even in recent time, as (despite my disagreement with them) the riots and protests as a result of police killings began from moral indignation over brutal murder.
>spout nationalistic bile
No, you absolute moron, the mere fact that you see this as nationalism, proves that you have NO comprehension about real people's interests. The proletariat of the LDPR don't give a FLYING FUCK about your idealist nonsense, they have a history, a culture and relationship with Russia, a multi-ethnic country that has been permanently changed by the USSR's influence. Literally listen to ANY speech about Russia and the War given by Stalin, is he a nationalist? Is Lenin?
>Revolutionary defeatism
Yet another fallacious nonargument that flies in the face of reality.
>Immoral according to who
To any decent human being that has a sense of empathy, you literal autist.
>he Nazis considered what they were doing to be entirely moral
No, they used made up justifications and used ideological and material reasons to justify themselves to the people and heavily utilized indoctrinative propaganda. The concept of "Evil is the lack of empathy" came from the Nuremburg trials, a trial in part held by the COMMUNIST USSR. Yet the USSR unlike anyone else, only sought to punish the leadership and immediately culpable, not the ordinary people of Germany, explicitly punishing the violation of this and cementing themselves as the morally good side. If that hadn't been important, then the West wouldn't have spent decades falsifying/revising history to portray the USSR in as morally evil by common standards of decency. The "muh propery" meme is a side note in all the slander about mass killing, fixed trials and horrible living conditions.
>Slavs, Jews, Roma, communists etc. didn't oppose Nazis because they were immoral, they fought them because it was a matter of life or fucking death
If you are retarded just say so. The Nazis visited upon the 'untermensch' things that are morally reprehensible, but are completely practical and in the self-interest of THEIR people to do so - to terrorize and eliminate an enemy, something that on its own, without morals could be considered little different from revolutionary terror, that's where morality comes into play. Revolutionary terror isn't just targeting enemies as a people, but as a class. More importantly its methods are not supposed to be brutalizing. The Guillotine is specifically meant to be a humane method, as ironic as that seems today, yet the Nazis did things that at times were so inefficient or unnecessary that it damaged their self-interests to the point of making them lose the war faster.
>Kherson
Kherson is both a region and a city. The N-W region is under Ukrainian jurisdiction, but they have no control of the actual governing area and basically no military presence in the city because every time they try the Russian military airstriked them out. Russia tactically backed out because, as several posts talk about, it became a front overhang that put Russian military forces under 3-sides of fire for no tactical or strategic advantage. Territory control in combat, especially today isn't about clinging to every inch you gain, because that's just going to cause increased losses for no real military result. There's no point.
Examples for proofs:
<The Russian army destroyed the command posts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kherson and Kupyansk
December 29, 2022
<Russian troops completely control the island of Bolshoy Potemkin near Kherson
January 5, 2023
<Ukrainian media reported on explosions in Kherson
January 6, 2023
https://ria.ru/location_Kherson/
>Guess we can end this here now
Yep

>>2676
>yet Russia can't seem to be capable of taking a small town like Bakhmut
<Lets ignore Russia taking it, evacuating the people and then leaving a strategically and tactically insignificant position and portray it like HOI4!
https://archive.ph/VXLrK

Also
- NYT - Artillery Is Breaking in Ukraine. It’s Becoming a Problem for the Pentagon. Ukrainian soldiers are firing thousands of shells daily, forcing the U.S. to replace gun barrels across the border in Poland:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-breakdown.html
Earlier: Panzerhaubitze 2000 wearing out barrels from sustained fire.

Sea-Sparrow; besides the problem of mounting a foreign system to a completely different one, the Sea Sparrow is from the 1960s and only one county operates a ground-base variant. It's a short-range AAM inferior in range and seeker compared to Buks, a system that came into service roughly 2 decades AFTER the S.Sparrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVbbLt0iViU

>>2682
So the US is doing maintenance on Ukrainian war material safely in Poland… This is not the own you think this is. Also try to keep the memes and paradox games references in the threads were they belong.

>>1322
They're all on the other side now 😔

>>2681
>If you aren't aware the majority of people that care for morality/ethics tend to be proletarian, the rich are psychopathic or sociopathic exploiters by the nature of their class
We are reaching levels of ideology not thought possible. I am actually amazed, you are not capable of comprehending the world outside moral categories.
>The concept of human rights is not bourg and your claim as such is ignorant and inhuman
I guess if you are incapable of going beyond bourgeois morality, I shouldn't be surprised that you would also defend bourgeois right to the death. Avoid reading On the Jewish Question or later Marxist criticism of rights or they might blow your mind
I like that your immediate response when disagreed with, multiple times in this thread, is to hide behind the idols of Great Men, even ones who have little to nothing in common with eachother or any relevance. Lenin next to Allende, lmao?
<what is "moral" depends on person to person
>No you absolute moron.
Wew lad. If you believe in moral universalism guess I can't stop you, best of luck during Bible study.
>An entire facet of communist appeal is that it is meant to unite the people on the grounds that there are many central parts of humanity that are universal and so almost everyone has something in common.
What in the god damn fuck are you even talking about lmao
Communism is not a vague universalism, communism is the self-liberation and self-abolition of the proletariat, it is exclusive by its very own nature. There's no vague ""the people"" involved, unless you subscribe to the pre-Marxian notions of communism of course, in which case fucking lmao
>blah blah blah proles care about nationalism
No shit. They care about religion, too. Are you religious?
The role of a Marxist is not just to appeal to whatever proles find important, but specifically to peel back the layers of illusions that obscure reality as it really is, whether it's nationalism, God, etc.

I don't even think picking apart the rest of the post(s) is even worth it, the fact is you are so entrenched in your moralistic worldview that you vehemently believe it is the correct and only way to view the world, no amount of reasoning could de-indoctrinate you from liberalism. The fact that you defend idealism while calling me an idealist is really fucking funny. Remember me 5 years from now when you start going on about 200 morbillion deaths, I see you've already taken the first step by disregarding Marx entirely.

>>2680
Also, vive Robespierre you Thermidorean bitch, considered "Bolshevik avant la lettre" by Lenin. No wonder liberals after the fact, from Carlyle to yourself would dogpile on him and recoil in shock at the Terror, they are too spineless and weak-willed to even imagine carrying through a revolution from start to finish. The guy was the definition of a liberal pacifist who would cry from the death of a pigeon, and yet he was among the only ones who realized that in a revolution they are tasks that must be carried out and leaving a revolution half-done is a death sentence.

>>2686
>>2685
Text wall, ad hom, baseless assertion and projection… yet not a single actual argument, truly amazing. Also didn't you say you were going to stop? So much for that assertion.

I'm thinking Russia and us are learning they indeed have the second best land army, just not in the world but rather in Ukraine, now the floodgates of western weapons are being forced open. I'm curious to see how their "defense in depth" strategy will hold up once Ukraine has enough armor and ifvs to launch a major offensive.