Posted on 05/07/2022 4:43:51 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said that a number of Russian generals and leading figures were "turning in on themselves" as they seek to avoid becoming fall guys for Putin's stuttering invasion.
Russian generals are reportedly “turning in on themselves” as the war in Ukraine continues to go not to plan in an effort to escape Putin’s wrath.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said that Putin’s senior military brass were scrambling to dodge blame for the stuttering invasion.
He said they were blaming one another for the “disaster” of the war so far, and lived in terror of being purged if the “quagmire” turned into a retreat for the Kremlin’s forces, the Times reports.
Wallace said that military chiefs in the general staff were already scapegoats for Putin’s botched invasion.
He added: "Those in the military system were “always terrified they are about to be purged and pushed out."
Wallace made the comments whilst in Finland to observe a military exercise with British troops and tanks.
He also said that the generals were getting closer and closer to the frontline in an effort to try and “sort out this quagmire that they’re in”.
He said: “They do it by shouting and screaming at people but it tends not to get the best result.”
Most recently, reports said that General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian general staff, had recently headed to the frontline in a highly unusual move.
According to a Russian news outlet, the 66-year-old general was injured by shrapnel during fighting in Izyum, eastern Ukraine and had to be evacuated.
-snip-
When Ben Wallace was asked if Gerasimov was being sent out as a “fall guy” the cabinet minister warned: “They’re all in fall guy territory.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
“Look I ain’t your Google boy, you made the assertion so it’s up to you to provide the evidence.”
And I did. Those sources identify a bunch of them.
When did I say that?
“When did I say that?”
Don’t you recognize a question when it is right in front of you? I asked you a question; I did not make a declarative statement.
So, answer the question: Are you saying that Russia does not engage in propaganda? Simple question, because you have been silent on the matter of Russian propaganda.
The Wagner group may be scum too, but I hardly think they are Neo-Nazis considering they are Russians who obviously hate the Nazis. But the US isn’t supporting the Wagner Group with billions in arms and military training like we are with Azov, which is a big difference. My perspective is that of an American whose country is being dragged into this mess against my wishes, and probably the wishes of the majority of other Americans. And it’s OUR TAX DOLLARS supporting these scumbags, Putin’s relationship with the Wagner Group is not my concern.
What evidence do you want, just let me know and I will gladly provide it.
As Scott Adams has taught us - beginning a sentence with "So" is a tell for cognitive dissonance.
It means that you're imputing something to your opponent that you just made up in your mind.
In this instance, "So are you saying that Russia does not engage in propaganda?" is addressing an issue which I never raised - Russian propaganda.
The most used form of the "so" tell is "So you are saying...".
another pro tip: don't take the advice of Scott Adams on women and relationships.
You provide nothing other than to tell me to google it up, I have no intention of sorting through google for you. Provide a direct link or admit you have little or no evidence. I’ve never claimed Russia hasn’t engaged in propaganda, but rather there seems to be very little of it compared to the West’s propaganda. Putin’s propaganda seems to be only directed domestically to the Russian people, whereas the West’s is directed everywhere.
“The Wagner group may be scum too, but I hardly think they are Neo-Nazis considering they are Russians who obviously hate the Nazis.”
Read up on them.
“But the US isn’t supporting the Wagner Group with billions in arms and military training like we are with Azov, which is a big difference.”
We are sending AZOV BILLIONS in arms and military training?” Talk about propaganda! Show me your source on that, Sparky.
We’ve sent UKRAINE billions. But, that’s not what you said, is it. You specifically said we sent AZOV billions. Source, please.
“My perspective is that of an American whose country is being dragged into this mess against my wishes, and probably the wishes of the majority of other Americans.”
Yeah, well so am I. That’s why I question information from all sides; apparently, unlike you (just Western sources, eh?).
“And it’s OUR TAX DOLLARS supporting these scumbags...”
Well, there are scumbags and then there are scumbags. My issue is with a bully nation invading a smaller and weaker neighbor that posed no threat. I have no problem arming that smaller and weaker neighbor because they pose no threat to us, either; but Russia does. But I do not support putting American boots on the ground in Ukraine or American helmets in the air above Ukraine.
“Putin’s relationship with the Wagner Group is not my concern.”
Maybe it should be. Because he uses them all over the globe.
We’ve sent UKRAINE billions. But, that’s not what you said, is it. You specifically said we sent AZOV billions. Source, please.
This is a disingenuous argument, ought-six.
Azov is a beneficiary of US military aid. They don't break it out by the name of the military unit.
Who is Scott Adams?
In any event, beginning a sentence with “So” has been around for decades, at least (I’m in my 70s, and I’ve heard it ever since I was a little kid). Maybe it’s just a colloquialism that has become so common that it isn’t even noticeable.
Maybe it’s like something that is so common that no one cares about it, except for the handful who do.
Well obviously the billions are going to Ukraine and not exclusively to Azov, the point is we have been directly supporting Azov with military support and training.
Tell Putin to go home.
“This is a disingenuous argument, ought-six.”
No, it’s not. He was quite specific.
“Azov is a beneficiary of US military aid. They don’t break it out by the name of the military unit.”
But HE did. And that is what I am challenging.
“Well obviously the billions are going to Ukraine and not exclusively to Azov...”
Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
“...the point is we have been directly supporting Azov with military support and training.”
I suspect we provide it directly to Ukraine, and Ukraine determines how it is divvied up. But, I am not privy to those arrangements, so I can only surmise. Same as you.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the Tsar Bomba in 1961, by the Soviets, at 50 Megatons (MT). Theoretically, they could have doubled it to 100 MT, but did not test that version.
There is no more Tsar Bomba. Making another would violate numerous nuclear arms treaties.
The largest nuke the Russians have currently ready for delivery is 10 MT.
That may be, but Putin’s spokesman is quoted here as saying up to 100 megatons.
“There’s no way of stopping this underwater drone. The warhead on it has a yield of up to 100 megatonnes.”
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/vladimir-putins-ireland-nuclear-threat-26855413
And the USA stopped all biological warfare research because it would violate some treaties.
And Bruce Jenner could never transition cause that would violate his Wheaties
Nuclear weapons are expensive, not just to build, but to maintain.
The reason the Soviets built only ONE Tsar Bomba is that it cost a megaton (pun intended).
The other reason, and this is important, and something I know from serving six years in ADCOM and 7 years in SAC; is it is not even necessary.
Since the 1960s, both American and Soviet/Russian warheads have gotten smaller as their accuracy and precision of delivery has increased. You need a huge bomb to take out a military target if you’re only accurate to a couple thousand feet, but as accuracy achieves a tighter target, the higher price for a bigger bomb becomes a detriment to building them in large numbers.
In other words, smaller, more accurate missiles is where everyone went in the decades that followed.
They don’t have 100 MT weapons, it’s just braggadocio.
But I do have a serious question for you: Would Russian nuclear weapons even work? They actually require a tremendous amount of periodic (almost constant) maintenance to keep them viable and a lot of money is required to do that. In the meantime, it’s not like they’re being used.
Suppose the officers in charge skimmed off some of those Rubles in order to extend the new Dacha or buy that Mercedes? If they couldn’t even keep the armored tires from going flat, perhaps the nukes will just fizzle on the launch pad.
See here for free armored vehicle: and, as bonus, watch UA grads firing in background.
https://twitter.com/jmvasquez1974?lang=en
Not a good time to be a Russian General or any other Russian soldier.
—
UA soldiers not fairing any better, loss ration 1:1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.