This is the beginning of the end of Putin in Ukraine

As the Ukrainian spring bloodily transitions into summer, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Generals are trying to manage a stalled, if not, failed winter offensive in the Donbas that has left as many as 75,000 Russian soldiers and Wagner Group mercenaries dead. As the Kremlin’s overall casualties continue to mount, upwards of 200,000 according to the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense, it is becoming increasingly clear we are likely seeing the beginning of the end of Putin in Ukraine – especially as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Generals draw nearer Kyiv’s much-anticipated counteroffensive.

Ukraine is a vast Texas-size country. Kyiv’s counteroffensive could come from anywhere and everywhere. Given the vast expanse of land, Russian General Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov is facing a similar pivotal task to that of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in World War II in defending Nazi-held France and Norway against an allied invasion of Europe. The ultimate outcome, like that of Normandy and Operation Overlord during the summer months of 1944 into fall, will likely dictate the outcome of Putin’s ‘special military operation.’

The question then becomes one of where, and how does Gerasimov set his defense: Donbas, Crimea, or elsewhere? Part and parcel to that question is also one of will Russian forces put up a fight, surrender, or simply lay down their arms and return to Russia? Thus far, the Russian military has not demonstrated a propensity to defend well. The nature of the battles waged in the Kherson Oblast in the fall last year may be a good indicator of future Russian battlefield performance in the defense – and influence when and where the point of Ukrainian attack.

You’re a liar, Ivan; which is par for the course for you folks.==

Look like you have lost argument so you turned to a personal attacks. SO cheap move.

and I understand English is not your language,==

Yeah maybe but my English is better than your Russian. So I have a ability to read much more sources than you. SO I know better our history.

The 1938 Munich Agreement was not an alliance.==

I guess historical actions contradict this because it allowed Germany to partition Czechoslovakia. What else truly allies can do to each other?

Germany and Russia (USSR) were allies against Poland.==

They just partitioned Poland in 1939. Similar act like with Czechoslovakia year ago. But you call Germany-USSR allies but not Germany-France/UK. It is confusing.

Russia (USSR) was making a claim for certain islands and territories that were Finnish — sound familiar, Ivan?==

Finns occupied them in 1918 when there was a civil war in Russia so Russia never agreed with that. So Soviet Union returned them back.

And you have the gall to go on and assert that since the 18th century whichever side Russia was on, won?==

Even from 17 century it was. And I talked about a coalitions in Europe or world. If Russia gets on one side than this side wins. It is a fact.

How did that work out for you guys in 1905 against Japan, Ivan? Or in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, when Russia lost and had to give up the Danube Delta and Southern Bessarabia?==

Yeah I admitted that Russia may lose some battles but she ALWAYS come back and again and again until she wins.

SO Crimean war wasn’t any benefits for France/UK coalition. But the consequences was that Russia began to help Prussia to unite Germany and helped new Germany to get strength and to win 1870 war against France. Germany won in 1870. And France lost Elzas and Lotharingia 2 provinces to Germans. It was Russia revenge for Crimean war.

So after losing 1870 war France did EVRYTHING to bring Russia on France/UK side so in WW1 Russia was NOT on a side of Germany. And Germany lost.

As I said the coalition which has Russia on her side always wins. Proved historical fact.

How did that work out for you guys in 1905 against Japan, Ivan?==

Soviet Union repaid Japan in 1945 to defeat her and took few mlns of Japan POWs and also all territorial loses of 1905 and some more. SO now Russia is satisfied with Japan.

Listen to you! You contradict yourself repeatedly.

I lost no argument. I said you are a liar because you are.

You erroneously claim that the 1938 Munich Agreement was an alliance among Germany, Britain, and France. It was no such thing. The facts simply do not support you.

Then you ludicrously claim that Germany and Russia were not allies in September, 1939. Yet, they agreed to invade and divide Poland between them! Sounds like an alliance to any sentient being, which excludes you.

As for the Finnish conflict, the islands and territories that Russia coveted were Finnish, and were recognized as Finnish by the international community. That is why Russia (USSR) was kicked out of the league of Nations when it invaded Finland in 1939.

Then you embarrass yourself and do Russia no favors by saying that since the 18th century Russia could NOT win a war UNLESS it was part of a coalition. In other words, Russia was wholly incapable of any kind of military victory by itself, and had to rely on others to effect a win. Your handlers will not be happy with you for that one, Ivan.

You go on to concede that Russia may lose some battles but always in the end won the wars. How, pray, did Russia win the Russo-Japanese War of 1905? How did Russia win the Crimean War of 1853-1856? The simple fact is, it didn’t.

And then, incredibly, you trot out that Russia defeated Japan in 1945! You guys declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, After Japan was all but beaten and the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the day before the Nagasaki atomic bomb was dropped. So typical of you guys: You show up after the fact and then have the audacity to claim you won!

And you wonder why the world has such contempt for Russia?

You say that France/UK wasn’t allies of Germany but let her to partition Czechoslovakia. At least Poland was ally of Hitler then? Poland took the piece of Czechoslovakia too.

As for the Finnish conflict, the islands and territories that Russia coveted were Finnish, and were recognized as Finnish by the international community.==

SO international community covered up finish occupation of Russian land which they took in 1918.

saying that since the 18th century Russia could NOT win a war UNLESS it was part of a coalition.==

No I said differently. I said the coalition which had Russia always won but other coalition which didn’t have Russia always lost. It is a fact.

You go on to concede that Russia may lose some battles but always in the end won the wars. ==

And always Russia gets back all what was stolen from her. Eventually.

You guys declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, After Japan was all but beaten and the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the day before the Nagasaki atomic bomb was dropped. ==

But still Japanese fought in Sakhalin and Manchuria. And Roosevelt specially asked Stalin to enter to Pacific war on Yalta conference.

Roosevelt wanted the Soviets to enter the Pacific War against Japan with the Allies, which he hoped would end the war sooner and reduce American casualties.===
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

Looks like Roosevelt disagreed with you. He doesn’t think that Japan was so easy defeated as you say.

And you wonder why the world has such contempt for Russia?==

What world? West isn’t whole world. And secondly a lot of stupid people live in West countries.

I conclude by just comparing american SAT tasks of 2023 say math tasks with Russia SAT(called USE) math tasks. American math tasks I solve in mind without any writing on paper. But with Russian tasks no such easy.

So any Russian student will easy solve American SAT. But NOT vise versa.

“You say that France/UK wasn’t allies of Germany but let her to partition Czechoslovakia.”

That’s not an alliance.

“SO international community covered up finish occupation of Russian land which they took in 1918.”

Finland became independent in 1918 after the collapse of the Russian Empire. Then there was a civil war between the Red Finns (pro-Soviet) and the White Finns (anti-Soviet), which the White Finns won. Get over it, Ivan: You lost.

“No I said differently. I said the coalition which had Russia always won but other coalition which didn’t have Russia always lost. It is a fact.”

No, it’s not a fact. History is filled with examples that prove you are wrong. Israel alone proves you wrong, as it defeated Russian-supported enemies TWICE within a six year period: 1967 and 1973. And when Soviet premier Brezhnev threatened to intervene on behalf of its ally Egypt (which had been getting its ass kicked by the Israelis) the US began a massive airlift of arms and materiel to Israel and US forces went on alert (I remember that well, because I was in the USAF at the time). The Soviets backed down.

Russia (USSR) was not part of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991; in fact (Russia (USSR) was Iraq’s main supplier of weaponry. And, somehow, that coalition won a decisive military victory without Russia. How could that be, after what you have claimed?

“And always Russia gets back all what was stolen from her. Eventually.”

Dream on, Ivan.

“But still Japanese fought in Sakhalin and Manchuria. And Roosevelt specially asked Stalin to enter to Pacific war on Yalta conference.”

And Stalin refused! He waited until we had nuked Japan and Japan was on the verge of collapse, and then, after the fact, shows up to claim credit! So typical of Russia.

“Looks like Roosevelt disagreed with you. He doesn’t think that Japan was so easy defeated as you say.”

Nice try, Ivan. Both the US victories at Iwo Jima and Okinawa — both Japanese home islands — occurred AFTER Yalta, as did the development of the atomic bomb. Indeed, the victory at Okinawa and the development of the atomic bomb occurred after Roosvelt had died.

As for the contempt the world has for Russia: It is because Russia is known and recognized to be duplicitous, a liar and a cheat, and wholly untrustworthy.

You go on to say that there are a lot of stupid people in the West. No joke, Ivan; just as there are a lot of stupid people worldwide, and that INCLUDES Russia! So, your comment is meaningless.

Dream on, Ivan.==

You should know that “Ivan” means “God Gracious or God Merciful”. When you call me that it looks like to pray to me which I’m not completely against but still it is too much for me. If you want call me by name then just better use “Vladimir” like Putin. It means “Owner of World” but least it isn’t God.

“No I said differently. I said the coalition which had Russia always won but other coalition which didn’t have Russia always lost. It is a fact.”

No, it’s not a fact. History is filled with examples that prove you are wrong.===

Oh c’mon I’ve thought you are smart. When I told that a coalition having Russia won but other lost. I meant in a war vis-à-vis between 2 coalitions. One which have Russia will defeat one which have not.

And a coalition meant that one when all countries of it participated in a war. In your examples with Israel or Iraq Russia/USSR did NOT participate at any fights.

I hope you understand now.

P.S. Better don’t use phases or names which you don’t know how to use properly or you just show yourself a comedian.

“You should know that ‘Ivan’ means ‘God Gracious or God Merciful’. When you call me that it looks like to pray to me which I’m not completely against but still it is too much for me. If you want call me by name then just better use ‘Vladimir’ like Putin. It means ‘Owner of World’ but least it isn’t God.”

Ivan is the Russian equivalent of John. And John means “God is gracious.” It doesn’t mean John is God.

“When I told that a coalition having Russia won but other lost. I meant in a war vis-à-vis between 2 coalitions.”

That’s not what you said.

“And a coalition meant that one when all countries of it participated in a war. In your examples with Israel or Iraq Russia/USSR did NOT participate at any fights.”

Too funny! You guys claim that in the current war Russia is fighting a coalition of western nations (NATO) aligned against it.

So, how can you say in one breath that there is no coalition unless all members of the coalition are actually fighting, but in the next breath claim that Russia is fighting a western coalition (NATO) in Ukraine?

that Russia is fighting a western coalition (NATO), but in the next breath claim that it is not a coalition unless all parties in the coalition are actually fighting?

“P.S. Better don’t use phases or names which you don’t know how to use properly or you just show yourself a comedian.”

Better learn how to argue logically instead of emotionally. You are laughable.

Give it up, Ivan; lest you embarrass yourself and your country more than you already have.

Oh, BTW: How is the vaunted Admiral Kuznetsov doing? Still smoking? Still relying on tugboats for propulsion? And Russia has how many carriers? Oh, just that one? Some fleet!

You should think twice before you ridicule other countries, especially their militaries.

For NATO this war is a proxy war that is what it meant. They are not involved by their armies. Same thing was Arabo-Israeli wars. For USSR they were a proxy wars.

But again if there was a fighting coalition including Russia/USSR (like WW1 or WW2) this coalition wins. Opposite coalition loses. Even if USSR changed sides in ww2 the victory also changed from one side to other.

And Russia has how many carriers? Oh, just that one? Some fleet!==

Big fleet is need the one who wants dominate the world. Russia don’t want it. She just want to keep hers, return stolen form her and defend herself against anybody.

Second thought. Why one needs aircarrier if she can’t get close to a shore because antiship missiles have twice bigger range than her airplanes?

“But again if there was a fighting coalition including Russia/USSR (like WW1 or WW2) this coalition wins.”

Too funny! Russia was knocked out of WWI early, so its “contribution” was little more than giving the Germans target practice and entertainment.

“Opposite coalition loses.”

You’ve already been proved wrong on that.

If Russia was such a “team player” in WWII why did it sign a neutrality pact with Imperial Japan in April, 1941, in which it agreed to intern any allied forces that ended up in Russia? Oh, right: At the time Russia was an ally of Nazi Germany and, arguably, Imperial Japan. Even when, two months later, Germany attacked Russia, Russia still maintained its relations and agreements with Japan, even AFTER Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. Russia in fact interned US airmen who had to make an emergency landing in Russia after bombing Japan in the Doolittle raid of April, 1942. Those airmen were interred by Russia for a year before they escaped.

“Big fleet is need the one who wants dominate the world. Russia don’t want it. She just want to keep hers, return stolen form her and defend herself against anybody.”

Bullcrap, Ivan. If that were the case, why has Russia allied with Communist China, which has a DEFINITE desire to dominate the world, and has a larger navy than the US? Because Russia wants to be a partner with China for world domination.

“Second thought. Why one needs aircarrier if she can’t get close to a shore because antiship missiles have twice bigger range than her airplanes?”

In your dreams, Ivan.

“Second thought. Why one needs aircarrier if she can’t get close to a shore because antiship missiles have twice bigger range than her airplanes?”

In your dreams, Ivan.===

Think about it. Say aircarrier approaches a shore of hostile country. But long before her aircraft may reach a shore the antiship missiles start from shore and get to aircarrier. And sink her.

Why that? Because antiship missile don’t need to return home. So its missile range is twice big as of airplane based on carrier which make aircarrier useless against strong country with advanced antiship missiles. Aircarrier just gets under strike from shore long before she can strike back. She can harass some weak country like Somalia but that is it.

“Think about it. Say aircarrier approaches a shore of hostile country. But long before her aircraft may reach a shore the antiship missiles start from shore and get to aircarrier. And sink her.”

ASMs have a range of about 65-70 miles; LRASMs with sensors can go up to 350 miles, and those without sensors can go up to about 450 - 500 miles. LSARMs without sensors are not accurate. An FA-18 has a range of 1250 miles, so it can launch from a carrier 600 miles offshore and take out the AS battery without the carrier ever coming under threat by that battery.

You will lose the war you so fervently lust after.

An FA-18 has a range of 1250 miles, so it can launch from a carrier 600 miles offshore and take out the AS battery without the carrier ever coming under threat by that battery.==

You definitely not thinking on what I said. Just follow the thought.
Any aircraft needs to come back home so it simply can NOT carry same amount of fuel as AS missile which flies only one way. So any ways with any other conditions are same any AS missile will have twice range comparing with any aircraft. It is just physics.
So it means that carrier always will get under fire of ASes long BEFORE its aircraft may reach AS battery.
And BTW most common Russian AS Kalibr which can be installed even on a small cutter or submarine has a range 1,600 miles but FA-18 just 600(you said). So you see a math? And I didn’t even talk about a cost effectiveness of all these yet))).

“You definitely not thinking on what I said. Just follow the thought. Any aircraft needs to come back home so it simply can NOT carry same amount of fuel as AS missile which flies only one way.”

And you claim you are smarter than Westerners, and can do calculus in your head without any effort? You’re a fraud, Ivan. You said ANY aircraft can NOT carry the same amount of fuel as an AS missile. For one thing, fuel itself is not the issue; it is fuel CONSUMPTION that matters. Do you have any idea how stupid your remark is? Hell, just US fighters alone blow your argument out of the water: F-35...1,350 miles; F-22...1,864 miles; FA-18...2,069 miles; F-15...2,300 miles; F-16...2,622 miles. Fully armed the distances would be shorter, obviously. But these numbers are the ranges without refueling; and, of course, they can be refueled in flight.

The AS missile has a range of, at most, 500 miles, and that is without the sensors needed for an accurate strike. Do the math, idiot: Even the shortest range aircraft, the F-35, has more than enough to hit a target 500 miles away and return without having to refuel. Your one-way AS missile will drop into the sea after, at most, 500 miles. Even the F-35 ONE WAY has more range than your AS missile.

“It is just physics.”

You know nothing about physics. No wonder you guys can’t design and build a competent aircraft carrier.

“So it means that carrier always will get under fire of ASes long BEFORE its aircraft may reach AS battery.”

My God, but you are dense. If the AS missile has a maximum range of 500 miles, and the carrier is 600 miles away, that AS missile will fall into the sea 100 miles short of its target. But the aircraft that took off from that carrier, even fully loaded, could hit the AS battery and return with gas to spare.

“And BTW most common Russian AS Kalibr which can be installed even on a small cutter or submarine has a range 1,600 miles but FA-18 just 600(you said). So you see a math?”

Yeah; but you don’t.

For your reading pleasure, Ivan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)

Not a ONE of the Kalibr missiles in service has a range of 1600 miles. Longer range missiles are in development, but that does not mean they have been developed or perfected. Your carrier the Admiral Kutzsenov was under development at one time, too: How did that work out, Ivan?

You said ANY aircraft can NOT carry the same amount of fuel as an AS missile. For one thing, fuel itself is not the issue; it is fuel CONSUMPTION that matters. ==

You again didn’t understand or just distort what I said. I said if any other conditions are SAME. It means if also fuel consumption is same. With these conditions obviously any AS missile has twice bigger range because it is not need to return home.

And you claim you are smarter than Westerners, and can do calculus in your head without any effort? ==

I said the math task which westerners give their students much easier then Russian students solve. And I did NOT say I’m smarter - it is just YOUR conclusion and your words not mine))). Funny that you came to such conclusion.

Not a ONE of the Kalibr missiles in service has a range of 1600 miles.==

You so pompous and overlooking. But I said AS(antiship!) Kaliber have 1,600 miles range.

“...3M14K (SS-N-30A) An inertial guidance land attack variant deployed by the Russian Navy. The submarine-launched weapon has a basic length of 6.2 m (20 ft), with a 450 kg (990 lb) warhead. Its range is 2,500 km (1,600 mi), allowing the Russian Navy to strike targets throughout Central/Western Europe from beyond the GIUK gap. Its subsonic terminal speed is Mach 0.8....” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)

“You again didn’t understand or just distort what I said. I said if any other conditions are SAME. It means if also fuel consumption is same. It means if also fuel consumption is same. With these conditions obviously any AS missile has twice bigger range because it is not need to return home.”

Nice try, Ivan. AS missiles use jet engines for propulsion, as do jet aircraft. Because AS missiles are much smaller and much lighter their fuel requirements are much less than a modern jet aircraft; moreover, an AS missile’s engine is very basic compared to an aircraft’s jet engine (which is a no-brainer, because the AS missile only flies once; and, in this comparison, the AS missile requires far less fuel to function than a jet aircraft does). A jet aircraft would probably not even get airborne with an AS engine.

An FA-18, for example, has a gross weight of 47,000 pounds, and a maximum take-off weight of 66,000 pounds. An AS missile has a fraction of that weight.

So, your premise is nonsensical.

Here, for your reading pleasure:

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - Wikipedia

Anti-ship missile - Wikipedia

“I said the math task which westerners give their students much easier then Russian students solve. And I did NOT say I’m smarter - it is just YOUR conclusion and your words not mine))). Funny that you came to such conclusion.”

You’re a liar, Ivan. Which is typical of your breed.

You said, in your post #148: “I conclude by just comparing american SAT tasks of 2023 say math tasks with Russia SAT(called USE) math tasks. American math tasks I solve in mind without any writing on paper. But with Russian tasks no such easy. So any Russian student will easy solve American SAT. But NOT vise versa.”

“You so pompous and overlooking. But I said AS(antiship!) Kaliber have 1,600 miles range.”

Nice try, Ivan. You premised your entire argument on a shore-based AS missile battery. Now you are changing the dynamic and saying a SUBMARINE-launched AS missile, which is an entirely different animal.

You are a typical Russian: Deceitful; untrustworthy; insecure; and paranoid.

Give it up, Ivan; you will never win. And neither will Russia, at least until it throws off the characteristics you so clearly exhibit. Oh, Russia may beat up on a smaller and weaker neighbor; but it will run like a rabbit if anyone of substance stands up to it and calls its bluff.

I’m done with you, Ivan. You are not even a worthy opponent in a debate.

Hey, wait a minute! Are you even a real person? Or are you some Russian-programmed bot using Babbel?

Nice try, Ivan. ==

Stop praying to me. C’mon I’m not Ivan(a God).

You premised your entire argument on a shore-based AS missile battery. Now you are changing the dynamic and saying a SUBMARINE-launched AS missile, which is an entirely different animal.==

Oh man. You indeed proved yourself stupid. All Kaliber missiles are all same in core just may be little changes in versions. SO it doesn’t matter is it shore-based or submarine based or air-plane based they all are similar in range no matter what Wiki says.

A jet aircraft would probably not even get airborne with an AS engine.==

Oh stupidity. You definitely don’t understand a phrase “if all other conditions are same”.

Seems you flanked math in school or your post school education if you had any. “If all other conditions are same” is just a pretext statement which establishes the limitations of examination of researched items to make possible a comparison between otherwise noncomparable items which you compare just by ONE feature(in our case the range).

Very often it is used in the math proves.

Ok I see. You probably just have American high school education in math and given the SAT math tasks which I saw you are intellectually somewhere equal of Russian 7-8 grader. You should better yourself boy))).

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.