Replies

Bro "it was nearly four years from the Soviet failures in Finland, 1939, to their successes against the Wehrmacht in 1943."

The thing is that you forge that the 4 years is broken up into 3 periods

Alliance with Nazi germany (1939-1941) - complacency
Losses to Nazi germany (1941-1943) = they lost ehavily and only survived because of help from the USA
Wins against nazi germany = this was because Germany's logistics and supply failed and US support. I don't see much change in Russian tactics or strategy

Today there has not been enough time or supply or will for Russians to change

Bro "First, I highly doubt if Russia has lost all its smart people, and second, even if they did, the Xi-snake has millions he could easily loan to Russia, at a "reasonable" price.:

First -- yes, not "all", however the ones remaining are still hamstrung by Putin's corruption and oligarchy
"Xi lending" - he has zero incentive to do so

Bro "new pipe lines etc." - and those take time and materials - Russia doesn't have the know-how or skills or capability to make much of the transportation stuff

Bro "Still at a higher price than before he invaded" -- not quite, the net profit he makes is lower than what the Russian budget demands

Bro "prewar military is committed in Ukraine" - the UK says 97%, you say less than 30% -- yet all the indications: such as the fact that border troops in Kaliningrad, on the border with Finland and Mongolia and Russia have been reduced, that the Far East brigades have been moved to ukraine and that there was an attempted partial mobilization indicates that it is closer to the 90%

Bro - "just because we haven't seen the reserves" -- actually we have - as I said above, Russia has been moving troops from other places to the battlegrounds and that is clea that the Russians have no reserve - they're gone

Cronos: " Alliance with Nazi germany (1939-1941) - complacency "

The Hitler-Stalin pact was signed in late August, 1939.
One week later Hitler invaded Poland, and that campaign was over in early October.

When Stalin invaded Finland in November, 1939, his forces massively outnumbered the Fins in troops, tanks, aircraft and other equipment.
And yet, the Fins out-fought the Soviets, inflicting five to one casualties on them, for three months before accepting a truce.

The army Stalin used to invade Finland was the one left after Stalin's massive purges of the late 1930s.
It was not "complacent", but did have largely new leadership.

Cronos: "Losses to Nazi germany (1941-1943) = they lost ehavily and only survived because of help from the USA "

Well, first, the U.S. sent almost no aid to Stalin in 1941, and relatively little in 1942, so U.S. aid was not the critical factor at Moscow in 1941, or even Stalingrad in 1942.
The fact is, Stalin beat Hitler there because he, Stalin, was the better military leader.

Cronos: " Wins against nazi germany = this was because Germany's logistics and supply failed and US support.
I don't see much change in Russian tactics or strategy "

Nazi leadership (Hitler) failed in every aspect, not just in logistics.

Strategically, Hitler focused on conquest of territory rather than on defeating Soviet leadership by first taking Moscow and Leningrad.
Tactically, in defense, Hitler focused on holding ground rather than on protecting his forces.
German intelligence was woefully lacking even accurate maps of Soviet roads, much less information on weapons like the T-34 tank.
German intelligence continued to advise Hitler that Soviets had run out of manpower and equipment, when in fact Stalin was simply bringing up new reserves.
German industry was never brought up to full wartime production until the war's final years.
Under Nazi leadership, German industry continued to focus on quality over quantity, building, for example, massively expensive Tiger tanks that were too heavy for battlefield roads and bridges.
Hitler devoted huge resources to building static defenses like the Atlantic Wall, which proved useless, while failing to support battlefield fortifications that proved highly effective when used.
If German defeat could be reduced to one short word that can explain everything, that word is OIL.
Hitler needed it, he didn't have have it and could never figure out ways to get enough for highly mechanized forces.

In all of these matters Stalin's Soviets outsmarted and out-fought Hitler's Nazis.

Cronos: " Today there has not been enough time or supply or will for Russians to change "

Right, not enough time, yet.

Cronos: " First -- yes, not "all", however the ones remaining are still hamstrung by Putin's corruption and oligarchy
"Xi lending" - he has zero incentive to do so "

Oh, I'd think Xi would have every incentive to turn Vlad the Invader into another client like North Korean Little Kim.
My point is that "smart people" are not a scarce resource in China.
And if Xi decides to keep his "smart people" in China, he could use them to build & sell whatever Vlad needs.
So I can't see a supposed lack of "smart people" being a major problem for Vlad the Invader.

Cronos: " 'new pipe lines etc.' - and those take time and materials - Russia doesn't have the know-how or skills or capability to make much of the transportation stuff "

First, I don't believe it and, second, even if true, such skills can be hired from many places, I'd think.

Cronos: " Still at a higher price than before he invaded" -- not quite, the net profit he makes is lower than what the Russian budget demands "

And that budget is controlled by whom?
Oh, right, by Vlad the Invader, so it says exactly what Vlad wants it to say, right?
Obviously, what matters is if Russia earns enough income to support it's war effort.
In this regard, let me suggest Vlad's big 40% discount on oil is not without strings attached, chief among them cementing Vlad's good relations with the Xi-snake, India's Murmu and others. These good relations can translate, now or later, into support for Vlad's war.

Cronos: "...that border troops in Kaliningrad, on the border with Finland and Mongolia and Russia have been reduced, that the Far East brigades have been moved to ukraine and that there was an attempted partial mobilization indicates that it is closer to the 90%."

First, I'd suspect those units are being cycled through Ukraine, just as we did with our units in Iraq & Afghanistan, not permanently withdrawn.
In due time they will return, though not necessarily to the same station as before.

Second, to repeat the obvious, on all of these matters I do sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong, but I'd not believe such rosy scenarios until I had scrutinized them with the highest powered magnifying glass.