July 01, 2025
Russian Mass Invasion
Timothy Birdnow
Russia has deployed 50,000 troops near the town of Sumy, just a few dozen miles from Donetsk.
The Russian strategy of war by attrition has seen a sytematic nibbling away at the Ukrainians position since the beginning of the year, having expelled the Ukrainians who invaded Russian territory.
Tthe Russians outnumber the Ukrainians 3 to 1 in most battles, plus have more weapons on any given field.
One Ukrainian commander said this:
We know what happens when you outnumber the enemy and can absorb casualties; the enemy loses. Stalin used this same tactic during WWII. During the American Civil War the Union used this tactic, with Lincoln demanding long casualty lists. He kept firing generals who weren't willing to see a bloodbath. Eventually he got Grant and Sherman. Grant at least demanded daily casualty lists. He understood attrition. The Japanese lost in WWII to Americans because, while better fighters than the American G.I.'s, there just weren't enough of them.
So the Russian strategy is sound. Russia has the manpower. Russia also has the raw resources - oil, gas, food, etc. Tthe Ukrainians just can't replace what they lose; their only hope is for outside intervention, an intervention that isn't going to come because despite their sabre rattling the Europeans won't dare muss a hair on the heads of their own. They want the U.S. to do it but we have no national interest and if we did we dare not risk nuclear war.
Eventually Ukraine will fall. Eventually her people will become so exhausted they beg for peace. Eventually this bloodbath will end.
It's too bad; it could have been ended diplomatically long ago. Now everyone is hardened and they refuse to negotiate peace. If Biden had been any sort of leader he would have prevented this from happening.
Now it's going to have to grind it's way to a final, unhappy conclusion.
Russia has deployed 50,000 troops near the town of Sumy, just a few dozen miles from Donetsk.
The Russian strategy of war by attrition has seen a sytematic nibbling away at the Ukrainians position since the beginning of the year, having expelled the Ukrainians who invaded Russian territory.
Tthe Russians outnumber the Ukrainians 3 to 1 in most battles, plus have more weapons on any given field.
One Ukrainian commander said this:
"The enemy is losing 300 to 400 people per day across the region, but they can deal with that level of casualties…They keep bringing in reserves.
We know what happens when you outnumber the enemy and can absorb casualties; the enemy loses. Stalin used this same tactic during WWII. During the American Civil War the Union used this tactic, with Lincoln demanding long casualty lists. He kept firing generals who weren't willing to see a bloodbath. Eventually he got Grant and Sherman. Grant at least demanded daily casualty lists. He understood attrition. The Japanese lost in WWII to Americans because, while better fighters than the American G.I.'s, there just weren't enough of them.
So the Russian strategy is sound. Russia has the manpower. Russia also has the raw resources - oil, gas, food, etc. Tthe Ukrainians just can't replace what they lose; their only hope is for outside intervention, an intervention that isn't going to come because despite their sabre rattling the Europeans won't dare muss a hair on the heads of their own. They want the U.S. to do it but we have no national interest and if we did we dare not risk nuclear war.
Eventually Ukraine will fall. Eventually her people will become so exhausted they beg for peace. Eventually this bloodbath will end.
It's too bad; it could have been ended diplomatically long ago. Now everyone is hardened and they refuse to negotiate peace. If Biden had been any sort of leader he would have prevented this from happening.
Now it's going to have to grind it's way to a final, unhappy conclusion.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:16 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.
1
"The Japanese lost in WWII to Americans because, while better fighters
than the American G.I.'s, there just weren't enough of them." Sorry, read your history books. On every Pacific Island, Japanese dead outnumbered American dead Marines by 4:1 or more. "Better fighters?" Not even close. "Not enough of them?" Off by a factor of at least four and often eight or more.
Posted by: Bill H at July 01, 2025 11:21 PM (FRG6e)
2
Bill, everyone I've spoken with who actually were there agreed with my statement that the Japanese were better as individual fighters. WE had superior weaponry and rarely came to grips with the main body of the Japanese military. That was, in fact, what Island hopping was all about - just skip over the defended places and leave the Japanese soldiers waiting for an attack that would never come.
I'm not denigrating the bravery of the Americans, or our commitment. I'm just saying the Japenese soldiers had mostly been trained longer and more exhaustively, and came out of a warrior culture, and were much more eager to die than the Americans. And, of course, we accomodated that desire....
I'm not denigrating the bravery of the Americans, or our commitment. I'm just saying the Japenese soldiers had mostly been trained longer and more exhaustively, and came out of a warrior culture, and were much more eager to die than the Americans. And, of course, we accomodated that desire....
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 02, 2025 07:45 AM (sfAcC)
3
A "bansai" charge into the face of a heavily defended position in the face of withering defensive fire, getting killed in droves without even firing a shot, mat be brave but it is not a "better fighter." Having to be dug out of caves with the use of flame throwers is not a "better fighter." These were the tactics that US Marines had to use on every single Pacific island. You can keep claiming that Japanese were better fighters until you are blue in the face. You weren't there. My brothers-in-arms were and until I can meet the lying sacks of shit that are telling you the Japanese were "better fighters," I will stand with the Marines with whom I served.
Posted by: Bill H at July 02, 2025 08:09 AM (FRG6e)
4
I won't argue with you guys, only add this for what it's worth, and you be the judge of it, Bill.
I heard, from an uncle who was NOT in the war, that while the Americans did their best to kill the Japanese soldiers, the Japanese tactics were to attempt to cripple, rather than kill, the Americans, because seriously wounding them removed more than one soldier from battle, what with the medical staff involved, etc.
I have never seen this verified in any of the war books in my possession and would not want to bet a bottle of Suntory whisky on its veracity. What do you think? Considering that when you are shooting at an enemy soldier, you generally are not taking pains to aim at a specific non-fatal area of the body, I think the theory was probably ginned up by somebody like my uncle, who (for reasons I won't go into) could never have been accepted into the Army.
I heard, from an uncle who was NOT in the war, that while the Americans did their best to kill the Japanese soldiers, the Japanese tactics were to attempt to cripple, rather than kill, the Americans, because seriously wounding them removed more than one soldier from battle, what with the medical staff involved, etc.
I have never seen this verified in any of the war books in my possession and would not want to bet a bottle of Suntory whisky on its veracity. What do you think? Considering that when you are shooting at an enemy soldier, you generally are not taking pains to aim at a specific non-fatal area of the body, I think the theory was probably ginned up by somebody like my uncle, who (for reasons I won't go into) could never have been accepted into the Army.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 02, 2025 11:53 PM (HDwJ2)
25kb generated in CPU 0.0099, elapsed 0.2914 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2849 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2849 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
