But Simplicius tells me that the Russians are on the march and Ukraine will fall at any moment. Attrition is a great strategy. Ukies die and Russia never suffers any casualties somehow into the face of established defenses.
"This final vector is not only the most realistic, most probable, but also my personal choice as the most likely to be chosen."
"Retake everything that was lost in the AFU’s September AFU Kharkov counter-offensive. Then surround/siege/possibly capture Kharkov, but more notably, push deeper south toward Poltava and cut Donbass off from the north."
A protracted slavgrinder eliminates brave patriots who could be a potential problem for the corrupt ruling elites while it simultaneously fattens their creepy deep pockets. Talk about killing two birds with one stone.
Much appreciated the numbers and the graphics. However, being the layman I am, it is not clear to me at all that correlation of forces is what matters in any major war; not any longer. These dron/satellite/tecnology based modern wars seem to depend much, much less on troops and/or artillery (what's usually called "forces") than they previously did. If I am to believe some presumedly realistic analyzers and critics (i.e., neither NATO fanboys nor ZAnon enthusiasts, but rather the so-called Russian patriots), it seems Ukraine has the upper hand in technology (West-provided, of course), which allows (or has allowed for months) the UAF to present a tough resistance along the frontlines despite having/spending a fraction of the resources the Russian army does. Ahd regardless of whether that is true or not, the principle behind it makes perfect sense to me: same as, in certain jobs, a worker with a computer is capable of doing one hundred times the task of those with an abacus, it seems pretty logical that an army with a superior intel/tecnology may achieve twice or ten times as much as the army with the same troops but without that superiority.
What I'm trying to say with this is, I'm no longer sure that recuit numbers are decissive, or even relevant, unless there's a huge difference between both armies.
But Simplicius tells me that the Russians are on the march and Ukraine will fall at any moment. Attrition is a great strategy. Ukies die and Russia never suffers any casualties somehow into the face of established defenses.
I see that he has an amazing track record, February, 2023:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-coming-russian-offensive-part
"This final vector is not only the most realistic, most probable, but also my personal choice as the most likely to be chosen."
"Retake everything that was lost in the AFU’s September AFU Kharkov counter-offensive. Then surround/siege/possibly capture Kharkov, but more notably, push deeper south toward Poltava and cut Donbass off from the north."
I swear the dude is some Intel agency's experiment with AI.
A protracted slavgrinder eliminates brave patriots who could be a potential problem for the corrupt ruling elites while it simultaneously fattens their creepy deep pockets. Talk about killing two birds with one stone.
They are destroying us all, some faster than others, but nobody will escape the grinder.
Much appreciated the numbers and the graphics. However, being the layman I am, it is not clear to me at all that correlation of forces is what matters in any major war; not any longer. These dron/satellite/tecnology based modern wars seem to depend much, much less on troops and/or artillery (what's usually called "forces") than they previously did. If I am to believe some presumedly realistic analyzers and critics (i.e., neither NATO fanboys nor ZAnon enthusiasts, but rather the so-called Russian patriots), it seems Ukraine has the upper hand in technology (West-provided, of course), which allows (or has allowed for months) the UAF to present a tough resistance along the frontlines despite having/spending a fraction of the resources the Russian army does. Ahd regardless of whether that is true or not, the principle behind it makes perfect sense to me: same as, in certain jobs, a worker with a computer is capable of doing one hundred times the task of those with an abacus, it seems pretty logical that an army with a superior intel/tecnology may achieve twice or ten times as much as the army with the same troops but without that superiority.
What I'm trying to say with this is, I'm no longer sure that recuit numbers are decissive, or even relevant, unless there's a huge difference between both armies.