Earth nature field

Has the US just turned the world Socialist?

Discussion about various subjects. See the other forums for specific topics.

Moderator: The Staff

User avatar
Forum User
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm

Re: Has the US just turned the world Socialist?

Post by Beerman »

Rather than me bang on repeating myself about our decline into the world of '1984' and the poverty that will come with it, here's someone banging on about it in a Duran YouTube video they put out the other day. The guest's name on the show is Garland Nixon, who I've never heard of before, but a quick internet search reveals he is a Radio Talk show Host and Political Analyst from Washington DC; so there y'go. He talks a lot of sense, and by that I mean he agrees a lot with me, which is kind of my definition of talking a lot of sense.

It's an hour long video, but it's a very good interview and time flies. From 8 mins to 15 mins he talks about the Russian decision to withdraw its troops back from Kherson City to the east bank of the Dnieper River and what might happen next. But the best bit for me is from 16 mins onwards where he talks about the US mid-terms, the sameness of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the bigger political aspect of the war, the deindustrialisation of the EU, the US poaching EU industry, and the US eating its allies. I've said this all before in one post or another, and in one thread or another, but it's nice to hear a professional speaker articulate it so well.

Withdrawal from Kherson

My view on the withdrawal from Kherson is they should never have created a bridgehead there in the first place. Bridgeheads are springboards on which to quickly launch major offences. To create a bridgehead and just sit there defending it is a waste of resources and is just asking for the enemy to pick off your supply lines. We didn't know at the time the bridgehead was formed that Russia didn't have enough troops to launch an offensive and barely enough troops to defend it, so I think it came as a surprise to most that nothing happened there for so long. Plus, the Kherson bridgehead couldn't have been worse placed with the Dnieper River dammed up-stream and the dam a priority target to destroy. Had the dam burst, the bridgehead would have been cut off, and the troops based there surrounded and cut off from resupply.

The Russian army withdrawal from the west bank probably now means the destruction of Kherson City as it will become a killing zone for Russian artillery, drones and missile strikes, but I think by evacuating the city first, the Russian military have avoided the backlash they got from the people back home over Izium, where civilians were left behind and it is alleged many have been tortured and murdered by the Nazi battalions that rushed there for blood.

Strategic Consequences of the Kherson Withdrawal

- This is another Russian withdrawal, and armies can get use to withdrawing.

- Morale is important, and this hits morale.

- Kherson sets a presidence where crossing the Dnieper River puts soldiers lives at risk, and many may now ask does Kherson make this a risk the Russian Army or the Russian public no longer want to take?

- Kherson which is now Russian territory, is now half occupied by Ukrainian forces. This can't be allowed to become permanent, but the Dnieper River will have to be crossed at some time to liberate it. If the Russian army or the Russian public are not prepared to accept casualties in doing so, they may have to revisit Kherson's boundaries.

- If the Russian army advances east to west from the Donbass to the Dnieper River as looks increasingly likely, will they decide to create bridgeheads on the west bank of the Dnieper to move into western Ukraine, or will the Kherson presidence tempt Russia to withdraw again to minimise casualties as soon as they are attacked?

- How can Russia advance beyond the Dnieper River, across the flat expanses of Ukrainian fields and farmland, if it adopts its incremental advance strategy to minimise casualties; by advancing one trench at a time? Half the Russian army would have died of old age by the time they got to Lviv.
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom
User avatar
Forum User
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm

Re: Has the US just turned the world Socialist?

Post by Beerman »

The Thoughts of Armchair General Beerman

Here in Dear Old Blighty there is an affectionate term for someone who is a self-proclaimed military expert with little or no practical experience of the military; who imposes his views on others, and speaks authoritatively and incessantly on tactical and strategy matters despite being desperately unqualified to do so. He will put real Generals right on the wrong decisions they have made, and talk at length and in great detail about war fighting and what the real Generals should have done and what they should do next. We call this person an Armchair General and they can often be found in family living rooms sat in front of the telly torturing their long suffering familes with their opinions when all the rest of the family wants to do is watch Strictly Come Dancing on the BBC. You can also find them in their local pub sat on a bar stool having had one too many to drink, preaching to the disinterested. The modern-day version of an Arm Chair General can be found all over the internet; youngsters working away in splendid isolation in bedrooms on their laptops as they engage virtually with an audience of thousands of similar Armchair Generals pouring over maps and drawing arrows on them, fighting virtual wars on YouTube for virtual friends in virtual communities and virtual strangers alike.

So, speaking as an Armchair General who knows nothing about anything, who has never fought in a war, has never slept in a trench and been expected to kill someone the next day after breakfast, and has never experienced hours of artillery shelling, but insists on telling real Generals what they should do, I shall now give you the thoughts of Armchair General Beerman. To make this more palatable, take my words as coming from a civilian thinking aloud; thoughts that might be shared by other civilians like me in the West and in Russia.

I’m not convinced Russia realises just how high the stakes are in this conflict with Ukraine. Russia acknowledges it is at war with the US, through NATO, using Ukraine. President Putin has said on many occasions in many speeches that Russia is fighting to destroy Nazism on its borders, to secure its western border against an aggressive NATO and a politically Russophobic EU, and for a security architecture that would distance NATO forces and US nuclear missiles from its border, and yet Russia continues to fight a risk adverse, restrained, limited war.

I think Russia is fighting for its right to exist as an independent country against a super rich global ruling class that has set up shop in the US but who cares nothing for the US people, and has puppet deep states doing its bidding throughout the West that equally care nothing for their people either. That’s what I think, but President Putin has said as much in a recent speech he gave a couple of weeks back in a place I can’t remember, that has a name I couldn’t pronounce anyway, so I’m going to have to paraphrase Mr Putin here, a-hem <clears throat>; ‘Russia is fighting for its right to exist as an independent country against a super rich global ruling class that has set up shop in the US but who cares nothing for the US people, and has puppet deep states doing its bidding throughout the West that equally care nothing for their people either’; so that proves I’m right.

The way Russia is incrementally advancing suggests they think they have all the time in the world to win this war, and that suggests they still think the war is with Ukraine. Why do I care? Well, if Russia loses this war against the US/NATO in Ukraine, we all get to live in ‘1984’ with the US deep state as our ‘Big Brother’. If Russia wins this war, and to do that it has to defeat the global ruling class based in the US, then maybe instead of having a government controlled by the deep state that represents the upper class, we get one that represents us. I know, and one day pigs will fly (meet the new boss, he’s the same as the old boss).

If Russia loses the war against US/NATO, it will be destroyed financially, militarily, and politically. It will be physically split up into smaller US controlled countries, and its people will be put into poverty. If the country is split up, there is a good chance the Nazis in the Kiev regime and elsewhere across Europe will form part of the governments in these new countries, and Nazi battalions will be formed to control the Russian people. These are the real stakes for the Russian people in this US/NATO war. This may have started off as a Special Military Operation to liberate the ethnic Russian regions in Ukraine, but what Russia is fighting now is the early stages of World War 3 that ends in the destruction of the Western/Global ruling class or Russia.

I think Russia knows deep down it is fighting for its life, but just doesn’t want to admit it yet. If it freezes the Ukrainian conflict for any significant period of time, either through reluctance to cross the Dnepr River for fear of casualties, or though a negotiated ceasefire that doesn’t resolve the issues, then the West will pull out all the stops to drain and bankrupt Russia’s economy. It will build the Ukrainian army back up again, train and rearm it, this time with US/NATO equipment, establish lines of US/NATO logistics and stores, conduct scrimmages and sporadic shelling of Russia lines, and prepare for a future offensive into Russia.

Russia has so far managed the economic war well, but it hasn’t supported an army of half a million soldiers in the field yet; not for any length of time, and certainly not year-on-year. Maybe it can afford it indefinitely, if not then eventually the people of Russia will tire of the austerity the stalemate brings and the impact it has on their living standards. A prolonged freeze would also give the West the time it needs to wage its information war on the Russian people and the time the CIA needs to orchestrate a coup as it did with the Soviet Union.

Russia needs to realise that at some point it will have to advance across western Ukraine to end the Ukraine war, but that does not end the US/NATO war, it just moves the border between US/NATO and Russia to the western edge of Ukraine.

Russia would not have won WW2 with such a cautious and restrained Order Of Battle/Rules Of Engagement, so why does it think it can win WW3 by adopting such an approach? Russia knows it needs to target the US ruling class; take away their money and you take away their power, because it has said so. This war will be won on the economic battleground and that means destroying the dollar, euro and unfortunately for me, the pound. If Russia wins, ordinary people in the West are going to be in the shit. If Russia loses, ordinary people in the West are going to be in the shit. But ordinary people are already in the shit thanks to the hollowing out of our economic system and the stealing of our wealth by the ruling class over the past 40 years which is finally reaching the end point of economic collapse and poverty for everyone, except the ruling class and their servants of course.

Russia is neither a saint nor a devil. It is a country like any other, that just happens to operate a socialist political and economic system meaning it spends money on its society, treats people fairly when they deserve it and harshly when they don’t. It achieves socialism through communal ownership of widespread nationalisation, although people don’t actually own a nationalised industry, the state owns it on their behalf. But being a socialist country doesn’t make them a bad country. A bad country is made by bad people when bad people get into power. Russia has its problems like any other country because it has the same spectrum of good and bad people in it as any other. They have their upper class and their underclass like everyone else, but their upper class isn’t allowed to use its money as power. But Russia is very different to the West when it comes to Nazis. If you had 27 million people killed during WW2 in your country, of which 18 million were civilians, mainly the old, and women and children, you’d have a problem with Nazis as well. It’s history with Nazism and its issue with the West’s ruling class sponsoring a neo-Nazi regime that it put into power to bring Russia down, means Russia is slowly realising the West’s ruling class has got to go. For Russia, it’s kind of us or them. Russian’s know it’s existential, but I don’t think they are acting like it is.

This is not going to be pretty for middle and working class people in the West. Our upper class and ruling class (the upper echelons of the upper class that use their wealth for power), do not care how much money they take from us, how poor we get, or how much our society disintegrates to fund their wars; and if the people demonstrate too much, or strike in industries that cost them money, they will not hesitate to send in the thugs (as Thatcher did in the 1980s).

There’s a significant minority who are the most vocal that listen to and believe the West’s media and cheer for the ruling class team. Most kind of go along with the narrative, but don’t really believe it, a bit like religion. I think most people in the West don’t really care and are focused on the rising cost of living, not equating the two.

I shall now stop my barstool preaching, put my Armchair General’s hat back on the peg in the hallway, and ask some questions that I’m sure are being asked at the moment in Moscow, but without answering them for a change.

- Will Russia cut off logistic supply lines from US/NATO into Ukraine?

- Will Russia disrupt the banking system to stop the flow of money in and out of Ukraine?

- Will Russia leave the Kherson front for another day, even if Ukraine crosses the Dnepr River to the east bank?

- Will Russia cross the Dnepr River?

- Will Russia take the whole of Ukraine?

- Will Russia do to Kiev what the US did to Bagdad?

- Will Russia target the political regime in Kiev and Lviv?

- Will Russia take out US/NATO command and Control like the US did in Desert Storm?

- Will Russia take Odessa by sea like the British took the Falklands?

- Will Russia use its bombers?

- Will Russia provide humanitarian aid to Ukrainian refugees and help those who want to move to the EU and the US do so?

- Will Russia open a new front from Belarus to cut off West Ukraine and/or take Lviv?

- Will Russia attack any country that attacks it, whether they attack as part of US/NATO or independent of US/NATO?

- Will Russia fully mobilise?
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom
User avatar
Forum User
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm

Re: Has the US just turned the world Socialist?

Post by Beerman »

Counting the Ukrainian Dead and Wounded

Back in February 2022 at the start of the Ukraine conflict many analysts estimated of size of Ukraine’s army as being between 400,000 and 600,000. This surprised me as in 2019 some claimed it to be 300,000 (some said it was only 200,000). If it really was 300,000 and it had grown to 600,000 in 2 years, then that’s double (stating the bleedin’ obvious). Even at its peak in 1995 after the collapse of the Soviet Union it only numbered 500,000. Is it possible to double an army in 2 years? Maybe, but it implies the US had funded and organised it to get it ready for a 2022 offensive against the Donbass to get NATO on Russia’s borders. The build-up of the Ukraine army, which I’m now going to refer to as the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) as Ukraine has insignificant air or naval forces and is a lot easier than keep typing the Ukrainian army, is consistent with the Russian claim that the AFU was going to storm the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics sometime in March 2022. My opinion is this intelligence forced Russia’s hand to launch their Special Military Operation when they did, to beat the AFU to the punch.

How many combat troops an army can deploy depends on how well the army is run. It depends on how efficient its logistic support is. In essence, how many non-combat troops are needed to run it and supply the deployed troops, and of course the quality of the soldiers. The British Army reckons it can deploy just 10% of its troops, which quite frankly is appalling, but it is a reflection of the standard of senior officers responsible for such things, and the abandonment of promotion on merit. I believe the US army says it can deploy 20% to 30% which suggests it doesn’t really know. I have seen some army’s claim they can deploy up to 60% which suggests to me they haven’t got a clue what they are doing and are in for a rude awakening if they ever have to go to war.

There is another rule of thumb that, of the combat troops deployed, a third are fighting, a third are in reserve ready to fill gaps, be moved about, and join the fight when needed, and a third are messing about at 2nd line getting their breath back, resting and recovering. The reason why deploying 60% of your army would be difficult, and ultimately unsustainable is first, you would have to have that many combat troops or else you would have to deploy non-combat troops to make up the numbers, and second, you would only have 40% of your army to support them. You would need an incredibly efficient and effective system of logistic support, as a tank crew without diesel are Infantry, and Infantry without bullets are civilians.

The advantage of outsourcing your logistic support system, say by sending your equipment to be repaired in Poland and sending fuel, equipment and stores back, is you don’t need as many soldiers to man it, especially if it mostly travels by rail. The disadvantage is if you have an electric rail network and your enemy takes out your electricity grid, it will seriously impact your logistic supply and your ability to deploy your troops. I am of course describing the situation in Ukraine.

Let’s assume the AFU is 600,000 strong. If they had to do logistic support in-house, they should only really be able to deploy 180,000 (30%), but by relying on US/NATO for logistic support let’s say they are able to deploy that magical, mystical 60%, i.e. 360,000 combat troops.

About a month ago the Russian Minister of Defence Sergei Shoigu said the number of AFU soldiers killed was 105,000. Even the Western mainstream media are not contesting the 100,000 figure. Working on the 1:3 ratio of killed-to-wounded, which is what most armies work to, that puts the AFU wounded at 300,000, i.e. 400,000 casualties (killed and wounded). There’s also the captured, deserters, accidents, murdered etc. to count, but let’s not get into the weeds. But these 400,000 casualties have been over 9 months. Extrapolate that to a year and it’s 540,000 (140,000 dead and 400,000 wounded).

When you look more closely at the AFU casualty figures, a number of things jump out at you.

- If the AFU is 600,000 strong and has 360,000 combat troops (60%), then how could it have suffered 400,000 casualties in 9 months? That more than the combat troops it has.

- It looks like the AFU has deployed perhaps 80% of the soldiers it has in the combat role, which suggest few are defending major cities away from the front line, and just how few are involved in any logistic support. Non combat troops are not effective in battle and only add to the high attrition rate.

- It suggests US/NATO is providing in-theatre manpower, perhaps through Private Military Companies (PMCs), or uniform changes.

- By Feb 2023 the Ukrainian army fielded in Feb 2022 will have been completely destroyed.

- There has been poor medical care provided to the wounded in the field and in hospitals which have been overwhelmed. The offences launched against Kherson during September and October reportedly left Mykolaiv hospitals unable to cope. As a result many have died of their wounds and many more have been left with long term or permanent injuries, disabilities or illnesses that perhaps could have been avoided. There have been reports that the AFU sometimes don’t even collect their wounded but leave them for the Russians to care for as POWs. As a result I suspect the number of wounded able to return to their units is much lower than would normally be expected. I’m going to guess (and I can’t prove it), it’s as appalling low as 30%. Going with that figure, that puts the annual attrition rate at 420,000 (140,000 dead and 280,000 permanently wounded or die later of their wounds). An attrition rate of 420,000 means Ukraine has to conscript this number every year just to maintain its 600,000 strength. It is a meat grinder.

- The AFU that exists today is an army of exhausted regulars and inadequately trained conscript replacements, and it’s on its last legs unless US/NATO does something dramatic.

If the AFU wanted to do things properly and deploy 30% of its army, deploy 420,000 combat troops, conscript 420,000 to cover its attrition, and run its own logistic support, then it would need to grow to 1.4 million.

To put an army of 1.4 million into context, the Top 5 largest armies in the world (2020) are;

1. China - 2,035,000
2. India - 1,444,500
3. United States - 1,359,450
4. North Korea - 1,280,000
5. Russia - 900,000

It may or may not come as a surprise to some US/NATO generals that to stand any chance of defeating the Russian army you need an army the Size of the US/NATO.

To put 140,000 Ukrainians dead a year into context, that is nearly double the regular British Army (79,000), and it is well over double the US soldiers killed in Vietnam over a 20 year period (58,220). With a predicted 140,000 dead by Feb 2023, 280,000 dead by Feb 2024, and 420,000 dead by Feb 2024, that will exceed the 417,000 US soldiers killed in WW2.
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom
Post Reply