|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 06 2023 21:28 Magic Powers wrote:
[
In WW1 the defending side was suffering many defeats over several years. They ended up achieving a resounding victory both times.
Minus Russia, who was knocked-down from war by maior military defeats despite whatever Russians say about revolution being the main reason.
In popular russian belief to this day there is the White Movement backstab myth of Russia winning at the front of WW1 with Brusilov Offensive and only revolution saving Central Powers from collapse at the spring of 1917. Like the Russian could win it but didn't want.
Bullshit ofc. February revolution was done after Russian stalemate in Carpathian autumn campaign and defeat of russian reinforcements on romanian front. And the February Revolution didn't knockout Russia from war. It was the failed Kerensky Offensive and than near-collapse of the whole russian front after CP counterattack. Than we had Kornilov's atempted coup, arming the soviets by Kerensky, those soviets using the armed workers as base for their own coup and the total colapse of the bolshevik-lead front right before Brest-Litvosk treaty. Russia was beaten on battlefield, not beaten by herself. Unlike Western Allies, Russian defeats very often ended with collapse of the front.
Thats why they lost territory greater than today France and Germany combined.
|
I put that guy on twitter that ardias linked, he has so many batshit insane takes about how the us millitary sucks and russia is so superior blabla, he's basicly zeo 2.0, he posts a ton of tweets I only looked at a few but it's pages of the same stuff for example:
"Yesterday I was being viciously mocked by Ukrainian trolls for asserting my total confidence in the Russian military operation. I called Putin and asked him to destroy Ukrainian power grid and internet to protect me from these attacks - thank you, Mr. President!"
"More thermal power plants and associated infrastructure are being hit today. Russia brought out the Big Bear strategic bombers armed with X-101 missiles. Season 2 teaser…"
"The Russian government is extremely casualty averse and committed to maximizing the kill/loss ratio while maintaining a light force deployment. That may be a mistake. But that is how they want to fight the war, and a withdrawal from an unproductive sector is consistent with that."
The unproductive sector was kharkiv he was talking about by the way.
What a tool. He also claims in a tweet I didn't bother to include that the kyiv attack was a distraction.
|
On September 06 2023 22:15 JimmiC wrote:
And what do the tweets say?
Stuff along the lines of Ukraine having no chance and Ukraine's military being half destroyed by April 2022.
My favourite however:
"Being able to naturally discern that homosexuality is innately abdominal is a very basic test of moral sapience. I don’t need “arguments” that “prove” it - it flows directly from first principles of man as divine image bearer endowed with a transcendent telos."
|
On September 06 2023 23:15 warding wrote:Stuff along the lines of Ukraine having no chance and Ukraine's military being half destroyed by April 2022. My favourite however: "Being able to naturally discern that homosexuality is innately abdominal is a very basic test of moral sapience. I don’t need “arguments” that “prove” it - it flows directly from first principles of man as divine image bearer endowed with a transcendent telos."
I love this way of argumenting. I will use it for everything in the future.
"I don't need "arguments" that "prove" that you should do the dishes. It flows directly from the first principles of man as a divine image bearer endowed with a transcendent telos."
|
On September 06 2023 23:00 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2023 21:28 Magic Powers wrote:
[
In WW1 the defending side was suffering many defeats over several years. They ended up achieving a resounding victory both times. Minus Russia, who was knocked-down from war by maior military defeats despite whatever Russians say about revolution being the main reason. In popular russian belief to this day there is the White Movement backstab myth of Russia winning at the front of WW1 with Brusilov Offensive and only revolution saving Central Powers from collapse at the spring of 1917. Like the Russian could win it but didn't want. Bullshit ofc. February revolution was done after Russian stalemate in Carpathian autumn campaign and defeat of russian reinforcements on romanian front. And the February Revolution didn't knockout Russia from war. It was the failed Kerensky Offensive and than near-collapse of the whole russian front after CP counterattack. Than we had Kornilov's atempted coup, arming the soviets by Kerensky, those soviets using the armed workers as base for their own coup and the total colapse of the bolshevik-lead front right before Brest-Litvosk treaty. Russia was beaten on battlefield, not beaten by herself. Unlike Western Allies, Russian defeats very often ended with collapse of the front. Thats why they lost territory greater than today France and Germany combined. The same is still true today with a ton of pro Russians talking about how much of an army Russia is holding back and how they could easily win if they were commited. All while
we are in day 600something of the 3 day war.
|
On September 06 2023 23:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2023 23:00 hitthat wrote:On September 06 2023 21:28 Magic Powers wrote:
[
In WW1 the defending side was suffering many defeats over several years. They ended up achieving a resounding victory both times. Minus Russia, who was knocked-down from war by maior military defeats despite whatever Russians say about revolution being the main reason. In popular russian belief to this day there is the White Movement backstab myth of Russia winning at the front of WW1 with Brusilov Offensive and only revolution saving Central Powers from collapse at the spring of 1917. Like the Russian could win it but didn't want. Bullshit ofc. February revolution was done after Russian stalemate in Carpathian autumn campaign and defeat of russian reinforcements on romanian front. And the February Revolution didn't knockout Russia from war. It was the failed Kerensky Offensive and than near-collapse of the whole russian front after CP counterattack. Than we had Kornilov's atempted coup, arming the soviets by Kerensky, those soviets using the armed workers as base for their own coup and the total colapse of the bolshevik-lead front right before Brest-Litvosk treaty. Russia was beaten on battlefield, not beaten by herself. Unlike Western Allies, Russian defeats very often ended with collapse of the front. Thats why they lost territory greater than today France and Germany combined. The same is still true today with a ton of pro Russians talking about how much of an army Russia is holding back and how they could easily win if they were commited. All while we are in day 600something of the 3 day war.
Big Serge also claims that the Kharkiv frontline was "thin", and that this time the Zapo frontline is "heavily fortified", while rephrasing the "first line of defense" as actually being just an "outermost screening line", which explains how Ukrainian forces were able to successfully break through despite being "significantly understrength", and that Russia's defense is "open to the idea" that the "first or second line will be breached".
Not to mention his preface that Russia's initial goal of the invasion was "multifaceted" and that this current situation was among the more expected outcomes.
Ukraine only looks strong because Russia is acting weak. Except actually Russia is strong and Ukraine has to put all effort into minor victories - which are actually defeats. Whenever Russia loses, Ukraine loses more. Whenever Ukraine wins more, Russia is only losing that which is perfectly expected and acceptable. Russia is only not yet declared winner because Ukraine is still too deluded to surrender. The continuation of the war is expected and part of the Russian plan of letting Ukraine bleed itself dry. Russia wins as soon as Ukraine has no more delusions and stops trying. There's no need to stop Ukraine's offensive efforts because they're all self-mutilating anyway. The defense lines get much stronger in the back because that makes more sense than strengthening the first lines, etc. etc.
|
I don’t think the US gains anything from “warning” NK not to provide aid to Russia.
What can the US really do to directly harm NK? I feel like NK is essentially untouchable both due to nukes and being a component of China. Threatening China makes more sense than threatening NK in many ways.
What I would prefer to see is for the US to increase support to Taiwan as a direct correlation to any support NK provides. Pretending NK is anything other than a tool for China to conduct its business under the guise of being someone else is not productive. Addressing China rather than North Korea is the way to go. And responding with support for Taiwan makes more sense IMO
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
Kharkov (or to be mo exact, frontline from Siverskiy Donets to Balakleya) was thin by the end of summer 2022. We even discussed it here with my take that 35th Combined Arms Army was pulled to the Vostok-2022 exercise, and Manit0u's opinion was that it was moved to support defence of Kherson (actually here he was right, at least 35th CAA in particular was indeed confirmed in Kherson later on).
My longpost on the matter back then
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27987508
As for judging the knowledge of the person based on accuracy of his past prognosis, suggested above - I recall you predicting collapse of Russian military in 5-6 months during Kharkov offensive, as well as Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion?
But it's interesting idea, lets roll with it. I encourage people here to write down their prediction of the events, lets say, a year from now. Will use it as a time bottle. I'll write mine down a bit later, as I'm ending my worktime atm.
|
United States44449 Posts
On September 07 2023 01:03 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think the US gains anything from “warning” NK not to provide aid to Russia.
What can the US really do to directly harm NK? I feel like NK is essentially untouchable both due to nukes and being a component of China. Threatening China makes more sense than threatening NK in many ways.
What I would prefer to see is for the US to increase support to Taiwan as a direct correlation to any support NK provides. Pretending NK is anything other than a tool for China to conduct its business under the guise of being someone else is not productive. Addressing China rather than North Korea is the way to go. And responding with support for Taiwan makes more sense IMO
NK isn’t the only country on the Korean Peninsula that has spent the last 50 years building artillery factories against the potential for a war that has never happened. To me the obvious threat here is that if Russia wants to open the Korean stockpiles then let them be opened and the die will fall where it falls. So far SK hasn’t sold Ukraine anything, though it has engaged in circular restock deals with the US and hardware sales to Poland. There are very few nations as capable of meeting the demands of a current artillery war as SK because very few nations have had their national security hinge on it the way SK has.
I would assume that it is precisely that threat that has kept SK from sending more aid. As a US ally that is drowning in ammo you’d have thought they’d be top of the list, at the very least selling it if not donating it. Their absence implies that it is deliberate restraint to create a threat.
|
On September 07 2023 01:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 01:03 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think the US gains anything from “warning” NK not to provide aid to Russia.
What can the US really do to directly harm NK? I feel like NK is essentially untouchable both due to nukes and being a component of China. Threatening China makes more sense than threatening NK in many ways.
What I would prefer to see is for the US to increase support to Taiwan as a direct correlation to any support NK provides. Pretending NK is anything other than a tool for China to conduct its business under the guise of being someone else is not productive. Addressing China rather than North Korea is the way to go. And responding with support for Taiwan makes more sense IMO NK isn’t the only country on the Korean Peninsula that has spent the last 50 years building artillery factories against the potential for a war that has never happened. To me the obvious threat here is that if Russia wants to open the Korean stockpiles then let them be opened and the die will fall where it falls. So far SK hasn’t sold Ukraine anything, though it has engaged in circular restock deals with the US and hardware sales to Poland. There are very few nations as capable of meeting the demands of a current artillery war as SK because very few nations have had their national security hinge on it the way SK has. I would assume that it is precisely that threat that has kept SK from sending more aid. As a US ally that is drowning in ammo you’d have thought they’d be top of the list, at the very least selling it if not donating it. Their absence implies that it is deliberate restraint to create a threat.
That'd be a pretty empty threat though wouldn't it?
I sincerely doubt the South Koreans would ever launch any kind of offensive action without cooperation from the United States and I STRONGLY doubt the United States would ever agree to such an offensive since it would almost certainly lead to a hot war with China.
|
On September 07 2023 01:22 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 01:09 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2023 01:03 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think the US gains anything from “warning” NK not to provide aid to Russia.
What can the US really do to directly harm NK? I feel like NK is essentially untouchable both due to nukes and being a component of China. Threatening China makes more sense than threatening NK in many ways.
What I would prefer to see is for the US to increase support to Taiwan as a direct correlation to any support NK provides. Pretending NK is anything other than a tool for China to conduct its business under the guise of being someone else is not productive. Addressing China rather than North Korea is the way to go. And responding with support for Taiwan makes more sense IMO NK isn’t the only country on the Korean Peninsula that has spent the last 50 years building artillery factories against the potential for a war that has never happened. To me the obvious threat here is that if Russia wants to open the Korean stockpiles then let them be opened and the die will fall where it falls. So far SK hasn’t sold Ukraine anything, though it has engaged in circular restock deals with the US and hardware sales to Poland. There are very few nations as capable of meeting the demands of a current artillery war as SK because very few nations have had their national security hinge on it the way SK has. I would assume that it is precisely that threat that has kept SK from sending more aid. As a US ally that is drowning in ammo you’d have thought they’d be top of the list, at the very least selling it if not donating it. Their absence implies that it is deliberate restraint to create a threat. That'd be a pretty empty threat though wouldn't it? I sincerely doubt the South Koreans would ever launch any kind of offensive action without cooperation from the United States and I STRONGLY doubt the United States would ever agree to such an offensive since it would almost certainly lead to a hot war with China. I doubt Kwark means invading NK. The threat is that if NK supplies Russia with shells then SK supplies Ukraine with shells.
|
On September 07 2023 01:07 Ardias wrote:Kharkov (or to be mo exact, frontline from Siverskiy Donets to Balakleya) was thin by the end of summer 2022. We even discussed it here with my take that 35th Combined Arms Army was pulled to the Vostok-2022 exercise, and Manit0u's opinion was that it was moved to support defence of Kherson (actually here he was right, at least 35th CAA in particular was indeed confirmed in Kherson later on). My longpost on the matter back then https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27987508As for judging the knowledge of the person based on accuracy of his past prognosis, suggested above - I recall you predicting collapse of Russian military in 5-6 months during Kharkov offensive, as well as Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion? But it's interesting idea, lets roll with it. I encourage people here to write down their prediction of the events, lets say, a year from now. Will use it as a time bottle. I'll write mine down a bit later, as I'm ending my worktime atm.
He also predicted that the Kharkiv offensive would be a failure while the front was already collapsing, that Ukraine wouldn't push past the Oskil river, or that Russia will successfully annex all of south-eastern (perhaps even central) Ukraine, and that the war wouldn't slow down during the winter.
Not to mention a plethora of braindead takes like Ukraine supposedly using soldiers as cannon fodder and Russia being casualty averse (lol), accusing Ukraine of blowing up the Kakhovka dam, to which only Russia had access or that Russia through this war is attriting NATO (!).
|
On September 07 2023 01:07 Ardias wrote:Kharkov (or to be mo exact, frontline from Siverskiy Donets to Balakleya) was thin by the end of summer 2022. We even discussed it here with my take that 35th Combined Arms Army was pulled to the Vostok-2022 exercise, and Manit0u's opinion was that it was moved to support defence of Kherson (actually here he was right, at least 35th CAA in particular was indeed confirmed in Kherson later on). My longpost on the matter back then https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27987508As for judging the knowledge of the person based on accuracy of his past prognosis, suggested above - I recall you predicting collapse of Russian military in 5-6 months during Kharkov offensive, as well as Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion? But it's interesting idea, lets roll with it. I encourage people here to write down their prediction of the events, lets say, a year from now. Will use it as a time bottle. I'll write mine down a bit later, as I'm ending my worktime atm.
I've said a few times that I think the war is going to take years, possibly a decade. I also said that now is the time for patience, and that Ukraine's next major offensive might have to wait until 2024 or in the worst case even 2025. So I'm actually quite a pessimistic voice, and I was one of the people saying Russian command is learning and adapting.
But I'm becoming more optimistic as the trajectory of the war has shifted quite significantly in Ukraine's favor in spite of the new obstacles.
What you're likely alluding to is when I illustrated the pace of the Kharkiv offensive by saying it'd result in a quick end to the war if it didn't slow down. Basically Russian troops had a lot of reason to panic; and panic they truly did.
We'll have to wait and see what unfolds next. In war sometimes it looks like not much is moving, until suddenly all hell breaks loose.
|
On September 07 2023 01:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 01:07 Ardias wrote:Kharkov (or to be mo exact, frontline from Siverskiy Donets to Balakleya) was thin by the end of summer 2022. We even discussed it here with my take that 35th Combined Arms Army was pulled to the Vostok-2022 exercise, and Manit0u's opinion was that it was moved to support defence of Kherson (actually here he was right, at least 35th CAA in particular was indeed confirmed in Kherson later on). My longpost on the matter back then https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27987508As for judging the knowledge of the person based on accuracy of his past prognosis, suggested above - I recall you predicting collapse of Russian military in 5-6 months during Kharkov offensive, as well as Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion? But it's interesting idea, lets roll with it. I encourage people here to write down their prediction of the events, lets say, a year from now. Will use it as a time bottle. I'll write mine down a bit later, as I'm ending my worktime atm. He also predicted that the Kharkiv offensive would be a failure while the front was already collapsing, that Ukraine wouldn't push past the Oskil river, or that Russia will successfully annex all of south-eastern (perhaps even central) Ukraine, and that the war wouldn't slow down during the winter. Not to mention a plethora of braindead takes like Ukraine supposedly using soldiers as cannon fodder and Russia being casualty averse (lol), accusing Ukraine of blowing up the Kakhovka dam, to which only Russia had access or that Russia through this war is attriting NATO (!).
He at least conceded that Kharkiv offensive was a victory for Ukraine in the end. There is one minor politician in PL who was claiming the russian victory there "cuz ukrainian massacred their own troops", at the time when the Ukrainian took Kupyansk aready and were preparing to decimate russian forces in the Lyman area, lol.
|
Zeo should write a long article about the war and then ardias can link that too and say see, russia is going to crush puny ukraine any day now
|
On September 07 2023 01:07 Ardias wrote:Kharkov (or to be mo exact, frontline from Siverskiy Donets to Balakleya) was thin by the end of summer 2022. We even discussed it here with my take that 35th Combined Arms Army was pulled to the Vostok-2022 exercise, and Manit0u's opinion was that it was moved to support defence of Kherson (actually here he was right, at least 35th CAA in particular was indeed confirmed in Kherson later on). My longpost on the matter back then https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27987508As for judging the knowledge of the person based on accuracy of his past prognosis, suggested above - I recall you predicting collapse of Russian military in 5-6 months during Kharkov offensive, as well as Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion?
But it's interesting idea, lets roll with it. I encourage people here to write down their prediction of the events, lets say, a year from now. Will use it as a time bottle. I'll write mine down a bit later, as I'm ending my worktime atm.
Ehh, I'm not sure I feel confident making any predcitions now. When the Russian army was still outside of Kyiv, and even for some time after that, I was convinced that Russia will continue making large gains in the eastern part of the country and sooner or later Ukraine might either collapse or be forced to give up its whole eastern half. After learning how little I knew about both sides I undrestood it's pointless to make big predictions.
I can say I think it's possible that Ukraine retakes Tokmak before the end of this year but I wouldn't bet on that because it's at best like 50-60% chance in my opinion. I also think Ukraine can reach the Black Sea in Zaporizhzhia in 2024, but I don't feel confident predicting it will or will not happen or even say there's X% chance it will happen.
I believe Ukraine is more likely, maybe even much more likely to make some significant gains before the war ends, but I'm aware I could be completely wrong. If Russians believe they can occupy Kramatorsk and Sloviansk in 2024, I woudln't say it's ridiculous to think that's possible.
|
United States44449 Posts
On September 07 2023 01:07 Ardias wrote:
Kwark predicting 2nd battle of Mariupol by the end of 2022. Should that disqualify your opinions from the discussion?
The context on my prediction was that the original Russian forces were hugely overstretched and undermanned and had failed in their initial attempt to seize Kyiv. Shortly after my prediction Ukraine did successfully retake a large amount of land and many cities in a rout of the Russian forces. I said South when Ukraine countered East but I don’t feel that I was materially wrong my reading of the situation.
The other key variable that was unknown at the time was the response of Russia to the failure. Whether they would accept defeat or double down. But overall I stand by my take that Ukraine had the upper hand shortly before the Kharkiv offensive.
|
United States41117 Posts
Russia announces the "tactical" withdrawal of it's forces from Robotyne and the surrounding areas. A few weeks after vids showing Ukraine shelling entire units, that were fleeing from positions, with cluster munitions.
A Kremlin-installed official in southern Ukraine admitted Tuesday that Russian forces have withdrawn from the village of Robotyne more than a week after Kyiv announced its recapture.
“The Russian army abandoned — tactically abandoned this settlement,” said Yevgeny Balitsky, the Russian-appointed governor of Ukraine’s occupied Zaporizhzhia region.
Ukraine, which launched a grinding counteroffensive in June, announced Robotyne’s recapture on Aug. 28.
Balitsky maintained that abandoning Robotyne would benefit Russian forces and claimed that the village “ceased to exist” after lengthy battles.
“Holding on to a bare surface without a way to completely dig in and create a safe area for yourself doesn’t make sense,” he said in an interview on state-run television.
The Kremlin has regularly downplayed Kyiv’s counteroffensive, with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu declaring Wednesday that Ukrainian forces had "not achieved their goals in any of the sectors [of military operations]."
Russia’s Defense Ministry has claimed to have repelled Ukrainian tank attacks in nearly daily updates since Kyiv’s Aug. 28 announcement.
On Monday, the Russian military said it had “improved the tactical situation” near Robotyne without indicating who controlled the village.
Balitsky previously warned that territory beyond Robotyne would be a “mass grave for Ukraine’s armed forces.”
The U.S. think tank Institute for the Study of War said geolocated footage posted Tuesday shows Ukrainian forces advancing south of Robotyne.
Robotyne’s capture paves the way for the Ukrainian forces to push deeper into Russian positions toward Crimea, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said last week.
The Kremlin annexed southern Ukraine’s partially controlled Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and southeastern Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions last fall.
Source
|
|
|
What the fuck is wrong with some people? Are you really this fucking deranged? You need help
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
