User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 7:03:56 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You serious? To seize the initiative, and provide Russia with a dilemma. Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. The UAF have almost a 3:1 advantage in terms of numbers in Kursk, fighting against forces that have no prepared defenses. Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. It’s okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 7:06:15 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. The invasion of Russia? Seems kinda “strategic” |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 7:07:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: PolarBear416]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Will it? And would they be able to hold it even if it did? Eventually Russia will cough up some units organically without stripping the front. That's how force generation works, and they are absolutely on the upper side of that curve compared to Ukraine. Again, regardless of your statements to the contrary, Ukraine seems to be taking a massive risk for what appears to be a very undefined and possibly temporary strategic gain. One that has yet to even be proven at all. You by your own post history acknowledged that things weren't going great for Ukraine before this invasion. Continuing to play a losing game is not sound strategy. When the situation is in your favor you take actions to simplify it, contain it, eliminate ambiguity and determine the outcome that is in your favor, to reduce the level of entropy (risk). When the situation is NOT in your favor you complicate it, expand it, increase the ambiguity and throw the outcome into greater doubt, adding to the overall entropy and thereby increasing the risk for all parties. Sure this increases the risk - for both Russia and Ukraine. The Ukrainians have created more possible outcomes, expanded outside the conflict they were likely losing, creating more possible outcomes where the existing outcomes were less desirable. That is sound strategy. As for whether Belgorod would fall if the Ukrainians cut E105--of course it would. Look at a map. Push in from Kharkiv and in that scenario Russian forces around Belgorod would be cut off and encircled. "Eventually" is a long time, by then bridges will be blown, hard points on high ground established, minefields laid down. Retaking it will get harder every week Russia leaves the Ukrainians in control. Now can they take E105? I dunno. That's still a long way from where they are, but it's a strategic possibility in the medium term if Russia continues to keep its forces elsewhere. Certainly Russia could pull forces quickly from the other fronts, but then that stops their advance. So yes it's a risk. It's a good today risk with strategic potency if Russia ignores it. |
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 7:26:26 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: Trump likes winners. Trump does not want to be associated with losers. Taking territory is winning while losing territory, albeit very slowly while heavily outnumbered and outgunned, is losing. If Ukraine can make a case that they're winners when properly supplied Trump will properly supply them and take a big piece of the glory when they win, IMO. Unfortunately, I feel like I must take the other side of this bet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 7:30:46 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: If he nuked Lviv, Russia would become a lesser North Korea…if it remained. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Croak: Originally Posted By DonKey153: Originally Posted By Featureless: One of my International Relations professors had worked with Scoop Jackson, etc., on arms negotiations, both politically in the US and as part of the background of negotiations internationally. He was always of the opinion that a nuke is just another explosion. If it's the right device for the time and place, they should be used. Needless to say, his tenured position was very annoying to most of the rest of the faculty. But that may be a reasonable tactical approach, politically the world doesn't seem to see it that way. And I think, talking points, plans, statements aside, Putin and at least some of the Russian leadership also know that a nuke would be a game changer in many ways. It's not to stop hundreds or thousands of tanks, etc., storming into or out of Eastern Europe and Western Europe in a narrow mountain valley. It's not mid-ocean to protect or destroy a naval force or convoy of merchant ships. So, where does he use it? A massive tank column descending (ascending?) on Moscow? Does he turn some part of Russia into "Glowink memorial of sacrifice for the Motherland?" I don't think that kind of Ukrainian attack is likely or possible. Or that a conventional air response isn't possible. Maybe Kyiv? He's skating with current conventional attacks on civilian targets. Sanctions and blockades would turn real and China and Korea will get intense scrutiny and tightened sanctions, too. Kersch is gone, maybe Sebastopol. Tactical exclusion and destruction of some areas but that doesn't change the current Russian supply, population and military shortfalls. Use it on a neighboring country? Not a chance. Radiate via fallout other countries? Consequences would still be dire. Probably the logistical hub supporting the offensive. Sumy The Lviv area would be a choice nuke target as it's where much of the Western stuff comes into Ukraine and is staged, but it's damn close to Poland. Then again, if he can hit Lviv and NATO doesn't respond, it's game over for Ukraine. If he nuked Lviv, Russia would become a lesser North Korea…if it remained. Sure, but that appears to be on the horizon anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 8:05:06 PM EST
[#6]
Chemical plants
Refineries Railroad bridges Meat-processing Substations Natural gas Power generation etc more than I can imagine and oh by the way sling some hot-shit kabooms over the horizon In the meanwhile, packets "Food Gift From The People Of The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" which I have more stored under my house than Pooty-Poot can fake using Ohio food  do y'all need a pic of rations? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 8:24:08 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. Strategic Level Force? Oh you've seen their OOB and see the units they're moving. Cool. How many Uke formations are currently in Russia? Which units? You claim their reserves have been committed. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us aren't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 8:47:46 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: Sure, but that appears to be on the horizon anyway. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Croak: Originally Posted By DonKey153: Originally Posted By Featureless: One of my International Relations professors had worked with Scoop Jackson, etc., on arms negotiations, both politically in the US and as part of the background of negotiations internationally. He was always of the opinion that a nuke is just another explosion. If it's the right device for the time and place, they should be used. Needless to say, his tenured position was very annoying to most of the rest of the faculty. But that may be a reasonable tactical approach, politically the world doesn't seem to see it that way. And I think, talking points, plans, statements aside, Putin and at least some of the Russian leadership also know that a nuke would be a game changer in many ways. It's not to stop hundreds or thousands of tanks, etc., storming into or out of Eastern Europe and Western Europe in a narrow mountain valley. It's not mid-ocean to protect or destroy a naval force or convoy of merchant ships. So, where does he use it? A massive tank column descending (ascending?) on Moscow? Does he turn some part of Russia into "Glowink memorial of sacrifice for the Motherland?" I don't think that kind of Ukrainian attack is likely or possible. Or that a conventional air response isn't possible. Maybe Kyiv? He's skating with current conventional attacks on civilian targets. Sanctions and blockades would turn real and China and Korea will get intense scrutiny and tightened sanctions, too. Kersch is gone, maybe Sebastopol. Tactical exclusion and destruction of some areas but that doesn't change the current Russian supply, population and military shortfalls. Use it on a neighboring country? Not a chance. Radiate via fallout other countries? Consequences would still be dire. Probably the logistical hub supporting the offensive. Sumy The Lviv area would be a choice nuke target as it's where much of the Western stuff comes into Ukraine and is staged, but it's damn close to Poland. Then again, if he can hit Lviv and NATO doesn't respond, it's game over for Ukraine. If he nuked Lviv, Russia would become a lesser North Korea…if it remained. Sure, but that appears to be on the horizon anyway. I get confused… Is this an inconsequential thing? Or is it an existential treat worthy of a nuclear response? |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 8:54:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: ServusVeritatis]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strategic Level Force? Oh you've seen their OOB and see the units they're moving. Cool. How many Uke formations are currently in Russia? Which units? You claim their reserves have been committed. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us aren't. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. Strategic Level Force? Oh you've seen their OOB and see the units they're moving. Cool. How many Uke formations are currently in Russia? Which units? You claim their reserves have been committed. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us aren't. Watch your mouth. Youre talking to the smartest, most informed guy on Arfcom….Im sure he’s already told you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:05:09 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strategic Level Force? Oh you've seen their OOB and see the units they're moving. Cool. How many Uke formations are currently in Russia? Which units? You claim their reserves have been committed. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us aren't. Show me where I claimed anything about their reserves? Seriously, not rhetorical, show me. I'm using the data the Ukrainians are putting out along with virtually every assessment made at this point, which would make this a strategic sized element. At this point I'm not sure you understand what a strategic sized element would entail, so you may want to start there before shooting off your mouth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:07:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Sure this increases the risk - for both Russia and Ukraine. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Sure this increases the risk - for both Russia and Ukraine. Wait, you literally just told us there was zero potential downsides for Ukraine here. Which is it? See, that's my issue here...its never about identifying the truth. Its only about shaping everything into something that can always be spun as a net positive for your team. I just watched you do it. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The invasion of Russia? Seems kinda “strategic” Just because something has a Russian zip code doesn't make it valuable, unless your goal is to amplify the value of everything your team does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:22:02 AM EST
[#12]
We’re talking about the Ukrainian invasion of Russia, yes?
The first invasion of Russia in 80 years? I think these events are consequential. But hey, that’s just me. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:22:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: PolarBear416]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Wait, you literally just told us there was zero potential downsides for Ukraine here. Which is it? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: Sure this increases the risk - for both Russia and Ukraine. Wait, you literally just told us there was zero potential downsides for Ukraine here. Which is it? On the surface your claim allows only for strategies that completely eliminate all risk, which is irrational. A situation without risk is by definition not a war - war is risky and war requires adapting to and managing risk. Effective strategies shift the risk profile in a positive direction by createling possibilities for better outcomes. The downsides that exist here remain the same - there are huge risks in being in a war against a larger enemy. These downsides result from being attacked by a land maxing evil empire. As compared to the situation before the invasion of Russia Ukraine is in a better position than it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:25:16 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Show me where I claimed anything about their reserves? Seriously, not rhetorical, show me. I'm using the data the Ukrainians are putting out along with virtually every assessment made at this point, which would make this a strategic sized element. At this point I'm not sure you understand what a strategic sized element would entail, so you may want to start there before shooting off your mouth. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strategic Level Force? Oh you've seen their OOB and see the units they're moving. Cool. How many Uke formations are currently in Russia? Which units? You claim their reserves have been committed. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us aren't. Show me where I claimed anything about their reserves? Seriously, not rhetorical, show me. I'm using the data the Ukrainians are putting out along with virtually every assessment made at this point, which would make this a strategic sized element. At this point I'm not sure you understand what a strategic sized element would entail, so you may want to start there before shooting off your mouth. Then what were you referring to as ‘strategic forces’ exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:25:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: This is a very weak, troll like reply that highlights how you are unable to reason about risk in a strategic way. On the surface your claim allows only for strategies that completely eliminate all risk, which is irrational. A situation without risk is by definition not a war - war is risky and war requires adapting to and managing risk. Effective strategies shift the risk profile in a positive direction by createling possibilities for better outcomes. The downsides that exist here remain the same - there are huge risks in being in a war against a larger enemy. These downsides result from being attacked by a land maxing evil empire. No, it's not about eliminating all risk. That would be insinuated by your original claim, which I refuted. You attempted to pass that off in an attempt the shelve the discussion about what their actual risk here is. You literally stated that they have zero downsides associated with it. Not minimal....none whatsoever. A "downside" is a risk factor. At the end of the day you are explaining what they are attempting to do by assuming that risk, but trying to obfuscate the negative potentials they may face by doing so. Like I said, you are attempting to frame this to match your desired outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:27:54 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Then what were you referring to as ‘strategic forces’ exactly? Ukraine has committed a strategic sized element to this incursion. It is a collective and not an organic unit, but meets the definition of strategic echelon. Are you suggesting they haven't? Also, where are those cites about my supposed claims about their reserves? Did you just make that up? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:34:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: mooreshawnm]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Ukraine has committed a strategic sized element to this incursion. It is a collective and not an organic unit, but meets the definition of strategic echelon. Are you suggesting they haven't? Also, where are those cites about my supposed claims about their reserves? Did you just make that up? Strategic forces for Ukraine are their reserves. ETA: how many have been committed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:44:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strategic forces for Ukraine are their reserves. ETA: how many have been committed? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strategic forces for Ukraine are their reserves. ETA: how many have been committed? So you are telling me you don't understand what level units fall under at echelon based on size and capabilities, but still want to speak definitively about it? I can't help you fill holes in your own head. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I think these events are consequential. But hey, that’s just me. Nobody said they weren't. But there's a pretty big difference between Ukraine receiving tangible effects commensurate with loss, and getting their name in the Guinness book of world records over it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:54:27 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: So you are telling me you don't understand what level units fall at echelon based on size and capabilities, but still want to speak definitively about it? I can't help you fill holes in your own head. I am not going to play .mil lingo. I will grant you can speak that language better than I. You said strategic forces had been committed. Which forces have been committed and how many. My point is you don’t know. Neither do I. Nor their goals. And yet you speak in absolutes. When I ask for details you can not provide them. You can’t provide them because none of us have the information. Of none of us have the info then it s ALL speculation. If we send a single B2 to Diego Garcia we have committed strategic forces. That single bomber has little effect on the overall ability of our triad. So I ask…how many forces have been committed? If you don’t know just say so. Then it becomes opinion but yours still trumps mine as you have (much) more experience in the field than I. But at least the animosity and insults are minimized. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 11:11:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: I am not going to play .mil lingo. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: I am not going to play .mil lingo. You sure as fuck just tried to. Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: I am not going to play .mil lingo. I will grant you can speak that language better than I. You said strategic forces had been committed. Which forces have been committed and how many. My point is you don’t know. Neither do I. Nor their goals. And yet you speak in absolutes. When I ask for details you can not provide them. You can’t provide them because none of us have the information. Of none of us have the info then it s ALL speculation. If we send a single B2 to Diego Garcia we have committed strategic forces. That single bomber has little effect on the overall ability of our triad. So I ask…how many forces have been committed? If you don’t know just say so. Then it becomes opinion but yours still trumps mine as you have (much) more experience in the field than I. But at least the animosity and insults are minimized. We are three weeks in. There is a functional understanding of the forces at play now, even if you are woefully unaware. According to ISW, RUSI, Reuters, and even the DOD at this point Ukraine has committed a divisional sized element to this attack, which encompasses anywhere from 8000-10000 troops. This collective is more akin to a JTF, as none of it is organic and is task organized based on specific capabilities. According to Russian and US (ULO) doctrine this is a strategic ground element, and more so for Ukraine as their forces are much more limited in size, scope, and resources currently. Yes, these generalizations are well known and quantified at this point, and are still extremely broad. So what I am reading is you haven't followed any reputable news sources for current information and you don't understand the concepts of organizational structure, yet you want to run your mouth about both in an attempt to play "gotcha" about shit you don't understand. I would suggest you shrink your chest back in and sit on the sidelines where you belong at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 8:47:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: CarmelBytheSea]
[#21]
 Ukrainian authorities order evacuation of eastern city of Pokrovsk  https://odessa-journal.com/uaf-reports-no-russian-troop-withdrawal-from-pokrovsk-amid-kursk-region-operation   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/23/ukraine-pokrovsk-russia-advance-civilians-flee/  Kursk: Can Ukraine’s big bet change the course of the war? https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/24540513.zelenskys-gamble-two-cities-fate-lead-ukraine-war-endgame/  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-24-2024 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2024 10:50:44 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Yeah, sure does. Now do the objectives. That's the part that worries me. It was virtually undefended, nobody addressed it early, and weeks in, the response has been minimal. Being that any tangible long term objective is absolute speculation weeks into the operation, and the only actual concern Russia seems to be actually producing are western headlines of "Putin big MAD"....all signs sure are leaning towards the fact that this really doesn't mean much for the war outside of giving fantasy footballers things to cheer about. Ukraine has absolutely taken some big losses during this event, including some virtually irreplaceable equipment. To me this is as if the US were fighting Mexico at the border, fighting hard for El Paso and San Diego and the Mexicans stormed Sierra Vista Arizona and everybody was shocked it was relatively undefended. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. Yeah, sure does. Now do the objectives. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's also worth noting that nobody saw this coming. The US didn't see it, Biden's people are mad as hell they weren't notified, and Russia was completely caught off guard. So while Ukraine definitely has an interest in being methodical about what is communicated publicly, we should probably take external assessments about them with a grain of salt, too. That's the part that worries me. It was virtually undefended, nobody addressed it early, and weeks in, the response has been minimal. Being that any tangible long term objective is absolute speculation weeks into the operation, and the only actual concern Russia seems to be actually producing are western headlines of "Putin big MAD"....all signs sure are leaning towards the fact that this really doesn't mean much for the war outside of giving fantasy footballers things to cheer about. Ukraine has absolutely taken some big losses during this event, including some virtually irreplaceable equipment. To me this is as if the US were fighting Mexico at the border, fighting hard for El Paso and San Diego and the Mexicans stormed Sierra Vista Arizona and everybody was shocked it was relatively undefended. I don't see the logic that says it makes sense for Russia to burn thousands of lives and hundreds of vehicles to grind away at minuscule gains in Ukraine while leaving their own border with woefully inadequate protection. That's not even a little bit logical Keeping the opposing force off your land and out of your skies seems like priority #1 in any war, and that's not going so well for Russia these days. The only reason this situation makes sense is if Russian MDMP was fully convinced the Ukrainians couldn't and/or wouldn't hit their border. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 6:43:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I don't see the logic that says it makes sense for Russia to burn thousands of lives and hundreds of vehicles to grind away at minuscule gains in Ukraine while leaving their own border with woefully inadequate protection. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I don't see the logic that says it makes sense for Russia to burn thousands of lives and hundreds of vehicles to grind away at minuscule gains in Ukraine while leaving their own border with woefully inadequate protection. Yet here we are. They apparently don't feel the same way as you. They are not Americans, and your values don't apply. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: The only reason this situation makes sense is if Russian MDMP was fully convinced the Ukrainians couldn't and/or wouldn't hit their border. Or that there is nothing at the border worth pulling troops from the front for. The only thing that really makes sense is Ukraine is desperate to relieve pressure on the front. They invested a divisions worth of assets on this in the hopes that Russia would commit and pull those troops. We keep hearing about all the cool shit that is supposedly going to come out of this...they are going to snatch a nuke plant, encircle the front, or March all the way to Moscow. The reality is all we've seen happen is a division sized element took a train station, some farming towns, and captured some border guards and a handful of low value troops. I fully agree NATO probably had a hand in planning this, it stinks of western perspective, which has failed miserably over the last few years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 6:56:56 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I don't see the logic that says it makes sense for Russia to burn thousands of lives and hundreds of vehicles to grind away at minuscule gains in Ukraine while leaving their own border with woefully inadequate protection. That's not even a little bit logical Keeping the opposing force off your land and out of your skies seems like priority #1 in any war, and that's not going so well for Russia these days. The only reason this situation makes sense is if Russian MDMP was fully convinced the Ukrainians couldn't and/or wouldn't hit their border. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. Yeah, sure does. Now do the objectives. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's also worth noting that nobody saw this coming. The US didn't see it, Biden's people are mad as hell they weren't notified, and Russia was completely caught off guard. So while Ukraine definitely has an interest in being methodical about what is communicated publicly, we should probably take external assessments about them with a grain of salt, too. That's the part that worries me. It was virtually undefended, nobody addressed it early, and weeks in, the response has been minimal. Being that any tangible long term objective is absolute speculation weeks into the operation, and the only actual concern Russia seems to be actually producing are western headlines of "Putin big MAD"....all signs sure are leaning towards the fact that this really doesn't mean much for the war outside of giving fantasy footballers things to cheer about. Ukraine has absolutely taken some big losses during this event, including some virtually irreplaceable equipment. To me this is as if the US were fighting Mexico at the border, fighting hard for El Paso and San Diego and the Mexicans stormed Sierra Vista Arizona and everybody was shocked it was relatively undefended. I don't see the logic that says it makes sense for Russia to burn thousands of lives and hundreds of vehicles to grind away at minuscule gains in Ukraine while leaving their own border with woefully inadequate protection. That's not even a little bit logical Keeping the opposing force off your land and out of your skies seems like priority #1 in any war, and that's not going so well for Russia these days. The only reason this situation makes sense is if Russian MDMP was fully convinced the Ukrainians couldn't and/or wouldn't hit their border. I think your reasoning is rooted in an assumption the Kremlin really cares about those territories on the Ukrainian border, or thinks that the Ukrainian really are a Nazi state that seeks to harm ethnic Russians. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 8:50:47 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: I think your reasoning is rooted in an assumption the Kremlin really cares about those territories on the Ukrainian border, or thinks that the Ukrainian really are a Nazi state that seeks to harm ethnic Russians. Avoiding prepped defensive positions by flanking them is a good idea but I'm not sure that's what is happening here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 9:05:40 AM EST
[#26]
What do Muscovites think about Kursk?
 People in Moscow about Ukraine's invasion |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 9:16:46 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: You sure as fuck just tried to. We are three weeks in. There is a functional understanding of the forces at play now, even if you are woefully unaware. According to ISW, RUSI, Reuters, and even the DOD at this point Ukraine has committed a divisional sized element to this attack, which encompasses anywhere from 8000-10000 troops. This collective is more akin to a JTF, as none of it is organic and is task organized based on specific capabilities. According to Russian and US (ULO) doctrine this is a strategic ground element, and more so for Ukraine as their forces are much more limited in size, scope, and resources currently. Yes, these generalizations are well known and quantified at this point, and are still extremely broad. So what I am reading is you haven't followed any reputable news sources for current information and you don't understand the concepts of organizational structure, yet you want to run your mouth about both in an attempt to play "gotcha" about shit you don't understand. I would suggest you shrink your chest back in and sit on the sidelines where you belong at this point. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: I am not going to play .mil lingo. You sure as fuck just tried to. Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: I am not going to play .mil lingo. I will grant you can speak that language better than I. You said strategic forces had been committed. Which forces have been committed and how many. My point is you don’t know. Neither do I. Nor their goals. And yet you speak in absolutes. When I ask for details you can not provide them. You can’t provide them because none of us have the information. Of none of us have the info then it s ALL speculation. If we send a single B2 to Diego Garcia we have committed strategic forces. That single bomber has little effect on the overall ability of our triad. So I ask…how many forces have been committed? If you don’t know just say so. Then it becomes opinion but yours still trumps mine as you have (much) more experience in the field than I. But at least the animosity and insults are minimized. We are three weeks in. There is a functional understanding of the forces at play now, even if you are woefully unaware. According to ISW, RUSI, Reuters, and even the DOD at this point Ukraine has committed a divisional sized element to this attack, which encompasses anywhere from 8000-10000 troops. This collective is more akin to a JTF, as none of it is organic and is task organized based on specific capabilities. According to Russian and US (ULO) doctrine this is a strategic ground element, and more so for Ukraine as their forces are much more limited in size, scope, and resources currently. Yes, these generalizations are well known and quantified at this point, and are still extremely broad. So what I am reading is you haven't followed any reputable news sources for current information and you don't understand the concepts of organizational structure, yet you want to run your mouth about both in an attempt to play "gotcha" about shit you don't understand. I would suggest you shrink your chest back in and sit on the sidelines where you belong at this point. That's what he does in every thread, just runs his mouth. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:28:53 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past...  The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess.  What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's??   What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while?   Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed.  At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine)  Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now???  For sure we will win this one... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:33:22 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... I don't know why vatnik trolls are not simply banned. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:33:44 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: No, it's not about eliminating all risk. That would be insinuated by your original claim, which I refuted. You attempted to pass that off in an attempt the shelve the discussion about what their actual risk here is. You literally stated that they have zero downsides associated with it. Not minimal....none whatsoever. A "downside" is a risk factor. At the end of the day you are explaining what they are attempting to do by assuming that risk, but trying to obfuscate the negative potentials they may face by doing so. Like I said, you are attempting to frame this to match your desired outcome. It's a strategically sound move by the Ukrainians that improves their position, adds risk to Russia and creates options they didn't previously have. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:35:40 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: For sure we will win this one... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:36:38 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Hmmmmmmmm  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:39:10 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... Lol. "We." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:55:05 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Lol. "We." Da. It's, uh, like uh, the royal "we." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 11:58:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: xd341]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: Da. It's, uh, like uh, the royal "we." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:02:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: RolandofGilead]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It's okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... Let's pretend you're right. It's sure is odd that you're so happy about all this. Imagine comparing Afghanistan and Ukraine lmao. Have fun wallowing in your ignorance. I could show piles of dead Russians in Ukraine too btw, doesn't really mean a lot when those retards are on year 2+ of their idiot war against Ukraine. Answer me this, if Ukraine sucks so much at everything why isn't Russia running the show? How is zelensky still the president? Why is Russia having to conscript old men and prisoners? Why are they fielding cold war era tanks? Nobody is buying your bullshit. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:04:43 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Yet here we are. They apparently don't feel the same way as you. They are not Americans, and your values don't apply. Or that there is nothing at the border worth pulling troops from the front for. The only thing that really makes sense is Ukraine is desperate to relieve pressure on the front. They invested a divisions worth of assets on this in the hopes that Russia would commit and pull those troops. We keep hearing about all the cool shit that is supposedly going to come out of this...they are going to snatch a nuke plant, encircle the front, or March all the way to Moscow. The reality is all we've seen happen is a division sized element took a train station, some farming towns, and captured some border guards and a handful of low value troops. I fully agree NATO probably had a hand in planning this, it stinks of western perspective, which has failed miserably over the last few years. And none of that dreaming has come to pass thus far (and never will). Every single time the Ukiebros have told us that they were somehow going to WIN in the end even AS the jaws of defeat were closing in around them tighter every day - Mariupol, Soledar, Bakhmut, etc, etc...  Nobody with a brain is buying it.    The same exact thing Russia did to Berlin back then they are now doing to USkraine one city at a time.  Same as before - Russia did not 'need' nukes to lay waste to anything that they wanted to destroy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:11:01 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: And none of that dreaming has come to pass thus far (and never will). Every single time the Ukiebros have told us that they were somehow going to WIN in the end even AS the jaws of defeat were closing in around them tighter every day - Mariupol, Soledar, Bakhmut, etc, etc... https://i.imgur.com/h8xHIUE.png Nobody with a brain is buying it. https://i.imgur.com/SG3Y6ix.png https://i.imgur.com/0NxR67X.png https://i.imgur.com/VNGMshN.png The same exact thing Russia did to Berlin back then they are now doing to USkraine one city at a time. https://i.imgur.com/fdpFSzT.png Same as before - Russia did not 'need' nukes to lay waste to anything that they wanted to destroy. They are different animals. But I can understand how you got confused as today's Russia is still using weapons that they have left over when they were the Soviet Union. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:17:30 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: You're arguing about arguing now. It's a strategically sound move by the Ukrainians that improves their position, adds risk to Russia and creates options they didn't previously have. You *ASSUME* it will improve their position. That has not occurred yet. In fact, it has reduced their position elsewhere while adding negligible positives so far. Maybe that will change, maybe not. Nothing you have stated about this operation is fact so far, only what you hope will happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:30:16 PM EST
[#40]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:32:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: Lieh-tzu]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... You know, I like getting all sides of a story, but the obnoxious attitude really devalues the bits of content. I guess you're just a troll too.  Just another >2022 pro-Russia account. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:34:58 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... You are Russian, yes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:37:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: Tuco22]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are Russian, yes? Lol is there any doubt at this point? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 12:41:19 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are Russian, yes? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Aaron56: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It's okay yo be surprised by this and not understand their intent. There could even be folks smarter than you or I planning it. It certainly looks like a well planned and well executed effort. Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one... You are Russian, yes? I see his screen name and Hungary, 1956 pops into my head. |
|
|
|
UKR
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 1:04:50 PM EST
[#45]
The fact that the trolls are acting up proves that the muscovites are worried, as they should be.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 1:16:23 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: You *ASSUME* it will improve their position. That has not occurred yet. In fact, it has reduced their position elsewhere while adding negligible positives so far. Maybe that will change, maybe not. Nothing you have stated about this operation is fact so far, only what you hope will happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 1:47:16 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: That's the strange dichotomy about Putin here. The Ukebois think Putin is the devil incarnate, crazy, and will BBQ kittens for fun. But, he would never drop a nuke in Russia to stop a Ukranian advance and save his position. That he's evil, but he is just not that evil. Of course, there is no really good plan B if Putin does that. Dangerous times. No, Putin IS a rational actor. His motivations are evil, his calculations are not really baseless - he is just realizing the state of his military isn't what he was told. He understands that there is a line he can't cross, or he will lose everything. He will push right up to that line to the extent that he is able. He is gambling that the west is growing weary of supporting Ukraine. If he can run out that clock, he wins. If he can't, worse case he retreats to the pre-war borders and begins planning for the next time. Best case, if he can't run out the clock is that he keeps what he has taken, consolidates and begins planning for the next time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 1:53:20 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aaron56: Their intent is PR bullshit. That will inevitably FAIL just like all of the other times they have tried to cross border incursion BS in the past... The only thing 'well executed' here is the UAF troops they sent into that mess. https://i.imgur.com/pF2m0Id.png What are we at now in this latest incursion? 6k+ Ukrainians that are now on their way to be pushing up daisies??? And how many POW's?? https://i.imgur.com/miFpf6R.png https://i.imgur.com/YTuWRu0.png What happens each and every time the UAF tries to hide in a woodline for more than a little while? https://i.imgur.com/ISZXG2n.png Remember how quiet fadedsun got after the last incursion failure??? That same shit is going to happen this time with the only difference being how many UAF troops get turned into fertilizer and how much western equipment ends up on display in Russia after it was destroyed. At the end of the day the failure here on our part is going to epic compared to the failures in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, (could go on and on)... We not only decided to go up against a near peer power - We decided to do so even though more than half of the population of the planet has decided against supporting our garbage. (giving the big middle finger to our 'sanctions' routine) Serious question here - If the USA is soooo strong all alone then why did we have to bail on Afghanistan after 20 years of trying??? A relatively tiny 3rd world crap hole and we 'really showed them' didn't we? Who exactly runs that country now??? https://i.imgur.com/bECkeYZ.jpg For sure we will win this one...  Imagine going through life this fucking stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 1:57:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Again you fail to think deliberately about risk. It seems like you don't even understand what you're missing here Lol, a large part of my professional function is running a team teaching deploying military units deliberate risk assessment from tactical to operational echelon for the purposes of mission planning in the real world. But thank you for your characterization of what I do for a living, random dude. I'm sure your understanding of military operations, risk, and mission planning is much better. The fact is what I am "missing" are the parts of this that you have simply made up. None of the benefits you are touting have panned out thus far, and there are actual negative implications that have definitely materialized. Assessing all variables and potentials is absolutely necessary even if they don't jive with the narrative you are attempting to create, which is exactly what you are trying to do here. If you actually understood any of this we wouldn't be having this discussion, yet here we are. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2024 2:04:13 PM EST
[#50]
Fascinating to watch trench warfare minds try and wrap their heads around maneuver tactics.
It's like watching Douglas Haig talk about Martin van Creveld... "But your reserve forces!" |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
