Ukraine conflict
#3861
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,819
it is absolutely wild. Ive been off work for 10 days. Hit the road last night and checked in here to see whats up.
any normal rational human would take a step back and realize the insanity of posting this much one sided information for days with no one interacting with it (alter ego meto doesn’t count)
i dont think it realizes that no one is taking it seriously at this point. Truly a sickness of the mind
any normal rational human would take a step back and realize the insanity of posting this much one sided information for days with no one interacting with it (alter ego meto doesn’t count)
i dont think it realizes that no one is taking it seriously at this point. Truly a sickness of the mind
#3862
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 173
Cargo,
It isn't whether ISW or CNN are Kremlin shills. It is the selection of articles that you choose. Your editing, if you will.
You almost exclusively choose articles that present a certain narrative, which shows a bias on your part that provides support to the Kremlin's long term and short term strategic goals.
I interrpret Lowslung and Slicebacks comments as pointing out the pro-Kremlin/anti-democracy/anti-world stability essays and articles you choose to present. They are not commenting on the media sources.
They are commenting on a degree of disingenuousness imbedded in your posts.
It isn't whether ISW or CNN are Kremlin shills. It is the selection of articles that you choose. Your editing, if you will.
You almost exclusively choose articles that present a certain narrative, which shows a bias on your part that provides support to the Kremlin's long term and short term strategic goals.
I interrpret Lowslung and Slicebacks comments as pointing out the pro-Kremlin/anti-democracy/anti-world stability essays and articles you choose to present. They are not commenting on the media sources.
They are commenting on a degree of disingenuousness imbedded in your posts.
a. Extremely pedantic
b. Extremely dense
or
c. Both
#3863
Cargo,
It isn't whether ISW or CNN are Kremlin shills. It is the selection of articles that you choose. Your editing, if you will.
You almost exclusively choose articles that present a certain narrative, which shows a bias on your part that provides support to the Kremlin's long term and short term strategic goals.
I interrpret Lowslung and Slicebacks comments as pointing out the pro-Kremlin/anti-democracy/anti-world stability essays and articles you choose to present. They are not commenting on the media sources.
They are commenting on a degree of disingenuousness imbedded in your posts.
It isn't whether ISW or CNN are Kremlin shills. It is the selection of articles that you choose. Your editing, if you will.
You almost exclusively choose articles that present a certain narrative, which shows a bias on your part that provides support to the Kremlin's long term and short term strategic goals.
I interrpret Lowslung and Slicebacks comments as pointing out the pro-Kremlin/anti-democracy/anti-world stability essays and articles you choose to present. They are not commenting on the media sources.
They are commenting on a degree of disingenuousness imbedded in your posts.
I have no ill will whatsoever toward Ukraine, they live in a rough neighborhood. My personal opinion was they should have retained some of their Soviet era nukes rather than giving them up for the promises from the US and Russia that both countries would guarantee the territorial integrity of the country (which obviously neither did).
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/d...ch--Final4.pdf
So yeah, Zelensky has a point that they were sort of betrayed by the West, and that we failed to live up to the promises we made to them, none of which, unfortunately, alters the fact that they DID give up their nukes and left themselves vulnerable to Russian attack.
#3865
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,819
Whereabouts unknown. Here’s what I was around for..
In his 1965 autobiography LeMay is quoted as saying his response to North Vietnam would be to demand that "they've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age." And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces. In 1968 LeMay threw his support to Wallace and became his vice-presidential running mate on the American Independent Party ticket. (George Corley Wallace, Jr.)
This effort demands infantry reinforcements. Not longer range warheads launched under command of a battle weary, defensive underdog.
In his 1965 autobiography LeMay is quoted as saying his response to North Vietnam would be to demand that "they've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age." And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces. In 1968 LeMay threw his support to Wallace and became his vice-presidential running mate on the American Independent Party ticket. (George Corley Wallace, Jr.)
This effort demands infantry reinforcements. Not longer range warheads launched under command of a battle weary, defensive underdog.
#3866
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,819
Astrology, handwriting analysis, ouija, tarot readings, more or less relevant as crosstalk posted above. Barbershop opinion in cap & shoulder boards. Hardly grounds for gnashing of teeth or bitter, cringeworthy, juvie replies. Minds won’t change one iota but pls, do your best. Just remember, backpage posts flow like blue water into a lav tank.
Get in or get out is what I believe. Someone has to patrol a Ural length fence line when the shooting stops. Any guess who might ‘bear’ that burden?
Get in or get out is what I believe. Someone has to patrol a Ural length fence line when the shooting stops. Any guess who might ‘bear’ that burden?
#3867
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...ion-rcna168735
‘Who blinks first?’ Why Putin still hasn’t driven Ukraine's invaders out of Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin has refrained from committing the forces necessary to push Ukrainian troops out of Kursk, but his military is advancing in Ukraine's east
SUMY, Ukraine — It’s been more than three weeks since foreign troops swept into Russia for the first time since World War II, yet there is little sign that Ukrainian forces are about to be driven back across the border.
The Ukrainian advance may have stalled since the daring Aug. 6 assault, but Kyiv claims it controls nearly 500 square miles of Russian territory and has taken hundreds of prisoners of war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to “squeeze” the Ukrainians out, but his military’s recent successes have been much farther afield in Ukraine’s east. Now both armies seem focused on the fight in enemy territory where they are gaining ground, even if that means leaving the door open in their own backyard.
“This seems to be a game of who blinks first,” a Western intelligence official, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the situation, told NBC News. “Ukrainians are taking and holding Russian land. Russians are pushing in the east. It could be a question of who withdraws their forces first.”A key goal of Ukraine’s surprise attack on the southern Kursk border region seemed to be easing the pressure on its industrial heartland, where Russian troops have been advancing against outgunned and outmanned defenders.
Faced with the ignominy of losing his own territory to the neighbor he had invaded, the assumption seemed, Putin would scramble the Kremlin’s might to drive out the Ukrainians even if it meant sacrificing progress elsewhere. That has not been the case.
Ukraine’s top commander, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, said Tuesday that up to 30,000 Russian troops had been diverted to Kursk from other areas of the 600-mile front line since the incursion. But in the area that has become the focal point on the eastern front, Syrskyi said, the Russians have instead been reinforcing their troops.
This sentiment was echoed by a senior Western intelligence official, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the conflict. “We have not seen a major Russian troop movement away from the eastern front,” the official said.U.S. officials also say that Russia has not diverted a large number of troops from eastern Ukraine to counter the Ukrainian forces inside Russia.
For weeks, military observers have raised fears that Russian forces are rapidly advancing on the key logistics hub of Pokrovsk and neighboring Toretsk in the eastern Donetsk region. The Russian Defense Ministry has claimed control of a dozen settlements in that area since Ukraine’s incursion began, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy admitting Wednesday that “the situation is extremely difficult.”
Ukraine briefed its allies on the aims of its offensive during a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting Wednesday, said a Western diplomat who did not want to be named given the sensitivity of the matter.
The Ukrainian advance may have stalled since the daring Aug. 6 assault, but Kyiv claims it controls nearly 500 square miles of Russian territory and has taken hundreds of prisoners of war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to “squeeze” the Ukrainians out, but his military’s recent successes have been much farther afield in Ukraine’s east. Now both armies seem focused on the fight in enemy territory where they are gaining ground, even if that means leaving the door open in their own backyard.
“This seems to be a game of who blinks first,” a Western intelligence official, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the situation, told NBC News. “Ukrainians are taking and holding Russian land. Russians are pushing in the east. It could be a question of who withdraws their forces first.”A key goal of Ukraine’s surprise attack on the southern Kursk border region seemed to be easing the pressure on its industrial heartland, where Russian troops have been advancing against outgunned and outmanned defenders.
Faced with the ignominy of losing his own territory to the neighbor he had invaded, the assumption seemed, Putin would scramble the Kremlin’s might to drive out the Ukrainians even if it meant sacrificing progress elsewhere. That has not been the case.
Ukraine’s top commander, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, said Tuesday that up to 30,000 Russian troops had been diverted to Kursk from other areas of the 600-mile front line since the incursion. But in the area that has become the focal point on the eastern front, Syrskyi said, the Russians have instead been reinforcing their troops.
This sentiment was echoed by a senior Western intelligence official, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the conflict. “We have not seen a major Russian troop movement away from the eastern front,” the official said.U.S. officials also say that Russia has not diverted a large number of troops from eastern Ukraine to counter the Ukrainian forces inside Russia.
For weeks, military observers have raised fears that Russian forces are rapidly advancing on the key logistics hub of Pokrovsk and neighboring Toretsk in the eastern Donetsk region. The Russian Defense Ministry has claimed control of a dozen settlements in that area since Ukraine’s incursion began, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy admitting Wednesday that “the situation is extremely difficult.”
‘It looks like Putin doesn’t care’
Kyiv’s decision to launch the Kursk operation meant moving troops from the already-strained defensive lines around Donetsk. But they did quickly push into Russia and seem intent on keeping hold of the land they’ve seized — for now at least.Ukraine briefed its allies on the aims of its offensive during a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting Wednesday, said a Western diplomat who did not want to be named given the sensitivity of the matter.
A member of Ukraine’s security service who just returned from the Sudzha, one of the Russian border towns now held by Ukraine, told NBC News that Ukraine doesn’t need Russian land, echoing statements by the country’s officials who have denied that the Kursk operation amounts to a long-term occupation.
“But for now we need to be here,” said the officer, who did not want his name released for security reasons. “It’s a game we can play together. If you occupy my territories, then we’re here.”
Mykhailo Samus, a Ukrainian military analyst and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, assessed that Moscow would need two or three divisions, in the realm of 50,000 troops, to fully retake the areas Ukraine now controls in Kursk.
And that’s not a force they seem eager to commit, he said. “It looks like Putin doesn’t care about it.”
“But for now we need to be here,” said the officer, who did not want his name released for security reasons. “It’s a game we can play together. If you occupy my territories, then we’re here.”
Mykhailo Samus, a Ukrainian military analyst and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, assessed that Moscow would need two or three divisions, in the realm of 50,000 troops, to fully retake the areas Ukraine now controls in Kursk.
And that’s not a force they seem eager to commit, he said. “It looks like Putin doesn’t care about it.”
#3868
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,819
A member of Ukraine’s security service who just returned from the Sudzha, one of the Russian border towns now held by Ukraine, told NBC News that Ukraine doesn’t need Russian land, echoing statements by the country’s officials who have denied that the Kursk operation amounts to a long-term occupation.
“But for now we need to be here,” said the officer, who did not want his name released for security reasons. “It’s a game we can play together. If you occupy my territories, then we’re here.”
“But for now we need to be here,” said the officer, who did not want his name released for security reasons. “It’s a game we can play together. If you occupy my territories, then we’re here.”
#3869
So Mexico COULD do it. They have an army of a quarter million people But there would shortly be cries of "remember the Alamo" and probably civilian militia groups forming of Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett wannabes driving their pickup trucks down there.
One has to question if that is the best use they can make of those 20,000 troops though. Because it's an opportunity cost to use them there that comes at the expense of being able to use them somewhere that may be more vital.
Is the juice in the Kursk invasion actually going to be worth the squeeze? I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. Perhaps time will tell.
#3870
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,455
We disagree on longer range weapons. If forces the fighter bombers farther away and Russia doesn't have the A2A refueling robustness the U.S. has which will reduce their time on station. If also forces their supply, C&C facilities and marshalling areas farther from the FLOT/FEBA. All of which create problems and opens up the Russia's to BAI by missiles if they expose themselves.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post