Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Apologies if this has been posted already but is UKR making territorial gains?

If so, what has that looked like over the past couple of weeks?

It feels like they have a window here to show gains and that the West’s investment is going to show returns in terms of kicking RU the fuck out of their territory. Is that happening and to what extent?

Posted
37 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Apologies if this has been posted already but is UKR making territorial gains?

If so, what has that looked like over the past couple of weeks?

It feels like they have a window here to show gains and that the West’s investment is going to show returns in terms of kicking RU the fuck out of their territory. Is that happening and to what extent?

They are slowly but surely gaining ground in the south around Kherson. I actually think the “return on investment” thing is a little different. Our main goal here is to grind the Russian military into dust, with the secondary (but still important) goal of restoring Ukraine’s territorial control. If it takes a long time for the latter, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Every day that Russia is fighting in Ukraine means fewer weapons and men that could hypothetically be involved in a future conflict with the US / NATO.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

My guess is that AI is probably right here and that Ukraine is putting troops into population centers.   But the context seems that not putting troops and equipment into population centers just leaves them completely open to destruction which the Russians have shown they are gleefully willing to do.  So the decision to keep troops in present is necessary as the Russians would likely just kill and kidnap more unprotected people not just leave them be.  

This.

It is an urban war.  That means the war is actually being fought, based on the direction of the aggressor's attack, in urban areas that contain civilian populations, schools, hospitals, etc.  A defender shows up and fights the aggressor where they are.

That is separate from the issue of whether WITHIN those areas, the UKA is purposefully using schools and such as staging areas, and the like.  In a situation like this one with full urban warfare, it can get gray as hell.  A better position for AI to have taken would have cautioned the UKA against UNNECESSARILY involving schools and hospitals in urban combat operations.  Really a tone-deaf approach by AI.  AI has been critical of Russia on a broad front here, but this is some shitty attempt at "both sides" to claim some sort of moral high ground that actually just makes AI look pretty stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

It is an urban war.  That means the war is actually being fought, based on the direction of the aggressor's attack, in urban areas that contain civilian populations, schools, hospitals, etc.  A defender shows up and fights the aggressor where they are.

That is separate from the issue of whether WITHIN those areas, the UKA is purposefully using schools and such as staging areas, and the like.  In a situation like this one with full urban warfare, it can get gray as hell.  A better position for AI to have taken would have cautioned the UKA against UNNECESSARILY involving schools and hospitals in urban combat operations.  Really a tone-deaf approach by AI.  AI has been critical of Russia on a broad front here, but this is some shitty attempt at "both sides" to claim some sort of moral high ground that actually just makes AI look pretty stupid.

Agree and specifically regarding schools, those are government structures that are not in use right now making them one of the better alternatives for rally points, etc. While using a school for military purposes on the surface sounds awful that's not necessarily the case. Obviously if it is being used as a shelter or other civilian need that's a separate case. But if it's empty, and relatively speaking isolated from homes and other civilians, my opinion is by all means use them militarily as needed.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fico said:

Agree and specifically regarding schools, those are government structures that are not in use right now making them one of the better alternatives for rally points, etc. While using a school for military purposes on the surface sounds awful that's not necessarily the case. Obviously if it is being used as a shelter or other civilian need that's a separate case. But if it's empty, and relatively speaking isolated from homes and other civilians, my opinion is by all means use them militarily as needed.

Yep.  When the entire city is a battlefield, then there are no schools, hospitals, or homes.  Just structures to take and defend.  Russia decided to attack cities, that's how the game goes.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The most important thing for civilians, by far, is that the Russian troops are prevented from advancing and eventually pushed back. And let’s not pretend that the Russians only fire on civilian infrastructure if Ukrainian troops are located there. They destroy schools and hospitals with indiscriminate artillery fire as a matter of doctrine. And then they rape and murder the civilians once they take control of the town.

UA should use any and every structure needed to successfully defend their territory. Amnesty International can STFU.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Auto Driller said:

The most important thing for civilians, by far, is that the Russian troops are prevented from advancing and eventually pushed back. And let’s not pretend that the Russians only fire on civilian infrastructure if Ukrainian troops are located there.

That's where HIMARS has been most effective. It pushed back RU arty and forced them to deploy more expensive long range ord. That's gonna run out. HIMARS isn't and the long range stuff is just sitting on the tarmac to ship.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  When the entire city is a battlefield, then there are no schools, hospitals, or homes.  Just structures to take and defend.  Russia decided to attack cities, that's how the game goes.

 

24 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

The most important thing for civilians, by far, is that the Russian troops are prevented from advancing and eventually pushed back. And let’s not pretend that the Russians only fire on civilian infrastructure if Ukrainian troops are located there. They destroy schools and hospitals with indiscriminate artillery fire as a matter of doctrine. And then they rape and murder the civilians once they take control of the town.

UA should use any and every structure needed to successfully defend their territory. Amnesty International can STFU.

Case in point

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 minute ago, utee94 said:

Amnesty International should probably spend a little less time criticizing Ukrainians for trying not to get raped, murdered, and eradicated from the planet, and spend a little more time censuring Russia for... you know... raping, murdering, and attempting to eradicate Ukrainians from the planet.

I

In a touch of fairness to AI, they have been very critical of Russian conduct in this war.  This just strikes me as a foolish pointyheaded academic attempt to claim some "both sides" moral high ground where not only did it not need to do so, it just looks silly by doing so.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

In a touch of fairness to AI, they have been very critical of Russian conduct in this war.  This just strikes me as a foolish pointyheaded academic attempt to claim some "both sides" moral high ground where not only did it not need to do so, it just looks silly by doing so.

Yeah, pretty much my point.

Nobody noticed anything they were saying about it at all, until they told the people getting slaughtered that they should try a little harder.

It's expected that a group with their stated mission should be absolutely destroying Russia on the public front. And yet the only time I've read a single thing about them, is when they came out and said precisely the wrong thing.

In short, fuck those guys.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yeah, pretty much my point.

Nobody noticed anything they were saying about it at all, until they told the people getting slaughtered that they should try a little harder.

It's expected that a group with their stated mission should be absolutely destroying Russia on the public front. And yet the only time I've read a single thing about them, is when they came out and said precisely the wrong thing.

In short, fuck those guys.

 

Well, people tend to notice it much more when you shoot yourself in the dick as compared to you just going about your ordinary business.  AI blew their dick clean off.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

In a touch of fairness to AI, they have been very critical of Russian conduct in this war.  This just strikes me as a foolish pointyheaded academic attempt to claim some "both sides" moral high ground where not only did it not need to do so, it just looks silly by doing so.

I interpret it a little differently.  I tend to think of them as some tired administrator that just declares "it takes two to tango" and punishes the bully and the victim alike.  

Or they have corrupted people working for them.  (from above links)

 

Edited by Nivek
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

The Russians probably caught their own ship on fire. I repeat, making those fuckers go to sea is the same as slowly destroying them.

Could have been some sort of missile they fired from it that’s not designed to be fired from that ship causing those marks but I would like a torpedo to have hit it

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, Auto Driller said:

They are slowly but surely gaining ground in the south around Kherson. I actually think the “return on investment” thing is a little different. Our main goal here is to grind the Russian military into dust, with the secondary (but still important) goal of restoring Ukraine’s territorial control. If it takes a long time for the latter, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Every day that Russia is fighting in Ukraine means fewer weapons and men that could hypothetically be involved in a future conflict with the US / NATO.

I don't agree with the idea that a long, protracted war benefits the US, UKR or Europe/NATO and that our goal is to keep them occupied fighting a way in Ukraine. 

The longer this drags on, the harder it will be for western leaders to continue to support the war. UKR needs to start making significant gains quickly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MillerEP said:
 
2 hours ago, MillerEP said:
 
2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

Are there other cases of the Allies tacitly helping the Ukrainian military in country? 

Edited by Parliament
Posted
8 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Are there other cases of the Allies tacitly helping the Ukrainian military in country? 

There is a shit ton of intel shared by Countries, the amount will probably revealed down the years. 

Posted
31 minutes ago, Handcruser said:


USA

Like right now?  I have been guessing they left when Russia invaded.  That or took a 6 month "vacation" from the US Army.  I'm not disagreeing with you; just wanna learn.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Like right now?  I have been guessing they left when Russia invaded.  That or took a 6 month "vacation" from the US Army.  I'm not disagreeing with you; just wanna learn.

I think you misunderstood the tweet.  The Canucks are deploying to the UK to help train troops, not UK.  Slight difference.

But I would be shocked if we don't have spooks and operators all over Ukraine.  We'll just never hear about it.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I think you misunderstood the tweet.  The Canucks are deploying to the UK to help train troops, not UK.  Slight difference.

But I would be shocked if we don't have spooks and operators all over Ukraine.  We'll just never hear about it.

Got it.  Thank you.  Looks like the UK is gonna get stripped of it's Labatte's and poutain.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
I think you misunderstood the tweet.  The Canucks are deploying to the UK to help train troops, not UK.  Slight difference.
But I would be shocked if we don't have spooks and operators all over Ukraine.  We'll just never hear about it.

Yeah we do.
Posted
1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

We're being too hard on Amnesty International. Vegans are not built to handle the stress of weeks of sleepless explosion-filled nights, plus they can't wake up because they can only drink fair trade coffee that has been shit through a lemur's butt.

You want some coffee? My avatar has some coffee for you.

Don't ask where he got it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
9 hours ago, Parliament said:

Are there other cases of the Allies tacitly helping the Ukrainian military in country? 

The Canadians are going to the U.K. not UKR to train UA soldiers on Canadian systems.

UK = United Kingdom

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

 

8 hours ago, Parliament said:

Send her to the front.

My reading of the translated tweet was that this woman was trying to get the press release about defending cities taken down and she resigned her position in UKR in protest over what the leadership did in condemning UKR.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

We're being too hard on Amnesty International. Vegans are not built to handle the stress of weeks of sleepless explosion-filled nights, plus they can't wake up because they can only drink fair trade coffee that has been shit through a lemur's butt.

Brother, we should heat up an MRE on a Bradley one day. I bet we can steal one from the corp. 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...