Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8618

  • MillerEP

    7298

  • Schulz2.0

    3645

  • InkaUtexas

    3007

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

Trey3216

Trey3216 15346

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, texastough said:

WRT Bakhmut, before everyone goes sandy vag keyboard general, they need to remember that Ukraine has both been masterful at head-faking the Russians, and at "withdrawing" only to draw Russians into predetermined kill zones. This reminds me a lot of the severodonetsk battle, which Russia eventually "won" but it left them so weakened that the Kharkiv front line collapsed. I think its an intentional strategy by Ukr.

Yep.  There’s a lot of push/pull dynamic going on.   Ukraine giving small amounts of heavily contested ground to decimate Russian morale and make rapid force movement counters in other areas.   It’s a brutal, somewhat demoralizing tactic but the results afterward have been remarkable.   It’s rope-a-dope on hgh.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44023

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, texastough said:

WRT Bakhmut, before everyone goes sandy vag keyboard general, they need to remember that Ukraine has both been masterful at head-faking the Russians, and at "withdrawing" only to draw Russians into predetermined kill zones. This reminds me a lot of the severodonetsk battle, which Russia eventually "won" but it left them so weakened that the Kharkiv front line collapsed. I think its an intentional strategy by Ukr.

I dunno something seems "off" about this. Hopefully these are troops being sent to cover their retreat:

In Severodonetsk the Ukrainians were retreating to more defensible positions and doing "fighting retreats". This particular battle has raged for months and Ukraine has been unwilling to give up space for time. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7513

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, texastough said:

WRT Bakhmut, before everyone goes sandy vag keyboard general, they need to remember that Ukraine has both been masterful at head-faking the Russians, and at "withdrawing" only to draw Russians into predetermined kill zones. This reminds me a lot of the severodonetsk battle, which Russia eventually "won" but it left them so weakened that the Kharkiv front line collapsed. I think its an intentional strategy by Ukr.

Neither Severodoneysk nor Lysychansk were in this much danger of encirclement nor having their supply lines cut off. 

Bakhmut has held even better than either of those along the eastern front. It’s the flanks that have failed them. 

It was a direct withdrawal to the southwest in the former. Also, Lysychansk was the high ground in that area. At Bakhmut the only withdrawal route is now directly covered by artillery and mortar shells, and they have active SU-25’s running low altitude missions in the area. Not to mention the ground is a slog. The high ground in the area is actually to the west, where new defensive fortifications have been built. 

You could very well be right, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison. I never had the same feeling the defenders in Lysychansk would come under heavy fire while withdrawing the way I do about Bakhmut. Also Severodonetsk and Lysychansk had much more clear strategic importance than Bakhmut does. 

It’s not like I’m seeing an impending loss of the war. But it does appear to be a possible unnecessary loss of life. And as far as being armchair generals, that’s what anyone is who analyzes what is going on. If you’re a thinking human being that spends hours upon hours reading and studying this stuff you can’t help but come up with opinions, even if they’re wrong. 

Then you have the firing of the General who was commander of the overall forces in Donbas, including Bakhmut. Something went wrong in Bakhmut, either in part because of him, or he wanted to go in a different direction than people higher up the chain of command. I feel like the whole situation warrants some second guessing. Not saying any of it is correct, but it looks to me like there’s some second guessing within the Ukrainian command structure. It could be this isn’t a clever rope a dope strategy but an insistence on trading lives at the expense of voluntarily giving up any more territory. In other words, a political decision over a strategic one  

Which wouldn’t make it the wrong decision, per se, but it would make me very sad. I would prefer those men/women have been withdrawn at a stage where it wouldn’t be quite so harrowing than what it is now. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3606

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Neither Severodoneysk nor Lysychansk were in this much danger of encirclement nor having their supply lines cut off. 

Bakhmut has held even better than either of those along the eastern front. It’s the flanks that have failed them. 

It was a direct withdrawal to the southwest in the former. Also, Lysychansk was the high ground in that area. At Bakhmut the only withdrawal route is now directly covered by artillery and mortar shells, and they have active SU-25’s running low altitude missions in the area. Not to mention the ground is a slog. The high ground in the area is actually to the west, where new defensive fortifications have been built. 

You could very well be right, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison. I never had the same feeling the defenders in Lysychansk would come under heavy fire while withdrawing the way I do about Bakhmut. Also Severodonetsk and Lysychansk had much more clear strategic importance than Bakhmut does. 

It’s not like I’m seeing an impending loss of the war. But it does appear to be a possible unnecessary loss of life. And as far as being armchair generals, that’s what anyone is who analyzes what is going on. If you’re a thinking human being that spends hours upon hours reading and studying this stuff you can’t help but come up with opinions, even if they’re wrong. 

Then you have the firing of the General who was commander of the overall forces in Donbas, including Bakhmut. Something went wrong in Bakhmut, either in part because of him, or he wanted to go in a different direction than people higher up the chain of command. I feel like the whole situation warrants some second guessing. Not saying any of it is correct, but it looks to me like there’s some second guessing within the Ukrainian command structure. It could be this isn’t a clever rope a dope strategy but an insistence on trading lives at the expense of voluntarily giving up any more territory. In other words, a political decision over a strategic one  

Which wouldn’t make it the wrong decision, per se, but it would make me very sad. I would prefer those men/women have been withdrawn at a stage where it wouldn’t be quite so harrowing than what it is now. 

That was the post the other day.  Why would they fire the general.  Looks untenable now.  Looks like they were left to die.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5457

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here is the shareable (no sub required) link to a WSJ article about a Russian army town. 
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-war-rhetoric-rallies-russias-border-towns-but-nerves-fray-8b269360?st=m1hyhalgqinjiso&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

 

1. love the “History shows that Russia never attacks first”. 1939 Poland says, “Hi”. 
2. The WSJ actually doxed a Russian Spetsnaz who was at Bucha and is now a Ukrainian POW. 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHOOTER12

SHOOTER12 8805

Posted
Posted
On 2/27/2023 at 11:57 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

NATO is the most successful defensive military alliance in history. A NATO member has never been attacked by a non-NATO state. And no NATO member has attacked another member. You’re basically invulnerable when you’re in the club and that’s why Russia objects to its neighbors joining. 

Ding ding ding ding.

Short, concise and 100% correct.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABSR

ABSR 5310

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's like a really shitty bargain-bin version of an old-school Tom Clancy novel.  On the one hand, you wouldn't think that Russia would be dumb enough to do something that people are already predicting they might do.

But on the other hand, they are driving vehicles into the same minefields and blowing up, so...

Come on!  Don't you remember when Russia found the room for the Ukrainian spy/Nazi sympathizers?  They went on a secret clandestine mission and of course they brought their Swastika flag (still with creased folds), Nazi books, Nazi T-shirts (still with creases from the package), Sim Cards...well, Sim City games still in the cellophane, and plastic bags with receipts.

Darn Ukrainian/NATO Nazi's have been doing this kind of stuff all over the place.  I bet the dirty bomb says "From NATO/US/Ukraine Dirty bomb, definitely NOT Russia." on it.  How can you argue with evidence like that!

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105100

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The Whataburger on Navarro and Business 59 is a fucking oasis when you're driving home from POC/Seadrift. 

I miss the Texas Burger....but doesn't the Moo-Moo kinda take it's place, what with a menu that includes fried gizzards and fried okra?  Doesn't get much better "drive back from fishing" than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
I miss the Texas Burger....but doesn't the Moo-Moo kinda take it's place, what with a menu that includes fried gizzards and fried okra?  Doesn't get much better "drive back from fishing" than that.
I do too, many meals there, and that Whataburger in Victoria is slower than hammered shit and wildly inconsistent. . I hit the one in Port LaCaca now with an online order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48081

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
I miss the Texas Burger....but doesn't the Moo-Moo kinda take it's place, what with a menu that includes fried gizzards and fried okra?  Doesn't get much better "drive back from fishing" than that.

I do too, many meals there, and that Whataburger in Victoria is slower than hammered shit and wildly inconsistent. . I hit the one in Port LaCaca now with an online order.

Is not hammered shit faster than hammered shit, in your experience, good sir? I haven't given this much (any) thought, but I don't see how that would have an influence on speed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHOOTER12

SHOOTER12 8805

Posted
Posted
On 2/27/2023 at 2:50 PM, bolverk said:

To be fair, we also have our own home-grown base of mouth-breathers who've fantasized about nuking other countries/peoples that are a thorn in our side or displaying shitty behavior. The "turn the desert into glass" people come to mind. Fortunately, they're not in positions of power, except for that time MacArthur really wanted to use them in/on North Korea.  

WastharongshouldInothavedonethat.gif?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25921

Posted
Posted
On 2/28/2023 at 1:06 PM, The Dog said:

that's what Ukrainian leadership has been saying:

(the original tweet was a quote from Zelensky)

 

18 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Kinda like their Alamo.

 

Was just what I was thinking. Lose Bhakmut to win the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7513

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Was just what I was thinking. Lose Bhakmut to win the war.

So explain to me how that analogy makes sense. The defenders of the Alamo were not just outflanked. They were literally the only defenders within hundreds of miles. If they could have withdrawn to a better defensive position somewhere they would have. There was no where else to go. 

The situation in Bakhmut is that there is a high ridge literally just west of the town where the defenders inside the city would no longer be flanked and the supply lines would no longer be under such severe constraint. There are plenty of other disadvantages, but those are some big ones pros in favor of it. There is an opportunity here to trade territory for lives. 

To me that’s the obvious issue. Someone in the Ukrainian command has decided they don’t want to do that. Okay. They’re the ones in charge. They get to. But it’s obvious they’d prefer to trade lives to prove a point. We’re not giving up a single inch of territory to you fucks. Not a single inch. If that’s the case, it is what it is, but it’s depressing to witness. If that’s the case. 

Or we can believe there’s a brilliant strategy involved here. I do not believe that. I think an emotional decision is being made to defend Bakhmut come hell or high water, even though there was a perfectly good route to withdraw as recently as a couple of weeks ago. That was not the situation at the Alamo. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

So explain to me how that analogy makes sense. The defenders of the Alamo were not just outflanked. They were literally the only defenders within hundreds of miles. If they could have withdrawn to a better defensive position somewhere they would have. There was no where else to go. 

Let's not derail this thread with a dozen pages of how they should have bailed on the Alamo/Béxar and let the Mexicans have it, and how they should not have even been in the Alamo and that earlier commanders (Fannin) should have listened to Houston and backed off to La Bahía and Gonzales because the Alamo/Béxar was not the place that Houston wanted to confront the Mexicans because it was shitty for a lot of reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
On 2/27/2023 at 11:57 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

NATO is the most successful defensive military alliance in history. A NATO member has never been attacked by a non-NATO state. And no NATO member has attacked another member. You’re basically invulnerable when you’re in the club and that’s why Russia objects to its neighbors joining. 

2 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Ding ding ding ding.

Short, concise and 100% correct.

When the Warsaw Pact was around, you know what country invaded Warsaw Pact member Hungary when it decided it wanted out of the Warsaw Pact?  Fellow Warsaw Pact member, the Soviet Union, who killed thousands of Hungarian civilians and removed Hungary's government.

And what country invaded Warsaw Pact member Czechoslovakia?  Trick question, it was multiple countries - fellow Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and the Soviet Union. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7513

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Let's not derail this thread with a dozen pages of how they should have bailed on the Alamo/Béxar and let the Mexicans have it, and how they should not have even been in the Alamo and that earlier commanders (Fannin) should have listened to Houston and backed off to La Bahía and Gonzales because the Alamo/Béxar was not the place that Houston wanted to confront the Mexicans because it was shitty for a lot of reasons.

So it would be like the Alamo if Ukrainian command was telling the military in Bakhmut to get the hell out of there, and they were collectively crossing lines in the sand saying, “Hell no, we won’t go!”

Because that to me WOULD sound a lot more like the Alamo. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15817

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

When the Warsaw Pact was around, you know what country invaded Warsaw Pact member Hungary when it decided it wanted out of the Warsaw Pact?  Fellow Warsaw Pact member, the Soviet Union, who killed thousands of Hungarian civilians and removed Hungary's government.

And what country invaded Warsaw Pact member Czechoslovakia?  Trick question, it was multiple countries - fellow Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and the Soviet Union. 

 

Warsaw Pact seems like it sucked.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

So it would be like the Alamo if Ukrainian command was telling the military in Bakhmut to get the hell out of there, and they were collectively crossing lines in the sand saying, “Hell no, we won’t go!”

Because that to me WOULD sound a lot more like the Alamo. 

Maybe, but it's hard to say - we all kept wondering why they were letting Kherson and the steel works last as long as they did, meanwhile they were prepping counter-offensives elsewhere, which were successful.

The whole thing sucks, but holy shit have they destroyed a massive amount of Russian equipment and soldiers (and arguably have broken Wagner as an organization), all of which will help Ukraine down the road.  

These are horrific calculations to be making, especially when you value the lives of your soldiers far more than the Russians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7513

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe, but it's hard to say - we all kept wondering why they were letting Kherson and the steel works last as long as they did, meanwhile they were prepping counter-offensives elsewhere, which were successful.

The whole thing sucks, but holy shit have they destroyed a massive amount of Russian equipment and soldiers (and arguably have broken Wagner as an organization), all of which will help Ukraine down the road.  

These are horrific calculations to be making, especially when you value the lives of your soldiers far more than the Russians do.

Kherson? I don’t understand what you mean by that. 

Heck, with the steelworks a lot of those guys would have been better off if they hadn’t surrendered. I feel like it was mostly they couldn’t afford to lose any more helicopters to supply them. But I don’t know that. Azovstal doesn’t seem like a good equivalent to me. 

The Donetsk airport, on the other hand, seems very similar to Bakhmut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7513

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

I’m glad to see Pistorious say out loud what everyone has known for decades. I’m not sure Germany ever carried its weight, but some of that is no one really wanted them to. It’s not like anyone is excited to see Germany build a really powerful military even after 80 years have passed. 

But the state it’s in right now is deplorable. And of course it is. Look how much they spend on defense. Nearly all of NATO is like that, but Germany has been the worst. 

Well, hopefully they do the right thing and start rebuilding their defense forces, but even with Ukraine there’s uphill sledding to do politically. And it can’t be fixed overnight. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...