Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8604

  • MillerEP

    7286

  • Schulz2.0

    3638

  • InkaUtexas

    2980

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

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
Posted (edited)

it seems like these are the only 4 outcomes at this point right?

  • Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • Russia takes all of Ukraine

oddsmakers, what odds are you giving the 4 above?

Edited by DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt
math
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6791

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

it seems like these are the only 4 outcomes at this point right?

  • Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • Russia takes all of Ukraine

oddsmakers, what odds are you giving the 4 above?

What timeframe?

I think Russia is going to control most if not all of Ukraine.  I don't know anything, but it seems Russia has no problem going scorched earth to claim territory.

My preference is an end to it at this moment, but I suspect this is going to lay a while.

Edited by Snacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15745

Posted
Posted
Just now, Snacks said:

What timeframe?

I think Russia is going to control most if not all of Ukraine.  I don't know anything, but it seems Russia has no problem going scorched earth to claim territory.

My preference is an end to it at those moment, but I suspect this is going to lay a while.

I don't think there's any way Russia will ever be able to  "control" most if not all of Ukraine.  They couldn't even invade Kyiv when they were wholly focused on it.  Sure they can bomb pretty much anywhere they want and they obviously have no compunction about murdering civilians, but that's not at all the same thing as "controlling" Ukraine.  I don't think that's even a remote possibility at this point.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15325

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Snacks said:

What timeframe?

I think Russia is going to control most if not all of Ukraine.  I don't know anything, but it seems Russia has no problem going scorched earth to claim territory.

My preference is an end to it at this moment, but I suspect this is going to lay a while.

There's no way that Russia will ever control all of Ukraine, or even most of it.   Even if it did happen, it'd 100% guarantee that Russia would be in a constant state of Civil War for the foreseeable future.  I'm talking actual, blowing shit up in the capitol/coups d' etat/assassinations/suicide bombings Civil War, for decades.   

Edited by Trey3216
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6791

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I don't think there's any way Russia will ever be able to  "control" most if not all of Ukraine.  They couldn't even invade Kyiv when they were wholly focused on it.  Sure they can bomb pretty much anywhere they want and they obviously have no compunction about murdering civilians, but that's not at all the same thing as "controlling" Ukraine.  I don't think that's even a remote possibility at this point.

 

 

16 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Russia isn't going to control all of Ukraine. In order to do that they need full mobilization and the Russians don't have the stomach for that. 

 

11 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

There's no way that Russia will ever control all of Ukraine, or even most of it.   Even if it did happen, it'd 100% guarantee that Russia would be in a constant state of Civil War for the foreseeable future.  I'm talking actual, blowing shit up in the capitol/coups d' etat/assassinations/suicide bombings Civil War, for decades.   

This is why I asked what time frame... It is apparent to me that Russia is willing to go at this longer than most of us suspect.  

It appears Russia knows it can't just march in and have Ukraine lay down, as was the original plan... But Putin seems willing to slowly bomb cities and move the women and children to Russia. I don't think Ukraine can sustain without more bodies and weapons. This isn't US in Vietnam. 

"Winning" doesn't seem likely for either side, without redefining winning. I don't think Russia cares if the infrastructure of Ukraine is obliterated.  Ukraine probably does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6791

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:


It is estimated that would require 2 million occupying troops for about 20 years.

Today.

Let's say this fight goes on for two years and Russia just continues to batter cities and relocate people. Then they won't need as many trips to hold the no longer existing cities.

Does this not seem like the new plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Snacks said:

Today.

Let's say this fight goes on for two years and Russia just continues to batter cities and relocate people. Then they won't need as many trips to hold the no longer existing cities.

Does this not seem like the new plan?

I think you're mistaking small tactical gains as a sign of a larger strategic advantage for Russia. At best for Russia, it may control the eastern part of Ukraine for a period of time after a negotiated truce. I don't think it is able to move significantly westward from its current positions. 

Very long term, I think Russia gets driven out of Ukraine completely. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royalfan5

Royalfan5 2348

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Snacks said:

Today.

Let's say this fight goes on for two years and Russia just continues to batter cities and relocate people. Then they won't need as many trips to hold the no longer existing cities.

Does this not seem like the new plan?

If their plan is to kill and relocate people no matter what, Ukraine will have no incentive to not make them do it to take as many Russians with them as they can. 

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

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

it seems like these are the only 4 outcomes at this point right?

  • Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • Russia takes all of Ukraine

oddsmakers, what odds are you giving the 4 above?

My guess would be somewhere between the second and third bullet points. Both forces will eventually exhaust themselves and come to an eventually cease fire (not truce) that will repeatedly get broken for a matter of years. Pretty much what happened with the first Donbas conflict. I don't think they're there yet but would say by this time next year. 

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

InkaUtexas 25497

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

My guess would be somewhere between the second and third bullet points. Both forces will eventually exhaust themselves and come to an eventually cease fire (not truce) that will repeatedly get broken for a matter of years. Pretty much what happened with the first Donbas conflict. I don't think they're there yet but would say by this time next year. 

This is where I am. Eventually there will be a Dayton type agreement where the Russian controlled parts of Ukraine gain some autonomy, remain under Moscow's control, and we see a peacekeeping and monitoring group placed between them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

My guess would be somewhere between the second and third bullet points. Both forces will eventually exhaust themselves and come to an eventually cease fire (not truce) that will repeatedly get broken for a matter of years. Pretty much what happened with the first Donbas conflict. I don't think they're there yet but would say by this time next year. 

 

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

This is where I am. Eventually there will be a Dayton type agreement where the Russian controlled parts of Ukraine gain some autonomy, remain under Moscow's control, and we see a peacekeeping and monitoring group placed between them. 

Putin can sell that as a win at home. The idea that Putin is going to walk away from this a) still leading Russia and b) with more land under Russian control is some next level fuckery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104561

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

The idea that Putin is going to walk away from this a) still leading Russia and b) with more land under Russian control is some next level fuckery.

Perhaps you are unware of the operating parameters of the timeline we seem to be occupying these days......."next level fuckery" is the baseline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
morehornsepower

morehornsepower 865

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

it seems like these are the only 4 outcomes at this point right?

  • Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • Russia takes all of Ukraine

oddsmakers, what odds are you giving the 4 above?

I think the will of the Ukrainian people is unquestionable now.  I think the outcome rests on how well the rest of the world can stay focused on supporting and not get distracted by the next crisis.

IMO, if the western world continues a decent level of support:

  • 25%: Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • 50% (though Ukraine would say this war started with Crimea): Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • 20%: Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • 5%: Russia takes all of Ukraine
Edited by morehornsepower
clarification...
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

it seems like these are the only 4 outcomes at this point right?

  • Russia is eventually driven out of all Ukrainian territory
  • Russia is driven out of all Ukrainian territory minus Crimea (basically back to where we were before this war)
  • Russia takes more of eastern Ukraine through a negotiated truce
  • Russia takes all of Ukraine

oddsmakers, what odds are you giving the 4 above?

  1. The longer this goes and the more Russia bleeds, the higher of a chance that this happens. It is interesting that a shitload of "Russians" living in Crimea have bailed on Crimea for Mother Russia and have tried to dispose of Crimean assets.  I still put this somewhere below 50%, but long term (years), I can see it happening.
  2. Very likely in the short term.
  3. Nope.  They are blowing bridges right now to keep the Ukrainians from retaking areas, and that also means that they don't think they can advance any farther beyond the rivers they are blowing bridges on.
  4. Nope.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Slacks said:

What timeframe?

I think Russia is going to control most if not all of Ukraine.  I don't know anything, but it seems Russia has no problem going scorched earth to claim territory.

My preference is an end to it at this moment, but I suspect this is going to lay a while.

Russia couldn't even hold Kharkiv, and wasn't even close to taking Kyiv, a city not that far from the border with Belarus.  Right now, Russia is blowing bridges in Eastern Ukraine, and given Russia's lack of bridging/ponton abilities, that's a solid indication that they've culminated and are just going to try and consolidate and hold on to what they already have.

3 hours ago, Slacks said:

It appears Russia knows it can't just march in and have Ukraine lay down, as was the original plan... But Putin seems willing to slowly bomb cities and move the women and children to Russia. I don't think Ukraine can sustain without more bodies and weapons. This isn't US in Vietnam. 

"Winning" doesn't seem likely for either side, without redefining winning. I don't think Russia cares if the infrastructure of Ukraine is obliterated.  Ukraine probably does.

Destroying the cities and infrastructure and kidnapping women and children and taking them to Russia is an indication that Putin knows Russia can't hold what they currently have, and that they will probably be pulling out sometime this year.  Those are things that tell the world "FUCK YOU, IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, NEITHER CAN THE UKRAINIANS!"

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

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Slacks said:

This is why I asked what time frame... It is apparent to me that Russia is willing to go at this longer than most of us suspect.  

I could hook up with Sela Ward (sorry @Brisketexan) and I would be willing to make sweet love to her longer than most of you suspect.

But that still doesn't mean I won't be asleep within a few hours.

Russia can't go the distance.  They are bringing in unprepared conscripts and reservists in undermanned formations, and fielding early 1960s-era T-62s.

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

MillerEP 30339

Posted
Posted

At the checkpoint in Vasylivka, farmers are forced to dump tons of vegetables that are transported from Melitopol to Zaporizhia because Russian terrorists ban the export of vegetables and fruits from the temporarily occupied territories. Meanwhile, the price of tomatoes in Melitopol - 20 UAH / kg, cucumbers about 5 UAH / kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30339

Posted
Posted

The Russian army is a refuge for thieves who steal everything they see from Ukrainians

 One such case was recorded by surveillance cameras in the Sumy region. Thanks to our defenders, there are no more occupiers, but the "memory" of them is preserved in the video.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaggyBevo RIP

ShaggyBevo RIP 3868

Posted
Posted
If Kherson is retaken this week then I think Ukraine goes after Crimea next. 

Week isn’t anywhere near long enough but I like the strategy of going into Crimea instead of up the Azov coastline to cut off Crimea supply lines reducing RU to only one way to resupply. That would also pretty much force pulling most troops out of Donbas to protect Crimea. Lose control of the Kerch Straight and taking Mariupol was all for not.

If land resupply to Sevastopol is severed can Putin’s regime survive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, The Dog said:

Russia isn't going to control all of Ukraine. In order to do that they need full mobilization and the Russians don't have the stomach for that. 

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

those here that seem to be following this the closest and using the most acronyms seem to say 'Russia is fucked'...what does that mean within the context of the options I laid out above? Or what are the other most likely outcomes that I didn't lay out that has Russia fucked?

Like The Dog said, Russia needed to be on a full military footing both in terms of their population, their economy, and their manufacturing/production.  They needed to be able to fully call up the reserves and force any and all conscripts into combat, and to do that, Putin needed to declare war and the Duma had to support him - Putin does a lot of shady shit, but apparently he still abides by the Russian constitution when it comes to calling it a "special military operation" instead of "war".  

I don't know all the intricacies of the differences between "special military operation" and "war" in terms of Russia's constitution, but whatever they are, something about them has Putin unwilling to cross some line and declare it a "war".

In 1990, Iraq had well less than 20 million people, and a military of around 650,000 troops and we still invaded with a force of nearly a million troops.  The US had 700,000 troops alone in the invasion force. And we absolutely shocked and awed the shit out of their military and military infrastructure prior to Coalition boots crossing the border.

"Russia is fucked" because (and in addition to the above points in this post and other posts)

  1. Putin skimped on the shock and awe.  You don't get to skimp  on shock and awe and then come back and do it later in piecemeal fashion, because Ukraine has now seen your hand and is now fully prepared, fully dispersed and they are shooting down your missiles/aircraft.  And in fact, there never was any kind of true Russian "shock and awe" in Ukraine in terms of what we did in Iraq in 1990 and 2003.
  2. Russia has lost over 3 years worth of modern tank production (pre-sanctions) in terms of combat losses/captures.  And the industrial capacity to replace those tanks has been diminished by the sanctions/export bans - estimates are that it will take something more like 5-7 to replace those tanks.  And that's stuff that's still in production - many of their anti-air, comms, and command & control armored vehicles have been out of production for years (some going back to the 1990s).  Restarting old production lines to replace lost equipment is difficult enough as it is, since you have to train up people, get the machinery built and tested, etc., but combine it with the sanctions and they may not even have the components to replace that equipment.
  3. They are blowing bridges, while having a severely diminished bridging/pontoon capacity. That's an indication that they are fucked and can't move any farther to the west. You don't blow bridges in the direction that you hope to advance.
  4. They didn't have the logistics capability to properly invade - what they had logistics-wise is great if they think they will just roll in like they did with Crimea, but it does not work against an organized enemy, which is why their 40-mile column ran out of fucking gas north of Kyiv.
  5. They are still running less than 200,000 troops in Ukraine, when they should have surged hundreds of thousands more once things stalled north of Kyiv.  
  6. But they don't have hundreds of thousands more troops to surge, because active-duty Russian ground forces number under 280,000, and they have plenty of those still deployed in "frontier" areas, like along their southern/Asian borders, not to mention a shit-ton of conscripts that are technically not supposed to be in combat.

Russia just doesn't have the manpower, logistics, and hardware to actually occupy anything beyond where they are at, and technically they are controlling those areas and not truly occupying them.  There's a big difference between controlling roads and towns versus fully occupying the surrounding areas, this is what hurt them around Kyiv.

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

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, The Dog said:

If Kherson is retaken this week then I think Ukraine goes after Crimea next. 

Even if it's two weeks (and they appear to be moving rapidly enough that it may not even take that long), Sievierodonetsk is going to be one helluva Pyrrhic victory.  Ukraine pushing for the Crimea would mean Russia would have to completely abandon a massive chunk of what they currently control, probably 75%, to try and and get those troops into Crimea.  Even then, there's a real chance that Ukraine would be able to shell the shit out of them.

To paraphrase Plutarch, If Putin is victorious in one more battle like Sievierodonetsk, Russia will be completely ruined in Ukraine.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
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...