Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8668

  • MillerEP

    7334

  • Schulz2.0

    3660

  • InkaUtexas

    3054

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

SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49487

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

You sound like that nazi, Charles Lindbergh 

FIFY

53 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Putin went all in on Anschluss this morning.  We’re headed to more escalation.

 

 

Welp. Here we go. 

51 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

When Putin annexed Crimea, he claimed that it was only because he wanted to protect ethnic Russians and that Crimea wanted to be annexed. He then stated that he Russia would stop there and had no plans for further annexations. 
 

On the old site, I was calling for intervention and the removal of Russia from Crimea and the response was “we don’t want to get into a nuclear conflict over a small patch of land.” The cliff notes of my response are that appeasement didn’t work with Hitler and it will not work with Putin. He’ll come back for more, but he will be more patient than Hitler in doing it. I cautioned that we either stop him at Crimea or risk more death and destruction in the future. 
 

How much more evidence do we need? Where is the line? How many more lives need to be destroyed? The best time to stop Putin was 2014. The second best time is now. It needs to end with this attempted annexation. 

Ask Keef, sir. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49487

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, immamac said:

I don't think this means what you think it means. Russia just fucked up real bad doing this. They can't escalate, they have no offensive and barely any defensive capability remaining in that region. Nukes are completely off the table and they won't even get the chance to launch them if they fuck around too much. The UN straight up saying Russia has violated the charter and everyone not saying shit is complicit acceptance of that statement. This is the beginning of the endgame. 

They use a nuke and they are effectively done as a nation. China, india, everyone will not do any trade with them. China already told them to stfu about nukes and that wasn't gonna fly. 

I don't agree with this. Personally, I think this guy has already made a decision that he's going to use a tactical nuke to see what happens. You're right, they only have one move to escalate. But you think Putin is going to give a shit about being a Pariah, or ruining his country? He's already DONE that. A rational actor wouldn't have invaded in the first place, or continued down this path, or mobilized, etc. He's already lost, and he doesn't care, because he's insane. You can't account for that. 

25 minutes ago, Keef said:

You can go through my older posts and see exactly what I think about a Trump.  Spoiler, it isn't great.  I voted for Biden and am quite liberal.

There is obviously no equating what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. what Putin is doing in Russia.  They are not moral equivalents, or even close to that.  But my point was we as a population got all riled up about two consecutive wars that, looking back on it, I have a hard time articulating real reasons why we were even there (especially Iraq).

And the question that was posed was, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, should we escalate further (or even respond reasonably in kind, like by directly attacking Russian troops) and risk a global nuclear war.  I said no, for the reasons I articulated, and others said yes, for reasons (that are very good reasons) that I appreciate and understand.  

You've contradicted yourself in your 2nd paragraph. Yes, there is no equating the last two wars we were in with what's going on in Ukraine. And then you go on talking about how you have a hard time articulating why we were there. But who cares? Because those wars were NOT like this war. What is happening now is unprecedented. It's Kim Jon Un if the guy had nukes that would actually fire and travel more than 50 ft. 

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

atomheartbevo 90644

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, statsman said:

Can we give Ukraine two AC-130 gu ships? One to start at the front of the caravan, and the other to start at the back?

Supposedly Ukraine is getting a lot more equipment from us tomorrow from the lend-lease stuff, but I doubt those are included.  Given how quickly they are adapting to our stuff, and that we’ve had time to train them in everything arriving, the next few weeks will be interesting.  And this

 

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

SydneyCarton 49487

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Supposedly Ukraine is getting a lot more equipment from us tomorrow from the lend-lease stuff, but I doubt those are included.  Given how quickly they are adapting to our stuff, and that we’ve had time to train them in everything arriving, the next few weeks will be interesting.  And this

 

Man, that will certainly be convenient if NATO has to get directly involved and obliterate Russia from the map. What great timing! It's almost like we've heard something. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12219

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Viper said:

Putin should have watched this educational video before he started this 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't agree with this. Personally, I think this guy has already made a decision that he's going to use a tactical nuke to see what happens.

We're going to need a bigger graph

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Laxtonto

Laxtonto 13290

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

 


This is another great example of on of the major things that is really slowing down the UKA advances are now natural barriers, not necessarily Russian troops.  The salient moving NW out of Siversk (very bottom right arrow) only has to advance just a few km because to the NE of Lyman is a large lake and then as you follow the lake north is swap/marshland that may or may not be easily passable for armor. The current UKA advance east of Oskil that is splitting to finish the encirclement of Lyman, and then a projected advance to Svatove is currently marked as only extended to the banks of the river feeding the lake NE of Lyman (once again marshlands and can the UKA armor get through to hit Svatove from the south). The advances from Kupiansk and Dvoricha (the 2 northern arrows) are instead following the highway (and most likely advancing on the preprepared positions) and are north of where that river ends.

What is more interesting is that the Lyman pocket, once fully closed, adds a second location that is now inside the 30km firing range of the UKA barrel artillery (the first is the ridge directly west of Svatove on the UKA side of the Oskil river) and so as the Oskil river group works its way across the marsh/river there after closing the Lyman pocket, the artillery units should be able to roll in behind to provide additional fire support and begin softening up Svatove.

Once Svatove falls, the next major defensive line should be on the N/S inline with Misky down the river to Sievierdonetsk, with the added bonus that Svatove is a little more that 30km from Starbolisk, or now would be in conventional artillery range.

 

That entire front is hanging on by a thread at this point, and slowly more and more people are realizing how quickly this could become a collapse with not a ton of place for the troops to pull back to. 

Once again is this poor planning, poor execution in the field by the RU, lack of COC, a lack of troops, or a mixture of all of it by the RU.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35592

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Viper said:

Anyone know what boarders Russia is claiming? The whole of the Ukrainian states or just the areas they currently have control over? 

They claim the entire regions.  They kicked off the war by recognizing LNR and DNR within the borders those fake states claimed for themselves, which was never under puppet separatist control. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hook1997

Hook1997 5509

Posted
Posted

Dumb question possibly but instead of spending billions more, losing more lives and escalating things to possibly Nuclear war can the Ukraine not negotiate giving Putin this and his “victory”.  "I want the Kyiv government and their real bosses in the west to hear me ... Residents of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson are becoming our citizens forever." 

Ukraine joins NATO and they put in the negotiation that if he tries to get any more land from them or any other “old Russia county” that we will react and Ukraine will take the areas back.  I know many will say he will just try for more and it won’t be enough but he’s not going to stop as is until he’s dead so why not try to negotiate atleast?

  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35592

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Dumb question possibly but instead of spending billions more, losing more lives and escalating things to possibly Nuclear war can the Ukraine not negotiate giving Putin this and his “victory”.  "I want the Kyiv government and their real bosses in the west to hear me ... Residents of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson are becoming our citizens forever." 

Ukraine joins NATO and they put in the negotiation that if he tries to get any more land from them or any other “old Russia county” that we will react and Ukraine will take the areas back.  I know many will say he will just try for more and it won’t be enough but he’s not going to stop as is until he’s dead so why not try to negotiate atleast?

So hear me out, why doesn’t Ukraine just surrender? 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 2
  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53484

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Dumb question possibly but instead of spending billions more, losing more lives and escalating things to possibly Nuclear war can the Ukraine not negotiate giving Putin this and his “victory”.  "I want the Kyiv government and their real bosses in the west to hear me ... Residents of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson are becoming our citizens forever." 

Ukraine joins NATO and they put in the negotiation that if he tries to get any more land from them or any other “old Russia county” that we will react and Ukraine will take the areas back.  I know many will say he will just try for more and it won’t be enough but he’s not going to stop as is until he’s dead so why not try to negotiate atleast?

Aside from the more obvious answers already covered, nato is a defensive force. Any former Soviet bloc countries that want nato protection need to become a part of nato. 
 

so that wouldn’t work even if we did your deal and traded Ukrainian lands for their nato acceptance. 

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

SquishMitten 10497

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Keef said:

I totally hear Underminer's point, and it's a good one.  I just view the risk of pushing your chips into the center of the table to neuter Russia as too high.  They've already done a lot of that job for us.  It'll take years for them to recover economically, politically (both domestically and internationally), and militarily from this huge gaffe.  

The bolded part really shows that YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING GET IT. If ALL it takes is the threat of using a nuke, then Russia doesn't need to recover economically, politically, OR militarily. Because he wouldn't even need a military. The military is complete shit right now. All he has is the threat of nukes. If the threat alone works entirely by itself, then (and I'll say it again for you) HE WOULDN'T NEED A FUCKING MILITARY TO TAKE WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS! Letting him take the win like that is the only 100% guaranteed way we end up in a direct conflict.

  • Hook 'Em 5
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...