The Russian Bear

[mayoradamwest]

Maybe the real enemies of Russia are the friends we made along the way?

[Sturminator]

We also know the Pentagon's assessment is neutral at best on long term Ukrainian prospects, and it isn't hard to find serious military analysts preaching caution.

But, look, the point is that Russia is always the victim in geopolitics, analyses, etc.

Russia is a bully, pushed into a corner by a group of kids it has terrorized on the playground, threatening to draw a knife.

[jester]

We also know the Pentagon's assessment is neutral at best on long term Ukrainian prospects, and it isn't hard to find serious military analysts preaching caution.

But, look, the point is that Russia is always the victim in geopolitics, analyses, etc.

Russia is a bully, pushed into a corner by a group of kids it has terrorized on the playground, threatening to draw a knife.

Well, yes, I just mean the rhetoric that we see. Going back years now, Russia is incessantly presented as a victim. For example, they only invaded Ukraine because NATO was so threatening, etc.

Never mind that NATO was basically dead at the stick prior to this as an active body, and Europe was more than happy to pay for Russian oil while ignoring Russian provocations.

[Slick Nick]

Well, obviously the whole universe has not admitted that. Pretty much every defence analyst out there has been putting out things that essentially say "wow, Russia fucked this up so bad!" So you can disagree with them if you like, but pretending they think the western model of warfare has failed is just silly.

Even if you want to make the case that the Ukranian model of war has failed in this war that is absurd since they have grossly exceeded all expectations. Including yours, repeatedly. How many times have you tried to call this thing done now? They're doing so much better than you ever admitted possible, and your analysis is somehow that the way they're fighting is so ineffective it's redefining how the West will wage wars.

Finally, I said the Ukranian way because Ukraine is not fighting this war the way NATO would. The thing NATO does on day one of every conflict they've ever engaged in is establish total air superiority. They do that before even considering committing serious numbers of troops anywhere, and the thought of mounting a ground offensive like Ukraine did last year without it is in total opposition to Western military orthodoxy. That's why you see armchair military analysts churning out articles like these:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/08/amate ... -campaign/
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... r-ukraine/

I don't understand what you're trying to say... some articles about how Ukraine's 70's and 80's air defense are awesome.. yeah they are.. Russia's modern air defense are 10x better. Nasams are a joke, Patriots probably a joke.. what are you trying to say? The BUKs and s-300s systems remaining in Ukraine's arsenal are good.. yes... ok , then?

Now give me an an article about how NASAMS work great in Ukraine.... 4% efficiency like the Javelins...

Want to see how how an actual modern air defense system works... here.

[Dr_Chimera]

The dust has settled and the collective West has scrounged up 74 tanks, which are all on different timelines. Now there are rumblings already that months ago US offered Russia 20% of Ukraine (request denied). I think the only real question that remains is whether there still will be a Ukraine in a couple years from now.

Meanwhile the Russian economy is projected to grow even by the IMF (who project UK's economy to contract, hilarious). I think even in their wildest dreams the Russians couldn't have foreseen this a year ago.

[Dr_Chimera]

Recent data show surges in trade for some of Russia’s neighbors and allies, suggesting that countries like Turkey, China, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are stepping in to provide Russia with many of the products that Western countries have tried to cut off as punishment for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russian trade appears to have largely bounced back to where it was before the invasion of Ukraine last February. Analysts estimate that Russia’s imports may have already recovered to prewar levels, or will soon do so, depending on their models.

In part, that could be because many nations have found Russia hard to quit. Recent research showed that fewer than 9 percent of companies based in the European Union and Group of 7 nations had divested one of their Russian subsidiaries. And maritime tracking firms have seen a surge in activity by shipping fleets that may be helping Russia to export its energy, apparently bypassing Western restrictions on those sales.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/busi ... urkey.html

[Craig]

Well, obviously the whole universe has not admitted that. Pretty much every defence analyst out there has been putting out things that essentially say "wow, Russia fucked this up so bad!" So you can disagree with them if you like, but pretending they think the western model of warfare has failed is just silly.

Even if you want to make the case that the Ukranian model of war has failed in this war that is absurd since they have grossly exceeded all expectations. Including yours, repeatedly. How many times have you tried to call this thing done now? They're doing so much better than you ever admitted possible, and your analysis is somehow that the way they're fighting is so ineffective it's redefining how the West will wage wars.

Finally, I said the Ukranian way because Ukraine is not fighting this war the way NATO would. The thing NATO does on day one of every conflict they've ever engaged in is establish total air superiority. They do that before even considering committing serious numbers of troops anywhere, and the thought of mounting a ground offensive like Ukraine did last year without it is in total opposition to Western military orthodoxy. That's why you see armchair military analysts churning out articles like these:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/08/amate ... -campaign/
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... r-ukraine/

I don't understand what you're trying to say... some articles about how Ukraine's 70's and 80's air defense are awesome.. yeah they are.. Russia's modern air defense are 10x better. Nasams are a joke, Patriots probably a joke.. what are you trying to say? The BUKs and s-300s systems remaining in Ukraine's arsenal are good.. yes... ok , then?

Now give me an an article about how NASAMS work great in Ukraine.... 4% efficiency like the Javelins...

Want to see how how an actual modern air defense system works... here.

Nick, what the fuck? I literally didn't say anything about air defense systems. You're having a conversation with yourself here bud.

[chicpea]

The dust has settled and the collective West has scrounged up 74 tanks...

Didn’t the Germans just commit something like 110 Leopards?

[Craig]

The dust has settled and the collective West has scrounged up 74 tanks...

Didn’t the Germans just commit something like 110 Leopards?

No, they're only sending like 14 or something. 110 was the total number of donations from all countries. Dunno where Chimmy got the 74 number from, a quick Google tells me that's the number of tanks Poland donated recently, but most of those are old Soviet tanks.

[jester]

The dust has settled and the collective West has scrounged up 74 tanks ...

Dude, can you at least get through the first sentence without making an objectively incorrect statement?

77 tanks are coming from Germany, Canada, Poland, US, and UK ... plus others (yet to be confirmed).

[Craig]

I mean, he was wrong in the first four words. There's no dust to settle here, it's not like the donations are going to stop.

[jester]

I mean, he was wrong in the first four words. There's no dust to settle here, it's not like the donations are going to stop.

It seems inevitable that F-16s are coming.

[Craig]

Yes, though I'm skeptical they'll be of much use. Beyond the obvious training and maintenance concerns, which I think are pretty substantial on their own, Russia still have a pretty capable anti-air capability, which I think is going to make life really, really, tough on the squadron or two of f-16s that might get donated. They might get relegated to defensive operations, where Ukrainian AA already seems to be fairly effective. I guess anything that helps them deny Russia air superiority is a good thing, they really can't give Russia any more advantages.

It's a tough war for Ukraine. Their biggest problem seems to be Russian artillery, which is pretty daunting to be honest. Without air superiority I guess they pretty much either need a shitton of their own artillery and ammo, or a bloody offensive where they just throw bodies and equipment at it to push over Russian lines. The former option is more appealing, but from the sounds of it they're basically out of Soviet ammo for their old stuff and it's an open question whether the West can/will supply enough Western artillery for it to work. It doesn't seem promising, so that leaves the bloody offensive which I guess is what they need a bunch of tanks for. To be honest, I don't like their chances much with that approach either, but I suppose I thought the same thing about their last round of offensives and they proved me wrong.

[jester]

Yes, though I'm skeptical they'll be of much use. Beyond the obvious training and maintenance concerns, which I think are pretty substantial on their own, Russia still have a pretty capable anti-air capability, which I think is going to make life really, really, tough on the squadron or two of f-16s that might get donated. They might get relegated to defensive operations, where Ukrainian AA already seems to be fairly effective. I guess anything that helps them deny Russia air superiority is a good thing, they really can't give Russia any more advantages.

It's a tough war for Ukraine. Their biggest problem seems to be Russian artillery, which is pretty daunting to be honest. Without air superiority I guess they pretty much either need a shitton of their own artillery and ammo, or a bloody offensive where they just throw bodies and equipment at it to push over Russian lines. The former option is more appealing, but from the sounds of it they're basically out of Soviet ammo for their old stuff and it's an open question whether the West can/will supply enough Western artillery for it to work. It doesn't seem promising, so that leaves the bloody offensive which I guess is what they need a bunch of tanks for. To be honest, I don't like their chances much with that approach either, but I suppose I thought the same thing about their last round of offensives and they proved me wrong.

No one thing is (or can be) a silver bullet. The theory justifying F-16s will likely ultimately come down to the reality that a) if you're putting MBTs on the field, why not F-16s? and b) MBTs work best with air support capabilities (in addition to close infantry support) -- which will lead to other questions. One of the reasons Russian tanks have been just slaughtered in Ukraine is due to poor tactics (in addition to poor logistics, since a lot of them simply ran out of fuel). The Russian military does a very shitty job at combined arms, and that's a recipe for things like tanks to go boom with regularity.

Artillery capabilities are absolutely important to the Ukrainians, and there's also some question of how long Russia can run its artillery as hot as it has. Bakhmut has been exceptionally resource intensive for Russia, which cannot be overlooked. They have put a lot of effort into capturing that spit of land. Admittedly, they've also used this time to dig defensive entrenchments, which is one of the reasons tanks, etc. will be important going forward.

There's very hard fighting coming.

[chicpea]

The dust has settled and the collective West has scrounged up 74 tanks...

Didn’t the Germans just commit something like 110 Leopards?

No, they're only sending like 14 or something. 110 was the total number of donations from all countries. Dunno where Chimmy got the 74 number from, a quick Google tells me that's the number of tanks Poland donated recently, but most of those are old Soviet tanks.

I’m positive I read on BBC this morning around 5 am that they alone were sending 90 Leopards. Can’t do a screener on my phone or from my office so I’ll just leave it at that. I could be wrong. Was still sleepy.

[Slick Nick]

Nick, what the fuck? I literally didn't say anything about air defense systems. You're having a conversation with yourself here bud.

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

[PredsFan77]

giggity

[Craig]

Nick, what the fuck? I literally didn't say anything about air defense systems. You're having a conversation with yourself here bud.

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

[Craig]

Didn’t the Germans just commit something like 110 Leopards?

No, they're only sending like 14 or something. 110 was the total number of donations from all countries. Dunno where Chimmy got the 74 number from, a quick Google tells me that's the number of tanks Poland donated recently, but most of those are old Soviet tanks.

I’m positive I read on BBC this morning around 5 am that they alone were sending 90 Leopards. Can’t do a screener on my phone or from my office so I’ll just leave it at that. I could be wrong. Was still sleepy.

Ah, this just hit my news feed. Germany today said they'd let a private company sell 88 Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine. They're very old tanks and it's a sale, not a donation.

[jester]

Nick, what the fuck? I literally didn't say anything about air defense systems. You're having a conversation with yourself here bud.

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

What's particularly funny about all of that is that Ukraine is specifically seeking to gain the ability to fight more like the West would ... but cannot presently because it lacks the capability to do so.

[chicpea]

Honestly thought Niq would look a lot younger.

[Dr_Chimera]

clown show

[jester]

Game recognizes game, I guess.

[Slick Nick]

Nick, what the fuck? I literally didn't say anything about air defense systems. You're having a conversation with yourself here bud.

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

They would try and they would get rekt. Why do you think NATO throws a tantrum every time Russia sells an s-400... yeah, because they can't fly 400 miles close to that system.

The west is not going to fight because it costs hundreds of thousands of lives... this is not Iraq... it's fucking hell. No one in the west is ready for that kind of turbeculosis augmented trench sitting the poor kids from rural Ukraine and Russia are going throgh.... all they have are cute expensive toys that don't work very well against an enemy that has the means to strike back.

[chicpea]

[Slick Nick]

Stop being a self hating Russian, take a few minutes to learn how your ancestors went from Russophiles to Russophobes..

[Slick Nick]

I just wish you were told actual history at some point....

(not some Bullshit history invented by a nazi collaborator who fled to Alberta, the real actual history of our peoples...)

We<re bros.

[jester]

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

They would try and they would get rekt. Why do you think NATO throws a tantrum every time Russia sells an s-400... yeah, because they can't fly 400 miles close to that system.

The west is not going to fight because it costs hundreds of thousands of lives... this is not Iraq... it's fucking hell. No one in the west is ready for that kind of turbeculosis augmented trench sitting the poor kids from rural Ukraine and Russia are going throgh.... all they have are cute expensive toys that don't work very well against an enemy that has the means to strike back.

Uh huh. Remember when you acted like HIMARS were a nothing burger? How'd that turn out?

Seriously, what opinion have you expressed in here that has proven true in the real world? Maybe calm down on the grandiose delusions.

That said, you unwittingly admitted something that is both absolutely true and underscores how absolutely full of shit Russian complaints about NATO have been. NATO was not and is not interested in a direct confrontation.

[Ismellofhockey]

Try to establish air superiority against the Russians... things that don't even work in fantasies.

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

They would try and they would get rekt. Why do you think NATO throws a tantrum every time Russia sells an s-400... yeah, because they can't fly 400 miles close to that system.

The west is not going to fight because it costs hundreds of thousands of lives... this is not Iraq... it's fucking hell. No one in the west is ready for that kind of turbeculosis augmented trench sitting the poor kids from rural Ukraine and Russia are going throgh.... all they have are cute expensive toys that don't work very well against an enemy that has the means to strike back.

And why is it hell as opposed to the cakewalk that was Iraq?

[chicpea]

How far into this are we now? And I still can't figure out what Russia is hoping to accomplish.

[jester]

How far into this are we now? And I still can't figure out what Russia is hoping to accomplish.

In truth, it isn't terribly complicated. Putin is a creature of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Ukraine during the breakup has always rubbed that crowd the wrong way (there are quotes going all the way back about this). It's basic imperialism at root. That's why there is so much made about NATO infringement on Russian sphere of interests without granting or caring about Ukrainian agency. It's also why Euromaidan was such a big deal and ... again ... erasure of Ukrainian agency, lots of chatter about nazis, and US interference, etc.

I think one of the best ways to think about Putin is not as a 21st century leader, but a 19th century leader in terms of geopolitics.

[chicpea]

How far into this are we now? And I still can't figure out what Russia is hoping to accomplish.

In truth, it isn't terribly complicated. Putin is a creature of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Ukraine during the breakup has always rubbed that crowd the wrong way (there are quotes going all the way back about this). It's basic imperialism at root. That's why there is so much made about NATO infringement on Russian sphere of interests without granting or caring about Ukrainian agency. It's also why Euromaidan was such a big deal and ... again ... erasure of Ukrainian agency, lots of chatter about nazis, and US interference, etc.

I think one of the best ways to think about Putin is not as a 21st century leader, but a 19th century leader in terms of geopolitics.

Yes. I get all of that Rudyard Kipling stuff. I just can't comprehend why one would want to occupy a land in which one would face murderous and daily hostility while increasing the animosity of your biggest enemy, who's sitting 2 km away. Even the Americans aren't that dumb (kind of).

Are there not enough recent examples for KGB Guy?

[Slick Nick]

How far into this are we now? And I still can't figure out what Russia is hoping to accomplish.

In truth, it isn't terribly complicated. Putin is a creature of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Ukraine during the breakup has always rubbed that crowd the wrong way (there are quotes going all the way back about this). It's basic imperialism at root. That's why there is so much made about NATO infringement on Russian sphere of interests without granting or caring about Ukrainian agency. It's also why Euromaidan was such a big deal and ... again ... erasure of Ukrainian agency, lots of chatter about nazis, and US interference, etc.

I think one of the best ways to think about Putin is not as a 21st century leader, but a 19th century leader in terms of geopolitics.

Yes. I get all of that Rudyard Kipling stuff. I just can't comprehend why one would want to occupy a land in which one would face murderous and daily hostility while increasing the animosity of your biggest enemy, who's sitting 2 km away. Even the Americans aren't that dumb (kind of).

Are there not enough recent examples for KGB Guy?

The psychopaths will flee west and the rest of us will try to live normal lives... with cheap gas, the return of industries and respect of national identities and languages.... instead of going to Poland to pick strawberries and send 5 hryvnias to Babushka so she can buy buckwheat kasha.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/0 ... -loyalties

[Slick Nick]

NATO absolutely would try to, Ukraine didn't. Ukraine isn't fighting the way the west would. Why is this hard for you?

They would try and they would get rekt. Why do you think NATO throws a tantrum every time Russia sells an s-400... yeah, because they can't fly 400 miles close to that system.

The west is not going to fight because it costs hundreds of thousands of lives... this is not Iraq... it's fucking hell. No one in the west is ready for that kind of turbeculosis augmented trench sitting the poor kids from rural Ukraine and Russia are going throgh.... all they have are cute expensive toys that don't work very well against an enemy that has the means to strike back.

Uh huh. Remember when you acted like HIMARS were a nothing burger? How'd that turn out?

Seriously, what opinion have you expressed in here that has proven true in the real world? Maybe calm down on the grandiose delusions.

That said, you unwittingly admitted something that is both absolutely true and underscores how absolutely full of shit Russian complaints about NATO have been. NATO was not and is not interested in a direct confrontation.

Haven't heard of HIMARS in a while... but I'm hearing the Russians are advancing everywhere and NATO is sending 70's tanks because they don't want their newer ones to acquire the same reputation as everything else they sent so far.

[jester]

They would try and they would get rekt. Why do you think NATO throws a tantrum every time Russia sells an s-400... yeah, because they can't fly 400 miles close to that system.

The west is not going to fight because it costs hundreds of thousands of lives... this is not Iraq... it's fucking hell. No one in the west is ready for that kind of turbeculosis augmented trench sitting the poor kids from rural Ukraine and Russia are going throgh.... all they have are cute expensive toys that don't work very well against an enemy that has the means to strike back.

Uh huh. Remember when you acted like HIMARS were a nothing burger? How'd that turn out?



Seriously, what opinion have you expressed in here that has proven true in the real world? Maybe calm down on the grandiose delusions.

That said, you unwittingly admitted something that is both absolutely true and underscores how absolutely full of shit Russian complaints about NATO have been. NATO was not and is not interested in a direct confrontation.

Haven't heard of HIMARS in a while... but I'm hearing the Russians are advancing everywhere and NATO is sending 70's tanks because they don't want their newer ones to acquire the same reputation as everything else they sent so far.

The Russians have been advancing in only one place, and very, very slowly by using tactics that date to 1916.

We are a month removed from a HIMARS strike making a very big splash. But, fair enough, not like you have any credibility left to lose.

Let's rewind, though, what prediction/statement have you said that has proven accurate thus far?

PS: one of the reasons we are hearing less about HIMARS is because Russia has to restructure it's logistics considerably because they were getting ripped apart. They adapted, and kudos to them. It's worth pointing out, however, that you were swearing up and down that HIMARS were irrelevant, and the exact opposite proves true. Mind you, if they get extended range capabilities you'll probably start hearing about them again ... and it's quite likely the Ukrainians are husbanding resources in advance of offensive operations.

[jester]

How far into this are we now? And I still can't figure out what Russia is hoping to accomplish.

In truth, it isn't terribly complicated. Putin is a creature of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Ukraine during the breakup has always rubbed that crowd the wrong way (there are quotes going all the way back about this). It's basic imperialism at root. That's why there is so much made about NATO infringement on Russian sphere of interests without granting or caring about Ukrainian agency. It's also why Euromaidan was such a big deal and ... again ... erasure of Ukrainian agency, lots of chatter about nazis, and US interference, etc.

I think one of the best ways to think about Putin is not as a 21st century leader, but a 19th century leader in terms of geopolitics.

Yes. I get all of that Rudyard Kipling stuff. I just can't comprehend why one would want to occupy a land in which one would face murderous and daily hostility while increasing the animosity of your biggest enemy, who's sitting 2 km away. Even the Americans aren't that dumb (kind of).

Are there not enough recent examples for KGB Guy?

I mean, we got Nick and Chim here regularly demonstrating the power of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.

[Slick Nick]

Uh huh. Remember when you acted like HIMARS were a nothing burger? How'd that turn out?

Seriously, what opinion have you expressed in here that has proven true in the real world? Maybe calm down on the grandiose delusions.

That said, you unwittingly admitted something that is both absolutely true and underscores how absolutely full of shit Russian complaints about NATO have been. NATO was not and is not interested in a direct confrontation.

Haven't heard of HIMARS in a while... but I'm hearing the Russians are advancing everywhere and NATO is sending 70's tanks because they don't want their newer ones to acquire the same reputation as everything else they sent so far.

The Russians have been advancing in only one place, and very, very slowly by using tactics that date to 1916.

Let's rewind, what prediction/statement have you said that has proven accurate thus far?

I didn't make any predications really.. I said that the Ukrainians had one chance to counter and if not successful the Russians would take all of the south... they were somewhat successful... they lost 10,000 men and a ton of equipment in actual battles then claimed victory when the Russians decided to retreat because they were clusterfucked.

War is partly about adapting to contingencies.. I think.. historically speaking, the Russians are pretty good at that.

[Slick Nick]

Highly technological trench dying.

[jester]

Haven't heard of HIMARS in a while... but I'm hearing the Russians are advancing everywhere and NATO is sending 70's tanks because they don't want their newer ones to acquire the same reputation as everything else they sent so far.

The Russians have been advancing in only one place, and very, very slowly by using tactics that date to 1916.

Let's rewind, what prediction/statement have you said that has proven accurate thus far?

I didn't make any predications really.. I said that the Ukrainians has one chance to counter and if not successful the Russians would take all of the south... they were somewhat successful... they lost 10,000 men and a ton of equipment in actual battles then claimed victory when the Russians decided to retreat because they were clusterfucked.

War is partly about adapting to contingencies.. I think.. historically speaking, the Russians are pretty good at that.

Dude, this thread is filled with you making strong predictive declarations of the value and effectiveness of military equipment, armies, etc.

For example, you very specifically argued that the Ukrainians wouldn't retake Kherson.

[Slick Nick]

The Russians have been advancing in only one place, and very, very slowly by using tactics that date to 1916.

Let's rewind, what prediction/statement have you said that has proven accurate thus far?

I didn't make any predications really.. I said that the Ukrainians has one chance to counter and if not successful the Russians would take all of the south... they were somewhat successful... they lost 10,000 men and a ton of equipment in actual battles then claimed victory when the Russians decided to retreat because they were clusterfucked.

War is partly about adapting to contingencies.. I think.. historically speaking, the Russians are pretty good at that.

Dude, this thread is filled with you making strong predictive declarations of the value and effectiveness of military equipment, armies, etc.

For example, you very specifically argued that the Ukrainians wouldn't retake Kherson.

I don't remember saying that... I said wake me up when they retake Donetsk.

[Craig]

He's declared this thing over and the Ukranian Army obliterated like 5 times, lol.

In his defence, I'm pretty sure he hardly ever posts sober so there's a chance he just doesn't remember.

[jester]

I didn't make any predications really.. I said that the Ukrainians has one chance to counter and if not successful the Russians would take all of the south... they were somewhat successful... they lost 10,000 men and a ton of equipment in actual battles then claimed victory when the Russians decided to retreat because they were clusterfucked.

War is partly about adapting to contingencies.. I think.. historically speaking, the Russians are pretty good at that.

Dude, this thread is filled with you making strong predictive declarations of the value and effectiveness of military equipment, armies, etc.

For example, you very specifically argued that the Ukrainians wouldn't retake Kherson.

I don't remember saying that... I said wake me up when they retake Donetsk.

Oh, you told me there was no way I was correct that the Russians were exposed and there was a very good chance the Ukrainians would retake it due to the geography.

Remember when you told us there was no way the Ukrainians put a missile strike on Saky airfield?

[Slick Nick]

Dude, this thread is filled with you making strong predictive declarations of the value and effectiveness of military equipment, armies, etc.

For example, you very specifically argued that the Ukrainians wouldn't retake Kherson.

I don't remember saying that... I said wake me up when they retake Donetsk.

Oh, you told me there was no way I was correct that the Russians were exposed and there was a very good chance the Ukrainians would retake it due to the geography.

Remember when you told us there was no way the Ukrainians put a missile strike on Saky airfield?

Never said neither.. I said the Ukrainians themselves claimed it was not that. I guess I should just not trust what the Ukrainians say.

[Slick Nick]

He's declared this thing over and the Ukranian Army obliterated like 5 times, lol.

In his defence, I'm pretty sure he hardly ever posts sober so there's a chance he just doesn't remember.

Shut up greg.

Their army was in shambles.. NATO helped rebuild it. They took some land and now they are getting rekt again. War is not about land grab, war is about destroying your enemy’s abilities. You know the Germans too a bunch of land too.. yup. They almost got to Moscow.

[jester]

I don't remember saying that... I said wake me up when they retake Donetsk.

Oh, you told me there was no way I was correct that the Russians were exposed and there was a very good chance the Ukrainians would retake it due to the geography.

Remember when you told us there was no way the Ukrainians put a missile strike on Saky airfield?

Never said neither.. I said the Ukrainians themselves claimed it was not that. I guess I should just not trust what the Ukrainians say.

You absolutely should not trust what anyone is saying during an active conflict. And, yes, you argued against the pretty obvious analysis of what had happened.

[jester]

He's declared this thing over and the Ukranian Army obliterated like 5 times, lol.

In his defence, I'm pretty sure he hardly ever posts sober so there's a chance he just doesn't remember.

Shut up greg.

Their army was in shambles.. NATO helped rebuild it. They took some land and now they are getting rekt again. War is not about land grab, war is about destroying your enemy’s abilities. You know the Germans too a bunch of land too.. yup. They almost got to Moscow.

You said it was annihilated while the Russians were in static positions lobbing artillery because they couldn't advance against an annihilated opponent.

As said, what correct analysis have you made of this conflict? NATO has provided equipment, but it has not provided manpower. Ukrainians have done the heavy lifting themselves.

[Craig]

He's declared this thing over and the Ukranian Army obliterated like 5 times, lol.

In his defence, I'm pretty sure he hardly ever posts sober so there's a chance he just doesn't remember.

Shut up greg.

Their army was in shambles.. NATO helped rebuild it. They took some land and now they are getting rekt again. War is not about land grab, war is about destroying your enemy’s abilities. You know the Germans too a bunch of land too.. yup. They almost got to Moscow.

It's impressive to dig in this much when you were so obviously wrong.

Before the Ukrainian offensive you were saying the Ukranian. Army was decimated, the war was pretty much over and the offensive was never going happen. C'mon, just take the L.

[mayoradamwest]

Not a lot of talk in this thread about bears eh?

[Dog]

Not a lot of talk in this thread about bears eh?

You can’t hug your children with bear arms, MAW!

[mayoradamwest]

Not a lot of talk in this thread about bears eh?

You can’t hug your children with bear arms, MAW!

Of course you can. You just have to get em properly stuffed.