Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I'm sure the armchair Caf experts will shut down a retired US Army General and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, with a Bronze Star medal, who had a key role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but here's him pledging alliegance to Q and talking about The Great Awakening. If even 50% of what he says is true, this is alarming:

https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200706204352-flynn-qanon-oath-video.jpg
Wtf :lol:
 


edit: i can't seem to link twitter posts any more, or is it just me that can't see my own links?
 
I'm sure the armchair Caf experts will shut down a retired US Army Colonel with actual combat experience and a Bronze Star medal... but even if 50% of what he says is true, this is alarming:


He also interviewed Orban. Waiting for your next post with that. Thank you for another unbiased and clearly credible source of information.
 
I'm always amazed at how the "Russia is unbeatable" has become a thing considering they tend to lose wars against smaller forces in a fairly regular basis. 1800s France, 1850s Ottoman empire, 1900s Japan, 1940s Finland and 1980s Afganistan come to mind.

I'm sure the armchair Caf experts will shut down a retired US Army General and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, with a Bronze Star medal, who had a key role in Afghanistan and Iraq and pledged alliegance to Q and talked about The Great Awakening... but even if 50% of what he says is true, this is alarming:

https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200706204352-flynn-qanon-oath-video.jpg
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I'm always amazed at how the "Russia is unbeatable" has become a thing considering they tend to lose wars against smaller forces in a fairly regular basis. 1800s France, 1850s Ottoman empire, 1900s Japan, 1940s Finland and 1980s Afganistan come to mind.

To be fair that was against an Ottoman-British-French alliance. The Russians pretty much had their way with the Ottomans from the 1770s up to the First World War, was only international pressure that stopped them taking Istanbul.
 
I'm always amazed at how the "Russia is unbeatable" has become a thing considering they tend to lose wars against smaller forces in a fairly regular basis. 1800s France, 1850s Ottoman empire, 1900s Japan, 1940s Finland and 1980s Afganistan come to mind.

I definitely agree that it's a thing, but some of those aren't the best examples. They did eventually win against Napoleon, for example. And they also won against Finland, even if it was a bit of an embarrassment.
 
I am not sure about this. It would be surprising if Russia really used up it's storage pile of artillery ammunition. Of course that would be welcome news, but my understanding is that they lack logistics to get that to the front and increasingly howitzers themselves. And I am not sure how NK can help with this, can they deliver trucks and howitzers?

If these is really focused on ammunition etc it would point to Russia planning for a really long war (which indeed seems to fit their strategic decisions)

Even Ukraine is using NK ammunition that they stole from Russia (marked as 2022 manufactured), so it is already happening. So is already happening, the only question that we will never know is if it will be relevant at all
 
I'm sure the armchair Caf experts will shut down a retired US Army Colonel with actual combat experience and a Bronze Star medal... but even if 50% of what he says is true, this is alarming:


"Look, look, hear me out... he might be spouting some absolute bullshit pulled straight from his rear end, but what if..."

Yeah, sure thing bud.
 
If that drone explodes over a trench....

Someone earlier posted that sometimes this war seems like WW1 and sometimes it seems like WW2.5 and this has to be one of the best examples of that.

They're basically making a modern drone bomb using a design like it's a miniature WW1 fighter plane. Unreal.
 
Ukraine’s counteroffensive has made ‘notable progress’ in the last 72 hours, the White House says.

Ukrainian forces have made “notable progress” in their counteroffensive over the last 72 hours, notching wins against the second line of Russian defenders, a White House spokesman, John F. Kirby, said at a news conference on Friday.

The United States, Mr. Kirby said, will not discuss Ukraine’s war plans, or how its forces would exploit their gains. But, he added, the U.S. expects Ukraine to continue to push further south, requiring “tough fighting ahead.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/0...ess-in-the-last-72-hours-the-white-house-says
 


It's not just a logistical hub for Russia. If Ukraine could secure the area enough to bring up their big guns they can cut off Russia's land route between east and west. They don't need to take Melitopol.
 
I just listened to the beginning and NONE of the things they say match what I have seen on all other sources.

The numbers of Ukrainian losses are about 10 times higher than anywhere else reported.
The claim of Russian technological superiority is definitely false.
The claim of an unready US army is questionable at best.

At best these are the ramblings of an old man that claims everything was better in his days.

I only noticed one true statement, that the US for a long time did not fight an equal enemy instead of an insurgency. But I think he just doesn't realize that a war US/NATO vs Russia would be exactly that at this point - devastating massive air strikes on Russia would quickly turn Russian resistence into an insurgency.

Also interestingly typical for this kind of commentator that guy is ignoring logistics (which Russia is terrible at) but focussing on their ammo stocks and production (which might indeed be quite well).

Yeah, well, the US was "winning" the Vietnam War until the last helicopters were evacuating from Saigon, and we were led to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, and we presumably spent billions building up the Afghan army until it collapsed like a house of cards the moment we left Kabul and Taliban took over Kabul within minutes of US retreating.

Which is a long winded way of saying that official sources DO lie all the föcking time when it serves their purpose
 
:lol: Mike Flynn was a three star general. Doesn't mean he's not a stone cold moron. MacGregor used to go on RT regularly and is clearly still on the Russian payroll. There's a reason he's showing up on Tucker's youtube channel and Fox News. MacGregor was saying that Russia was on the verge of defeating Ukraine three days into the war and that they'd be annihilated if they didn't surrender. Why would anyone take him seriously?

The official view from Pentagon seems to be that Ukraine had more leverage militarily last winter, and should have pressed for peace talks then.... which seems to imply that that they're LOSING on the ground since then. Congrats to all who waved the Ukraine flag and invoked its people as they attacked and smeared diplomacy.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/08/18/milley-had-a-point-00111878

The conversation about Ukraine’s counteroffensive has shifted from one of excitement to disappointment, as Kyiv’s slow gains lead some U.S. officials and insiders alike to whisper: Should we have listened to Gen. MARK MILLEY?

In November, the Joint Chiefs chair said Ukraine’s strong military position and upcoming winter season combined to make a good time to consider peace talks. Plus, operations to expel Russian forces out of the whole of Ukraine –— which VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY demands — had a slim chance of success. Administration officials immediately scrambled to assure their counterparts in Kyiv that Milley was riffing and not reflecting a secret sentiment in the White House.

Of course the Admin is pressing on with fighting Russia until the last Ukrainian