Prolonged war > Faster Genocide
I like Corbyn who I think is a genuine man but this is beyond a bad take.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Prolonged war > Faster Genocide
I like Corbyn who I think is a genuine man but this is beyond a bad take.
Dried corn is considered a grain.
Corn is grain. Grain is a large category of things. You're asking why during a medicine crisis someone is shipping penicillin and not medicines, to give you an analogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain
Last edited:
The important bits in my opinion from Jomini’s last summary thread…he’s not optimistic of quick gains in Kherson by the UA counterattack there but the threat is still throwing Russia off-balance.
Only explanation as why they are not winning.
Its dumb thing for the Russians to say publicly as it will only incentivize the US to do more, since they know the Russians won't do anything about it other than try to take out the weapons as they see them. I can see NATO sponsored jets flown by recently trained Ukrainians soon.
Good point, US involvement was supposed to be this red line, where were scared of Russia escalating. If they claim it’s happened and don’t respond proportionally, you’re giving your hand away.
Ex-Chancellor Schröder has apparently returned from meeting his mate MadVlad and brought home the message that Russia would like a negotiated settlement.
I cant convey in written words how much I despise this cnut.
I guess he just ran into Vlad at his “vacation” spot.
He has said what good does it bring if he keeps his distance from him - someone has to keep the communication channel open.
I think he went to see his mate rather than ran into him.
serious question.
if the maps posted above two months apart, which look the same to me, are anything to go by, is it not a truism of modern war that the attacker loses 3 to 4 people more than the defender? point being, russia digs into the land they're occupying setting up broad spectrum defense networks which forces the ukrainians to attack. surely the rate of attrition must move the other way? if russia is only holding what it has anyway. if ukrainians don't have the defensive + on their side, is a war of attrition more conducive to ukraine or russia? in terms of population, weapons, defense networks, and everything else?
i agree that saying the solution is not to send arms isn't right, by itself. he had half a good point and half a stupid one. if he'd coupled it with long term goals and the necessity of arming ukraine to avoid that state collapsing, he'd have been on solid ground but the man is and always has been an absolutist in pacifist terms. so expected.
This would only be the case if both sides had equal resources. The Russians are running out of theirs, while the Ukrainians have access to a steady flow of weapons from the west that are more sophisticated that what the Russians have. So over time, the advantage will be in favor of Ukraine, particularly when you factor in the morale disparity of troops defending their own country vs those who don't want to be there.
Last edited:
HIMARS in action on the frontlines
fair enough. haven't paid attention to daily updates but the complex foreign affairs write ups seemed to have stopped. so no real idea as to the state of war on either side or projections beyond periodical maps.
Oh believe me, my comment was completely tongue in cheek towards Schroder.
I think you could add to that that Ukraine will be attempting to retake land that it knows incredibly well, with a sizeable proportion of the civilian population on their side, providing real-time information. I don’t think this is comparable to an invasion by a foreign army of relatively unknown land and a hostile populace.
Good point.
Alternatively, Putin does have a few more tricks up his sleeve. He still has thermobaric weapons that he has scarcely used (if at all), as well as chemical, biological, and nukes. The downside of using any of these would be that he would instantly turn into an even greater international pariah where the likes of the Chinese, Indians and others would be forced to wash their hands of him. It would also probably involve NATO getting involved militarily in some capacity. So all things said, Putin is quickly running out of options to stop the Ukrainians from gradually reclaiming lost territory.
Last edited:
I thought they only used them at nighttime. Are they emboldened for whatever reason?
Difficult to find a real explanation for the lack of thermobaric weapon use. It might be that it has been communicated (at whatever level still exists) between the US and Russia that their use would be seen as a serious escalation which would result in a similar response from the West, I really don’t know.
I think he hasn't used them to any great extent because he knows he would lose what little international support he has and would in the process risk NATO getting involved militarily. He's therefore stuck in a war of daily attrition in which he is gradually running out of ways to win, at a time when the Ukrainians are beginning to erode his advances.
Maybe they got longer range missiles now?
I’d never want to estimate Russia but it does look exceptionally difficult for them to achieve their aims and find a way out of this. Ukraine won’t simply stop fighting unless forced by the West through the halting of arms supplies. And being cynical about this I’d imagine current Nato countries are viewing this war in the same way we’ve come to view the US invasion of Vietnam or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Gorbachev called the Afghan war an ‘open wound’ for the Soviet Union. This feels the same. I wonder how long it will take for Russia to be in a position to threaten another country with war. I think we’re looking at a decade.
Yeah, sure, the US has every right to complain about Soviet involvement as to why they lost the Vietnam War then. Oh wait, they didn't.
Unless Lockheed Martin has started production of the GMLRS-ER missiles earlier than expected, the only available missiles for the M270/M142 launchers with longer range are ATACMS. The missiles in the video are 100% not those as they are much bigger and a M142 HIMARS launcher can only carry one at a time.
ATACMS missile vs pod of 6 GMLRS missiles.
The GMLRS-ER missile that are being developed has a range of 150km, but the production of those is not expected to start until next year.
Wasn't there some missile with 300km range?Unless Lockheed Martin has started production of the GMLRS-ER missiles earlier than expected, the only available missiles for the M270/M142 launchers with longer range are ATACMS. The missiles in the video are 100% not those as they are much bigger and a M142 HIMARS launcher can only carry one at a time.
ATACMS missile vs pod of 6 GMLRS missiles.
The GMLRS-ER missile that are being developed has a range of 150km, but the production of those is not expected to start until next year.
Thats the ATACMS, the big one in the picture. A HIMARS launcher can either carry one of those or a pod with 6 smaller GMLRS missiles.
Oh good.
*Carry your "I'm with stupid" sign whenever you see a Russian soldier next to you.*
Last edited:
Ukraine won’t cede any land because that would create a precedent, and we have already seen that even a de facto control of some territory isn’t enough for Russia. Crimea wasn’t enough. The occupied territories of the LNR and DNR weren’t enough. They (for example, Lavrov) keep expanding on their goals even during this conflict. Whatever Ukraine concedes, they will come back for more.
Virtually all Ukrainians recognise this. Ukraine will only survive and be independent as long as people grow up with national pride, nationalism (in the positive, defensive sense) and the will to fight for continual survival military, politically and economically.
You don’t have to be to write an opinion piece. Ex) Editorials
Well they've been accepting weak leaders for 200 years.
Let's not go too far!
Huh, the worst person you know made a good point meme. Oz is a hack unfortunately but I suppose he can be correct occassionally.