What's new
By:
Filters

Russia / Ukraine thread

[486] said:
nuclear apocalypse when?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the type of shit that could legit get Russia to go nuclear.

It's amazing how far our political leadership is willing to push this in an effort to weaken Russia. Because anyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes we don't give a flying fuck about Ukraine or Ukrainians.
 
Provience said:
Wonder if it will work out for them the same as it did for Virginia into PA all that time ago.
Click to expand...
Interesting analogy.

I wonder if they planned it themselves or NATO did. The ability to pull it off with surprise would lead me to believe they actually planned it. I'm sure Russia is pretty maxed out, but when I saw the map my first thought was they were awfully exposed to a counter attack on the flank.

It's hard to get reliable news out of there. Wonder if it's a well laid trap... Guess we'll see.
 
The analogy doesn't really work. The Confederacy was making their play in MD desperately courting significant foreign aid. If they could've gotten it they had a legit chance. Ukraine has had it from day one. The Confederacy fought for four years without it. Ukraine wouldn't have made it four months.
 
east_beast said:
The analogy doesn't really work. The Confederacy was making their play in MD desperately courting significant foreign aid. If they could've gotten it they had a legit chance. Ukraine has had it from day one. The Confederacy fought for four years without it. Ukraine wouldn't have made it four months.
Click to expand...

Speaking less broadly amd more specifically, the surge into PA was 100% about trying to force a distraction and send your invaders back into their own land out of concern. Goal is simply to ease up the pressure so that you can get more effect reclaiming internal invaded areas.

The practical result was spreading yourself thin, being then too far to reliably sustain and getting tore up on the way back.

Sounds like thus Russian place is a day, probably 2, drive. May not be so far but is very far. Oddly enough it will do more harm than good and at best be neutral to their impacts on foreign aide. Russia isn't going to hurt itself going in to handle this and will Ukraine be able to take advantage to move the set lines eastward?

The army of Lee couldn't sustain and the result was no gains in the west and no lines effectively forced north. It did consolidate northern resolve and dishearten southern.
 
I think it's more just the high risk of going on the offensive into enemy territory as opposed to a defensive war.
 
Provience said:
Speaking less broadly amd more specifically, the surge into PA was 100% about trying to force a distraction and send your invaders back into their own land out of concern. Goal is simply to ease up the pressure so that you can get more effect reclaiming internal invaded areas.

The practical result was spreading yourself thin, being then too far to reliably sustain and getting tore up on the way back.

Sounds like thus Russian place is a day, probably 2, drive. May not be so far but is very far. Oddly enough it will do more harm than good and at best be neutral to their impacts on foreign aide. Russia isn't going to hurt itself going in to handle this and will Ukraine be able to take advantage to move the set lines eastward?

The army of Lee couldn't sustain and the result was no gains in the west and no lines effectively forced north. It did consolidate northern resolve and dishearten southern.
Click to expand...
It was definitely in part to get the Union to recognize a need to play defense but the real ultimate goal was to get foreign recognition and aid for the Confederacy. That was the only way for them to actually win the war. The Union had every advantage. They had the advantage in manpower, economy, manufacturing, and logistics. Sound familiar? Ukraine has been fighting from the disadvantage from the get go but with full foreign support from the get go. And yet they're still losing. It's an unwinnable war. Even more unwinnable than the Civil War was for the Confederacy.
 
Lee tried it twice. The first culminated in the bloodiest day in American History. The second was the bloodiest overall battle in American history.

Ukraine has unlimited Western aid but this feels like a gamble to put the Ruasians off balance. What's the goal? They won't give up and the Ukranians won't hold their gains. So... Is it just to try to force a bargaining position? NATO pressing Ukraine to poke the bear?

Ukraine can't win a war of attrition, so I suppose you could argue to make a play while you have strength to achieve something. They're going to run out of men eventually.
 
east_beast said:
The analogy doesn't really work. The Confederacy was making their play in MD desperately courting significant foreign aid. If they could've gotten it they had a legit chance. Ukraine has had it from day one. The Confederacy fought for four years without it. Ukraine wouldn't have made it four months.
Click to expand...
And if Stonewall hadn't been killed, that attack very well may have worked. Lee gets alot of credit but Stonewall Jackson had alot to do with his legacy.
 
Agreeing with all said above. Yes Lee was hoping to bring the war finally to the lawns of the "invaders" so they'd see what it was like when the Yankees invaded the south. He was hoping to dishearten the north by bringing the war to their hearths and homes rather than ours. he had absolutely no support though, as mentioned.. Ukraine has had nothing but support and still losing.. and it's been forgotten that they were a reason Trump was impeached.. cus he called one time.. but yeah now we dump fucking ALL the money there and nobody says shit about it. I don't give two fucks who wins that war, this is all a money laundering scheme for Biden. Fuck Ukraine, and Fuck Russia, i can't see that shit from here so let the sort it out themselves
 
Jackson translated Lee's vagaries into actionable direct orders. He had a natural ability to be aggressive and was willing to gamble to achieve results. He had a tremendous feel for the battlefield and his enemies weakness and was not afraid to be bold in his moves to exploit it.

Part of this was because he knew that Longstreet was the opposite and would hold the flank. Longstreet was the anvil that Jackson's hammer smashed enemies on.
 
westracing01 said:
Lee tried it twice. The first culminated in the bloodiest day in American History. The second was the bloodiest overall battle in American history.

Ukraine has unlimited Western aid but this feels like a gamble to put the Ruasians off balance. What's the goal? They won't give up and the Ukranians won't hold their gains. So... Is it just to try to force a bargaining position? NATO pressing Ukraine to poke the bear?

Ukraine can't win a war of attrition, so I suppose you could argue to make a play while you have strength to achieve something. They're going to run out of men eventually.
Click to expand...
Pure desperation play for even more foreign aid IMO. Trigger Russia into such an escalation that it triggers direct NATO intervention. I have no idea why we keep entangling ourselves in alliances where our "allies" seek to drag us into war. Actually I do. It's because the MIC dictates our foreign policy.
 
westracing01 said:
Jackson translated Lee's vagaries into actionable direct orders. He had a natural ability to be aggressive and was willing to gamble to achieve results. He had a tremendous feel for the battlefield and his enemies weakness and was not afraid to be bold in his moves to exploit it.

Part of this was because he knew that Longstreet was the opposite and would hold the flank. Longstreet was the anvil that Jackson's hammer smashed enemies on.
Click to expand...
Hell i like you, you can come to my house and fuck my sister! :beer::laughing::lmao::flipoff2:
 
east_beast said:
It was definitely in part to get the Union to recognize a need to play defense but the real ultimate goal was to get foreign recognition and aid for the Confederacy. That was the only way for them to actually win the war. The Union had every advantage. They had the advantage in manpower, economy, manufacturing, and logistics. Sound familiar? Ukraine has been fighting from the disadvantage from the get go but with full foreign support from the get go. And yet they're still losing. It's an unwinnable war. Even more unwinnable than the Civil War was for the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
There's a bunch of reasons why the Confederacy didn't start the war, they just left the union. Didn't need a war, didn't want a war, war is what they got though :rasta:

The push for the weaker state into the stronger state is high risk. Even then, what's the next play? Cut a rapid line and pour through toppling major cities hasn't really had desired results since....ghenkis khan? Everything after involving Europe or Asia has been slow grind, wholly internal or breakups. Khan embodied total war, that's what it takes to beat overwhelming odds, overwhelming violence.

Which is why it was employed by Sherman and friends, even if it wasn't required :rasta: it was effective
 
Whoever was in charge of the border security in that area is going to have their ass handed to them. Everything that's in there blowing the shit out of Russia is US equipment except for some tanks. This isn't going to sit very well with the Putin. But give credit to NATO and the Ukrainians they had their moment of screw the Russians. Wonder if Russia is going to stop pussy footing around now lol.
 
east_beast said:
Pure desperation play for even more foreign aid IMO. Trigger Russia into such an escalation that it triggers direct NATO intervention. I have no idea why we keep entangling ourselves in alliances where our "allies" seek to drag us into war. Actually I do. It's because the MIC dictates our foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a strange thing. However Ukraine has seen a significant shift in foreign aide. On the one hand, US and Germany are now openly direct training the Azov regiment, on the other hand Ukraine lost 4(?) M1a1 Abrams and pulled that regiment all the way back. That was a massive investment that didn't land and really has turned congress more gunshy than they used to be for funding
 
Provience said:
There's a bunch of reasons why the Confederacy didn't start the war, they just left the union. Didn't need a war, didn't want a war, war is what they got though :rasta:

The push for the weaker state into the stronger state is high risk. Even then, what's the next play? Cut a rapid line and pour through toppling major cities hasn't really had desired results since....ghenkis khan? Everything after involving Europe or Asia has been slow grind, wholly internal or breakups. Khan embodied total war, that's what it takes to beat overwhelming odds, overwhelming violence.

Which is why it was employed by Sherman and friends, even if it wasn't required :rasta: it was effective
Click to expand...
Well, to tie this in to the Kamala thread, you're right the South didn't start the war, they just decided not to be part of the bigger country any more. Here is what Kamala has to say about it
"Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong."
 
Drummer79 said:
Well, to tie this in to the Kamala thread, you're right the South didn't start the war, they just decided not to be part of the bigger country any more. Here is what Kamala has to say about it
"Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong."
Click to expand...
Kamala really makes this Ukraine thingy so clear... :homer::homer::homer::homer: I wonder who has his hand up her ass like a hand puppet. :confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
I love people who still debate the Civil War. The south lost and that’s all you need to know. Move on there’s plenty of new wars to discuss and over analyze.
 
Beat95yj said:
I love people who still debate the Civil War. The south lost and that’s all you need to know. Move on there’s plenty of new wars to discuss and over analyze.
Click to expand...
History matters. If you don't understand history you don't understand the present and you'll fuck up the future. Which is basically what we've been doing for the past 60 years or so.
 
Well, this should be entertaining if nothing else.

bold.jpg
 
Beat95yj said:
I love people who still debate the Civil War. The south lost and that’s all you need to know. Move on there’s plenty of new wars to discuss and over analyze.
Click to expand...
It's a southern thing. Within 1day of moving here I was getting a lecture on the dynamics of the civil war with someone I was wheeling with. "I have barely thought about the civil war since my last history class in HS". "Oh yea well you Yankees.... (30mins of southern civil war rambling)" "Oh neat, did not know that" "weilll ya know.... (30more mins of southern civil war rambling"
 
Last edited:
Beat95yj said:
I love people who still debate the Civil War. The south lost and that’s all you need to know. Move on there’s plenty of new wars to discuss and over analyze.
Click to expand...
:shaking: nothing about this was a debate regarding the civil war. If that's all you "need to know" is who won/lost, then you've got no reason to check this thread. Wait until the dust settles in 6 months or 100 years :flipoff2:

I guess I could've used some Korean war examples, but the civil war was the easiest and probably most well known example of a country "invaded" by their neighbors and then pushing "into" land they have no intention on attempting to hold after the initial "we will fight them in our own backyard" attempts failed to dislodge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh