• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#23,579]Ukraine War Thread

justoneman said:
In this thread I post because there is an onslaught of fake Ukraine news. I fight against a sea of it so people can at least get a glimpse of reality. I want the truth about who is winning and who is losing, so that perhaps people might pause and not be chomping at the bit, to get directly involved in this European conflict.

Why do you post here?
Click to expand...
Crying FAKE
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
justoneman said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


I am talking about the Bull of Bakhmut. Have you heard of the Bull of Bakhmut? He is the new phenomenon, on the heels of the Ghost of Kyiv


 
Juin said:
I am talking about the Bull of Bakhmut. Have you heard of the Bull of Bakhmut? He is the new phenomenon, on the heels of the Ghost of Kyiv


Click to expand...

Where is Chuck Norris residing these days?
 
maxparrish said:
That is true. In sum, this clueless complaining may stem from one or more of the following:

1) Copium. Putin und butt buddies are lying to their public, and perhaps themselves, to avoid giving the credit to "little Russians" having stopped the vaunted "great Russian" army. Much less humiliating is to blame it on Russia's great cold war enemy, the U.S.

2) Collective Self-Centeredness. As a society, Russians are unable to grow and mature - emotionally at the level of 12 to 14 years of age. It's difficult for them to be empathic, kind, and understanding...especially when it comes to others who get more attention and sympathy. Like most immature, it's identity depends on wallowing in victimhood. So when the west supplies weapons to Ukraine, they scream it's unfair and they are "a victim".

3) Entitlement. Like most self-centered societies with victimhood as its only source of "pride", they have assumed they are entitled beyond that of all other nations.
Roadvirus said:
Putzin and his butt buddies are upset because we are making them look like incompetent boobs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It is not really Russia that looks like an incompetent fool. It is Putin himself. The old communist regime that ruled the Soviet Union didn't have these problems. It did really have a formidable military and for the most a formidable production of military equipment. Just look at the equipment Russia is bringing into the war and the equipment the Ukraine was using initially and still is to some extent. Al produced before the wall fell. Some of it 80 years old and still working. That is impressive to be honest.


The Soviet Union dictatorship did not suffer from the same corruption as Russia do today. They just imprisoned or killed any official that didn’t perform. Shimming of the top was not an option. The corruption at the time was made through privileges, like being able to drive in certain files on the motorway or being able to travel within the Soviet bloc.

It is Putin who has formed this culture, even before he was made president, he was at the heart of it. The times Russia has handed out the former state assets, he was there and partly controlling and relocating the distribution. The corruption and his control of it and the wealth he acquired because of it makes him feel powerful but it has not just drained the Russian economy and regular people’s lives, it has drained every and any motivation for doing your job as well. He has turned one of the world’s most powerful regimes into one of those “shithole” countries Trump was talking about, and he is now using the last recourses of the Soviet era to try and prove otherwise. While in the meantime clearly accepting the fact that China has gone from little brother to successful brother during his time as president. He has more effectively than any outside power could ever accomplish mounted down the Russian influence and significance at an impressive rate and scale. This will be his legacy. When we come out on the other side, Russia will no longer be called a "superpower", China will take that role in the balance with the US. Question is in what way Russia will come out on the other side. A closed dictatorship or a democratic western oriented country?



Just to make sure that you don’t misunderstand me. I am not a fan of the late Soviet Union regime. I find it despicable. I am just pointing out that corruption was not the problem.
 
Last edited:
UN nuclear chief: Ukraine nuclear plant is `out of control'

For all practical purposes, Russian forces are using the largest nuclear facility in Europe as a shield against UKR rocket/arty attacks.

They are using the facility's grounds as a weapons depot.


www.rferl.org

Scholz Says Russian Blocking Shipment Of Turbine Needed To Hike Gas Flows

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has accused Moscow of purposely holding up the delivery of a turbine by refusing to submit the paperwork needed to transport the item to Russia, where its installation will allow for increased gas supplies via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org


FZOpQinXkAAJkx1

The Russian ferry operation next to the unusable Antonovsky Bridge in Kherson Oblast.

 
Juin said:
Thanks, Heisenberg for weighing in on what is a favourite hobby of mine.
Click to expand...

It's cool that you like studying military history, especially stories about military history, and myths about military history, and, I suppose, military strategy (of which I've seen absolutely no evidence of), but the fact that this is an interest of yours doesn't make you immune from criticism. And I don't know why you think it would.

Juin said:
As a matter of fact, Lee split his forces during the Seven Days Battles as well, if we go with your understanding of what "split" is. Lee did pull out Hill, Hill and Longstreet to send north for his end run around the Union right, leaving behind Huger and Macgruder to hold the line.

And at Austerlitz Napoleon Bonaparte also split his forces. His right was weak, deliberately so, but also dangerously so because Davout's III Corps which was to prevent a rout of the weakened French right was 70 miles away, and had to complete that march in 48 hours to be on time. If the Allies fell for the weakened right, and pressed hard there, their center was weakened, and available for a killer charge from Soult.

I believe your problem is that a simplicity of intellect on your part does not allow you to grasp what Napoleon meant when he cautioned against splitting of forces. You leave the impression that to you punching with both hands in a single battle is what Napoleon meant by splitting forces.
Click to expand...

Juin said:
At Austerlitz Napoleon made sure that for that encounter his force will all be in place. He did not send Davout to go charging out of that theater so as to somehow hope that his adversaries would send part of their forces after Davout. They wouldnt have.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why I gave you an example of General Lee splitting his forces in the same geographic area a year later. If I can give you an example of the same general splitting his forces in the same geographic area a year later -- within the same geographic scope and even within a similar time frame -- you can't make an argument about scope, and therefore your reference to Gen. Lee and some hypothetical advice on his part cautioning against splitting one's forces is bullshit.

Your references to Napoleon are bullshit too. Napoleon split his forces dozens of times in dozens of different battlefield situations. Napoleon also split his forces at an expanded strategic scope. I am talking about campaign-wide, and even continent-wide strategic scopes. Napoleon did this before, during, and after dozens of battles. Napoleon did this before, during, and after each major war. No matter what the scope was, Napoleon would split his forces depending on the situation, and if it made sense to do so. Napoleon had his forces all over the place.

The things you're writing about splitting one's forces, just aren't true. The examples of generalship that you're giving to support your position aren't true. There are situations where it doesn't make sense to split one's forces. And there are situations where it makes sense to split one's forces. It just depends on the situation.
 
Last edited:
justoneman said:
Ukraine needs to win some big battle. Standing ground and losing is not winning a battle. Retreating is not winning a battle.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary for Ukraine to win "some big battle" in order to win the war. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. Vietnam is a good example of an inferior army losing repeatedly to a superior army, yet ultimately winning the war.

And with the Russians deliberately targeting civilians with missile strikes, murdering civilians (Bucha), murdering POWs (Olenivka), and also castrating POWs we are now in a situation where NATO countries are now more motivated than ever to support the Ukrainians.
 
Juin said:
I dont believe people who cannot accept that it is just possible Ukrainian shells landed on Azov POWs in Olenivka can claim interest in the truth either.
Click to expand...

There is now evidence that the Russians

1) pre-dug graves for the POWs.
2) housed the POWs in a separate facility prior to the bombing.
3) bombed the POWs inside the target facility themselves.

And given the fact that the Russians already publicly declared their intent to execute the Azov prisoners, absent evidence to the contrary, it's more likely than not that the Russians engaged in a war crime and murdered the POWs.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
There's some special touch to Jominis analysis that makes me wonder if he has a Military background. I prefer his over the likes of ISW and most OSINT guys.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed with his map detail, and some of his analysis. I question, however, his understanding of the political aspects of the war. I'm still liking the ISW and OSINT guys more for their well rounded and insightful comments.

But all of it helps...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom