Beans
Full Member
Here’s a translation of the article:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://nvo-ng-ru.translate.goog/re...bass.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Last edited:
Here’s a translation of the article:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A real shame as I'm sure people were still hoping that Ukraine would mount some kind of rescue counterattack to punch a hole through Russian lines towards Mariupol. It could have ended in either a success like Bastogne or a failure like Alesia (Gauls vs. Caesar), but it would have been worth a try, especially as Russians are retreating about everywhere else.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I’d also hoped they’d have been able to punch through like Patton’s 3rd Army, but it wasn’t to be.A real shame as I'm sure people were still hoping that Ukraine would mount some kind of rescue counterattack to punch a hole through Russian lines towards Mariupol. It could have ended in either a success like Bastogne or a failure like Alesia (Gauls vs. Caesar), but it would have been worth a try, especially as Russians are retreating about everywhere else.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
British films released in 1941.I dont know. If we were at war with another county that had invaded and taken over Birmingham and Bristol, the last thing we would be doing is taking part in a song contest. At least that's how I feel.
This video is amazing! This guy directly said that at some point in the near future Ukraine will have one million soldiers, well equipped with modern NATO high tech weapons, well trained, and with high morale because they defend their motherland!The cracks are opening ever wider.
He even admitted that virtually the whole world is now against Russia, and that this is a position of isolation that Russia needs to get out of, which of course raises the question - how do they escape from this isolation?
With that question now admitted, the only possible answers (as yet unvoiced by Russian commentators) hove into view: get rid of Putin, end the war, withdraw the troops.
They hold on long enough so that crucial resupplies could reach the front, while Russian troops had to stay in Mariupol. Pushing the Russians out of the region won't be a fast process as that's what they seem to prioritize. In this situation it makes little sense to keep them fighting and dying, the strategic goal of their fact has been reached.I’d also hoped they’d have been able to punch through like Patton’s 3rd Army, but it wasn’t to be.
Either way, they occupied large amounts of Russian troops, inflicted high casualties, and fought one of the greatest last stands in modern military history.
This. They exhausted Russian forces there and kept them in combat, forces Russians could have used elsewhere. Mariupol battle reminds me of battle for Vukovar in Croatian homeland war. Greatly outnumbered Croatian forces fought and held Jugoslav people's army (one of the strongest in Europe at that time) for 3 months, while being pummelled daily, people being in basements without electricity, food and water. Hospital was a building which was bombarded the most so injured soldiers and civilians were in basements in improvised hospital conditions.I’d also hoped they’d have been able to punch through like Patton’s 3rd Army, but it wasn’t to be.
Either way, they occupied large amounts of Russian troops, inflicted high casualties, and fought one of the greatest last stands in modern military history.
If this is true, then Russia will lose this. It reminds so much of war on the Eastern front in WW2 when a certain dictator whose name I will not utter began to meddle on the tactical level, undermining his generals on the ground and making bad decisions.The BBC reports:
"Russia's President Putin and his military chief, General Valery Gerasimov, are believed to be directly intervening in Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine and taking decisions normally made by more junior officers - according to a Western military source.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the source said: “We think Putin and Gerasimov are involved in tactical decision-making at a level we would normally expect to be taken by a colonel or brigadier.”
The military source said the two were the ones making decisions about troop movements in the Donbas – the area of eastern Ukraine which is now the focus of Russia’s military offensive.
There have already been suggestions that President Putin has become more involved in the day-to-day running of the military campaign, ever since Russia suffered setbacks in the north of the country and around the capital Kyiv.
There’s also been recent speculation that Russia’s military chief, General Gerasimov, may have been sidelined – along with unsubstantiated rumours that he was injured while visiting the Donbas a few weeks ago.
But the Western military official made clear that Russia’s chief of the general staff was still giving orders. “Gerasimov is up and running,” he said."
I’m more worried about funding than I am the will of the Ukrainians to push Russia out of all of Ukraine.This video is amazing! This guy directly said that at some point in the near future Ukraine will have one million soldiers, well equipped with modern NATO high tech weapons, well trained, and with high morale because they defend their motherland!
Which is correct I believe. Discussing the future, if Ukrainians want to keep the fight, I can imagine that this war can keep going for another 12 months, or as long as it is needed for Russia to lose. Why not? In 12 months the West can even train Ukrainian pilots to use modern aircraft, and train their army to use other complicated high tech equipment like Patriot missiles. Ukraine can win this war. And I mean really win the war, inflicting very high losses on the Russian army and pushing them out of Ukraine, including Crimea. It depends mostly on the will of Ukrainians to keep fighting.
Wish this was possible, but would have been the most suicide of suicide missions. Mariupol is in deepest held Russian territory. I’m sure it’ll fall eventually but the war is heading into a stalemate whereby the Russians are unable to advance. We’re long away from Ukraine punching into the actual Donbas.A real shame as I'm sure people were still hoping that Ukraine would mount some kind of rescue counterattack to punch a hole through Russian lines towards Mariupol. It could have ended in either a success like Bastogne or a failure like Alesia (Gauls vs. Caesar), but it would have been worth a try, especially as Russians are retreating about everywhere else.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is great, I haven’t heard of Ukraine receiving air defences as part of the military aid they’ve got, so I wonder what it is they’re using.Mayor of Lviv confirms that all missiles were intercepted last night. That’s pretty remarkable and shows that Lviv now has robust missile defences. I wonder if Russia will now focus their terrorism on other cities? A short thread that you can self-translate on Twitter:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why "potentially killing a lot of their own"? A proper army does not hit blind shots over cities. That's a waste of ammo, the Russian way. The Ukrainian army will hit the Russian army, not the civilians.I notice that people are hoping that Ukraine move further into Donbas and even Crimea eventually. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be a very different sort of war for Ukraine and mean that they're the ones shelling cities to remove the army that is currently incumbent in those areas?
I get it's wrong that the Russians took Crimea, but wouldn't removing them by force mean Ukraine potentially killing a lot of their own?
I’d be surprised if they use Russia’s tactics, more likely they’ll attack supply lines etc, and try to foment a revolution from within. It will be a more asymmetric kind of warfare that we haven’t seen as yetI notice that people are hoping that Ukraine move further into Donbas and even Crimea eventually. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be a very different sort of war for Ukraine and mean that they're the ones shelling cities to remove the army that is currently incumbent in those areas?
I get it's wrong that the Russians took Crimea, but wouldn't removing them by force mean Ukraine potentially killing a lot of their own?
I assume they would try to allow civilians to evacuate. They would be able to afford to wait as well, they wouldn't have to charge in all guns blazing like the Russians whose supply lines haven't really allowed for an indefinite war. Contrary to popular belief, shelling seven shades of shite out of civilians isn't the only way to take a city.I notice that people are hoping that Ukraine move further into Donbas and even Crimea eventually. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be a very different sort of war for Ukraine and mean that they're the ones shelling cities to remove the army that is currently incumbent in those areas?
I get it's wrong that the Russians took Crimea, but wouldn't removing them by force mean Ukraine potentially killing a lot of their own?
Amazing, this might be Russia's single largest missile attack yet? All a complete waste and their ability to replace these missiles is highly questionable.Mayor of Lviv confirms that all missiles were intercepted last night. That’s pretty remarkable and shows that Lviv now has robust missile defences. I wonder if Russia will now focus their terrorism on other cities? A short thread that you can self-translate on Twitter:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Even assuming Kiev has the military means to re-take the Donbass, I’d say it’s still going to require a political solution as much as a military solution to bring the region back into the fold. So if the Ukrainians are being smart about it, they should be reaching out to both Russian-backed rebel leaders and the general population right now, making it clear that things like amnesties and autonomy will be available.I notice that people are hoping that Ukraine move further into Donbas and even Crimea eventually. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be a very different sort of war for Ukraine and mean that they're the ones shelling cities to remove the army that is currently incumbent in those areas?
I get it's wrong that the Russians took Crimea, but wouldn't removing them by force mean Ukraine potentially killing a lot of their own?
I'm not sure I'd even want autonomy if I were them, I'd probably rather have money and investment. You wouldn't want to see the Russians back there again in a few years if you'd any sense at this point, and autonomy done wrong might encourage that.Even assuming Kiev has the military means to re-take the Donbass, I’d say it’s still going to require a political solution as much as a military solution to bring the region back into the fold. So if the Ukrainians are being smart about it, they should be reaching out to both Russian-backed rebel leaders and the general population right now, making it clear that things like amnesties and autonomy will be available.
Yes, it's quite incredible really. I agree with the tweet I posted, it's surprising they let him on state TV. Perhaps, getting the public ready for the withdrawal from Ukraine?You have to give credit to the guy if the stuff published by him on the 3rd of Feb has not been edited since, it’s an incredibly accurate assessment.
Why and to whom would Ukraine be offering autonomy? There's nothing and nobody credible to work with there. It's a fiefdom of militia and mafiosi.Even assuming Kiev has the military means to re-take the Donbass, I’d say it’s still going to require a political solution as much as a military solution to bring the region back into the fold. So if the Ukrainians are being smart about it, they should be reaching out to both Russian-backed rebel leaders and the general population right now, making it clear that things like amnesties and autonomy will be available.
Was this directed at me? Did you read what I posted?Literally the post above yours
Will the Russian soldiers hold out like the Ukrainians did when they are cut off. I'm not so sure, but even getting to the point where they will be able to ask those questions would be a massive achievement.I notice that people are hoping that Ukraine move further into Donbas and even Crimea eventually. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be a very different sort of war for Ukraine and mean that they're the ones shelling cities to remove the army that is currently incumbent in those areas?
I get it's wrong that the Russians took Crimea, but wouldn't removing them by force mean Ukraine potentially killing a lot of their own?
The Russian army are likely to hole up in the city with civilians so they can't be hit if Ukraine make it to the cities. As a defending force that would be the best position to slow down any gains.Why "potentially killing a lot of their own"? A proper army does not hit blind shots over cities. That's a waste of ammo, the Russian way. The Ukrainian army will hit the Russian army, not the civilians.
True, and that's what I was kind of getting at. If Ukraine do try and take cities which have been held by Russia for years, that will likely take years if they aren't going to shell (which they can't for obvious reasons).I assume they would try to allow civilians to evacuate. They would be able to afford to wait as well, they wouldn't have to charge in all guns blazing like the Russians whose supply lines haven't really allowed for an indefinite war. Contrary to popular belief, shelling seven shades of shite out of civilians isn't the only way to take a city.
Sure, investment too. The main point being that a positive non-military re-engagement with the population there will be needed, along whatever lines deemed acceptable to the greatest majority possible on both sides.I'm not sure I'd even want autonomy if I were them, I'd probably rather have money and investment. You wouldn't want to see the Russians back there again in a few years if you'd any sense at this point, and autonomy done wrong might encourage that.
The ‘why?’ would be - to offer an incentive to end the war there with as little bloodshed as possible, and to try to ensure a lasting settlement that holds. The ‘to whom?’ is obviously a trickier question, but it seems as if a significant part of the population there (though not necessarily a majority) would seek assurances on certain questions.Why and to whom would Ukraine be offering autonomy? There's nothing and nobody credible to work with there. It's a fiefdom of militia and mafiosi.
You're making a good point in general, Ukraine will benefit in the long run if as many people of the region as possible feel they are welcomed back in to the country rather than taken over conquered foes. However that is best done, it is desirable all round.Sure, investment too. The main point being that a positive non-military re-engagement with the population there will be needed, along whatever lines deemed acceptable to the greatest majority possible on both sides.
The ‘why?’ would be - to offer an incentive to end the war there with as little bloodshed as possible, and to try to ensure a lasting settlement that holds. The ‘to whom?’ is obviously a trickier question, but it seems as if a significant part of the population there (though not necessarily a majority) would seek assurances on certain questions.
They hold on long enough so that crucial resupplies could reach the front, while Russian troops had to stay in Mariupol. Pushing the Russians out of the region won't be a fast process as that's what they seem to prioritize. In this situation it makes little sense to keep them fighting and dying, the strategic goal of their fact has been reached.
Hard to fathom just how much this few have helped the overall war effort. Their job is now done though, Ukraine is barely on the defensive anymore and are ready to push back into the Donbas.This. They exhausted Russian forces there and kept them in combat, forces Russians could have used elsewhere. Mariupol battle reminds me of battle for Vukovar in Croatian homeland war. Greatly outnumbered Croatian forces fought and held Jugoslav people's army (one of the strongest in Europe at that time) for 3 months, while being pummelled daily, people being in basements without electricity, food and water. Hospital was a building which was bombarded the most so injured soldiers and civilians were in basements in improvised hospital conditions.
The tweet is already flirting with the character limit, the ommited part would push it over. Meaning that he'd have to cut something else, split into two tweets or try some annyoing txt speech. What he cut changes absolutely nothing.Pretty clear IMO. I just had a look at this guy’s Twitter feed:He’s very transparent. Shares the statement from UK gov. and on purpose fails to finish the sentence, which goes as follows:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He’s pushing Russian agenda full stop if you read his Twitter.
I more than regret my rather stupid inebriated post re Eurovision, to be honest. Well done to Ukraine, they deserved it and I’m happy for them.Yeah he posts on the caf
Somebody else mentioned that. Its not the same. The UK was at war but wasnt invaded, was not under any foreign occupation. We were the ones doing the invading. Not the same situation.British films released in 1941.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_films_of_1941
Life does not stop, and not everyone can be a soldier. And even soldiers do need a break, they cannot be fighting 24 hours a day for months.
Being able to admit mistakes is an absolutely key factor in the character of all reasonable people. It’s a strength not a weakness, even though it’s not often viewed as such. And I say that as someone who struggles with it myself. So, respect to you for acknowledging that you said something that you later accepted wasn’t reasonable:I more than regret my rather stupid inebriated post re Eurovision, to be honest. Well done to Ukraine, they deserved it and I’m happy for them.
I don't think it will take years. Once they begin, military collapses tend to become complete quickly.If Ukraine do try and take cities which have been held by Russia for years, that will likely take years if they aren't going to shell (which they can't for obvious reasons).
Not sure who the UK was invading in 1941, but I am sure the UK itself was scared shitless of invasion in 1940, not to mention being bombed to feck and the shipping vital to avoid starvation was being sunk faster than it could be built.. No two situations are the same but you've picked a silly point to use to prove it. Twice.Somebody else mentioned that. Its not the same. The UK was at war but wasnt invaded, was not under any foreign occupation. We were the ones doing the invading. Not the same situation.