Jump to content

texastough

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by texastough

  1. forwards or backwards
  2. Justifies sending in "peacekeeping" troops to protect civilians imo
  3. I'm of the opinion that Russia might get to keep Crimea but nothing else. All Ukraine forces need to do is prevent Russia from taking and holding cities. They've mostly done that already. I don't believe Russia has the capability/resources to mount a second offensive anytime soon. If Russia simply digs into defensive positions in the countryside they are fucked. Ukraine won't need to eliminate all those forces, they can just starve them.
  4. I would argue Ukrainian forces should re-deploy south first, to relieve Mariupol, hopefully cut off supply lines coming through Crimea, and avoid being surrounded by russian forces in the east. But I don't know shit
  5. Back to Japan claiming sovereignty over the southern Kuril Islands. Man I wish other countries like Finland who have lost territory to Russia would follow suit. Seems it would be the best way to help Ukraine right now short of direct NATO involvement. Divert Russia's military resources and attention from Ukraine. And, playing the long game, could help take out Putin. I know support for the Ukraine war is strong now, but if Putin came out of this with nothing of value gained in Ukraine, and loss of territory to Japan, Finland, etc., I imagine his support would take a huge hit in the homeland. Combined with sanctions eventually taking a huge toll on Russians, I don't see how Putin could survive it.
  6. Dumb question amnesty for the military guys: are tanks and armored vehicles with big guns considered the "artillery" that is shelling cities? I know the Russians are shooting missiles into cities too, but my impression is that missiles come from long range, and there are far fewer of them, compared to the artillery shelling. I'm asking because when I think artillery, I think of a big gun on wheels. But I haven't seen images from Ukraine of those. I'm assuming the Ukrainians would place higher priority on destroying the artillery that is blasting the cities. In other words, are all the tanks being blown up/captured by Ukraine the main guns doing the shelling?
  7. Don't bother, MaybeATrollOrDumbass thinks Ukraine "picked this fight"
  8. Achinsk is in the middle of Russia, thousands of miles from Ukraine. How would Ukraine accomplish that with missiles?
  9. I think those troop numbers include kia, wounded, captured, etc.
  10. I've been wondering whether anyone has analyzed of the rate of Russian losses, like the OSInt guys or Rob Lee etc. All else being equal, it would seem that as Russia's losses mount, morale degrades, supplies run out etc. the rate of their losses would increase. I know that "all else being equal" is a fiction in the fog of war, as Russia stops advancing and digs in, and so forth. Anyway I decided to look at Ukraine's claimed numbers put out through the Kyiv Indepenent. But, their Twitter only went back to March 12, but thats about halfway through the conflict so it works. Here's what it shows. As of March 12, Ukraine claimed that Russia had lost: 12,000 troops, 58 planes, 83 helicopters, 362 tanks, 585 other vehicles, 1,205 armored personnel carriers, etc As of March 28, Ukraine claimed Russia has lost 17,000 troops, 123 planes, 127 helicopters, 586 tanks, 1,150 other vehicles, 1,694 armored personnel carriers Not a ton to be gleaned from that info, but if that info is true, it would indicate Russia's losses have slowed slightly since March 12.
  11. A couple more with the “get off my lawn” treatment Assuming these just came out of their den, they may come right back. I took them about a mile away. IMG_0377.MOV
  12. Still you have to give credit where credit is due. "Ukrainian border guards undress you and touch you everywhere . . ." Lol thats some entertaining disinfo right there
  13. And possibly bring down some GOP shysters at the same time
  14. that seemed like a pathetic troll attempt but stupidity could explain it as well
  15. Oh for fucks sake
  16. Here's to switchblades shortening the war and limiting civilian casualties. Russia has shown that it cannot win on the battlefield and that the primary threat it presents is bombing civilians. If a combination of hunter groups and precision guided drones can take out Russian artillery and missile systems, its over. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/baguette-sized-flying-bombs-are-about-to-enter-service-in-ukraine/21808317
  17. Isn't Poland's military capability today rated as one of the best in NATO?
  18. hows that going for them, lets check economically -- outlook not so good ideologically -- my sources say no militarily -- better not tell you now
  19. I'd be shocked if any baseball NIL money was in the same universe as the signing bonus for a top draft pick
  20. To me its a question of practicality -- will it work like Z wants it to? Seems it would just drive subversive efforts underground, and it might be smarter to keep a light shined on it. Edit, I have no idea what the real situation is there, so I'm not advocating either way.
  21. Cmon the issue is not why someone is a refugee/immigrant it’s the way we treat them at the border
  22. I’ve seen casualty stats but at this point have the Ukrainians out out numbers of Russians who have surrendered or were captured?
  23. Bait, trying to draw NATO countries into the conflict, or mechanical and supply issues. While I lead toward the former, since otherwise you would space it out more for security, it could be the latter simply because the front needs resupply so badly
  24. I think its not just the risk of escalation and nukes, I think its also that the optics are better for just about everyone on the planet if Ukraine wins on its own
×
×
  • Create New...