Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Bill the Cat or Berke Breathed? AFAIK, they were never merged into one being, although I do recall something about Bill's brain being replaced with Trump's at one point.

(And that is NOT CR, this was WAAAAAY before the donald went into politics.)

and i literally saw this one, scratched my head without understanding, and kept on ...

 

my mind is going

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Ukraine's "victory is closer than you think": US Military Academy asst prof Ukraine needs to advance just 7-10 km more to put Russia's east-west supply routes in HIMARS/MLRS range "(Then) it’s very hard to see how the Russian army can continue to fight" "Ukrainians must advance another 10km southward to cover all the terrain between them and the Sea of Azov. "Ukraine is now closing in on this goal at several spots along the frontline... "Once this happens, there is (forgive the use of this old term) a domino effect" Crimea would be supplied only by the Kerch Bridge, whose capacity "will likely not be enough to supply both the western part of the front and the civilian population"

Hoping Neil Patrick Harris GIF

Ukraine has always understood that they'll win this war by disrupting logistics.

I'm starting to doubt if winning was ever Russia's goal.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Ukraine's "victory is closer than you think": US Military Academy asst prof Ukraine needs to advance just 7-10 km more to put Russia's east-west supply routes in HIMARS/MLRS range "(Then) it’s very hard to see how the Russian army can continue to fight" "Ukrainians must advance another 10km southward to cover all the terrain between them and the Sea of Azov. "Ukraine is now closing in on this goal at several spots along the frontline... "Once this happens, there is (forgive the use of this old term) a domino effect" Crimea would be supplied only by the Kerch Bridge, whose capacity "will likely not be enough to supply both the western part of the front and the civilian population"

And if they had some goddamn ATAACMS this woulda been a reality for awhile.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Yea I think it was sabotage. Probably a mercury switch that flipped once they hit altitude.

Based on what we know, it also seems like it was deliberately set to blow the wing off, but allow the passengers and crew to survive the blast in the cabin, if only to enhance the horror for those final moments.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Anyone got any of Margarita and ol' Victor Solovyev's hot takes lately? Haven't seen any in a while, and I don't Twitter.

CHIEF

Julia Davis is on Threads, too.

https://www.threads.net/@juliadavisnews/post/CwWPk_uJqdn/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Quote

Vladimir Solovyov blamed Ukraine, France, America, the Baltic states and NATO for the crash that killed Yevgeny Prigozhin and attacked any viewers who dared to disagree.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kevwun said:

They got Pringles with a bomb on the plane?  It was definitely an explosion, but last I saw US said no missile launch.

 

54 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Yea I think it was sabotage. Probably a mercury switch that flipped once they hit altitude.

That wing separated pretty clean. The video of the plane falling show it was intact except for that wing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

So, good news, bad news.

I think the last part might be a bit of lost in translation, or a bit confusing because there are multiple things going on in.  He says the are frantic, attempting to prevent a breakthrough, but then saying that numbers of reserves, reinforcements and rotations are incorrect.  I don't take that to mean that they are incorrect in Russia's favor, but rather that they don't have much left in the tank from a personnel standpoint.  Basically, they are frantic because there isn't much behind them to help should it come to that.  

Maybe I am reading that wrong, but I think it's positive in Ukraine's favor.  Fingers crossed.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I think the last part might be a bit of lost in translation, or a bit confusing because there are multiple things going on in.  He says the are frantic, attempting to prevent a breakthrough, but then saying that numbers of reserves, reinforcements and rotations are incorrect.  I don't take that to mean that they are incorrect in Russia's favor, but rather that they don't have much left in the tank from a personnel standpoint.  Basically, they are frantic because there isn't much behind them to help should it come to that.  

Maybe I am reading that wrong, but I think it's positive in Ukraine's favor.  Fingers crossed.  

Sorry, that's not it. He clarified in the thread:

 

So... good news, bad news.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm not sure if WSJ being tankie or not.

 

Kofman has said that at a certain point, he felt continuing to defend Bakhmut hurt Ukraine more than Russia. His argument was that Ukraine started trading experienced troops for Russia's minimally trained, expendable troops. He also questioned keeping very experienced troops at Bakhmut to attack there this summer while they had green troops for the main attacks in the south.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Kofman has said that at a certain point, he felt continuing to defend Bakhmut hurt Ukraine more than Russia. His argument was that Ukraine started trading experienced troops for Russia's minimally trained, expendable troops. He also questioned keeping very experienced troops at Bakhmut to attack there this summer while they had green troops for the main attacks in the south.

I don't think that's tankie, I think that's a legit concern.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Kofman has said that at a certain point, he felt continuing to defend Bakhmut hurt Ukraine more than Russia. His argument was that Ukraine started trading experienced troops for Russia's minimally trained, expendable troops. He also questioned keeping very experienced troops at Bakhmut to attack there this summer while they had green troops for the main attacks in the south.

 

11 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I don't think that's tankie, I think that's a legit concern.  

Yeah, sounds like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...