Ukraine

[uglymoney]

And this is exactly why I (or probably any of us) don't know who would succeed him or what would happen after he's gone.

A mob puppet?


Yea uglymoney hes 'evil and needs to die' was what they said about sadam, but I think sadam was better for everyone, including Iraqis, than the power vacuum that enabled ISIS, and the wasteful war that preceded it.

The world sure aint the way it should be, and deserves aint got nothing to do with it

I'm not the one trying to play God here jackass. Putin chose this war and cancer may have chosen Putin.

You failed to quote the part of my post that said the potential new leader of Russia- whoever might rise - would get to save face and disavow Putin's disastrous war on a sovereign democratic country - if they so choose.

Putin doesn't really have a good way out of this at the moment so he seems to be going with the double down strategy.

It's Putin's fucking war. He's the evil prick that decided to upend millions and millions of lives and kill hundreds of thousands of people for reasons still unclear. If cancer kills him - he certainly will have earned that death.




Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

Yeah, everyone needs to recognize the war in Ukraine doesn't end even if Western countries lift sanctions and withdraw military aid. Ukraine is either winning or has fought Russia to a draw thanks to Western support but they've also shown they're more than capable of standing toe-to-toe with Russia on their own.

America and NATO are role players and are not responsible for this war nor are they responsible for what happens in Russia. Though they can try and bend the arc of history towards democracy. As a result of his actions one four things can happen to Putin:

1) He can remain in power
2) He can be replaced by someone worse
3) He can be replaced by someone better
4) Chaos can erupt and post-Russia can splinter

Putin is stuck in a trap. Which means even though a fully democratic Russia is a long shot, a democratic Russia is possible. But only if we engage with the possibility.

[leroy jenkins]

I'm not the one trying to play God here jackass. Putin chose this war and cancer may have chosen Putin.

You failed to quote the part of my post that said the potential new leader of Russia- whoever might rise - would get to save face and disavow Putin's disastrous war on a sovereign democratic country - if they so choose.

Putin doesn't really have a good way out of this at the moment so he seems to be going with the double down strategy.

It's Putin's fucking war. He's the evil prick that decided to upend millions and millions of lives and kill hundreds of thousands of people for reasons still unclear. If cancer kills him - he certainly will have earned that death.




Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

Yea I actually agree with all that except when you called me a jackass. Not sure why that was called for. I didn't say anything disrespectful to you. Just expressed fear for worse outcomes after his death.

Mostly I've been expressing a desire to hear thoughts about who/what would succeed him. I don't know enough about Russia.

Natural guess seems to be the current prime minister. Not sure if theres any reasonable expectation for a fair election. Hasn't been one in a while and honestly I kind of think a decent number of the Russian people don't really believe in democracy, and would feel more comfortable with a strongman of some sort, although it'd be great to find out otherwise.

Sure he's earned bad things, but deserves is an irrelevant concept in this life. That 'remains unclear' thing really gets to me. That seems like the world these days. I mean the reasons we went into Iraq still remain unclear.

Maybe my perception is just off, but I feel like a few decades back, reasons, even bad stupid reasons, become clear. Like Vietnam was stupidity but we eventually learned why. Even the supposed 'bet' story is more than we really know about us going into Iraq. The stupidity and callousness and arrogance that lead to WWI is still kind of a head scratcher, but its known and documented what each side and leader were thinking and basing decisions off of.

[leroy jenkins]

Yeah, everyone needs to recognize the war in Ukraine doesn't end even if Western countries lift sanctions and withdraw military aid. Ukraine is either winning or has fought Russia to a draw thanks to Western support but they're shown they're more than capable of standing toe-to-toe with Russia on their own.

America and NATO are role players and are not responsible for this war nor are they responsible for what happens in Russia. Though they can bend the arc of history towards democracy. As a result of his actions one four things can happen to Putin:

1) He can remain in power
2) He can be replaced by someone worse
3) He can be replaced by someone better
4) Chaos can erupt and post-Russia can splinter

Putin is stuck in a trap. Which means even though a fully democratic Russia is a long shot, a democratic Russia is possible. But only if we engage with the possibility.

3 and 4 aren't mutually exclusive. Russia could get a great benevolent freedom loving leader than can't maintain power or stability.

How much does the mob run russia? I've heard it said Putin is head of the mob.

What happens to Putins privately accumulated money when he dies? Officially he is just a humble public servant, but its widely believed by many smart people he's in fact the richest person in Russia, and perhaps the single richest individual in the world, although his familial wealth can't touch the Rothschilds et al.

[dunfree]

Yeah, everyone needs to recognize the war in Ukraine doesn't end even if Western countries lift sanctions and withdraw military aid. Ukraine is either winning or has fought Russia to a draw thanks to Western support but they've also shown they're more than capable of standing toe-to-toe with Russia on their own.

America and NATO are role players and are not responsible for this war nor are they responsible for what happens in Russia. Though they can try and bend the arc of history towards democracy. As a result of his actions one four things can happen to Putin:

1) He can remain in power
2) He can be replaced by someone worse
3) He can be replaced by someone better
4) Chaos can erupt and post-Russia can splinter

Putin is stuck in a trap. Which means even though a fully democratic Russia is a long shot, a democratic Russia is possible. But only if we engage with the possibility.

ukraine has no agency is a handshake between smoothbrain left and right

[ötzi]

Putin dies and goes to hell...

good one

[rideit]

“Ukraine has been claiming to have been making strategical retreats to some river I can neither spell or pronounce. Was hard to tell if that was true or if they were just getting their butts kicked. Then there was news that the Russians had crossed the river, which could only be done with secrecy or overwhelming force. Turns out it was neither. Ukrainians let them build a bridge and once a certain number of russians crossed they destroyed it and obliterated those who were trapped on the wrong side.”

[ötzi]

I wonder if Navalny could run that country.

[irul&ublo]

Yeah, everyone needs to recognize the war in Ukraine doesn't end even if Western countries lift sanctions and withdraw military aid. Ukraine is either winning or has fought Russia to a draw thanks to Western support but they've also shown they're more than capable of standing toe-to-toe with Russia on their own.

America and NATO are role players and are not responsible for this war nor are they responsible for what happens in Russia. Though they can try and bend the arc of history towards democracy. As a result of his actions one four things can happen to Putin:

1) He can remain in power
2) He can be replaced by someone worse
3) He can be replaced by someone better
4) Chaos can erupt and post-Russia can splinter

Putin is caught in a trap, he can’t walk out, because he loves you too much baby…Which means even though a fully democratic Russia is a long shot, a democratic Russia is possible. But only if we engage with the possibility.

FIFY

[leroy jenkins]

“Ukraine has been claiming to have been making strategical retreats to some river I can neither spell or pronounce. Was hard to tell if that was true or if they were just getting their butts kicked. Then there was news that the Russians had crossed the river, which could only be done with secrecy or overwhelming force. Turns out it was neither. Ukrainians let them build a bridge and once a certain number of russians crossed they destroyed it and obliterated those who were trapped on the wrong side.”

I wouldn't be surprised if they run out of those bridges before they run out of tanks/troops/money. Or run out of engineers before they run out of soldiers.




Random tangent. The roman empire won many battles basically with engineers, but of course using soldiers as well, Masada being a great example. Once though, they won a battle using nothing but engineers. It was against the germanic tribes. The leaders of the tribes chose their battle ground on the far side of a ford, knowing the troops could get across, but the roman heavy weapons and heavily armored phalanxes wouldn't be able to cross, adn they assumed no one could build a bridge either overnight or under fire. I can't remember the exact details, but I think the tribes just sat around their campfires and partied it up then went to sleep. When they woke in the morning the engineers had build a real bridge that would let them bring whatever they wanted to across the river. There was no battle, the tribes just dispersed and all went home. There wasn't even a second battle in that conflict. The romans just won and the tribes just said fuck it and went home.

[dunfree]

I wonder if Navalny could run that country.

a less corrupt but still ultranationalist Russia isn’t much better

[rideit]

The above Ukranian example is so tactically badass, it made me wonder what the historical precedents are, and if they went back to ancient times. That would be some good reading.

[leroy jenkins]

The above Ukranian example is so tactically badass, it made me wonder what the historical precedents are, and if they went back to ancient times. That would be some good reading.

It kind of also reminded me of the Battle of San Jacinto.

That one is so interesting to me. Psychologically so especially. There were only 2 Texians for every 3 Mexicans. Yet the Texians burnt all the bridges, trapping them on the island with the Mexican army, and attacked. The Mexicans I guess just didn't have the will to fight, and wanted to go home, which made them not fight so great, and die in large numbers and not get to go home. I think their low morale and complacently also led to a low level of readiness and they didn't expect the smaller force they had been chasing for weeks to turn and attack. Still tho, they wanted to go home so bad they were slaughtered and never got to go home.

Morale was a funny thing for the Texians too. They weren't happy with their leadership for not letting them fight and were largely untrained and undisciplined. But they had morale to fight. Kinda reminds me of Rorschach from Watchmen. "I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me"

[MultiVerse]

“Ukraine has been claiming to have been making strategical retreats to some river I can neither spell or pronounce. Was hard to tell if that was true or if they were just getting their butts kicked. Then there was news that the Russians had crossed the river, which could only be done with secrecy or overwhelming force. Turns out it was neither. Ukrainians let them build a bridge and once a certain number of russians crossed they destroyed it and obliterated those who were trapped on the wrong side.”

A Ukrainian combat engineer adds he was tasked, after receiving intelligence, ahead of time with finding likely locations where Russians might cross so they could put reconnaissance in place as well as prearrange artillery coordinates.

He goes on to say Ukrainians weren't able to see the Russian's crossing at the time due to fog and smoke. They heard them instead thanks to the pre-placed scouts. The battle started with a massive artillery barrage followed by air-to-ground attacks. He estimates around 30-to-50 armored vehicles destroyed and about 1500 infantry KIA.

That's probably the fighting portion of an entire Russian battalion tactical group.

https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506104192974849

[dunfree]

1500 KIA would be closer to two BTG.

pictures are at least 32 armored vehicles.

[leroy jenkins]

Not to mention everything thats now at the bottom of that river.

[rideit]

Kind of have to agree that the post-war PayPal begging is a little…odd? Tacky? Questionable as to veracity?

[MultiVerse]

Grain of salt, for sure. It is on theme though if you scroll through his earlier posts. Lots of stuff about gift baskets, new equipment, and civilian women bringing food to the battlefield. In other words typical gen-Z oversharing online behavior, just in a different setting.

[rideit]

Gen-Z is fucking Ironic, tho, given the context.

[Tri-Ungulate]

a less corrupt but still ultranationalist Russia isn’t much better

Exactly.

And no real guarantee Navalny is significantly less corrupt, from what little I can gather. He's just a darling to the West 'cuz he represents token opposition to Putler.

1500 KIA would be closer to two BTG.

pictures are at least 32 armored vehicles.

That's assuming RuZ BTG's are running at full strength, which may seem questionable these days.

[altacoup]

It kind of also reminded me of the Battle of San Jacinto.

That one is so interesting to me. Psychologically so especially. There were only 2 Texians for every 3 Mexicans. Yet the Texians burnt all the bridges, trapping them on the island with the Mexican army, and attacked. The Mexicans I guess just didn't have the will to fight, and wanted to go home, which made them not fight so great, and die in large numbers and not get to go home. I think their low morale and complacently also led to a low level of readiness and they didn't expect the smaller force they had been chasing for weeks to turn and attack. Still tho, they wanted to go home so bad they were slaughtered and never got to go home.

Morale was a funny thing for the Texians too. They weren't happy with their leadership for not letting them fight and were largely untrained and undisciplined. But they had morale to fight. Kinda reminds me of Rorschach from Watchmen. "I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me"

Yep. Nothing gets an army ready to fight like fighting for the right to continue to enslave another race. The Tex-mex war is always presented to Americans like some great war of independence by oppressed Texans against the horrible Mexican government. When really they just stole the land because Mexico outlawed slavery and that made all the whites who moved to that hell hole really mad.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[billyk]

It kind of also reminded me of the Battle of San Jacinto.

That one is so interesting to me. Psychologically so especially. There were only 2 Texians for every 3 Mexicans. Yet the Texians burnt all the bridges, trapping them on the island with the Mexican army, and attacked. The Mexicans I guess just didn't have the will to fight, and wanted to go home, which made them not fight so great, and die in large numbers and not get to go home. I think their low morale and complacently also led to a low level of readiness and they didn't expect the smaller force they had been chasing for weeks to turn and attack. Still tho, they wanted to go home so bad they were slaughtered and never got to go home.

Morale was a funny thing for the Texians too. They weren't happy with their leadership for not letting them fight and were largely untrained and undisciplined. But they had morale to fight. Kinda reminds me of Rorschach from Watchmen. "I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me"

Hate to nitpick, but it’s not an island. Houston did have Deaf Smith burn Vince’s Bridge to prevent the Mexicans from being able to escape along that road back to Harrisburg and join up with other reinforcements back that way. Santa Ana could have gone the other way towards Morgan’s Point (where he just came from), but there were no reinforcements for him in that direction. Burning the bridge worked because Santa Ana was caught there trying to cross the Bayou.

My understanding is the Mexicans did not have poor morale. On the contrary, they were feeling cocky and overconfident. After all, they had just whipped the shit out of the Texians in every battle up to that point. They just got caught by surprise at siesta time in a very poor tactical position with their backs to a swamp. I’m sure they had poor morale after watching most of their troops get slaughtered, but not before.

[leroy jenkins]

Hate to nitpick, but it’s not an island. Houston did have Deaf Smith burn Vince’s Bridge to prevent the Mexicans from being able to escape along that road back to Harrisburg and join up with other reinforcements back that way. Santa Ana could have gone the other way towards Morgan’s Point (where he just came from), but there were no reinforcements for him in that direction. Burning the bridge worked because Santa Ana was caught there trying to cross the Bayou.

My understanding is the Mexicans did not have poor morale. On the contrary, they were feeling cocky and overconfident. After all, they had just whipped the shit out of the Texians in every battle up to that point. They just got caught by surprise at siesta time in a very poor tactical position with their backs to a swamp. I’m sure they had poor morale after watching most of their troops get slaughtered, but not before.

I have read they viewed it as a war so foreign to their homeland they wanted no part of it.

Much like with the Spanish, Texas was a far flung frontier the average soldier gave no shits about. Hadn't been that long since they'd fought their own revolution, and many felt little ownership over the territories the Spanish crown had had designs on.

Not like any of us were there, but yea I think complacency of being the larger more professional force that had been doing the chasing was part of why they didn't place enough sentries, but that isn't mutually exclusive with wanting to just go home instead.

[leroy jenkins]

Yep. Nothing gets an army ready to fight like fighting for the right to continue to enslave another race. The Tex-mex war is always presented to Americans like some great war of independence by oppressed Texans against the horrible Mexican government. When really they just stole the land because Mexico outlawed slavery and that made all the whites who moved to that hell hole really mad.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

I don't think they cared all that much about fighting a professional army that outnumbered them just for the right to keep slaves. I think it was Goliad, and the fact that the Mexican government felt very foreign to them, by virtue of distance.

Agreed history is a muddied thing, and the history of white Americans emigrating to what was then Mexico to settle it then demanding independence is not a clear cut or simple one, but neitherSpain nor Mexico wouldn't have been begging for anglo settlers if Texas wasn't so far flung from their population centers. It was in a sense, destined to be part of the US just based on geography and population, and I dont mean demographics of the population being anglo, I mean population density, there was a lot more low population density land between texas and the mexican heartland than there was between texas and high populations of anglos. nature does abhor a vacuum, regardless of morality. .

[leroy jenkins]

Exactly.

And no real guarantee Navalny is significantly less corrupt, from what little I can gather. He's just a darling to the West 'cuz he represents token opposition to Putler.



That's assuming RuZ BTG's are running at full strength, which may seem questionable these days.

Maybe safe to assume anyone who gains power in Russia post Putin is either in charge of the mob or their puppet?

I wanna know what happens to Putins billions when he croaks tho. Go to his kin or the mob?