Support NeoGAF

[NoLootBoxDev]

 

[ItsGreat]

Shut the fuck up man.

What on earth is wrong with you? You're so aggressive.

 

[Tams]

 

[funkygunther]

More Ainsley enjoying Ukrainian victories please!

 

[akimbo009]

What? Do you think that means there are no effects.
There are bad effects from radiation months and years after. There are islands where France, UK and USA tested nukes, in the 60s, that today are still not safe to live in.

And of course, the short term effects, during the first couple of months are terrifying.

What? People actually live in Hiroshima without side effects.

In fact, why listen to me... Listen to the people of Hiroshima.

Q. Is there still radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? - 広島市公å¼ãƒ›ãƒ¼ãƒ ページ｜国際平和文化都市

Point is, there is no long term residual risks - and on the cases of on-going nuclear tests that is only partially true and certainly not going to happen.

Not downplay the horror of nuclear weapons, but it's not Fallout76 or anything. There's a lot to be afraid of when it comes to nuclear energy and weapons but it's significantly overplayed.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

"It's not extreme, because communism and Soviet Union which they say was "not communism" but they always say that. "And every country is no communist country, not my communist utopia." But this regime killed millions of people, millions of people. Ukrainians as well, Armenians, Georgians, whatever the fuck. So for me to see that hat being worn as an aesthetic flex is the same as wearing an SS uniform."

Reminds me that shitstain that is the communist party is not banned in France. Kinda shameful on our part.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Stalemate long term, as we've seen in the past 4 months or so before the counterattack.

For the past month the war has not been in a stalemate. Pretending "the war is at a stalemate" is as false as saying "russia is about to take over Kyiv" because 7 months ago they had a bunch of troops piled near the city. You refuse to acknowledge a hard fact about the state of the war.

No. I just say that them being in a non-ideal state won't change the outcome (stalemate) much.

And yet you have yet to present an informed, fact based opinion, why untrained troops with no equipment will make a difference, when in every war known so far, training, gear and motivation are some of the most important factors.

Both things can be true at the same time. I don't think they will run out of weapons or ammunition any time soon.

No they cannot. You are effectively saying "russia is running out of soviet stockpiles" and "russia is not running out of soviet stockpiles" is the same, when it is not. Either bring facts, or acknowledge that the are running out of soviet stockpiles.

Ukraine taking back some territory doesn't necessarily mean they can take all of the territory, yes.

But you are arguing the contrary, that the russian army which is taking massive hits and losing terrain everyday, can recoup the initiative and stall the ukrainians advances. Give us a a fact based argument on how they can do it.

Instead of accepting differing opinions, you're trying to discredit me as a troll. Many such cases! Sad!

You keep trying to reduce it all into opinions, because they are subjective. Since you refuse to engage in a fact based discussion, you are trolling.

 

[winjer]

What? People actually live in Hiroshima without side effects.

In fact, why listen to me... Listen to the people of Hiroshima.

Q. Is there still radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? - 広島市公å¼ãƒ›ãƒ¼ãƒ ページ｜国際平和文化都市

Point is, there is no long term residual risks - and on the cases of on-going nuclear tests that is only partially true and certainly not going to happen.

Not downplay the horror of nuclear weapons, but it's not Fallout76 or anything. There's a lot to be afraid of when it comes to nuclear energy and weapons but it's significantly overplayed.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects | K=1 Project

k1project.columbia.edu

And let us remind that the nukes used during WW2, were puny compared to what we have today.

 

[akimbo009]

More goodies inbound..

 

[akimbo009]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects | K=1 Project

k1project.columbia.edu

And let us remind that the nukes used during WW2, were puny compared to what we have today.

Did you actually read that?

 

[Rentahamster]

I did discuss it. As said before, we're mostly exchanging opinions here. It is what it is. And time will show who was right.

The difference is that you're deflecting a lot and avoiding giving straight answers while also not citing evidence that justifies your belief.

I still have no idea what you're basing your belief on that Ukraine's progress is not a strong sign that they have a reasonable chance of not only holding, but winning. We have countless reports of Ukraine advancing with strong tactics and Russians retreating because their equipment and training is subpar.

What specific data and analysis are you relying on to form your opinions and beliefs?

Beliefs backed by evidence that reflect reality are more worthy than beliefs pulled out of one's ass.

 

[winjer]

Did you actually read that?

yes. It speaks of increased impact on diseases, mal formations, etc.
And of course, around 200.000 people that died in the few months after the bombing.

Within the first few months after the bombing, it is estimated by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a cooperative Japan-U.S. organization) that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki. These deaths include those who died due to the force and excruciating heat of the explosions as well as deaths caused by acute radiation exposure.

 

[Azurro]

Stalemate long term, as we've seen in the past 4 months or so before the counterattack.

No. I just say that them being in a non-ideal state won't change the outcome (stalemate) much.

Both things can be true at the same time. I don't think they will run out of weapons or ammunition any time soon.

Ukraine taking back some territory doesn't necessarily mean they can take all of the territory, yes.

Instead of accepting differing opinions, you're trying to discredit me as a troll. Many such cases! Sad!

You just continue to spout bs.

- Ukraine has regained more of its territory in 1 month than Russia in almost 5 months and with what logic will that lead to a stalemate?

- Russia needing to buy back ammunition from North Korea and other customers means they are absolutely running out of ammunition. Care to explain why they would bother if they had unending supplies?

You don't support your points with anything except made up points and IMOs. You are either a child, a dishonest troll, an ignoramus under Russian propaganda, or all three.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[akimbo009]

yes. It speaks of increased impact on diseases, mal formations, etc.
And of course, around 20.000 people that died in the few months after the bombing.

Well you should have read until the end...


Perhaps most reassuring of this is the view of the cityscapes themselves. Among some there is the unfounded fear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still radioactive; in reality, this is not true. Following a nuclear explosion, there are two forms of residual radioactivity. The first is the fallout of the nuclear material and fission products. Most of this was dispersed in the atmosphere or blown away by the wind. Though some did fall onto the city as black rain, the level of radioactivity today is so low it can be barely distinguished from the trace amounts presents throughout the world as a result of atmospheric tests in the 1950s and 1960s. The other form of radiation is neutron activation. Neutrons can cause non-radioactive materials to become radioactive when caught by atomic nuclei. However, since the bombs were detonated so far above the ground, there was very little contamination—especially in contrast to nuclear test sites such as those in Nevada. In fact, nearly all the induced radioactivity decayed within a few days of the explosions.

Today, the liveliness of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a reminder not only of the human ability to regenerate, but also of the extent to which fear and misinformation can lead to incorrect expectations

 

[FunkMiller]

The difference is that you're deflecting a lot and avoiding giving straight answers while also not citing evidence that justifies your belief.

I still have no idea what you're basing your belief on that Ukraine's progress is not a strong sign that they have a reasonable chance of not only holding, but winning. We have countless reports of Ukraine advancing with strong tactics and Russians retreating because their equipment and training is subpar.

What specific data and analysis are you relying on to firm your opinions and beliefs. Beliefs backed by evidence that reflect reality are more worthy than beliefs pulled out of one's ass.

The fact he’s sticking to this line that Ukraine can’t win, when right now they are absolutely butt fucking the Russians in Kherson, is quite something.

”The allies can’t possibly beat the Nazis.” …as they roll into Germany.

The denial is fairly extreme.

 

[winjer]

Well you should have read until the end...


Perhaps most reassuring of this is the view of the cityscapes themselves. Among some there is the unfounded fear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still radioactive; in reality, this is not true. Following a nuclear explosion, there are two forms of residual radioactivity. The first is the fallout of the nuclear material and fission products. Most of this was dispersed in the atmosphere or blown away by the wind. Though some did fall onto the city as black rain, the level of radioactivity today is so low it can be barely distinguished from the trace amounts presents throughout the world as a result of atmospheric tests in the 1950s and 1960s. The other form of radiation is neutron activation. Neutrons can cause non-radioactive materials to become radioactive when caught by atomic nuclei. However, since the bombs were detonated so far above the ground, there was very little contamination—especially in contrast to nuclear test sites such as those in Nevada. In fact, nearly all the induced radioactivity decayed within a few days of the explosions.

Today, the liveliness of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a reminder not only of the human ability to regenerate, but also of the extent to which fear and misinformation can lead to incorrect expectations

Cool that there is little to no radiation left.
Did you read the part where it said that for a few months, hundreds of thousands of people were dying from the nuclear fallout. And decades after thousands of of people were still affected with severe diseases, especially leucemia, and mal-development of children.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

For the past month the war has not been in a stalemate. Pretending "the war is at a stalemate" is as false as saying "russia is about to take over Kyiv" because 7 months ago they had a bunch of troops piled near the city. You refuse to acknowledge a hard fact about the state of the war.

Bolded is a weird point to make because you're using the same logic by claiming that Ukraine will win just because they've been able to retake some land in the past couple of weeks.

And yet you have yet to present an informed, fact based opinion, why untrained troops with no equipment will make a difference, when in every war known so far, training, gear and motivation are some of the most important factors.

Because they're not untrained. They know basic warfare and that's enough to at least defend large parts of the occupied land.

No they cannot. You are effectively saying "russia is running out of soviet stockpiles" and "russia is not running out of soviet stockpiles" is the same, when it is not. Either bring facts, or acknowledge that the are running out of soviet stockpiles.

Them buying stuff from NK doesn't have to mean that they're running out of their own stuff. They have ammo depots all over their own country. I think logistics are the main issue right now.

But you are arguing the contrary, that the russian army which is taking massive hits and losing terrain everyday, can recoup the initiative and stall the ukrainians advances. Give us a a fact based argument on how they can do it.

The same way the Ukranians are now fighting back after taking massive hits and losing terrain every day in the first couple months of the war. Would you argue it's not possible?

You keep trying to reduce it all into opinions, because they are subjective. Since you refuse to engage in a fact based discussion, you are trolling.

It's not all about opinions, but most of it is.

 

[akimbo009]

Cool that there is little to no radiation left.
Did you read the part where it said that for a few months, hundreds of thousands of people were dying from the nuclear fallout. And decades after thousands of of people were still affected with severe diseases, especially leucemia, and mal-development of children.

Yeah, people who were in the blast radius had acute radiation poisoning - of course - but sharing wind patterns like you did isn't relevant here cause it's not going to floating around in Europe or anything like that.

 

[akimbo009]

What on earth is wrong with you? You're so aggressive.

Dudes not worth my patience.

 

[winjer]

Yeah, people who were in the blast radius had acute radiation poisoning - of course - but sharing wind patterns like you did isn't relevant here cause it's not going to floating around in Europe or anything like that.

At this point I don't know what you are arguing for?
Do you think there is no fallout? there won't be any radiation?
Sorry to disappoint you, but there will be fallout and radiation blown across miles. And if that radiation goes mostly towards Russia, instead of western Europe, that is less bad for EU countries.

Look at the kind of troubles, a modern nuke can make.

France underestimated impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia

Groundbreaking new analysis could allow more than 100,000 people to claim compensation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bernd Lauert]

- Ukraine has regained more of its territory in 1 month than Russia in almost 5 months and with what logic will that lead to a stalemate?

And Russia gained 10x the territory within a few days and yet a several month long stalemate happened afterwards. It's a really bad argument.

- Russia needing to buy back ammunition from North Korea and other customers means they are absolutely running out of ammunition. Care to explain why they would bother if they had unending supplies?

Because there's still a (time) cost to making the supplies available. Maybe it's cheaper/quicker to buy the ammo back.

(I felt free to delete the needless babyrage)

 

[akimbo009]

At this point I don't know what you are arguing for?
Do you think there is no fallout? there won't be any radiation?
Sorry to disappoint you, but there will be fallout and radiation blown across miles. And if that radiation goes mostly towards Russia, instead of western Europe, that is less bad for EU countries.

Look at the kind of troubles, a modern nuke can make.

France underestimated impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia

Groundbreaking new analysis could allow more than 100,000 people to claim compensation

www.theguardian.com

I think the evidence says it doesn't blow around for miles. But getting people worked up into a panic cause a nuke may dropped somewhere and then blown around on the wind for some unspecified risk isn't really helpful either.

 

[Azurro]

And Russia gained 10x the territory within a few days and yet a several month long stalemate happened afterwards. It's a really bad argument.

Because there's still a (time) cost to making the supplies available. Maybe it's cheaper/quicker to buy the ammo back.

(I felt free to delete the needless babyrage)

The stalemate happened because Russia had incredibly poor logistics and was not prepared for a protracted and months long war. Your arguments lack any type of in depth knowledge.

I know you get off on it, you sick bastard, but shut the fuck up.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The stalemate happened because Russia had incredibly poor logistics and was not prepared for a protracted and months long war. Your arguments lack any type of in depth knowledge.

If you want to make an argument, tell me why it's impossible for Russia to defend at least some of the land they have occupied.

(deleted more babyrage)

 

[Azurro]

If you want to make an argument, tell me why it's impossible for Russia to defend at least some of the land they have occupied.

(deleted more babyrage)

Because they keep on losing it and supply lines keep being cut? I'm done arguing with you, you lack knowledge and are just trolling since you get off on the attention.

 

[winjer]

I think the evidence says it doesn't blow around for miles. But getting people worked up into a panic cause a nuke may dropped somewhere and then blown around on the wind for some unspecified risk isn't really helpful either.

Now you are just in denial.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Because they keep on losing it and supply lines keep being cut?

Again, that's not an argument since it would also need to work the other way round. The supply is also coming out of Russia, can't really cut that.

 

[Rentahamster]

And Russia gained 10x the territory within a few days and yet a several month long stalemate happened afterwards. It's a really bad argument.

Arguing that Russia's initial push given their combat readiness vs Ukraine's at that time is 1:1 comparable with the current situation on the ground (keyword is "current") and using that superficial similarity as a basis for your argument without acknowledging all of the differences between then and now as well as the new information gained is a really bad argument.

 

[akimbo009]

Now you are just in denial.

What? No I'm not. I've given you all the evidence and you just don't want it to disrupt your narrative.

What we aren't going to see is Russia nuke empty land for the off change the wind blows favorably - it doesn't work that way. I'm also super skeptical they'd do anything at all since it's just going to result in their total annihilation and collapse. Which they won't do, but also won't risk that on the wind like you imply

 

[thuGG_pl]

At this point I don't know what you are arguing for?
Do you think there is no fallout? there won't be any radiation?
Sorry to disappoint you, but there will be fallout and radiation blown across miles. And if that radiation goes mostly towards Russia, instead of western Europe, that is less bad for EU countries.

Look at the kind of troubles, a modern nuke can make.

France underestimated impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia

Groundbreaking new analysis could allow more than 100,000 people to claim compensation

www.theguardian.com

Out of curiosity, how come countries performed hundreds (thousands) of nuclear tests before without this fallout fear? I mean Tsar bomb was detonated quite close to Finland.

 

[winjer]

What? No I'm not. I've given you all the evidence and you just don't want it to disrupt your narrative.

What we aren't going to see is Russia nuke empty land for the off change the wind blows favorably - it doesn't work that way. I'm also super skeptical they'd do anything at all since it's just going to result in their total annihilation and collapse. Which they won't do, but also won't risk that on the wind like you imply

You said there was no fallout from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, just because today radiation is very low.
But the reality is that the thousands of people died or got ill because of it. And that was with a small bomb, compared to what we have today.
I just showed you an article of the problems France still has today with radiation from nuclear tests.
But you deny everything, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[winjer]

Out of curiosity, how come countries performed hundreds (thousands) of nuclear tests before without this fallout fear? I mean Tsar bomb was detonated quite close to Finland.

The Tsar bomba was an air burst. An air burst tends to loft and disperse the radioactive products into the air. Much less is left on the ground nearby.
Also the tsar was a relatively “clean” bomb with the great majority of the blast produced by fusion.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Arguing that Russia's initial push given their combat readiness vs Ukraine's at that time is 1:1 comparable with the current situation on the ground (keyword is "current") and using that superficial similarity as a basis for your argument without acknowledging all of the differences between then and now as well as the new information gained is a really bad argument.

It's not exactly comparable, but it remains a bad argument on both occasions. Russia gaining territory doesn't mean they'll take the entire country. Ukraine gaining territory doesn't mean they'll take back the entire country.

 

[LimanimaPT]

Please guys, stop with this discussion, you are ruining this thread. Go to Discord and discord there.

 

[Jsisto]

Reading all the monkey brained debates on this thread as you all hurl insults and profanity at each other over a war none of you have any true real, on the ground understanding of or any abilities to effect the outcome of, is really sad. Get a grip. The level of disrespect I see being displayed toward each other over differences of opinion about a war we all acknowledge is bad and should end.....just, get a grip.

 

[Mister Apoc]

 

[IndoAssassin]

Here is a more pessimistic take on conscription in Russia.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's not exactly comparable, but it remains a bad argument on both occasions. Russia gaining territory doesn't mean they'll take the entire country. Ukraine gaining territory doesn't mean they'll take back the entire country.

The keywords "current", and "new information" aren't being registered in your analysis.

These inherently color the arguments you are making as objectively worse because they are not being evaluated on the most up to date evidence and data.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Bolded is a weird point to make because you're using the same logic by claiming that Ukraine will win just because they've been able to retake some land in the past couple of weeks.

Based on the following facts: Ukraine has the initiative and it's shown for the last month it is capable of overpowering russian troops. Russians are running out of equipment stockpiles and resupply with older, worse equipment and are running low on some critical supplies like artillery tubes and shells. Since none of these factors are going to change, unless russia deploys nukes or biochemichal weapons they will fail. What facts do you have to argue against this.

Because they're not untrained. They know basic warfare and that's enough to at least defend large parts of the occupied land.

You assume russian training is up to the same standards as western training, but that is not true. As reported by american military personnel, russian training is based on familiarity rather than qualification on equipment and after a short period they're shipped to units where they are supposed to be trained, but instead they're often used as nothing but manual labor and abused by the dedys ("grandfathers"). Basic skills like fieldcraft are sorely lacking, which is plain to see as photographs from russian encampments are disgraceful.

Them buying stuff from NK doesn't have to mean that they're running out of their own stuff. They have ammo depots all over their own country. I think logistics are the main issue right now.

How? North Korea is further from the front that most of russia. How will it be easy to get it to the front. We know they've raided Belarusian stockpiles, they're buying from North Korea, they even redeployed S300 air defence from Saint Petersburg to the front becase they repurpose air defence missles to hit gorund targets. We know they're exhausted modern tanks and shipping 60's era tanks to the front. These are facts that point to a single conclusion.

The same way the Ukranians are now fighting back after taking massive hits and losing terrain every day in the first couple months of the war. Would you argue it's not possible?

The difference is that besides few exceptions, the Ukrainians ran a consistent strategy of trading ground for russian losses, retiring when the equiation didn't work in their favour anymore. In contrast, russians are holding ground out of a political mandate to do so and incur in heavy losses. And then there's the fact Ukraine has motivated soldiers trained by NATO and have access to critical NATO weapons while russians are unmotivated, poorly trained and using older and older soviet equipment. Facts, facts, facts.

It's not all about opinions, but most of it is.

You need it to be about opinions, because the facts don't support you.

 

[Slicker than your average]

The difference is that you're deflecting a lot and avoiding giving straight answers while also not citing evidence that justifies your belief.

I still have no idea what you're basing your belief on that Ukraine's progress is not a strong sign that they have a reasonable chance of not only holding, but winning. We have countless reports of Ukraine advancing with strong tactics and Russians retreating because their equipment and training is subpar.

What specific data and analysis are you relying on to form your opinions and beliefs?

Beliefs backed by evidence that reflect reality are more worthy than beliefs pulled out of one's ass.

As with the previous 2 pages when you drop facts on this clown and ask for him actually provide some reasoning, he ignores you to continue is child like trolling/arguing based on his opinion (every thread)

Bolded is a weird point to make because you're using the same logic by claiming that Ukraine will win just because they've been able to retake some land in the past couple of weeks.

Because they're not untrained. They know basic warfare and that's enough to at least defend large parts of the occupied land.

Them buying stuff from NK doesn't have to mean that they're running out of their own stuff. They have ammo depots all over their own country. I think logistics are the main issue right now.

The same way the Ukranians are now fighting back after taking massive hits and losing terrain every day in the first couple months of the war. Would you argue it's not possible?

It's not all about opinions, but most of it is.

see here. ignored all reasoning and your reasonable questions to continue arguing with "but I think this".

 

[BigbyTheSheriff]

 

[FunkMiller]

Reading all the monkey brained debates on this thread as you all hurl insults and profanity at each other over a war none of you have any true real, on the ground understanding of or any abilities to effect the outcome of, is really sad. Get a grip. The level of disrespect I see being displayed toward each other over differences of opinion about a war we all acknowledge is bad and should end.....just, get a grip.

The only real disrespect in this thread is that being shown to the people of Ukraine, as they try to force out an invading barbarian nation from their homelands.

Tempers run high when people suggest a solution to the conflict that results in anything other than complete freedom for the Ukrainian people.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Based on the following facts: Ukraine has the initiative and it's shown for the last month it is capable of overpowering russian troops. Russians are running out of equipment stockpiles and resupply with older, worse equipment and are running low on some critical supplies like artillery tubes and shells. Since none of these factors are going to change, unless russia deploys nukes or biochemichal weapons they will fail. What facts do you have to argue against this.

And once upon a time, Russia had the initiative and was able to overpower Ukrainian troops, so that's not an argument. As Russians keep retreating (I assume it's gonna go on for a while), they will resupply and reinforce and also have an easier time defending the rest of the area they occupy, since it's smaller. That's why I think Ukraine won't be able to take everything back.

You assume russian training is up to the same standards as western training, but that is not true. As reported by american military personnel, russian training is based on familiarity rather than qualification on equipment and after a short period they're shipped to units where they are supposed to be trained, but instead they're often used as nothing but manual labor and abused by the dedys ("grandfathers"). Basic skills like fieldcraft are sorely lacking, which is plain to see as photographs from russian encampments are disgraceful.

Yes, their army isn't exactly up to the highest standards. I still think they won't have much difficulty defending some of the key areas they have occupied.

How? North Korea is further from the front that most of russia. How will it be easy to get it to the front. We know they've raided Belarusian stockpiles, they're buying from North Korea, they even redeployed S300 air defence from Saint Petersburg to the front becase they repurpose air defence missles to hit gorund targets. We know they're exhausted modern tanks and shipping 60's era tanks to the front. These are facts that point to a single conclusion.

How? Mainly because there might be difficulties with producing new ammo. Or it just takes more time than simply buying the stuff. I don't know, I'm not CIA. Just thinking out loud.

The difference is that besides few exceptions, the Ukrainians ran a consistent strategy of trading ground for russian losses, retiring when the equiation didn't work in their favour anymore. In contrast, russians are holding ground out of a political mandate to do so and incur in heavy losses. And then there's the fact Ukraine has motivated soldiers trained by NATO and have access to critical NATO weapons while russians are unmotivated, poorly trained and using older and older soviet equipment. Facts, facts, facts.

All I currently see is Russians running away without many casualties, so the opposite of what you're claiming. And again you're doing the NATO supersoldier vs barbarian with stick argument. I don't buy it.

You need it to be about opinions, because the facts don't support you.

So far, I don't see many facts which make a total restoration of the pre-2014 border possible. Russia will never give up Crimea, for example.

 

[sinnergy]

Dude Russia is broken .. everyone is overestimating Russia , their tactics and strategies are old , they are totally a military joke . And the joke has run its course .

 

[Patrick S.]

Yo Bernd, I like you and all, but it does seem you continually choose to ignore evidence. Did you not read the twitter post above where it says "approximately 5000 casualties"? That's one battle, and one day...

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Yo Bernd, I like you and all, but it does seem you continually choose to ignore evidence. Did you not read the twitter post above where it says "approximately 5000 casualties"? That's one battle, and one day...

I did read it. 0% chance it's true, though (regarding the casualties). A lot of nonsense going around on Twitter.

 

[akimbo009]

The collapse of the northern front in Kherson.



"But that's impossible! Ukraine can't win!!"

 

[delirium trigger]

Musk proposed a peace plan and people flew off the handle. You can't make it up.

 

[Chittagong]

I am speed scrolling the thread just stopping for the Twitter and Reddit links now.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

And once upon a time, Russia had the initiative and was able to overpower Ukrainian troops, so that's not an argument. As Russians keep retreating (I assume it's gonna go on for a while), they will resupply and reinforce and also have an easier time defending the rest of the area they occupy, since it's smaller. That's why I think Ukraine won't be able to take everything back.

Facts, please. Why did Russia have the initiative? Why it does not have it now? You need to argue why you think it can regain it. Here's mine:

Then
Human factor: mostly professional troops and mercenary groups at full capacity, high impact troops like vdv or wagner at full capacity, fresh vs smaller professional army and civilians doing their best, in shock since they're being invaded.
Equipment factor: newer russian gear, large amounts, vs older russian gear, smaller amounts
Situation: attacking several flanks and cashing in some influential traitors (kherson bridge not blown, etc) vs scrambling to contain invasion.

Now
Human factor: motley mix of professional troops and conscripts, battle fatigued, high impact troops like vdv or wagner depleted vs similar amount of troops, motivated, NATO intensive/partial training
Equipment factor: older soviet gear, diminishing amounts, vs mix of soviet gear and high impact NATO weaponry
Situation: stubborn defense of political sensitive targets vs high mobility and high attrition tactics

Yes, their army isn't exactly up to the highest standards. I still think they won't have much difficulty defending some of the key areas they have occupied.

How? Why? You keep repeating this without saying why a poorly trained, unmotivated mass of conscripts will be able to perform in battle.

How? Mainly because there might be difficulties with producing new ammo. Or it just takes more time than simply buying the stuff. I don't know, I'm not CIA. Just thinking out loud.

So if they can't make it and have to buy it, you must acknowledge they're running out. You don't need to be CIA.

All I currently see is Russians running away without many casualties, so the opposite of what you're claiming. And again you're doing the NATO supersoldier vs barbarian with stick argument. I don't buy it.

You seriously think they run away at the first bullet shot? Have you seen what happened when they tried to run away from Lyman using a road that Ukraine had a fire solution for? I will not post the videos here because they're super graphic, but Lyman was a slaughter. And Kherson? they held that chunk of land since late July while under attrition warfare conditions. You can go seek the videos.

So far, I don't see many facts which make a total restoration of the pre-2014 border possible. Russia will never give up Crimea, for example.

You cannot see what you choose to not see.

I'm done entertaining your inane postings, you will be added to my ignore list.