Started by Charles Ross3 · · 👁 592 views · 9.2K replies
…
James Chavez91 said:Whenever this goat-whisperer kicks the bucket, I’m throwing a massive party—hookers and lamb chops for the whole damn town. God help us.
A rare, disgusting creature—honestly, just an evolutionary mistake.
🤮
Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.
1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.
2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.
3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.
I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?
To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.
The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.
Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.
1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.
2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.
3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.
I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?
To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.
The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.
Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.
1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.
2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.
3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.
I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?
To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.
The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.
Nathan Thomas12 said:Targeting civilian infrastructure is a straight-up violation of the Geneva Conventions. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if those ATACMS strikes leave everything within 300 kilometers of the border without power or water. For context, Moscow is about 450 kilometers from the border.
Joshua Myers432 said:Russia is facing a binary choice: they either call up a massive mobilization or they pull out of Ukraine entirely. You simply cannot sustain a war against a nation of 40 million people that is being backed by NATO and bolstered by expeditionary forces. Sure, the Russians have plenty of manpower sitting in reserve, but the real question is whether they actually have the stomach to commit to a total war.
The real question here is whether Russia actually considers Crimea their territory, or if this whole thing is just one massive bluff.
That’s just heavy sci-fi. Honestly, the idea that any of these countries would actually screw up that badly seems totally unbelievable to me.
Right, and how far is Hiroshima from Geneva? I'd say at least ten times further than, say, Dresden. This war is nowhere near that stage yet, and besides, I'm not even sure if a power plant counts as a legitimate civilian target.
It also blows my mind that Ukraine—which emerged from the USSR as a massive, vital republic—doesn't have a single missile system capable of reaching Moscow.
hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.
What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?
Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.
hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.
What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?
Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.
hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.
What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?
Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Joshua Myers432 said:We'll see pretty soon what they really are. 🍿 They were touted as a major land power, but honestly, it was clearly more myth than that legendary bravado seen at the Battle of Mexico. 😁
Of course not. Someone basically wiped the Geneva Convention off the map and dropped an A-bomb on civilians. 🙏
That feeling when you get blindsided by the very people who signed on to guarantee your territorial integrity. 😁
hollowdriver13 said:Right... and when were those conventions actually signed? Hint: they happened after that war where the main villain had a little mustache and the year ended in '45.
Joshua Myers432 said:Well, that depends on what you're looking at. The first women's convention was signed back when General Lee was still chasing Jenkins through the American wilderness. Hint: it wasn't this century, and it certainly wasn't the last one either.
Joshua Myers432 said:We'll see pretty soon what they really are. 🍿 They were touted as a major land power, but honestly, it was clearly more myth than that legendary bravado seen at the Battle of Mexico. 😁
Of course not. Someone basically wiped the Geneva Convention off the map and dropped an A-bomb on civilians. 🙏
That feeling when you get blindsided by the very people who signed on to guarantee your territorial integrity. 😁
James Chavez91 said:Alright
I’d say the show has officially started
https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/statu...o_dxkczaEHq5sw
James Chavez91 said:Alright
I’d say the show has officially started
https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/statu...o_dxkczaEHq5sw
Joshua Myers432 said:Russia is facing a binary choice: they either call up a massive mobilization or they pull out of Ukraine entirely. You simply cannot sustain a war against a nation of 40 million people that is being backed by NATO and bolstered by expeditionary forces. Sure, the Russians have plenty of manpower sitting in reserve, but the real question is whether they actually have the stomach to commit to a total war.
The real question here is whether Russia actually considers Crimea their territory, or if this whole thing is just one massive bluff.
That’s just heavy sci-fi. Honestly, the idea that any of these countries would actually screw up that badly seems totally unbelievable to me.
Right, and how far is Hiroshima from Geneva? I'd say at least ten times further than, say, Dresden. This war is nowhere near that stage yet, and besides, I'm not even sure if a power plant counts as a legitimate civilian target.
It also blows my mind that Ukraine—which emerged from the USSR as a massive, vital republic—doesn't have a single missile system capable of reaching Moscow.
wiredseal7 said:Check out this Twitter warrior 😬
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/sta...AjsKuL7LzwvFHA
Apparently, Ukraine already teleported across the Oskil river—they’ve supposedly snatched Svyatov and Liman and are charging straight toward Severodonetsk, Lugansk, and even deep into the Russian Urals.
James Chavez91 said:Alright
I’d say the show has officially started
https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/statu...o_dxkczaEHq5sw
