The Russia/Ukraine War Thread

[SilentSam]

 

[SilentSam]

 

 

Edited August 16 by SilentSam

[SilentSam]

 

 

[SilentSam]

 

[SilentSam]

This ..    expecting a mass surrender.

 

 

 

 

[SilentSam]

JUST IN: Russian volunteers appeal to Russian occupation forces amid operation in Kursk region

Soldiers of the "Freedom of Russia" Legion have called on the Russian Army to surrender, and those who want to fight for the future of Russia should join the Legion.

"We are ready to talk to anyone who wants to turn their weapons against the Kremlin. History teaches that when people lose faith in the 'rulers,' they choose freedom. And it seems that this moment has already arrived," the statement reads.
 

 

 

[SilentSam]

Map from ZSUWar showing the situation in #Korenevo, #Kursk (#KuPR)

AFU forces are entering #Kolychevka from the east and SOF force are reported to be west of the Sudzha-Rylsk highway  near there which means it is "partially" controlled. There is no potential for the Russians to evacuate east as it appears that #Tolpino is at a minimum disputed. And, to the west is the Reka Seym river for which the next available bridge is in Rylsk.

These are smart tactics which avoid getting Ukrainian forces bogged down trying to capture a well fortified town. "Agile, mobile, flexible, lethal..."

The Russian forces are complaining that Ukrainian units are "crawling out of the trees everywhere." These are small teams of scouts that harass Russian units with quick pinpoint attacks followed by a rapid egress. Once a picture of the Russian defenses is developed, a larger assault force will move up to engage an/or envelop them. 

The traditional Ukrainian equivalent (and Russian) of these small scout teams are DShRG's (Diversionary Sabotage Reconnaissance Groups) which, from my observations of this war, tend to work independently on covert operations versus in support of a larger operational group. In contrast, these Ukrainian teams are operating more along the lines of US Rangers or British Rangers (previously Specialised Infantry Group) in which they are capable of conducting independent covert" operations as well as supporting larger ground operations.
 

 

 

[King Heffy]

43 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

Even worse awaits them given what the Russian army does to children.

[SilentSam]

 

 

[SilentSam]

More info spreading

 

 

 

 

 

[Boudrias]

12 hours ago, Yoshiyoshi said:

I cant wrap my head around the logic that tries to justify why Ukraine would do it. It just doesnt make sense. You have to jump through so many hoops and twist things around like a conspiracy theory in order to make it connect. If the roles were reversed though it would totally make sense since Russia seems to enjoy that sort of thing

Logistically it would be a huge challenge for Ukraine to blow up this gas line. It makes total sense that they would if they could. It severed gas supply to much of Europe which would sever their dependence and influence to Russia. Putin would have used that supply to influence Europe's support of Ukraine. Ukraine would also want to destroy that supply to cut off the $'s it was generating for Putin's war effort. 

 

Maybe it was American big oil interests who wanted to sell LNG to Europe. Maybe it was OPEC, they're good at blowing things up. The idea the Russians did it does not make any sense to me. They lost money and political power when that gas stopped flowing. 

[SilentSam]

More info spreading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SilentSam]

 

 

[SilentSam]

 

 

[SilentSam]

If this is true ,   They really need to realize UKR knows what they are doing ,  and the kids gloves need to come off.

 

UKR are tactically superior in all of their ops 

 

They would never ruin an opportunity to show the Democratic Western Allies, to join them on the World  stage .… in fact they will be highly regarded , and sought out for their ingenuity and technical savy.

 

 

 

[RomanPer]

27 minutes ago, Spiked Alia said:

My stance on Russia-Ukraine: 

 

I believe that the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents a complex situation that requires a careful balance between protecting U.S. interests and avoiding unnecessary entanglement in foreign conflicts. I believe in putting "America First," which means prioritizing the safety, security, and prosperity of the United States above all else. This guiding principle shapes my viewpoint on how the U.S. should approach the Russia-Ukraine situation.

 

First and foremost, U.S. foreign policy should be driven by clear national interests rather than ideological crusades. While the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is undeniably tragic, I question the direct implications for American security. The U.S. should not be the world’s policeman, intervening in every conflict that arises across the globe, especially when our own national security is not immediately threatened. Instead, there should be a more restrained approach, focusing on diplomacy and strategic alliances rather than military intervention.

 

The U.S. needs to engage with Russia through direct diplomacy, leveraging the unique relationship that former President Trump cultivated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Having a working relationship with Russia, even one that is contentious at times, is better than allowing tensions to escalate uncontrollably. Diplomacy should be the primary tool to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, with the goal of achieving a peaceful resolution that respects Ukraine's sovereignty while avoiding unnecessary provocation of Russia.

 

I am deeply skeptical of extensive U.S. military involvement in the conflict. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that prolonged military engagements can drain American resources and lives without delivering the intended outcomes. I argue that U.S. involvement in Ukraine should be limited to providing targeted support, such as defensive weapons and intelligence, rather than committing American troops or getting dragged into another endless war. This approach allows the U.S. to support Ukraine’s right to self-defense without becoming mired in a conflict that does not directly serve American interests.

 

Europe's dependence on Russian energy is one of the underlying factors that has emboldened Russia in its actions. During the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of energy, which not only strengthened American economic security but also positioned the U.S. as a key player in the global energy market. MAGA proponents argue that by promoting American energy production and exports, the U.S. can help its European allies reduce their reliance on Russian gas, thereby weakening Russia's leverage in the region.

 

The Biden administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine situation has been inconsistent and ineffective. A stronger, more assertive approach earlier on could have deterred Russian aggression. However, there should be caution against escalating the conflict further, opting for a strategy that combines diplomatic pressure with support for American energy dominance.

 

In summary, the Russia-Ukraine conflict should emphasize diplomacy, limited military involvement, and energy independence as key strategies. By prioritizing American interests and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements, the U.S. can navigate this complex situation while maintaining its own security and prosperity.

 

How did it work in 1939?

[Yoshiyoshi]

25 minutes ago, Spiked Alia said:

My stance on Russia-Ukraine: 

 

I believe that the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents a complex situation that requires a careful balance between protecting U.S. interests and avoiding unnecessary entanglement in foreign conflicts. I believe in putting "America First," which means prioritizing the safety, security, and prosperity of the United States above all else. This guiding principle shapes my viewpoint on how the U.S. should approach the Russia-Ukraine situation.

 

First and foremost, U.S. foreign policy should be driven by clear national interests rather than ideological crusades. While the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is undeniably tragic, I question the direct implications for American security. The U.S. should not be the world’s policeman, intervening in every conflict that arises across the globe, especially when our own national security is not immediately threatened. Instead, there should be a more restrained approach, focusing on diplomacy and strategic alliances rather than military intervention.

 

The U.S. needs to engage with Russia through direct diplomacy, leveraging the unique relationship that former President Trump cultivated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Having a working relationship with Russia, even one that is contentious at times, is better than allowing tensions to escalate uncontrollably. Diplomacy should be the primary tool to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, with the goal of achieving a peaceful resolution that respects Ukraine's sovereignty while avoiding unnecessary provocation of Russia.

 

I am deeply skeptical of extensive U.S. military involvement in the conflict. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that prolonged military engagements can drain American resources and lives without delivering the intended outcomes. I argue that U.S. involvement in Ukraine should be limited to providing targeted support, such as defensive weapons and intelligence, rather than committing American troops or getting dragged into another endless war. This approach allows the U.S. to support Ukraine’s right to self-defense without becoming mired in a conflict that does not directly serve American interests.

 

Europe's dependence on Russian energy is one of the underlying factors that has emboldened Russia in its actions. During the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of energy, which not only strengthened American economic security but also positioned the U.S. as a key player in the global energy market. MAGA proponents argue that by promoting American energy production and exports, the U.S. can help its European allies reduce their reliance on Russian gas, thereby weakening Russia's leverage in the region.

 

The Biden administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine situation has been inconsistent and ineffective. A stronger, more assertive approach earlier on could have deterred Russian aggression. However, there should be caution against escalating the conflict further, opting for a strategy that combines diplomatic pressure with support for American energy dominance.

 

In summary, the Russia-Ukraine conflict should emphasize diplomacy, limited military involvement, and energy independence as key strategies. By prioritizing American interests and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements, the U.S. can navigate this complex situation while maintaining its own security and prosperity.

are you quoting someone here? Well whatever. Gonna have to disagree with everything here. Diplomacy is not the answer. Diplomacy wont solve anything here. Russia is a problem that has been festering for years and this is an opportunity for Russia to be freed from the corrupt regime that has been governing it for decades. People dont change without a very good reason to, and if Russia is not given that reason, they will continue to be monsters for years to come

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

How did it work in 1939?

 

5 minutes ago, Yoshiyoshi said:

are you quoting someone here? Well whatever. Gonna have to disagree with everything here. Diplomacy is not the answer. Diplomacy wont solve anything here. Russia is a problem that has been festering for years and this is an opportunity for Russia to be freed from the corrupt regime that has been governing it for decades. People dont change without a very good reason to, and if Russia is not given that reason, they will continue to be monsters for years to come

The common thought in other threads is that our new member is an AI bot and not worth engaging with unless in jest.  

[Yoshiyoshi]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

 

The common thought in other threads is that our new member is an AI bot and not worth engaging with unless in jest.  

yeah the post did look sketchy, but I felt the need for a small reply anyways. If i could organize my thoughts I could have written a novel in reply to it lol

[King Heffy]

13 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

How did it work in 1939?

AI bots weren't a thing back then.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

AI bots weren't a thing back then.

 

Bot boy is spraying all over the site today 

[DSVII]

46 minutes ago, Spiked Alia said:

My stance on Russia-Ukraine: 

 

I believe that the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents a complex situation that requires a careful balance between protecting U.S. interests and avoiding unnecessary entanglement in foreign conflicts. I believe in putting "America First," which means prioritizing the safety, security, and prosperity of the United States above all else. This guiding principle shapes my viewpoint on how the U.S. should approach the Russia-Ukraine situation.

 

First and foremost, U.S. foreign policy should be driven by clear national interests rather than ideological crusades. While the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is undeniably tragic, I question the direct implications for American security. The U.S. should not be the world’s policeman, intervening in every conflict that arises across the globe, especially when our own national security is not immediately threatened. Instead, there should be a more restrained approach, focusing on diplomacy and strategic alliances rather than military intervention.

 

The U.S. needs to engage with Russia through direct diplomacy, leveraging the unique relationship that former President Trump cultivated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Having a working relationship with Russia, even one that is contentious at times, is better than allowing tensions to escalate uncontrollably. Diplomacy should be the primary tool to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, with the goal of achieving a peaceful resolution that respects Ukraine's sovereignty while avoiding unnecessary provocation of Russia.

 

I am deeply skeptical of extensive U.S. military involvement in the conflict. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that prolonged military engagements can drain American resources and lives without delivering the intended outcomes. I argue that U.S. involvement in Ukraine should be limited to providing targeted support, such as defensive weapons and intelligence, rather than committing American troops or getting dragged into another endless war. This approach allows the U.S. to support Ukraine’s right to self-defense without becoming mired in a conflict that does not directly serve American interests.

 

Europe's dependence on Russian energy is one of the underlying factors that has emboldened Russia in its actions. During the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of energy, which not only strengthened American economic security but also positioned the U.S. as a key player in the global energy market. MAGA proponents argue that by promoting American energy production and exports, the U.S. can help its European allies reduce their reliance on Russian gas, thereby weakening Russia's leverage in the region.

 

The Biden administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine situation has been inconsistent and ineffective. A stronger, more assertive approach earlier on could have deterred Russian aggression. However, there should be caution against escalating the conflict further, opting for a strategy that combines diplomatic pressure with support for American energy dominance.

 

In summary, the Russia-Ukraine conflict should emphasize diplomacy, limited military involvement, and energy independence as key strategies. By prioritizing American interests and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements, the U.S. can navigate this complex situation while maintaining its own security and prosperity.

 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Bot boy is spraying all over the site today 

The appearance here solidifies this is my belief that it's clam.

[Sabrefan1]

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

The Wall Street Journal is also often considered to have a right wing/conservative slant. That's another factor to take into consideration.

 

So I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility that at least someone in that organization with sway is against the Ukraine funding or something along those lines. Speculation of course, but given they're jumping the gun and trying to provoke thoughts that would be put people ultimately against Ukraine...

 

The WSJ is only marginally right leaning and that's mostly in the editorials.  My best guess is that a couple of mediocre journalists wanted to write an attention getting article.  In the old days, big stories used to go through a whole department.  I'll bet these days it goes to one overworked editor who also has to be concerned as much about eyeballs and clicks as much as he does about getting a story correct.

 

True journalism is all but dead.  We can thank greedy corporations with an agenda, greedy politicians with an agenda, and a lazy electorate for that.

[SilentSam]