|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:Look, they can't have been wrong about the missile supplies dwindling, there has to be another explanation for it. North Korea and Iran must be supplying them, or I dunno maybe ISIS is back, shut up! cspam is supplying the missiles
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
lol they're doing the jambo/shaka thing too. These loving idiots are fighting over the petiest of differences in their racial science kaleidoscope. God drat it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
Just read that Ukraine's biggest export market is China. Destroying their export capacity seems like it would be bad for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:i mean are those little helicopter blades or what Yeah quadcopter drone thing, it's the hot new thing in this war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I dunno maybe ISIS is back, shut up! oh so they're sending in the JV Team? Guess Ukraine isn't so hard to beat after all  
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Almost half of our energy system disabled: Ukraine PM Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal also said that Kiev faces a “complete shutdown” of the power grid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
16-bit Butt-Head posted:cspam is supplying the missiles Okay, all jokes aside, I want to set the record straight that I haven't been providing missiles to Russia. The very concept is ridiculous; how could I, a random forum poster, have access to missiles? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ruslantrad/status/1593760234639708161
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:They haven’t, but uh I certainly wouldn’t endorse that approach, I uh...am not sure that is an example of a successful occupation by an undermanned ground force supported by strategic bombing. But even then, in the opinion of that author...that was a 50 year ordeal which vacillated between ineffective warfare and accommodation right up until the point where the Anglo-American forces had enough manpower to crush resistance:  Also, that was ultimately a campaign of removal, annihilation, and replacement, not an attempt to achieve limited political goals and end up with a nominally friendly or at least unhostile neighbor (and earlier campaigns to accomplish the latter all ended in failure). My point remains: Russian strategic bombing may be effective in halting Ukrainian momentum and counter-offensives (with even that probably being a slow process very contingent on how much western support they receive), and that may make the Ukrainians more ready to enter negotiations. But even if that happens...I don't see how Russia can improve their currently dismal negotiating position if they don't claim and hold more territory, and I'm not sure how they can do that without committing a many more ground forces. Just because you obliterate the war machine that powered previous successful Ukrainian counter-offensives (and again, not clear you can do that by bombing Ukraine when so much of it hinges on western aid), doesn't mean you can now magically go take back territory that was originally seized under far more favorable conditions (i.e. before Ukrainian mobilization and with all the advantages of initiative and surprise).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
You asked when fewer troops had held down a country where many opposed them. This was not only once common, but the norm. The issue is that nobody wants to see the Russians work from the old playbook: "In the Indian Mutiny, a campaign for the suppression of a rebellion where the most drastic measures were justified by the events at its outset, guerilla warfare was not a feature, except in the Central Provinces and in some few localities after the rebel armies had been overthrown. The nature of the campaign was indeed such that the insurgents were so roughly handled in action that the country was practically pacified on the battlefield. But in South Africa in 1851 -52, in 1877, and again in 1896, rigorous treatment was meted out to the enemy in crushing out disaffection, and with good results ; the Kaffir "villages and Matabili kraals were burnt, their crops destroyed, their cattle carried off. The French in Algeria, regardless of the maxim, "Les represailles sont toujours inutiles," dealt very severely with the smouldering disaffection of the conquered territory for years after Abd el Kader's power was gone, and their procedure succeeded. Uncivilized races attribute leniency to timidity. A system adapted to La Vendee is out of place among fanatics and savages, who must be thoroughly brought to book and cowed or they will rise again."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:You asked when fewer troops had held down a country where many opposed them. This was not only once common, but the norm. The issue is that nobody wants to see the Russians work from the old playbook: just realized Turks hammering Constantinople with cannons worked pretty well for them, to this day…
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Didn't the American Revolution only require 3% of the population to succeed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:You asked when fewer troops had held down a country where many opposed them. This was not only once common, but the norm. The issue is that nobody wants to see the Russians work from the old playbook: My question was "when has strategic bombing allowed a ground force to occupy territory they were otherwise grossly unable to occupy?". The problem facing the Russian forces now isn't just that they are outnumbered (occupiers almost always are), or that many oppose them (which is often enough the case)--it's that, compared to successful occupations, or going by doctrine, they seem to have way fewer troops than would normally be expected as necessary. Actually in retrospect the most obvious recent example of a strategic bombing "success" is Syria, but even then I think we probably have to distinguish between a siege forcing a surrender/collapse, vs. aerial bombardment doing that in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
The answer is that just as ground forces are being used as a diplomatic and not military tool, and so doctrine is out the window, they are using air power for what the Americans call Coercive Diplomacy, as in Linebacker II. That was not a military success, but at the time Nixon viewed it as vital for bringing Vietnam to the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/18/russia-accuses-ukraine-of-executing-more-than-10-pows More mainstream news outlets reporting on Ukraine summary executing POWs now
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
It's kind of the big topic of today but Russians are also surprisingly blase about it. They aren't even blaming the Ukrainians for it but the ones that decided to surrender.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
The Vietnam bombing campaign was never going to work without also crossing the 17th parallel with ground troops
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
To be honest I don’t think the problem the Russians has is holding territory versus the population but rather regular forces. In that sense, strategic bombing makes sense if they can debilitate the AFU in some fashion. The problem is still numbers of troops but rather the strength of their frontline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The answer is that just as ground forces are being used as a diplomatic and not military tool, and so doctrine is out the window, they are using air power for what the Americans call Coercive Diplomacy, as in Linebacker II. That was not a military success, but at the time Nixon viewed it as vital for bringing Vietnam to the table. The ground forces may be being used to strengthen a diplomatic position but, again, in order to do that it sure seems like they will need to occupy and hold more territory than they've got...and to do that it seems like they need more people on the ground, irrespective of any strategic bombing. Otherwise, what exactly is Russia's negotiating position? Is it going to be acceptable to them (the Russians) to walk away from this holding only what they've got, minus what they may be expected to lose in the foreseeable future? I agree that the reasoning here is analogous to Linebacker II. Linebacker II, of course, was a stupid, futile tantrum made largely out of an effort to save face. It ultimately accomplished nothing, the American "negotiating" position, such that it was, remained totally unchanged from where it was in October '72, and in any case the only article of the Paris Accords actually carried ot was the withdrawal of US forces. Everything else was disregarded by the North Vietnamese, who proceeded to spend the next 2 years kicking the poo poo out of everybody and taking complete control of Vietnam. So I think we can put that one solidly in the column of "strategic bombing failures".
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:To be honest I don’t think the problem the Russians has is holding territory versus the population but rather regular forces. In that sense, strategic bombing makes sense if they can debilitate the AFU in some fashion. Yeah that's fair enough, since so far the only thing that has pushed Russian forces out have been AFU counter-offensives. However: 1.) Those Russian gains were made, as I've said before, under very different circumstances than exist now, and mostly before Ukrainian mobilization really got going. Taking them back may prove to be very different. 2.) The Ukrainians are much more committed to the war than the Russians are. How effective will strategic bombing actually be at neutralizing the AFU on its own? Historically, even after the largest and most effective air campaigns, regular forces still had to be defeated on the ground. They are probably the last thing to be affected by bombing cities and infrastructure. 3.) If Ukraine is being propped up and resupplied by the west, bombing Ukraine can only accomplish so much 4.) Waiting for strategic bombing to wear down the AFU indirectly is a slow process, whereas AFU counter-offensives need to be dealt with now. So on balance, it seems Russia needs to address its mobilization problem, or these bombing campaigns will be a palliative measure at best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
the russian executive have also put themselves in a position where their minimum viable ceasefire includes the ukrainians somehow cedeing kherson and zaporizhzhia
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
Aliens. It was aliens. Russia has Cydonian backing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Yeah that's fair enough, since so far the only thing that has pushed Russian forces out have been AFU counter-offensives. There's many unknown variables here that determine whether or not the bombing campaign will win the war or not ("How will a lack of power affect the rail system?", "How many refugees will a lack of heating cause?"), and I think whether you think they are justified/'smart' vs. criminal/'stupid' depends on your own personal reckoning of what the true values of those variables are and how much margin the AFU has to work with. I think you're probably right that strategic bombing won't win the war on its own in the short-term, but at the same time no one has ever tried to win an industrial total war with a de-electrified economy. Ukraine was already straining to mobilize just 2% of its population, which is peanuts compared to other 20th century wars. For all we know the bottom could just fall out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
Morbus posted:1.) Those Russian gains were made, as I've said before, under very different circumstances than exist now, and mostly before Ukrainian mobilization really got going. Taking them back may prove to be very different. mobilizing your forces is like revving an engine. the more times you do it, the more effective it is!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Didn't the American Revolution only require 3% of the population to succeed? it was prob more like 13% but there's far right movements in north america that call themselves 3% or III or whatever and boy do they sell a lotta bumper stickers
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
crepeface posted:mobilizing your forces is like revving an engine. the more times you do it, the more effective it is!! That clunk in the engine just adds character and definitely isn't something worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Didn't the American Revolution only require 3% of the population to succeed? The guerilla is a fish that swims in the sea of the people
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mediazona_en/status/1593691018276265984
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Russia's collapse is imminent after Christmas Day. Putin also personally executed a Botswanan man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Russia's imminent collapse will be forever imminent until the organisation telling everyone that Russia's collapse is immenent itself collapses. Likely because of diesel fuel shortages or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 08:33
|
|
|
when people say “Wagner” is that just like a person from Atlanta calling all sodas coke or is there actually a single mercenary unit with a goofy nazi name with tens of thousands of people in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 08:49
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:when people say “Wagner” is that just like a person from Atlanta calling all sodas coke or is there actually a single mercenary unit with a goofy nazi name with tens of thousands of people in it. It's more of a state-affiliated organization than the term mercenary applies. They work really closely with the regular Russian military. I've heard around 50,000 soldiers are in their little zone of operations, but there's no breakdown of that that really means. Personally I don't really think they're distinct from the Russian military apart from in a legal sense. idk it looks that sharp decreases in prisoner counts happened in earlier years. Bit much to say that all 23,000 discharges had to be wagner signups
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
Wagner is Putin's Republican guard
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:To be clear, that also means the US in every one of its modern was targeting civilians just to be clear. pretty sure total civilians death on both sides still haven't reached the number of civilians america murdered in the first week of iraq - might be close now though after 8 months
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:24
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/BlackttFuture/status/1593413756507521024
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:24
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:"the countries we beat wanted to surrender to us and not the other guys because we were actually the good guys!" - most history lessons from around the world more like that fascists wanted to surrender to the western allies instead of the ussr because they figured that they'd get off easy, and tbf they were mostly right about that
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:29
|
|
|
Morbus posted:The ground forces may be being used to strengthen a diplomatic position but, again, in order to do that it sure seems like they will need to occupy and hold more territory than they've got...and to do that it seems like they need more people on the ground, irrespective of any strategic bombing. Otherwise, what exactly is Russia's negotiating position? Is it going to be acceptable to them (the Russians) to walk away from this holding only what they've got, minus what they may be expected to lose in the foreseeable future? by this same argument, how will ukraine hold regions that don't wish to be part of it? dpr/lpr are the closest to the north vietnamese in this analogy, certainly not ukraine or russia
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:more like that fascists wanted to surrender to the western allies instead of the ussr because they figured that they'd get off easy, and tbf they were mostly right about that the great sucking sound of all the nazis being absorbed into the american political system did end up heavily destabilizing germany - look at them now. just shameful. can't afford to spare a leopard... too beaten to stand up for themselves and buy that russian gas american sanctions be damned. just content to freeze to death
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:41
|
|
|
president xi if you're reading this - if you launch a military campaign no matter what i will be advocating for full surrender and absorption into the mainland
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
That was when we all remembered that it’s a country of Ingmar Bergman stock characters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 10:45
|
|