Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
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
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Post
  • Reply
Ardennes
May 12, 2002

genericnick posted:

There are like 5 fins in total and unless you move them all to siberia you're basically in the same situation once the front moves east, no?

The Germans used Finland as a staging ground, and in process forced the Soviets to devote resources on that front that were probably more useful elsewhere. Admittedly, the Winter war did create a buffer zone which is why it was a victory, but it could have been a more total one.

The Finns were depleted in March 1940, and the West had very little to devote to the fight. A lot of it must have just been poor Intel.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

All the 50-something conscripts are old enough to remember what the Soviet Union was actually like, and now they're getting perforated with Russian shrapnel so Ukraine can become an Israel-style startup incubator.

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

Frosted Flake posted:

To touch on my desk, what do you think would happen if someone forcefully insisted that the Russian quantitive advantage in artillery is superior to the (mostly fictional) qualitative advantage of the tiny numbers of digitalized lightweight gun systems (that have finished their production runs) in NATO inventory?

Nobody wants to hear that, not least because even if they accepted that reality, what could they do about it? BAE has stopped making guns and said flatly they will not make more until and unless it's sufficiently profitable. Do you see how politically unacceptable that is? To have, on paper, "we will be at a military disadvantage and there is nothing we can do about it"?

I realize they teed themselves up to be held hostage by the MIC, we've talked about all of the ways they've done it, but the problem is that they can't put out a defence white paper that says they either nationalize industry - which undercuts a million central pillars of their own governance, not least that of private sector efficiency - or lose a war.

It's also all compartmentalized. Right, that's how government works. You write a paper about the need to procure a new rifle, and gosh we'll have to pay Colt Canada for proprietary suppressor lubricant, but here's the number of orders we can fill per FY. You don't follow that through to all of the logical conclusions, because it's not your job to say "therefore Industry Canada needs to assume ownership of a small arms plant". It's not your job to think about that. You write about the rifle, people read the report about the rifle, they accept that they have to procure $XM of suppressor lubricant, because no alternative exists, and then if there's a shooting war and everybody's rifles are hosed up from suppressor burnout or whatever, it's unfortunate but nobody could have seen it coming and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

I'm out of the loop of British politics, but I'm assuming the public has just gone along with the SA80 being trash directly because of Margaret Thatcher and the ideology of the two major British parties, and whatever blowback there was in 1991, people have mostly forgotten about now. It will be like that for everything. People aren't even mad about the F-35 anymore, the Canadian and German publics have just accepted "gosh, it seems expensive but, what can you do? We need new fighters to counter the Russian menace, and that's just how much being safe costs".

Good key points. Answers best left unsaid.

Also there are so many rules, so much bureaucracy, so many vested interests. Impossible to fix. Anyone who could sees the fool's errand and moves on.

Shoring up a rotting house only rots more wood.

Starsfan
Sep 29, 2007

This is what happens when you disrespect Cam Neely

Palladium posted:

is the northern front basically a rareified orcish gas meeting a noble gondorian vacuum?

hard to know what is going on there. Some of the Russian sources are trying to downplay what's going on there as not much more than opportunistic advances into undefended territory and there is no plan to do anything particularly notable at this moment, others are crowing that Kupiansk is doomed to fall to the massive Russian attack by the end of the week and from there it's on to Kharkiv.

There's been not much good information from Ukrainian sources as to what kind of fighting is going on up there, and with the confusion from the Russian sources it's hard to say..

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

Thank you for that. Wow, that's lol quite a bit worse than I thought.

I think you are right that it is a bit of a canary in the coal mine and proof that the turn to these politics isn't coincidental. It seems to be a sign that when neoliberalism policies start to bite, without class consciousness or a labour movement as an alternative, all of the discontent by the dispossessed and precariet is directed towards reaction.

What it proves is that there is no such thing as a white proletariat. J. Sakai undefeated, 40 years.

mark immune
Dec 14, 2019

put the teacher in the cope cage imo

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

What it proves is that there is no such thing as a white proletariat. J. Sakai undefeated, 40 years.

Deadly Ham Sandwich
Aug 19, 2009
Smellrose

Frosted Flake posted:

It's also all compartmentalized. Right, that's how government works. You write a paper about the need to procure a new rifle, and gosh we'll have to pay Colt Canada for proprietary suppressor lubricant, but here's the number of orders we can fill per FY. You don't follow that through to all of the logical conclusions, because it's not your job to say "therefore Industry Canada needs to assume ownership of a small arms plant". It's not your job to think about that. You write about the rifle, people read the report about the rifle, they accept that they have to procure $XM of suppressor lubricant, because no alternative exists, and then if there's a shooting war and everybody's rifles are hosed up from suppressor burnout or whatever, it's unfortunate but nobody could have seen it coming and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

If only there was some sort of central planning office.

thechosenone
Mar 21, 2009
Do I remember correctly that 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers were wounded or killed in the past two months? How many do they have left? The Russians may become bolder if they actually start to significantly outnumber them, which could allow them to more aggressively pick off already weakened groups and further stress what remains.

Weka
May 5, 2019

That child totally had it coming. Nobody should be able to be out at dusk except cars.

galagazombie posted:

I mean that really depends on what you think their real objectives actually were, or that the previous Soviet offers were in any way sincere. The fact that the literal no-poo poo Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has a clause that says "The Soviets get Finland", that the Soviets did the same thing with the Baltics and then immediately took the whole countries, and the fact that during the war the Soviets literally set up a puppet government that they claimed had sovereignty over all Finland, mean it's pretty obvious that the Soviet objective of the war was conquering the whole country, which they subsequently failed to achieve. So no I wouldn't really say they won, nor would I say the Finns got everything they wanted either depending on how you define their objectives as either "Remain Independent" vs. "Don't lose Karelia". It was one of those wars that just kind of fell apart leaving no one satisfied. Which is rapidly seeming to be exactly how Ukraine will end.



Pretty sure this map is wrong, for instance Czechia was occupied in 1939.
As to the content of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, I think you are mischaracterizing it. It merely places Finland in the Soviet sphere of influence. Compare to the current conflict in Ukraine. Russia does not want or need to directly rule or incorporate the whole country, merely stop it from being a NATO base.
As to the occupations of the Baltic states, I don't think it's comparable militarily. Much harder for Germany to invade via Finland. In any event I won't shed any tears because Latvia's fascist government was deposed.

Molotov Ribbentrop Pact - Secret Additional Protocol. posted:

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic
States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the
boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of
Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party

Starsfan
Sep 29, 2007

This is what happens when you disrespect Cam Neely

thechosenone posted:

Do I remember correctly that 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers were wounded or killed in the past two months? How many do they have left? The Russians may become bolder if they actually start to significantly outnumber them, which could allow them to more aggressively pick off already weakened groups and further stress what remains.

I think the Russian claim that came out at one point was since the start of June when Ukraine launched their counter-offensive there's been 47,000 Ukrainian soldiers either dead or so seriously wounded that they would be unable to fight again in the future.. they count those two types of casualties together. There would presumably be other Ukrainian soldiers with less severe injuries who may be able to continue fighting in the future that aren't counted in that figure.. not sure if the amputees who want to go back to the front to fight with their units count or not.

The Russian military has been putting out signals that they are ready to take the offensive, but if the Ukrainians are willing to bash their heads against the wall every day there's not much point to bringing the fight to them. I think the real turning point doesn't have as much to do with relative troop numbers (which my understanding is the Russians likely outnumber the Ukrainians and have for a long time now) but when Ukraine decides it's done with the offensive.. then we will see what Russia is capable of doing (if anything, I can't say for certain that all that talk is just putting on a strong front and they aren't in actuality just as worn down as the Ukrainians obviously are).

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

thechosenone posted:

Do I remember correctly that 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers were wounded or killed in the past two months? How many do they have left?

Ukraine has at least 1000 soldiers left. Maybe even more than that.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

I don't know that Ukraine can. Or rather, I don't know that the US and UK will let them. They would collapse overnight without western support, whereas if they keep dragging men off the street, there's at least the possibility of drawing this out.

The Ukrainian government should have known who they were signing up with. Of course, the one of the lessons of Georgia was to remove the possibility of the proxy doing that. If Ukraine had sought peace talks 5 days into the war, they could have averted this, but things will only get worse.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002
Usually, the Russians have refrained from bold movements, in part, because they are more focused on force preservation than taking territory. I think they will keep on pressing in on the north until Ukraine brings brigades over there and they will subsequently pressing on another point on the line.

The question is there a point where the Ukrainians simply have to stop on the offensive because of a lack of men and material and/or if this will be delayed by more Western arms. What has been promised for Ukraine in the future hasn’t been tremendous though.

thechosenone
Mar 21, 2009

Starsfan posted:

I think the Russian claim that came out at one point was since the start of June when Ukraine launched their counter-offensive there's been 47,000 Ukrainian soldiers either dead or so seriously wounded that they would be unable to fight again in the future.. they count those two types of casualties together. There would presumably be other Ukrainian soldiers with less severe injuries who may be able to continue fighting in the future that aren't counted in that figure.. not sure if the amputees who want to go back to the front to fight with their units count or not.

The Russian military has been putting out signals that they are ready to take the offensive, but if the Ukrainians are willing to bash their heads against the wall every day there's not much point to bringing the fight to them. I think the real turning point doesn't have as much to do with relative troop numbers (which my understanding is the Russians likely outnumber the Ukrainians and have for a long time now) but when Ukraine decides it's done with the offensive.. then we will see what Russia is capable of doing (if anything, I can't say for certain that all that talk is just putting on a strong front and they aren't in actuality just as worn down as the Ukrainians obviously are).

I dunno what I was thinking. I guess I figured they'd move in once the Ukrainian military got skittish but given this offensive was also ill advised I think if it really stops it's because they're on the border of mutiny, so a Russian attack may just straight up cause a breakdown in military command.

KomradeX
Oct 29, 2011

Neurolimal posted:

IMO the aims of both the proposed trades and the Winter War was to create a more defensible frontline in anticipation of whenever Germany inevitably broke the pact (which happened sooner than they thought). That said had the Winter War been a complete and immediate steamroll I'd bet they would have kept going and turned Finland into an SSR.

Better timeline

VoicesCanBe
Jul 1, 2023

"Cóż, wygląda na to, że zostaliśmy łaskawie oszczędzeni trudu decydowania o własnym losie. Jakże uprzejme z ich strony, że przearanżowali Europę bez kłopotu naszego zdania!"

thechosenone posted:

Do I remember correctly that 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers were wounded or killed in the past two months? How many do they have left? The Russians may become bolder if they actually start to significantly outnumber them, which could allow them to more aggressively pick off already weakened groups and further stress what remains.

That's what Russia claims. Dunno if that's worth believing, but there's little doubt that Ukraine has taken major losses since their offensive started. Certainly much higher than before.

galagazombie
Oct 31, 2011

A silly little mouse!

Ardennes posted:

The Germans used Finland as a staging ground, and in process forced the Soviets to devote resources on that front that were probably more useful elsewhere. Admittedly, the Winter war did create a buffer zone which is why it was a victory, but it could have been a more total one.

The Finns were depleted in March 1940, and the West had very little to devote to the fight. A lot of it must have just been poor Intel.

Finland already was a buffer zone. A much bigger one at that. The Germans only got to use Finland as a staging ground after the whole “get invaded by Russia” thing. It’s kind of nonsensical to expect the country you just invaded to not seek succor with your enemies. Attacking neutral Finland was the dumbest possible thing Stalin could have done if he wanted to keep it out of the Nazi camp. Barring completely conquering it of course. But that requires admitting conquering Finland was the real plan all along, or that Stalin was really just that dumb. I’d say the only real victory the Soviets got out of the whole thing was it convinced them to undergo well needed reform just in time for Barbarossa.

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:

If only there was some sort of central planning office.

A working group! With committees! With a steering team! With multiple sub committees and external contractors for unbiased independent expertise and review.

I can smell the business lunches paid by expenses already.

Uh, don't lock down that budget number just yet. Best to be flexible. Agile.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

Really interesting discussion around the 40 minute mark about the connection between the liberal NGOs and far right ethnic nationalism in the eastern bloc countries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItmNV1W6aFI

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010

HELL SERPENT
Lipstick Apathy
let's see what tankie publication wikipedia says about the latter phase of the Winter War:

quote:

The Soviet forces on the Karelian Isthmus were divided into two armies: the 7th and the 13th Army. The 7th Army, now under Kirill Meretskov, would concentrate 75 percent of its strength against the 16 km (9.9 mi) stretch of the Mannerheim Line between Taipale and the Munasuo swamp. Tactics would be basic: an armoured wedge for the initial breakthrough, followed by the main infantry and vehicle assault force. The Red Army would prepare by pinpointing the Finnish frontline fortifications. The 123rd Rifle Division then rehearsed the assault on life-size mock-ups. The Soviets shipped large numbers of new tanks and artillery pieces to the theatre. Troops were increased from ten divisions to 25–26 divisions with six or seven tank brigades and several independent tank platoons as support, totalling 600,000 soldiers.[173] On 1 February, the Red Army began a large offensive, firing 300,000 shells into the Finnish line in the first 24 hours of the bombardment.[174]

Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus

Although the Karelian Isthmus front was less active in January than in December, the Soviets increased bombardments, wearing down the defenders and softening their fortifications. During daylight hours, the Finns took shelter inside their fortifications from the bombardments and repaired damage during the night. The situation led quickly to war exhaustion among the Finns, who lost over 3,000 soldiers in trench warfare. The Soviets also made occasional small infantry assaults with one or two companies.[175] Because of the shortage of ammunition, Finnish artillery emplacements were under orders to fire only against directly threatening ground attacks. On 1 February, the Soviets further escalated their artillery and air bombardments.[174]

Although the Soviets refined their tactics and morale improved, the generals were still willing to accept massive losses to reach their objectives. Attacks were screened by smoke, heavy artillery, and armour support, but the infantry charged in the open and in dense formations.[174] Unlike their tactics in December, Soviet tanks advanced in smaller numbers. The Finns could not easily eliminate tanks if infantry troops protected them.[176] After 10 days of constant artillery barrage, the Soviets achieved a breakthrough on the Western Karelian Isthmus in the Second Battle of Summa.[177]

By 11 February, the Soviets had approximately 460,000 soldiers, 3,350 artillery pieces, 3,000 tanks and 1,300 aircraft deployed on the Karelian Isthmus. The Red Army was constantly receiving new recruits after the breakthrough.[178] Opposing them, the Finns had eight divisions, totalling about 150,000 soldiers. One by one, the defenders' strongholds crumbled under the Soviet attacks and the Finns were forced to retreat. On 15 February, Mannerheim authorised a general retreat of the II Corps to a fallback line of defence.[179] On the eastern side of the isthmus, the Finns continued to resist Soviet assaults, achieving a stalemate in the battle of Taipale.[180]

Peace negotiations

Although the Finns attempted to re-open negotiations with Moscow by every means during the war, the Soviets did not respond. In early January, Finnish communist Hella Wuolijoki contacted the Finnish Government. She offered to contact Moscow through the Soviet Union's ambassador to Sweden, Alexandra Kollontai. Wuolijoki departed for Stockholm and met Kollontai secretly at a hotel. On 29 January, Molotov put an end to the puppet Terijoki Government and recognized the Ryti–Tanner government as the legal government of Finland, informing it that the USSR was willing to negotiate peace.[181][182]

By mid-February, it became clear that the Finnish forces were rapidly approaching exhaustion. For the Soviets, casualties were high, the situation was a source of political embarrassment to the Soviet regime, and there was a risk of Franco-British intervention (which was overestimated by Soviet intelligence in February and March 1940[183]). With the spring thaw approaching, the Soviet forces risked becoming bogged down in the forests. Finnish Foreign Minister Väinö Tanner arrived in Stockholm on 12 February and negotiated the peace terms with the Soviets through the Swedes. German representatives, not aware that the negotiations were underway, suggested on 17 February that Finland negotiate with the Soviet Union.[184]

...

As the Finnish Cabinet hesitated in the face of harsh Soviet conditions, Sweden's King Gustav V made a public statement on 19 February in which he confirmed having declined Finnish pleas for support from Swedish troops. On 25 February, the Soviet peace terms were spelt out in detail. On 29 February, the Finnish Government accepted the Soviet terms in principle and was willing to enter into negotiations.[187] Red Army commanders wished to continue the war, whereas the Communist Party pointed out that the war had been too costly and called for the signing of a peace treaty. The party believed that Finland could be taken over later by means of a revolution. The heated discussion that ensued failed to yield any clear result and the matter went to a vote, in which the party's opinion prevailed and the decision was taken to bring hostilities to an end.[186]

as a recap:

- the Finns were exhausted, and their defense lines were broken, and the Red Army could have kept going, if they wanted to
- the puppet government cited as evidence that total conquest was the objective, was deliberately dissolved by the Soviet government, in order to enter negotiations with the Finns
- the army commanders wanted to keep going, but the party didn't
- in order to resolve the impasse, the issue was settled democratically

that does not sound like a country whose goal was the complete conquest of Finland and simply had to settle for less. Especially when they did not, in fact, end up with less than what they were originally demanding prior to the war in the first place.

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

Frosted Flake posted:

Really interesting discussion around the 40 minute mark about the connection between the liberal NGOs and far right ethnic nationalism in the eastern bloc countries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItmNV1W6aFI

Painting over sin with virtue signals. That's a trick that consistently stands the test of time.

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012

bedpan posted:

I'm still staggered than Russian minefields, fortifications, tank traps, and other works of defensive engineering were a surprise to anyone. Hell, I think there was even reporting on this before the offensive, albeit always in terms of "weak, stupid russians digging trenches."

Isn't laying minefields that are miles deep and wide literally what armies are supposed to do? Same with entrenching and fortifying. If the enemy isn't attacking then that means your soldiers are spending their time either improving the works or maintaining the works.

As much was WW2 is mythologized, it seems like we forgot everything of value from that conflict.

Bombing countries with virtually no serious mechanized resistance for literal decades has completely hosed up the Western perception of war. They've completely internalized that the "old" methods are dead, and the "new" ones are either super skilled Tom Clancy special forces ordering 9 airstrikes on the same building unopposed, OR guerilla forces. If a country builds trenches or deploys mines it's a sign that they're 80 years in the past and hopelessly outmatched.

A part of this is a lack of experience among younger generals, another is the privatization & commodification of defense, but there's also probably the fact that nobody involved ever expected to fight a peer army ever again; the assumption was that if that ever happened we'd immediately nuke each other, and elsewise it'd be two sides training smaller guerilla forces.

In a way that might be an inspiration for the propaganda; we're never going to fight a peer army again, so Russia is therefore not a peer army, they're gnats getting clowned on by other gnats.

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy
Missiles? Bullets? Pfft how baroque.

Your fight is in the cyber battlespace information web soldier. Now take up your laptop and post on social media until you alter enough opinions to shift the entire noosphere, then we can manifest our new reality into being through will alone.

(Taps side of head)
Your greatest weapon is in here. Your strength of will.

Also we're doing away with annual qualifications to shoot, now you need to fix a corrupted windows installation on the exercise dell laptop in under 2 hours.

galagazombie
Oct 31, 2011

A silly little mouse!

gradenko_2000 posted:

let's see what tankie publication wikipedia says about the latter phase of the Winter War:

as a recap:

- the Finns were exhausted, and their defense lines were broken, and the Red Army could have kept going, if they wanted to
- the puppet government cited as evidence that total conquest was the objective, was deliberately dissolved by the Soviet government, in order to enter negotiations with the Finns
- the army commanders wanted to keep going, but the party didn't
- in order to resolve the impasse, the issue was settled democratically

that does not sound like a country whose goal was the complete conquest of Finland and simply had to settle for less. Especially when they did not, in fact, end up with less than what they were originally demanding prior to the war in the first place.

I dunno man we seem to be reading different articles because most of that stuff seems to prove my point. “Ending the war because it was a source of embarrassment” (like come on man that’s literally some “We totally didn’t lose Vietnam because we didn’t go all in/gave up/weren’t allowed to win” level stuff) “Dissolving the puppet government in order to begin negotiations” (if they were so uninterested in conquest they wouldn’t have had to dissolve it because they wouldn’t have formed it in the first place). Hell the immediate section after you smugly highlight “retreat” points out the lines then stalemated. That and again, the Soviets literally signed a pact that said they got Finland.

Cuttlefush
Jan 15, 2014

gotta have my purp

galagazombie posted:

I dunno man we seem to be reading different articles

lol definitely

January 6 Survivor
Jan 6, 2022

The
Nelson Mandela
of clapping
dusty old cheeks


( o(

Orange Devil posted:

PvdA - Labour party, Third Wayists, aka neoliberals with a human face or whatever. Currently fusing with the Green party. Pro-EU, pro-tackling climate change, pro-industrial working class (which doesn't exist anymore in this country, but let's pretend it still does), pro-incremental change, pro-fiscal discipline, pro-murdering Liebknecht and Luxembourg. Were in government with the VVD during the Greek crisis. Dijsselbloem, the minister of Finance sticking the knives into Varoufakis for Germany was from this party.

for a second I thought you meant Luxembourg as like the country and I was like "I mean the existence of a tax heaven in the very middle of the EU is awful but straight up murdering them all seems a little excessive..."

mila kunis
Jun 10, 2011

galagazombie posted:

Love this thread. Wanted to see what was up with a bunch of new posts and found everyone debating whether the Ukrainians or the Native Americans are more deserving of genocide.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

who won the debate?

Palladium
May 8, 2012

Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

Neurolimal posted:

Bombing countries with virtually no serious mechanized resistance for literal decades has completely hosed up the Western perception of war. They've completely internalized that the "old" methods are dead, and the "new" ones are either super skilled Tom Clancy special forces ordering 9 airstrikes on the same building unopposed, OR guerilla forces. If a country builds trenches or deploys mines it's a sign that they're 80 years in the past and hopelessly outmatched.

A part of this is a lack of experience among younger generals, another is the privatization & commodification of defense, but there's also probably the fact that nobody involved ever expected to fight a peer army ever again; the assumption was that if that ever happened we'd immediately nuke each other, and elsewise it'd be two sides training smaller guerilla forces.

In a way that might be an inspiration for the propaganda; we're never going to fight a peer army again, so Russia is therefore not a peer army, they're gnats getting clowned on by other gnats.

israel whose every unit got completely clowned by hezbollah tunnels is OK because they aren't the real brave white people

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008

.. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK
Netherland’s political parties suck.

January 6 Survivor
Jan 6, 2022

The
Nelson Mandela
of clapping
dusty old cheeks


( o(


AI generated looking rear end hentai

couldn't afford some good poo poo like gets immediately struck down by God's own lightning to avoid embarassing me any further

Comrade Koba
Jul 2, 2007

finland simps in 2024: “okay so maybe the polish-russian border now runs a mile east of lwów, but there’s still a couple of ukrainians alive in germany so technically this still counts as a strategic victory for ukraine”

BEAR GRYLLZ
Jul 30, 2006

I have strong erections for Israel.
Strong, pathetic erections.

finland simps in 1940 and 2023: "ok so maybe we had to give them karelia, but it was actually russia's back in the 18th century before they gave it to us and made us an independent duchy so technically this is still a strategic victory for finland"

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

January 6 Survivor posted:



AI generated looking rear end hentai

couldn't afford some good poo poo like gets immediately struck down by God's own lightning to avoid embarassing me any further

Just remember that someone came up with this idea, wasn't laughed out the room and it was even implemented.

Behold the genius of the superior breed of man.

Now imagine the strategic planning sessions.

fits my needs
Jan 1, 2011

Grimey Drawer
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1689850634558664704?s=20

quote:

The counteroffensive so far has achieved the liberation of around 100 square miles of territory within two months, compared to the thousands of square miles retaken in the Kherson and Kharkiv offenses last year.

Part of the problem for Ukraine is the extensive network of defenses Russia had months to construct and continues to fortify.

Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar this week admitted Russia was “seriously strengthening its defensive lines.”

“And our troops are now faced not only with mining, but also with concrete engineering fortification of key commanding heights,” she said in a Telegram post.

But Ukraine is adjusting its tactics and still maintains the initiative, said Mick Ryan, a retired major general from the Australian Army and a military analyst. Ukrainian forces are now seizing small bits of territory, holding the land and moving forward under the cover of artillery.

“Ukraine is making some progress. Because none of us, except the Ukrainian military high command and government members, know the actual Ukrainian objectives for each phase of the war, we cannot say with any certainty whether this is behind or on schedule,” he wrote in a recent analysis. “However, Ukraine is recovering its territory.”

One of the most difficult challenges for Ukraine outside of the battlefield is countering expectations in the West for immediate results.

In recent speeches, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly called for “maximum focus” and unity behind Ukraine and its allies during the offensive.

Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the office of Zelensky, said Ukraine has already demonstrated that it can take on Russia and supporters should not get carried away by relentlessly commenting on the speed of the operation.

“Everyone needs to be patient and closely monitor the high-quality work of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” he said.

CongoJack
Nov 5, 2009

Ask Why, Asshole
a nation of Baghdad Bobs

Comrade Koba
Jul 2, 2007

CongoJack posted:

a nation of Baghdad Bobs

vinnytsia volodymyr

The Oldest Man
Jul 28, 2003

quote:

“Ukraine is making some progress. Because none of us, except the Ukrainian military high command and government members, know the actual Ukrainian objectives for each phase of the war, we cannot say with any certainty whether this is behind or on schedule,” he wrote in a recent analysis. “However, Ukraine is recovering its territory.”

Blood or victory wine? No one except the Ukrainian high command can say for sure

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010

HELL SERPENT
Lipstick Apathy
Lviv Larry

Weka
May 5, 2019

That child totally had it coming. Nobody should be able to be out at dusk except cars.

mila kunis posted:

who won the debate?

The rules based international community has decided that for their noble sacrifice waging war on Russia, Ukrainians are allowed to do a little genocide, as a treat.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pener Kropoopkin
Jan 30, 2013

galagazombie posted:

I dunno man we seem to be reading different articles because most of that stuff seems to prove my point. “Ending the war because it was a source of embarrassment” (like come on man that’s literally some “We totally didn’t lose Vietnam because we didn’t go all in/gave up/weren’t allowed to win” level stuff) “Dissolving the puppet government in order to begin negotiations” (if they were so uninterested in conquest they wouldn’t have had to dissolve it because they wouldn’t have formed it in the first place). Hell the immediate section after you smugly highlight “retreat” points out the lines then stalemated. That and again, the Soviets literally signed a pact that said they got Finland.

Your whole claim here is that the Soviets somehow lost the war because they didn't achieve maximal goals, but instead settled for a lesser transfer of territory at Finland's expense. Any genius can tell how little this compares to Vietnam, where the United States WITHDREW SUPPORT FOR SOUTH VIETNAM because it was too obvious that they would lose. Then we waited and watched while the North Vietnamese massed up an offensive that reunified the country. The United States got nothing that it wanted out of the arrangement. That's a loss. The Soviets got more territory than they even needed, while Finland lost it. Permanently, even.

There's no such thing as a "defeat with honor." You either win or you lose. Obviously this is still a national injury to Finland, since idiots are still coping over it 73 years later.

January 6 Survivor posted:



AI generated looking rear end hentai

couldn't afford some good poo poo like gets immediately struck down by God's own lightning to avoid embarassing me any further

It's really remarkable that the Ukrainian government is led by a clique of media personalities and tv producers, yet their propaganda invariably sucks. They really did steal all their ideas from American television or the internet..

Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 06:36 on Aug 11, 2023

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply