• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

dingdongo said:
How are Ukraine suddenly making gains again? Is it mostly all the supplies we are providing?
Click to expand...
Russia wasn't equipped for anything but a quick battle.

The longer range Ukraine now has with UK & US weaponry has taken away the one big advantage Russia had. Now they can't just shell the brick out of anywhere they like without retaliation.

Let's not get carried away, Ukrainian gains have been small and slow - unless something significant changes, this war will take a long time to be over.
 
Rorschach said:
It could be to cause a diversion but if not they may be about to blow the Kerch bridge.
Click to expand...

While knowingly not a popular voice/opinion with this topic, but is that even classed as a military target?
Its daily traffic I'd think is more civilian than anything else.
 
Trixster said:
While knowingly not a popular voice/opinion with this topic, but is that even classed as a military target?
Its daily traffic I'd think is more civilian than anything else.
Click to expand...

Of course it is it had been used to bring in military hardware, and give a direct connection to Russian territory.

Even more pertinent is that Crimea is Ukraine. The bridge is the infrastructure of the occupiers- Putin had it built it because he is a thieving bastard.
 
johnola said:
Of course it is it had been used to bring in military hardware, and give a direct connection to Russian territory.

Even more pertinent is that Crimea is Ukraine. The bridge is the infrastructure of the occupiers- Putin had it built it because he is a thieving bastard.
Click to expand...

The latter pertinent part I know, has been since Khrushchev signed it over in 54.. That wasn't in discussion.
I would like to think that civilian traffic is limited then or stopped currently, seeing as that is a large percentage of the traffic volume usually.

The connection to mainland Russia pales somewhat considering their natural borders are likely nearing 2k miles of direct connections ;)
 
Trixster said:
The latter pertinent part I know, has been since Khrushchev signed it over in 54.. That wasn't in discussion.
I would like to think that civilian traffic is limited then or stopped currently, seeing as that is a large percentage of the traffic volume usually.

The connection to mainland Russia pales somewhat considering their natural borders are likely nearing 2k miles of direct connections ;)
Click to expand...

No it connects Crimea directly to Russia so that Russians didn’t have to travel through Ukrainian territory to get there.

Ukraine (including Crimea) were made independent from the Soviet Union in 1991. Putin wanted it for no reason other than he is a kleptomaniac pure and simple. It is not Russia. It is an occupied territory.

Ukraine have been busy tactically blowing up their own bridges so no reason why they wouldn’t blow that up.

And it is perverse to suggest these Ukraine are morally in the wrong to consider taking it down. They have warned people not to use it and have had cities razed to the ground, civilians murdered raped and tortured all as part of a genocide.

Please make sure you work things out properly for yourself. Contrarianism is not the same as being bright.
 
johnola said:
No it connects Crimea directly to Russia so that Russians didn’t have to travel through Ukrainian territory to get there.

Ukraine (including Crimea) were made independent from the Soviet Union in 1991. Putin wanted it for no reason other than he is a kleptomaniac pure and simple. It is not Russia. It is an occupied territory.

Ukraine have been busy tactically blowing up their own bridges so no reason why they wouldn’t blow that up.

And it is perverse to suggest these Ukraine are morally in the wrong to consider taking it down. They have warned people not to use it and have had cities razed to the ground, civilians murdered raped and tortured all as part of a genocide.

Please make sure you work things out properly for yourself. Contrarianism is not the same as being bright.
Click to expand...

  1. Vast majority flew, even more so after it was seized because Ukraine wouldn't allow passge through its borders - rightly so.
    Only now, since the war started, is it being used for the malicious purposes of easier equipment transport. He can still move everything through the occupied areas, but obvs greater cost, risk etc.
  2. Erm 54 was before 91, so what was given to Ukraine in 54 (funnily enough to try to stablise the USSR) would still have been theirs at the collapse of the USSR - I have no dispute on that fact, and again it wasn't in the discussion.
    (I tell my wife this nearly every fudging week and I don't need you to jump in on the not hearing bs either.)
  3. A lot of their bridges are in active theatre now and the vast majority of civilians are not using the ones they have done, afaik. Childish tweaks on social media are not a cast iron warning, if they are going to do it then don't mince words and actually say it and tell civvies to avoid it at all costs.
  4. I simply asked if it was a viable target due to the civilian usage. Just because a military uses something in theatre does not always make it a viable target if there civilian lives at risk, imo.
    I have no dispute on the horrors they have been subjected to.
  5. So I am dumb for quering the popular fashion of fudge Russia & Russians regardless then? Nice..
    Well, opinions are like arseholes in that every one has one I suppose.

Having seen the vid above, if they can target the rail bridge (with proper advance warnings) then fair do's.
 
Trixster said:
  1. Vast majority flew, even more so after it was seized because Ukraine wouldn't allow passge through its borders - rightly so.
    Only now, since the war started, is it being used for the malicious purposes of easier equipment transport. He can still move everything through the occupied areas, but obvs greater cost, risk etc.
  2. Erm 54 was before 91, so what was given to Ukraine in 54 (funnily enough to try to stablise the USSR) would still have been theirs at the collapse of the USSR - I have no dispute on that fact, and again it wasn't in the discussion.
    (I tell my wife this nearly every fudging week and I don't need you to jump in on the not hearing bs either.)
  3. A lot of their bridges are in active theatre now and the vast majority of civilians are not using the ones they have done, afaik. Childish tweaks on social media are not a cast iron warning, if they are going to do it then don't mince words and actually say it and tell civvies to avoid it at all costs.
  4. I simply asked if it was a viable target due to the civilian usage. Just because a military uses something in theatre does not always make it a viable target if there civilian lives at risk, imo.
    I have no dispute on the horrors they have been subjected to.
  5. So I am dumb for quering the popular fashion of fudge Russia & Russians regardless then? Nice..
    Well, opinions are like arseholes in that every one has one I suppose.
Having seen the vid above, if they can target the rail bridge (with proper advance warnings) then fair do's.
Click to expand...

If they blow that bridge for example with Himars it would be unfortunate and unlikely any civilians will die. They will disable the bridge it won’t just collapse into the sea along its entire span.

I think you are being insensitive and disproportionately critical of Ukraine.

Do you feel that Russia’s actions (to invade Ukraine) are acceptable if we ignore the way they have gone about it for now?
 
johnola said:
If they blow that bridge for example with Himars it would be unfortunate and unlikely any civilians will die. They will disable the bridge it won’t just collapse into the sea along its entire span.

I think you are being insensitive and disproportionately critical of Ukraine.

Do you feel that Russia’s actions (to invade Ukraine) are acceptable if we ignore the way they have gone about it for now?
Click to expand...

If they do it, it's fine - just ensure there is fair warning for the civvies is all. I'd say the same and query the same regardless of the war and its actors.

I don't believe I am, as mentioned I simple questioned if it was a viable target due to the civilian issue. Ukraine could have played a tit-for-tat a long time ago in this war with its strikes, but they haven't and they shouldn't need to start now.
A military using infrastructure doesn't always equal a viable target, especially in non-evacuated areas. If the bridges were in the middle of some open land away from civilians, I'd not have had a query.

Hah, trick question? Say no and I'm a putinbot too shy to say yes, or say yes and putinbot :D
Jokes aside, no I don't think it's acceptable in the slightest - these things never are in 90% of instances.

Honestly, I thought he would go for Donbass and Donbass only. I was hoping that he wouldn't do fudge all tbh and it was just shield bashing...
And then he goes all Hitler and decides to try and take the entire country believing that somehow they would be seen as saviours.

If he only did Donbass then I have a feeling that the West wouldn't have done what its done, let's face it they did fudge all for eight years with both sides shelling and killing each other, and I just didn't see them stepping up.
Crimea, I don't accept but I do understand why. Kyiv was very unstable at the time and Sevastopol is far to important for the Russian fleet.

I actually feel that on here, and other such mediums, that through media crap or just social bs there is an unfair amount of critic to Russians.
The overwhelming number of Russians are warm-hearted and good natured, they are now being judged by all and sundry for the actions of their government and not there own actions. There are so many misconceptions of Russians even today in 2022, all fed from bs narratives.
 
Well we don’t need to worry about Russians now. They pose no threat to nor will they be welcome in the west for decades.

By the end of this century their population will mostly be gummy old men and women with a 200 year old mindset and a decaying nuclear arsenal.

But at least they have each other’s warmth and humanity to keep them happy.
 
johnola said:
Well we don’t need to worry about Russians now. They pose no threat to nor will they be welcome in the west for decades.

By the end of this century their population will mostly be gummy old men and women with a 200 year old mindset and a decaying nuclear arsenal.

But at least they have each other’s warmth and humanity to keep them happy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure their current youth will be delighted with your determination of their future prospects ;)
Hopefully you have the same narrow-minded feelings for other nationalities whose countries behave in similar fashions.

P.S. Their already in the West in droves, best start planning to ship them back.
 
Trixster said:
I'm sure their current youth will be delighted with your determination of their future prospects ;)
Hopefully you have the same narrow-minded feelings for other nationalities whose countries behave in similar fashions.

P.S. Their already in the West in droves, best start planning to ship them back.
Click to expand...

I would definitely withdraw visas for Russians.

Do you suppose they would not wish to go back voluntarily? I can only wonder why.
 
Yea it has been far from static these last few days up towards Kharkiv and Izyum.

It’s completely absorbing albeit visceral and brutal.
 
Attacking usually suffers more attrition than organised defences. Will be interesting to see the tallies of this assault and if Russia has enough for a counter-counter attack.

Dumb politics. its becoming a nightmare war of attrition.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
metalgear said:
Attacking usually suffers more attrition than organised defences. Will be interesting to see the tallies of this assault and if Russia has enough for a counter-counter attack.

Dumb politics. its becoming a nightmare war of attrition.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

On the contrary it is looking more like a rout around Izyum and Kharkiv with poor Russian defenses and rapid Ukrainian advances.
 
johnola said:
On the contrary it is looking more like a rout around Izyum and Kharkiv with poor Russian defenses and rapid Ukrainian advances.
Click to expand...

I know that's that current situation, but metalgear is right in general. There's a very old 'rule of combat' called the 3:1 Rule - that attackers always need at least 3 times the force of defenders to be successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back