on the basis of what? are you implying they were gunning to take the whole country? that was never even said by them...they were taking out the azov's ability to carry out attacks on the east. as well as taking ukrainian military targets out throughout the countryside. why dont you fucking pay attention -_-
They are paying attention. Those words are in print for those not paying attention. Newsweek, with this article is informing informed viewers that they to are siding with Nazi ass Assov group.
Also Syria, the intent to was to remove Assad, which they never managed to do.
For me this is the most obvious clear failure they have suffered in recent times.
Call if failed if they either 1) retreat completely like the French/US in Vietnam or a partial failure if there is some territory gained/protected, like N/S Korea.
A failed invasion by whos metrics? If Russia planned to have to play a long game and use up old obsolete equipment to get massive resources in the end, is it still a failure? Or is it just a failure because the Call of Duty generation thinks battles are over after 15 minutes or 30 kills, whichever comes first?
The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure.
I would say close but no cigar. The Belarusian president outlining plans isn’t the same as a Russian general or prime minister(I think? Could be wrong on that positions title but tomato tomahto). If we had a Russian general being recorded and someone leaked the phone footage showing a blitzkrieg style plan, with say a 5-7 day invasion planned goal, and we see them struggling 2 months later, that would be a failure. A president from an allied but different nation showing some plans isn’t the same. That’s like seeing Trudeau authorize more tyranny and yelling “Look what Biden is up to!”
I think you're kind of ignoring the fact that Belarus is actively involved in the invasion of Ukraine, and this map (released at the start of March) pretty much parallels exactly what the troop movements came to be throughout March, until Russia started retreating. In keeping with your Trudeau-Biden analogy, it's more like Trudeau and Biden authorizing the same tyranny for all of North America, then Trudeau saying the plan for authorization.
It would be a little weird for two nations in a joint-invasion of a country to have different invasion maps, especially where the public one matches what happened in the invasion.
You’re right I am ignoring that fact. It doesn’t seem relevant. They may have been given these orders to follow or a generalized plan of attack but any military worth its salt has already looked at their own defences and figured out where an enemy attack is most likely and expected and thus plans accordingly. These plans don’t show a timeline, they don’t show strategy and they don’t show the conditions of the war as the Russian see them. It’s just troop movements and strategic locations to attack. Not the timeline (2-6 weeks for this quadrant, 4 for this one etc), doesn’t show what conditions the Russians consider success and failure (we lost 30000 men and thousands of obselete equipment pieces but gained billions in resources, win achieved! Vs we didn’t get to quadrant 4 by October, we’re going to lose too much once the snow falls this has been a prolonged failure etc). Knowing some planned troop movements which honestly could be war gamed out in the space of a lazy afternoon isn’t showing your whole plan to the world.
What are the Russians conditions for victory? What are their conditions for defeat? What is their best case and worst case time lines? These plans don’t show any of that so I still stand with my point that this isn’t showing the Russians “evil plans” have failed dismally. They have been taking steps to keep infrastructure in place so they can use it after, obviously quick steamrolling destruction be damned was never the original goal from the opening salvo here.
But have succeeded in others. Do you honestly think a military only wins if they win every single battle? Fuck read up on history or just start with WW2 and see that things go back and forth a lot before the final victory. MacArthur got chased out of the Philippines, vowed to come back and eventually did. Shit is not a call of duty match where it’s over in 30 minutes. For all we know Russia might have plans to stay there and fuck around for 20 years like the USA did in Afghanistan.
Show me Putin or an actual russian general laying out plans for this, with a timeline and show it failed completely and they achieved zero objectives and I’ll agree with you. But looking and soy boy pointing at a different president talking about troop movements does NOT equal russian plans being completely exposed.
MacArthur got chased out of the Philippines, vowed to come back and eventually did.
Right. That doesn't change the fact that getting chased out of the Philippines is recognized — by even the U.S. government — as an American military defeat. Just like getting chased out of all of central and western Ukraine is a Russian military defeat, i.e., a failed invasion.
I mean, really. It almost goes without saying that if you and your joint-operative try to do a sweeping invasion of a country, lose 25,000 troops and render a quarter of your battalions combative ineffective, then retreat from all but a sliver of the country, you have failed your invasion.
But hey, say what you like. I will circle back to you in a couple months when Russia is in full mobilization, more combat ineffective, and kicked out of even more of Ukraine.
So your CNN take is that the US media said it’s going bad, Russia is failing hard and pay no attention to Ukraine arming grandmas and prisoners with ak’s, trannys and able bodied men aren’t allowed to flee because they need the manpower, these are TOTALLY signs of us winning guys!!!!
I think I’d rather be called a Soviet russian moron than a complete fucking retard who thinks Russia loses every time like it’s a fucking rocky movie. Russia took Crimea in 2014 with Obama doing fuck all, Ukraine also has a Democrat president “watching its back”, aka launder my money but get ready to speak Russian. Don’t forget to send Ukraine another 33 billion dollars though.
“Lost 9 generals” cause you just throw your generals out in the field like it’s 1542 and not control troop movements from behind the lines. Tell me you’re a mainstream media shill without saying you’re a mainstream media shill.
Them taking cities are YOUR conditions of victory. If THIERS is to get military locations, weaken the opposing army and keeping critical infrastructure in place, then that’s what they’re going to focus on. I highly doubt any Russian gives 2 shits what you consider to be a military target. I give a fuck if they don’t take any cities. Does Ukraine have total control over their own air space? Are their ports free and able to move cargo and military vessels? Are their train tracks able to move goods unhindered by the enemy? Or are they arming grandmas because they have men pinned down under steel plants and the Reddit larper brigade hasn’t killed 6 million Russians each yet?
Oh look, another handshake account that misuses English grammar, comments predominantly pro-Russian content largely on posts from suspected Russian shill accounts, and goes long periods without activity only to become active when anti-Russian content starts to rise.
So now to fit your retarded narrative, I am a russian bot? paid for by putin?
Because I do not accept your ridiculous lies and bullshit?
Go back to reddit you simpleton, I only respond with comments when I want, unlike you who has a clear agenda to spread lies and bullshit non stop. haha go fuck yourself loser.
Nah, I never said you’re paid by Putin. I think you’re probably just a bot alt-account made by one of the few users here that likes to primarily push pro-Russian narratives.
Why would you think I’d waste my time trying to push a narrative on some washed up Reddit offshoot site? I just find it funny to watch you all squirm around facts in my downtime.
Reddit is a piece of shit site controlled by a ton of really stupid people just like you.
They all believe anything they are told by their masters and spend their time spouting nonsense and lies repeatedly to each other in true circle jerk fashion.
So, I like this site, because there is no fuck tards removing posts that I have noticed.
Freedom for idiots like you to come say the dumb shit you say, so people like me can laugh at the type of dumb shit you choose to believe.
Your Globohomo bullshit nato forces cannot pump enough weapons into Ukraine to have any impact at all on Russia over all.
The losses in capability of the entire western world is clear for all to see. The economic losses, the incapability to deliver meaningful modern hardware.
Not a single event worth anything has been done by ukraine in the months the military activity has occurred.
Simple people like you cannot comprehend what is at play here, you are only thinking about your limited experience with a shitty army that cannot fight but only drops bombs from the sky.
So, when you see my posts, don't even bother responding, because I have full confidence you are a fucking idiot and have nothing of value to say to me.
Not really, when you understand NATO as the threat it actually is to Russia. This is, from a Russian perspective, like how the US almost invaded Cuba to get rid of the nukes they stationed there (in response to the US putting them in Turkey).
Here is a popular anecdote about how Americans and Russians view war differently, that I hope my memory won't butcher too badly. A Russian proposes to an American which three groups would receive reinforcements during a war - the one taking the most casualties but making slow progress, the one in a defensive position, or the one making steady progress pushing the front lines forward. The American naturally responds that the one taking the most casualties would. The Russian perspective, though, would be to give the reinforcements to the group making the most progress pushing the front lines because they are the ones that deserve it.
"failed invasion"
on the basis of what? are you implying they were gunning to take the whole country? that was never even said by them...they were taking out the azov's ability to carry out attacks on the east. as well as taking ukrainian military targets out throughout the countryside. why dont you fucking pay attention -_-
They are paying attention. Those words are in print for those not paying attention. Newsweek, with this article is informing informed viewers that they to are siding with Nazi ass Assov group.
"Failed"? To early to call it yet.
And the US failed quite spectacularly in Afghanistan, and Vietnam...nearly so in Iraq. Superpower status still intact.
Also Syria, the intent to was to remove Assad, which they never managed to do. For me this is the most obvious clear failure they have suffered in recent times.
Can we call it failed now?
Are people still shooting at each other?
Call if failed if they either 1) retreat completely like the French/US in Vietnam or a partial failure if there is some territory gained/protected, like N/S Korea.
Do you believ that after 2+ years, the invasion has been a success?
No, but neither was it a failure. You're creating a false choice, while the war is ongoing at that.
A failed invasion by whos metrics? If Russia planned to have to play a long game and use up old obsolete equipment to get massive resources in the end, is it still a failure? Or is it just a failure because the Call of Duty generation thinks battles are over after 15 minutes or 30 kills, whichever comes first? The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
You mean like these plans?
I would say close but no cigar. The Belarusian president outlining plans isn’t the same as a Russian general or prime minister(I think? Could be wrong on that positions title but tomato tomahto). If we had a Russian general being recorded and someone leaked the phone footage showing a blitzkrieg style plan, with say a 5-7 day invasion planned goal, and we see them struggling 2 months later, that would be a failure. A president from an allied but different nation showing some plans isn’t the same. That’s like seeing Trudeau authorize more tyranny and yelling “Look what Biden is up to!”
I think you're kind of ignoring the fact that Belarus is actively involved in the invasion of Ukraine, and this map (released at the start of March) pretty much parallels exactly what the troop movements came to be throughout March, until Russia started retreating. In keeping with your Trudeau-Biden analogy, it's more like Trudeau and Biden authorizing the same tyranny for all of North America, then Trudeau saying the plan for authorization.
It would be a little weird for two nations in a joint-invasion of a country to have different invasion maps, especially where the public one matches what happened in the invasion.
You’re right I am ignoring that fact. It doesn’t seem relevant. They may have been given these orders to follow or a generalized plan of attack but any military worth its salt has already looked at their own defences and figured out where an enemy attack is most likely and expected and thus plans accordingly. These plans don’t show a timeline, they don’t show strategy and they don’t show the conditions of the war as the Russian see them. It’s just troop movements and strategic locations to attack. Not the timeline (2-6 weeks for this quadrant, 4 for this one etc), doesn’t show what conditions the Russians consider success and failure (we lost 30000 men and thousands of obselete equipment pieces but gained billions in resources, win achieved! Vs we didn’t get to quadrant 4 by October, we’re going to lose too much once the snow falls this has been a prolonged failure etc). Knowing some planned troop movements which honestly could be war gamed out in the space of a lazy afternoon isn’t showing your whole plan to the world. What are the Russians conditions for victory? What are their conditions for defeat? What is their best case and worst case time lines? These plans don’t show any of that so I still stand with my point that this isn’t showing the Russians “evil plans” have failed dismally. They have been taking steps to keep infrastructure in place so they can use it after, obviously quick steamrolling destruction be damned was never the original goal from the opening salvo here.
Right, and Russia failed to accomplish those troop movements and strategic attacks . . .
But have succeeded in others. Do you honestly think a military only wins if they win every single battle? Fuck read up on history or just start with WW2 and see that things go back and forth a lot before the final victory. MacArthur got chased out of the Philippines, vowed to come back and eventually did. Shit is not a call of duty match where it’s over in 30 minutes. For all we know Russia might have plans to stay there and fuck around for 20 years like the USA did in Afghanistan. Show me Putin or an actual russian general laying out plans for this, with a timeline and show it failed completely and they achieved zero objectives and I’ll agree with you. But looking and soy boy pointing at a different president talking about troop movements does NOT equal russian plans being completely exposed.
Right. That doesn't change the fact that getting chased out of the Philippines is recognized — by even the U.S. government — as an American military defeat. Just like getting chased out of all of central and western Ukraine is a Russian military defeat, i.e., a failed invasion.
I mean, really. It almost goes without saying that if you and your joint-operative try to do a sweeping invasion of a country, lose 25,000 troops and render a quarter of your battalions combative ineffective, then retreat from all but a sliver of the country, you have failed your invasion.
But hey, say what you like. I will circle back to you in a couple months when Russia is in full mobilization, more combat ineffective, and kicked out of even more of Ukraine.
So your CNN take is that the US media said it’s going bad, Russia is failing hard and pay no attention to Ukraine arming grandmas and prisoners with ak’s, trannys and able bodied men aren’t allowed to flee because they need the manpower, these are TOTALLY signs of us winning guys!!!! I think I’d rather be called a Soviet russian moron than a complete fucking retard who thinks Russia loses every time like it’s a fucking rocky movie. Russia took Crimea in 2014 with Obama doing fuck all, Ukraine also has a Democrat president “watching its back”, aka launder my money but get ready to speak Russian. Don’t forget to send Ukraine another 33 billion dollars though.
“Lost 9 generals” cause you just throw your generals out in the field like it’s 1542 and not control troop movements from behind the lines. Tell me you’re a mainstream media shill without saying you’re a mainstream media shill. Them taking cities are YOUR conditions of victory. If THIERS is to get military locations, weaken the opposing army and keeping critical infrastructure in place, then that’s what they’re going to focus on. I highly doubt any Russian gives 2 shits what you consider to be a military target. I give a fuck if they don’t take any cities. Does Ukraine have total control over their own air space? Are their ports free and able to move cargo and military vessels? Are their train tracks able to move goods unhindered by the enemy? Or are they arming grandmas because they have men pinned down under steel plants and the Reddit larper brigade hasn’t killed 6 million Russians each yet?
Sure.
Yeah. I know. It's a meme.
No worries!
Another expert analysis from your friendly Reddit userbase.
go back to reddit, you are clearly braindead and stupid to be making such ridiculous claims.
Oh look, another handshake account that misuses English grammar, comments predominantly pro-Russian content largely on posts from suspected Russian shill accounts, and goes long periods without activity only to become active when anti-Russian content starts to rise.
Weird.
So now to fit your retarded narrative, I am a russian bot? paid for by putin? Because I do not accept your ridiculous lies and bullshit?
Go back to reddit you simpleton, I only respond with comments when I want, unlike you who has a clear agenda to spread lies and bullshit non stop. haha go fuck yourself loser.
Nah, I never said you’re paid by Putin. I think you’re probably just a bot alt-account made by one of the few users here that likes to primarily push pro-Russian narratives.
Why would you think I’d waste my time trying to push a narrative on some washed up Reddit offshoot site? I just find it funny to watch you all squirm around facts in my downtime.
facts? lol, facts?
Reddit is a piece of shit site controlled by a ton of really stupid people just like you. They all believe anything they are told by their masters and spend their time spouting nonsense and lies repeatedly to each other in true circle jerk fashion.
So, I like this site, because there is no fuck tards removing posts that I have noticed. Freedom for idiots like you to come say the dumb shit you say, so people like me can laugh at the type of dumb shit you choose to believe.
Your Globohomo bullshit nato forces cannot pump enough weapons into Ukraine to have any impact at all on Russia over all.
The losses in capability of the entire western world is clear for all to see. The economic losses, the incapability to deliver meaningful modern hardware.
Not a single event worth anything has been done by ukraine in the months the military activity has occurred.
Simple people like you cannot comprehend what is at play here, you are only thinking about your limited experience with a shitty army that cannot fight but only drops bombs from the sky.
So, when you see my posts, don't even bother responding, because I have full confidence you are a fucking idiot and have nothing of value to say to me.
See, stuff like this makes it really hard not to think that you’re just a Corpis/DavidCole bot alt-account, lol.
Globohomo is now a coined term that is absolutely applicable.
I am not an alt, just fyi.
"It's a pretty bizarre move."
Not really, when you understand NATO as the threat it actually is to Russia. This is, from a Russian perspective, like how the US almost invaded Cuba to get rid of the nukes they stationed there (in response to the US putting them in Turkey).
Here is a popular anecdote about how Americans and Russians view war differently, that I hope my memory won't butcher too badly. A Russian proposes to an American which three groups would receive reinforcements during a war - the one taking the most casualties but making slow progress, the one in a defensive position, or the one making steady progress pushing the front lines forward. The American naturally responds that the one taking the most casualties would. The Russian perspective, though, would be to give the reinforcements to the group making the most progress pushing the front lines because they are the ones that deserve it.