https://www.politico.eu/article/election-wins-valdimir-putin-kim-jong-un-alexander-lukashenko-joseph-stalin-bashar-al-assad-ilham-aliyev/

ahah GL beating KIM :
" 99.99 percent voter turnout "

About Stalin:
" Before Putin, there was Stalin. The Soviet dictator stayed in power in Moscow for three decades before dying in 1953. Elections during his reign went as one might expect: high turnout and 100 percent of the votes for the unopposed communist autocrat."

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Mar 19 2024 12:46pm

Putin already lost the war in March 2022

Ukraine has lots of resources and will join our force

Don't even try

This post was edited by Djunior on Mar 19 2024 02:09pm

Okay, when I said "they tried to capture this area and failed miserably", I was of course referring to "capturing and holding" that territory.




Regarding the debate over the last few pages about the "feint" attack on Kyiv in the opening stages of this war:
No, the Russians were of course not expecting 50k troops to be enough to take Kyiv by storm. What they were trying to do is encircle the city, so that they could then gradually starve out/suffocate it. The mere threat of encircling the Ukrainian capital would also have had a psychological effect on Ukraine's political leadership who would have genuinely had to fear for their lives in that scenario. (Rather than "fucking off to London or Dubai" being their plan B.)

This attempt was doomed once the Russian commando squad was unable to secure the Hostomel airport, forcing the Russians to bring their supplies for the attack toward Kyiv via stretched out, vulnerable land corridors along Chernihiv and Sumy, which mobile Ukrainian hit and run squads could attack and wear down with ease.

Nonetheless, this attack on Kyiv was imho not a feint since Russia committed a significant amount of troops and materiel to it, troops which were sorely missing in the South. If those 50k soldiers had been part of the southern offense, they might well have captured Mykolaiv and been able to march on Odessa.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2024 02:18pm

to "starve" off, suffocate it, you still need a massive force. Sieging such a large city can´t be done by 50k, especially with such a lack of artillery bombardment.

This is all silly fantasy, same level of mental gymanstics mr putino does. Putino was too busy trying to show westoids hes a kind hearded killer, any other rational being would've devastated kiev.

In your own words, 50k would´ve been enough to capture mykolaiv & odessa, what would 300k troops done to kiev an additional 200k in odessa? this was my point, which you seem to agree with. This was an easy bagger, but putin managed to complicate it to such an extent that he made it unwinnable on fast terms and instead forced a devastating war. Or are we gonna pretend that russia didn´t have the capability to prepare 300-500k additional troops before invading (seriously..).

The most correct way to frame it, isn´t a faint, but a grand delusion of putin, which rulers who rule for too long tend to have, a megalomaniac.

anyhow final post mentioning putin, clearly even pro-russians or neutrals think very lowly of putin (when it comes to the war effort), the bootlicker & shill is bs.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 19 2024 03:19pm

Russia's failure to take down Kyiv was a defeat for the ages.

50K is a nonsensical number for a city the size of Kiev.

I mean we can look at Bakhmut as an example. That battle claimed in the wheelhouse of 50-100k KIA between both sides. That was a city of less than 100k pre-war. You'd have to be a real idiot to think that somehow they would lay siege to a city of 3 million with 50k. So either some of our friends in here think the Russians are real idiots or they can't critically think and make sense of basic algebra.

Kiev as a feint doesn't hold water. Had they gotten the airfield intact, they would have been able to fly in reinforcements at will, and they expected in any case that Ukraine would simply collapse. It almost succeeded.

When the opening gambit failed, they had to readjust. Otherwise I agree that their war aims are essentially Kharkiv + Odessa at this point. Although if Ukraine looks likely to collapse, that can quickly expand to include Kiev, leaving a dump Ukrainian state centered around Lyiv.

Daily reminder that leopards are losing
"Nato grade tanks" are 20ton heavier than their ruskie counterparts
And Shahed drones are winning:

With Britain leading the way ( i lol'd), Ukraine’s allies sent Ukraine about 120-130 NATO-grade tanks. The first vehicles arrived in April 2023. The hope was Western MBTs would spearhead assaults on Russian defenses. The first serious commitment of NATO tanks against the Russian army took place in June. It didn’t go well, and by October according to open sources, 10 German Leopard 2 tanks had been knocked out for zero Ukrainian battlefield gains.

Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukrainian War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29778

The 50k were supposed to establish the stranglehold on the city, with more and more troops being brought in over time. Particularly since Russia expected to take the airport and subsequently be able to airlift reinforcements at will.

The thing about Russia massing two or three times as many troops before invading is that it would have tipped off what Russia was up to, with no more room for denial or rationalizations. Keep in mind that a lot of Western politicians, pundits and armchair experts (yours truly included) were in denial until the moment Russian tanks crossed the border into Ukraine. A lot of people thought that Russia was just saber-rattling or trying to force some (mild) concessions, or that "Russia cannot possibly be foolish enough to actually invade".

Allowing Western denial to prevail until the bitter end helped Russia to delay the Western response by months. On the flip side, if Russia had spent addtional weeks amassing half a million troops, their intentions would have been clear, with the risk of last-minute arms supplies being sent to Ukraine. There would even have been a small chance of quick response NATO troops being deployed to Ukraine.






The bottom line is not so much "look how much Western MBTs suck", but rather "look how fundamentally cheap and abundant drones have changed modern warfare". There is zero reason to assume that Russian MBTs would fare any better if Ukraine had a similar number of drones as them.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2024 09:07pm