Conversation
Notices
-
As we approach the one year mark of the War, it looks like Russia is at the "Pyrrhic victory" stage.
-
@sickburnbro @Consoomer88 @Gerfand Considering how far they got with 200K troops, it couldn't have been that intense.
-
@LouisConde @Consoomer88 @Gerfand But what is your rationale for assigning that judgement? I just don't think we have a recent conflict where we can accurately say "the russians are winning/losing because of this territory"
-
@Consoomer88 @Gerfand Kharkov is an ethnic Russian city that's right next door and seizing it would have deprived Ukraine of millions of ethnic Russians to be used as cannon fodder against them. It was a blunder any way you put it.
-
@LouisConde @Consoomer88 @Gerfand yes, but they also spent the last 8 years fortifying it, no?
-
@LouisConde @Consoomer88 well the thing is that basically everything that Russian lost, they can rebuild and better, I know theres many problems with Russia manufacturing, but basically, you lost a SU-25, a T-72B, that is bad true, but its also old equipment, modernized at most.
True they lost newer stuff, but losing that old stuff just means they went "oh shit we need to replace this", and are making more, better, stuff.
-
@Gerfand @Consoomer88 I'm talking about casualties mostly. The fact is, failing to seize Kharkov early on was probably the biggest mistake they made, even worse than pulling back from Kiev.
-
@LouisConde @Gerfand Only if you assume it’s about land acquisition.
If, like Uncle Adolf he’s pursuing more the repatriation of Ukraines ethinc Russian population the goals are different.
-
@Consoomer88 @LouisConde the meme is wrong because it doesn't understand what phyrric means, it should be called "Minor"
-
@Gerfand @Consoomer88 I disagree, spending the amount of resources and only securing the territories they occupy would be a phyrric victory, they don't even have Kharkov.
-
@LouisConde I guess that depends on what Russia’s goals were.
-
@sickburnbro @Consoomer88 @Gerfand Russia was advancing to the point that they were in the outer limits of Kharkov. Capturing Kharkov would have secured a population center of 1.5 million predominantly Russian speakers. They didn't allocate enough troops and they got pushed all the way back to the edge of Oblast near Luhansk. This was a strategic error by all accounts.
-
@LouisConde @sickburnbro @Consoomer88 @Gerfand If they had allocated more troops to the Kharkov front, then another front would have experienced loss the way Kharkov front did. The problem, as I understand it, was that Russia had simply not committed enough forces to the conflict to properly man the entire frontline. It had to be weak somewhere, and thanks to NATO intelligence it's reasonable to assume that Ukraine would have figured out where it would be, in case it was somewhere else.
-
@Jens_Rasmussen @Consoomer88 @Gerfand @sickburnbro 200,000 troops was never enough to invade a medium sized country.
-
@LouisConde Harsh but very fair
The Russian nationalists most worth listening to (Rolo Slavskiy and his gang) and Strelkov argue convincingly that was the best outcome that could have been accomplished with the very small amount of men Russia committed to the war
FWIW both think there will be at least one more 'big arrow' push on the RF side before any towels are thrown in
-
@TrevorGoodchild @LouisConde Wouldn’t shock me if Russia mobilized even more men if needed. Failure means NATO nukes next to Kiev. Plus the neo-cohens seem legit hellbent on getting Crimea back
Louis Condé
Sick Burn, Bro
Gerfand
Consoomer88
Jens_Rasmussen
Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
Kenny Blankenship
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the