Jump to content

Ukraine 20: We’re not bluffing and you can tell we aren’t by how we say we aren’t bluffing…


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sending untrained troops onto the line isn’t going to be “low value”… it’s going to be negative value.  These people will be terrified and have no idea what to do… aren’t they going to make things worse?

Listen, when the Marines hit the beaches of Iwo Jima they didn't have better weapons than the Germans. What they had was heart! Not a one of you has been able to forget about the water in your boots or the sand in your mess kit long enough to complete the mission!

(The joke is that I don't have a coherent answer to your question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, Jace retirement fund has bought up shares of a Russian film studio, and she is now busy advertising for the upcoming Russian remake of Saving Private Ryan. The better the box office numbers, the earlier she's off to, not Florida for retirement.

I am all for shameless advertisement and self-promotion. So apologies, that I don't have the Russian movie title, I am sure you can help us out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

In other words, Jace retirement fund has bought up shares of a Russian film studio, and she is now busy advertising for the upcoming Russian remake of Saving Private Ryan. The better the box office numbers, the earlier she's off to, not Florida for retirement.

I am all for shameless advertisement and self-promotion. So apologies, that I don't have the Russian movie title, I am sure you can help us out here.

There have been some script changes at the urging of the Information Bureau. We're now calling it:

The Brothers Bidenazov

Edited by Firebrand Jace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Firebrand Jace said:

when the Marines hit the beaches of Iwo Jima they didn't have better weapons than the Germans.

Germans were at Iwo Jima ... get rid of history. it teaches rong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  No seriously… what?  Are these men so “hard” they are impenetrable to bullets and artillery?

HARD MEN.

I’m joking, I’m poking fun at people who insist advancements on technology, equipment, all that stuff needed to keep people alive is ultimately meaningless in comparison to the toughness of the soldiers themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Germans were at Iwo Jima ... get rid of history. it teaches rong!

I can't take credit. I stole that from some sitcom of the 00's. Probably Two and a Half Men, it was always on marathons on all the TVs on (I think) TBS during my internship. I think I saw every goddamn episode of the first five seasons at least three times over. All in like 1 or 2 minute segments where I'd be standing around near a TV, but EVERY DAY, so eventually it all added up to seeing basically all the episodes in their entirety.  

At some point it became The Office that was on all the time everywhere. Repeat.

I suspect this may be the catalyst of my madness.

27 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

2 words: hard men.

 

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

HARD MEN.

 

Hard Men 2: Hard HARDER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanatical belief in a cause can do a lot to make up for lack of training and experience, it can't do all that much for lack of equipment. But I think in Russia's case the only fanatical belief in the cause are among those who gather in crowds to listen to Putin and not so much among those gather in troops on the front line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

2 words: hard men.

 

55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  No seriously… what?  Are these men so “hard” they are impenetrable to bullets and artillery?

If they get Paul Atreides to come and train them into some crazy, ruthless fremen, you won't be laughing. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Fanatical belief in a cause can do a lot to make up for lack of training and experience, it can't do all that much for lack of equipment. But I think in Russia's case the only fanatical belief in the cause are among those who gather in crowds to listen to Putin and not so much among those gather in troops on the front line.

Whenever he speaks or holds a rally, they have to bus in a load of government employees to make up the numbers, so even that is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, might be an unanswerable question but...how does this end? Assuming Ukraine makes zero concessions and Russia refuses to back down how can this be realistically de-escalated before Putin uses a tactical nuke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Relic said:

So, might be an unanswerable question but...how does this end? Assuming Ukraine makes zero concessions and Russia refuses to back down how can this be realistically de-escalated before Putin uses a tactical nuke?

I’ve been living under the assumption that it just doesn’t end , it just de-escalates and you end up with this low level tension in certain areas for years with no agreement as to who owns what. A sort of Korea situation.  That would be hugely expensive and problematic for the world and for both countries but at the moment unless Putin is replaced with someone more reasonable then it’s hard to see Russia giving up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Relic said:

So, might be an unanswerable question but...how does this end? Assuming Ukraine makes zero concessions and Russia refuses to back down how can this be realistically de-escalated before Putin uses a tactical nuke?

I don't think Russia will use nukes in this conflict. Because a tactical nuke is not an instant win button and will cause more problems then they'll solve. Putin as it stands is very likely to die in his bed as president of Russia. A tatical nuke changes that significantly there is no elling what happens if that order is given, a coup, a refusal. Or if not that what do India, China and the rest of the world do. 

At the moment Russia seems on track for defeat if things continue as they are Ukraine will drive Russia out of eadtern Ukraine but not Crimea. Which seems the likely end point but who knows. Russia could turn the tide or Ukraine could take Crimea. Russian war weariness while currently low is also a factor that could bubble up at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Relic said:

So, might be an unanswerable question but...how does this end? Assuming Ukraine makes zero concessions and Russia refuses to back down how can this be realistically de-escalated before Putin uses a tactical nuke?

What is that supposed to accomplish? It isn't as if the Ukrainians concentrate 10,000 troops in one place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Darzin said:

At the moment Russia seems on track for defeat if things continue as they are Ukraine will drive Russia out of eadtern Ukraine but not Crimea. Which seems the likely end point but who knows. Russia could turn the tide or Ukraine could take Crimea. Russian war weariness while currently low is also a factor that could bubble up at any time.

The one issue with Russia remaining in Crimea is that Sevestapol would remain a loaded gun pointed at Ukraine's ability to conduct trade in the Black Sea while also allowing Russia to encircle Ukraine's borders. Needless to say, but this invasion has dealt a significant blow to Ukraine's ability to trust a continued Russian presence in Crimea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Loge said:

What is that supposed to accomplish? It isn't as if the Ukrainians concentrate 10,000 troops in one place.  

I have no idea. I'm not the one threatening the world with nukes. I agree that it seems a poor strategy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...