Speaking of no-crust Cucumber sandwiches, the cheer-leading high-brows over at ISW invented a new language.
Last week, instead of the Ukraine retreating from Severodonetsk, they were making a "tactical retrograde" and a "strategic repositioning."
This week, as evacuating Ukrainian troops from Lysychansk take shelling, they are "conducting a fighting withdrawal... to force the Russian offensive to culminate prematurely."
Did you get hit in the head recently? You never used to be as disconnected and impulsive as Carmine. Now it's DOA means Momentarily Paused, and Appeaser means whatever behavior you think this "ISW" outfit was exhibiting last week. I'll be sure not to refer to whoever they are for military double-speak, if that's what you are getting at.
(Weren't the cowardly Russian retreats from Kyiv and Kharkiv called "strategic repositioning"? If I find the time, maybe I'll try and find instances where someone here, perhaps you, referred to the Russian retreats from Kyiv and Kharkiv as something like that.)
I don't recall making any comment whatsoever with regard to Russian withdrawals from Northern Ukraine.
It's shocking you don't know who "ISW" is.
While I took a potshot at them just now, and even though they're funded by US Military Contractors, they are probably the best source of information around on the Ukraine conflict.
These are actual and precise terms that have been in field manuals for a very long time.
Not only do you lack subject matter expertise, you can't even recognize it.
The use of the term "tactical retrograde" goes back more than 100 years, and is found in on page 177 of the "Annual Report of the Secretary of War" from 1881.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
But a reference to page 177 of a 141-year-old report isn't that.
When the Ukraine side gave up the Azovstal Steel Plant, many called the mass surrender an "evacuation order" or similar euphemistic phrasing.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
The use of the term "tactical retrograde" goes back more than 100 years, and is found in on page 177 of the "Annual Report of the Secretary of War" from 1881.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
But a reference to page 177 of a 141-year-old report isn't that.
When the Ukraine side gave up the Azovstal Steel Plant, many called the mass surrender an "evacuation order" or similar euphemistic phrasing.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
You *literally* claimed that the ISW “invented a new language” for using a term that’s now been shown to be in use for nearly 150 years. Your argument is DOA.
The use of the term "tactical retrograde" goes back more than 100 years, and is found in on page 177 of the "Annual Report of the Secretary of War" from 1881.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
But a reference to page 177 of a 141-year-old report isn't that.
When the Ukraine side gave up the Azovstal Steel Plant, many called the mass surrender an "evacuation order" or similar euphemistic phrasing.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
Hey look, the Russian Ministry of Terrorism invented a new language
“On 30 June, as a step of goodwill, the armed forces of the Russian Federation completed their assigned tasks on Zmiinyi Island and withdrew the garrison stationed there.”
Apparently, “step of goodwill” is Russian for “we kept getting blown up”.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
I don't approve of the petty ad hominems, spamming, and general bad behavior that permeates LetsRun, but if you don't want to be ridiculed, you might first try being less ridiculous.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
I don't approve of the petty ad hominems, spamming, and general bad behavior that permeates LetsRun, but if you don't want to be ridiculed, you might first try being less ridiculous.
Oops. Your bias is showing.
You go after Ernest and his fact based arguments and not the name callers
I don't approve of the petty ad hominems, spamming, and general bad behavior that permeates LetsRun, but if you don't want to be ridiculed, you might first try being less ridiculous.
Oops. Your bias is showing.
You go after Ernest and his fact based arguments and not the name callers
Like the fact that Turkey wouldn’t accept Finland and Sweden for a year? It took a month.
Or the fact that Ukrainian attacks on Snake Island had only set a few patches of grass on fire? Also false.
Or arguing that Russia isn’t a terrorist state when they repeatedly attack civilian targets to instill terror.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
Ukrainian casualties in Severodonetsk weren't "spent for rubble", they were "spent for time". Time during which Russia's forces and armament are being depleted and Ukraine's armament is being upgraded. Same with Mariupol.
Perhaps you should read ISW with an eye for understanding warfare rather than just another reservoir for rhetorical BS.
If 1/10th the effort put into incessant personal attacks went towards understanding world events, you might just contribute something substantive.
But a reference to page 177 of a 141-year-old report isn't that.
When the Ukraine side gave up the Azovstal Steel Plant, many called the mass surrender an "evacuation order" or similar euphemistic phrasing.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
Hey look, the Russian Ministry of Terrorism invented a new language
“On 30 June, as a step of goodwill, the armed forces of the Russian Federation completed their assigned tasks on Zmiinyi Island and withdrew the garrison stationed there.”
Apparently, “step of goodwill” is Russian for “we kept getting blown up”.
"Gesture of Goodwill..." Probably even Carmine LOL'd at that one.
Yes, very thoughtful. I wonder if they left a fruit basket.
Snake Island may go without a garrison from either side for a while. Whoever is there, Ukraine or Russian, is a sitting duck.
This is a huge PR win for the Ukraine, and for the US and other nations who supplied land-based Harpoon missiles. Without these, the Russian station there might have been more tenable.
Ukraine likely lost tens of millions of dollars in equipment attacking the island, though Russian losses must have topped that significantly more, even discounting the Moskva.
We're still seeing that. It wasn't just ISW calling the retreat from Severodonetsk ( and now Lysychansk ) anything but.
If it were really "Strategic Repositioning", it came a bit late for the hundreds or thousands of Ukraine casualties spent for rubble.
Ukrainian casualties in Severodonetsk weren't "spent for rubble", they were "spent for time". Time during which Russia's forces and armament are being depleted and Ukraine's armament is being upgraded. Same with Mariupol.
Perhaps you should read ISW with an eye for understanding warfare rather than just another reservoir for rhetorical BS.
No need for personal insult.
Since I am linking and recommending ISW, I am clearly reading their reports.
It's CBH who didn't know was ISW was.
The position that Severodontsk's defence was a stalling action depleting and tying up Russian resources is half propaganda - the same was said of Mariupol.
But the Ukraine side was also tying up and depleting their own resources.
Severodonetsk was a meat grinder. A withdrawal to Lysychansk sooner could saved a lot of lives and accomplished similar aims.
These "stoic" defences had PR value and, sadly, the huge Ukraine losses incurred were useful in enlisting more foreign military aid, such as HIMARS and self-propelled Howitzers.
You go after Ernest and his fact based arguments and not the name callers
Like the fact that Turkey wouldn’t accept Finland and Sweden for a year? It took a month.
Or the fact that Ukrainian attacks on Snake Island had only set a few patches of grass on fire? Also false.
Or arguing that Russia isn’t a terrorist state when they repeatedly attack civilian targets to instill terror.
Three sentences and three examples of false attribution.
My mention of "a year" was "we might have to wait that long" to find out if and when Finland and Sweden were admitted to NATO.
They have not been admitted. They have been invited to apply ( which I predicted ).
Earlier, I linked an article on the NATO application process and timing considerations. Admission can take up to two years, with some "experts" now guessing it will take roughly six more months.
Turkey is still threatening to withdraw their support if Sweden does not extradite 73 "terrorists".
In terms of burned grass (and a toppled navigation beacon), this referred to visual evidence of results of one of many attacks on Snake Island. In various posts, I clearly note Russian losses there from other attacks.
I have not argued for or against Russia being a terrorist state.
What was said recently is claims that Russia intentionally targeted the Kremenchuk Shopping mall seem deliberate misrepresentation based on there being a strategic site next to the mall, which was also hit, that this is the claimed target, and that weapons used lacked precision. This is not defending Russia, it is adding and clarifying facts.
Like the fact that Turkey wouldn’t accept Finland and Sweden for a year? It took a month.
Or the fact that Ukrainian attacks on Snake Island had only set a few patches of grass on fire? Also false.
Or arguing that Russia isn’t a terrorist state when they repeatedly attack civilian targets to instill terror.
Three sentences and three examples of false attribution.
My mention of "a year" was "we might have to wait that long" to find out if and when Finland and Sweden were admitted to NATO.
They have not been admitted. They have been invited to apply ( which I predicted ).
Earlier, I linked an article on the NATO application process and timing considerations. Admission can take up to two years, with some "experts" now guessing it will take roughly six more months.
Turkey is still threatening to withdraw their support if Sweden does not extradite 73 "terrorists".
In terms of burned grass (and a toppled navigation beacon), this referred to visual evidence of results of one of many attacks on Snake Island. In various posts, I clearly note Russian losses there from other attacks.
I have not argued for or against Russia being a terrorist state.
What was said recently is claims that Russia intentionally targeted the Kremenchuk Shopping mall seem deliberate misrepresentation based on there being a strategic site next to the mall, which was also hit, that this is the claimed target, and that weapons used lacked precision. This is not defending Russia, it is adding and clarifying facts.
Here's what you wrote:
I don't have reason to suspect Sweden and Finland will never be admitted. Just that they won't be admitted without unanimous assent of existing NATO members - and that one member has adamantly said they won't give it.
While in NATO, Turkey seems more allied with Russia than the US these days.
But everyone has their price - and certainly Turkey's acquiescence can be bought. The question is just how much does the US or another partner want to pay to glove-smack Russia?
My guess is "a lot".
We'd probably have to wait a year or so to find out <-- this is in reference to finding out Turkey's price, not for Finland and Sweden to be accepted into NATO. It only took a month for Turkey to be placated, paving the way for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Of course, they already have security guarantees that ensure Russia wouldn't dare touch them(not that it will stop Russia from making a lot of idiotic threats).
Can’t be true. Ernest examined the satellite images of Snake island and determined that there just three patches of burnt grass after the last Ukrainian strike. Maybe if he took 1/10th of the time he spends supporting Russian terrorists and spent it understanding how the world works he wouldn’t be wrong in almost every post he makes.
There is out-sized effort by some Russophobes on making personal attacks which would be better spent discussing and presenting meanginful facts.
This is a thread to discuss the war in the Ukraine, not to endlessly insult.
If I were "wrong in almost every post" we wouldn't have several people fixated for days on nit-picking interpretation of three letters of one post (DOA) while ignoring context and clarifications.
That's how desperate some posters are to disprove a point.
Three sentences and three examples of false attribution.
My mention of "a year" was "we might have to wait that long" to find out if and when Finland and Sweden were admitted to NATO.
They have not been admitted. They have been invited to apply ( which I predicted ).
Earlier, I linked an article on the NATO application process and timing considerations. Admission can take up to two years, with some "experts" now guessing it will take roughly six more months.
Turkey is still threatening to withdraw their support if Sweden does not extradite 73 "terrorists".
In terms of burned grass (and a toppled navigation beacon), this referred to visual evidence of results of one of many attacks on Snake Island. In various posts, I clearly note Russian losses there from other attacks.
I have not argued for or against Russia being a terrorist state.
What was said recently is claims that Russia intentionally targeted the Kremenchuk Shopping mall seem deliberate misrepresentation based on there being a strategic site next to the mall, which was also hit, that this is the claimed target, and that weapons used lacked precision. This is not defending Russia, it is adding and clarifying facts.
Here's what you wrote:
I don't have reason to suspect Sweden and Finland will never be admitted. Just that they won't be admitted without unanimous assent of existing NATO members - and that one member has adamantly said they won't give it.
While in NATO, Turkey seems more allied with Russia than the US these days.
But everyone has their price - and certainly Turkey's acquiescence can be bought. The question is just how much does the US or another partner want to pay to glove-smack Russia?
My guess is "a lot".
We'd probably have to wait a year or so to find out <-- this is in reference to finding out Turkey's price, not for Finland and Sweden to be accepted into NATO. It only took a month for Turkey to be placated, paving the way for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Of course, they already have security guarantees that ensure Russia wouldn't dare touch them(not that it will stop Russia from making a lot of idiotic threats).
Case in point regarding incessant nit-picking attacks.
We have, what, a half dozen posts scrutinizing a month-old post on "probable" timing?
The "probable" time frame referred to is "admission" to NATO. I specifically used the word "admitted" twice.
This is purposeful misinterpretation ad nauseam.
But suppose my guess on timing were wrong? Is that really important to what's going on in Ukraine?
It's a wonder anyone expresses speculation here if it means possibly being ripped apart in mean-spirited posts.
I don't have reason to suspect Sweden and Finland will never be admitted. Just that they won't be admitted without unanimous assent of existing NATO members - and that one member has adamantly said they won't give it.
While in NATO, Turkey seems more allied with Russia than the US these days.
But everyone has their price - and certainly Turkey's acquiescence can be bought. The question is just how much does the US or another partner want to pay to glove-smack Russia?
My guess is "a lot".
We'd probably have to wait a year or so to find out <-- this is in reference to finding out Turkey's price, not for Finland and Sweden to be accepted into NATO. It only took a month for Turkey to be placated, paving the way for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Of course, they already have security guarantees that ensure Russia wouldn't dare touch them(not that it will stop Russia from making a lot of idiotic threats).
Case in point regarding incessant nit-picking attacks.
We have, what, a half dozen posts scrutinizing a month-old post on "probable" timing?
The "probable" time frame referred to is "admission" to NATO. I specifically used the word "admitted" twice.
This is purposeful misinterpretation ad nauseam.
But suppose my guess on timing were wrong? Is that really important to what's going on in Ukraine?
It's a wonder anyone expresses speculation here if it means possibly being ripped apart in mean-spirited posts.
It's very simple, all you have to do is say, "I was wrong when I said that Sweden and Finland's admission to NATO was DOA. I was also wrong when I said it would take about a year to placate Turkey." Instead, you double down on insisting you were right, or misinterpreted. You were neither of those things. You were wrong. If you're unable to admit you were wrong in this simple instance, then your objections to more questionable events is meaningless as nobody can tell if you're just being an obstinate arse, or if you actually have a point.
I'm very good at my job. I still spend a lot of time admitting I'm wrong. It's not a sign of weakness. It's a recognition that sometimes we don't know things, or things don't work the way we expect them to. We learn and move on.
Case in point regarding incessant nit-picking attacks.
We have, what, a half dozen posts scrutinizing a month-old post on "probable" timing?
The "probable" time frame referred to is "admission" to NATO. I specifically used the word "admitted" twice.
This is purposeful misinterpretation ad nauseam.
But suppose my guess on timing were wrong? Is that really important to what's going on in Ukraine?
It's a wonder anyone expresses speculation here if it means possibly being ripped apart in mean-spirited posts.
It's very simple, all you have to do is say, "I was wrong when I said that Sweden and Finland's admission to NATO was DOA. I was also wrong when I said it would take about a year to placate Turkey." Instead, you double down on insisting you were right, or misinterpreted. You were neither of those things. You were wrong. If you're unable to admit you were wrong in this simple instance, then your objections to more questionable events is meaningless as nobody can tell if you're just being an obstinate arse, or if you actually have a point.
I'm very good at my job. I still spend a lot of time admitting I'm wrong. It's not a sign of weakness. It's a recognition that sometimes we don't know things, or things don't work the way we expect them to. We learn and move on.
Do you admit you're wrong when you're not?
Me neither.
In any case, you aren't looking to set the record straight on some important fact.
Instead of discussion on evolving events, I see countless messages devoted to demanding contrition on trivial, strained points.
This is side-tracking whose real intent is to embarrass and harass posters whose views aren't aligned with your own.
I have seen you and others do this many, many times. Letsrun is not better for it.
Ukrainian casualties in Severodonetsk weren't "spent for rubble", they were "spent for time". Time during which Russia's forces and armament are being depleted and Ukraine's armament is being upgraded. Same with Mariupol.
Perhaps you should read ISW with an eye for understanding warfare rather than just another reservoir for rhetorical BS.
No need for personal insult.
Since I am linking and recommending ISW, I am clearly reading their reports.
It's CBH who didn't know was ISW was.
.
I didn't say you weren't reading ISW, I said you weren't reading them for understanding of tactics. That's an observation, not an insult. Claiming insult is a tactic.
The position that Severodontsk's defence was a stalling action depleting and tying up Russian resources is half propaganda - the same was said of Mariupol. But the Ukraine side was also tying up and depleting their own resources. Severodonetsk was a meat grinder. A withdrawal to Lysychansk sooner could saved a lot of lives and accomplished similar aims. These "stoic" defences had PR value and, sadly, the huge Ukraine losses incurred were useful in enlisting more foreign military aid, such as HIMARS and self-propelled Howitzers
The "propaganda" tactic by your telling got Ukraine HIMARS and Howitzers. How is this different from buying time to allow "Ukraine's armament being upgraded" which is fundamental to defending eastern Ukraine?
The Russian withdraw from Snake Island would indicate that the Russians have tacitly conceded that capturing Odessa is no longer a viable objective and that Black Sea naval operations will necessarily be constrained.
