- Joined
- Aug 14, 1999
- Messages
- 131,122
- Location
- Hollywood CA
- Caf Award
- Caf Lifetime Achievement Award 2017
This is supposedly the latest : The Russians don't seem to be making much progress in the present compared with the early months of the war.

At this point, I agree. It is mostly symbolic stuff for both.Bakhmut seems a pointless hill to die on for both sides.
At this point, I agree. It is mostly symbolic stuff for both.
I'm no expert but an age old tactic was to recommend never completely encircling an enemy - as they only have one tactic left - dig in and fight to the death.Assuming Ukraine spring offensive in the south is successful, isn't it better to cut off Crimea, instead of trying to capture it?
I mean you read the second paragraph right? No one said it was dumb.It is probably symbolic for the Russians... But for the UA it is not dumb at all to keep Russia concentrated on Bakhmut, this means men and ammunition being spent by the Russians that they won't have available for more important battles. Time is on Ukraine's side...
I'm no expert but an age old tactic was to recommend never completely encircling an enemy - as they only have one tactic left - dig in and fight to the death.
The idea was to leave a narrow escape route and monitor it. Infantry escaping in a panic will help overwhelm the logistics of your enemy. You just intervene if they are trying an ordered retreat with hardware....then you lay into them like the road back to Baghdad in the gulf war...you've created a target rich environment across a narrow field of operations and can cherry pick the juiciest targets
It's a quote from Sun Tzu "When surrounding an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard ".I'm no expert but an age old tactic was to recommend never completely encircling an enemy - as they only have one tactic left - dig in and fight to the death.
I'm no expert but an age old tactic was to recommend never completely encircling an enemy - as they only have one tactic left - dig in and fight to the death.
The idea was to leave a narrow escape route and monitor it. Infantry escaping in a panic will help overwhelm the logistics of your enemy. You just intervene if they are trying an ordered retreat with hardware....then you lay into them like the road back to Baghdad in the gulf war...you've created a target rich environment across a narrow field of operations and can cherry pick the juiciest targets
I'm no expert but an age old tactic was to recommend never completely encircling an enemy - as they only have one tactic left - dig in and fight to the death.
So, do we think he's a complete dumbass or that he's just on the Russian side?
It depends a bit on the relation of the fighting troops/countries. WW2 in France was relatively civilised - mostly surrendering troops where taken POW and didn't get harmed. If you know that you can expect such a treatment you are more likely to surrender than in a situation like Mariupol where the encircled troops had to expect being killed either way.I'm not such a huge fan of old military adages or universal "truths". This particular one gets repeated a lot, but Germany basically conquered France in weeks in WW2 through encirclement. And all of the biggest German victories in the invasion of the Soviet Union were based on total encirclement, as was perhaps the turning-point of the war at Stalingrad. If you've truly trapped someone to the degree that they can't escape in any way, then you've also cut off their supply lines, and in modern warfare you can't usually win then.
This adage might have worked in ancient warfare, but I just don't think it applies that much anymore. Then again plenty of the greatest ancient victories came through encirclement as well (hello Cannae), so maybe it was never that profound to begin with.
It depends a bit on the relation of the fighting troops/countries. WW2 in France was relatively civilised - mostly surrendering troops where taken POW and didn't get harmed. If you know that you can expect such a treatment you are more likely to surrender than in a situation like Mariupol where the encircled troops had to expect being killed either way.
Arguably Stalingrad was completely cut off very late in the battle as it was tried and to some degree worked to supply the encircled German troops by the air force. It didn't work as well as the Reich would have needed, but it was that small lifeline that wasn't cut off for a long time.Okay so that explains the one example, but it definitely doesn't explain the other two. Most POWs taken from both of those died, though more from malice with the Nazis (some malice from the Soviets as well, though it also had a lot to do with the 6th army just dying already from starvation, disease and the cold).
He's more in the attention seeking "aren't I alternative" mold, who thinks its important to combat the woke mind virus, or more broadly, say things that counter prevailing narratives, and in the process draw attention to himself.
I thought this was some sort of infrared camera at first, but no, that dude is actually on fire.
The videos from Vuhledar keep coming during the last week or so, it’s been a total massacre for Russian forces thus far as their offensive is now fully underway on all fronts…They have learned shit all from Kiev offensive only now in those scrap metals you have burning Russian mobiks instead of professional army that tried marching on Kiev.
This guy is just trying to get himself shoved off a balcony isn't he.
In another post he explained his theory that there is the real Putin and (at least one) doppelganger who takes care of public events, and he had some arguments for this theory. So here he probably means that the real Putin is still living and in control, but might die or become incapable to act, and then he might be completely replaced by his doppelganger if someone wants to cover that up.He has arguments that Putin “exists”? Wut?
I thought this was some sort of infrared camera at first, but no, that dude is actually on fire.
I thought this was some sort of infrared camera at first, but no, that dude is actually on fire.
In another post he explained his theory that there is the real Putin and (at least one) doppelganger who takes care of public events, and he had some arguments for this theory. So here he probably means that the real Putin is still living and in control, but might die or become incapable to act, and then he might be completely replaced by his doppelganger if someone wants to cover that up.
Well yes, but Girkin is one of the most trustworthy Russian sources, he actually does oppose the official propaganda quite often and most of his analysis is on point and often proven by the ongoing events.
Some Russians must be so far down the propaganda rabbit hole that they've lost all grip on reality.
Well yes, but Girkin is one of the most trustworthy Russian sources, he actually does oppose the official propaganda quite often and most of his analysis is on point and often proven by the ongoing events.
Of course he isn't part of the inner Kremlin circle so he is speculating about Putin, but I wouldn't dismiss his theories. They are far more grounded in reality than the official Russian propaganda.
Someone should take their grandma back home..
Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. I don't really think it is, but I wouldn't bet much on that.I know as far as Russian commentators go he's more grounded but this one is ridiculous. Do you really think it's possible the Russians have a guy who looks and sounds exactly like Putin that they wheel out for public appearances and could use him to replace Putin if he was killed/died and no one would notice?
Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. I don't really think it is, but I wouldn't bet much on that.
Well, elaborate then.See no discussion here on the Ukraine corruption. Pretty concerning if you ask me
See no discussion here on the Ukraine corruption. Pretty concerning if you ask me