Prigozhin says that Kadyrov has agreed to take take up the
positions held by Wagner while his troops leave.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1654806026087182339
Prigozhin says that Kadyrov has agreed to take take up the. positions held by Wagner while his troops leave.
Here we go again.
>yfw Ukraine finishes the Chechen genocide
It will be Chechens that finish off Kadyrov.
Kadyrov is a general now. He has plenty of Russians and "separatists" to send into the grinder. Chechens have been nothing but glorified barrier troops for months now.
This sounds completely retarded. Akhmat is tiny. I doubt it has 1k people. They will all die in days.
Isn't that great?
sounds fine to me
It's absolutely hilarious
they have quite a lot of volunteers who have signed a contract for 3 months, absolutely untrained people
>""""""""""""""""""""Volunteers""""""""""""""""""""
what surprises you? a lot of people from all over russia go there for an easy contract to pay off loans
There's been a lot of forced conscription in Chechnya
>forced conscription in Chechnya
lol, chechens are not even subject to regular conscription
In practice it's different. Remember those women that protested in Grozny last year? Their men got sent off to die in Ukraine. So they're subject to irregular conscription, one might say.
i thought they were dagestani?
>AKHMAT SIL-ACK
While I think Occam's Razor suggests that this is true that they have indeed by ground to dust, but thinking like a Vatnik, I believe this is some kind of le epic bait. Not that it's going to matter, since Ukies will assault where ever is weak, and Chief Orc forgot that Hohols have NATO ISR.
>Chief Orc forgot that Hohols have NATO ISR.
I've been feeling much the same, and I'm no vatmoron. The "loudness" of this whole thing is pretty notable. And I haven't heard much by way of sycophants for the MoD pushing back on the characterizations Prighozhin's laying down.
I really think they're trying unironically for some type of "maskirovka," but their attempts at such all the way back to the pre-invasion only worked on non-Five Eyes countries in NATO, and since then hasn't much worked on any NATO country, really. NATO ISR directly lined into Ukrainian MoD obviates any loud, overt deception attempts and I just don't know if Russians have fully grasped that.
>The "loudness" of this whole thing is pretty notable.
prig has been loud about literally everything starting from day one
There may be some tomfuckery going on here, who knows, but personally my gut says the pullout is more or less genuine.
Perhaps, but there's also the question of serious to replacement is. Kadyrov likely has even less of a power base than Prigo without his boys, so suddenly throwing them into the meat grinder after spending just about the entire affair carefully preserving them... I guess if he thinks Bakhmut is just a stiff breeze from finally falling, but Prigo clearly doesn't seem to think it is.
The whole idea is retarded, kadyrovs troops are shit in comparison to wagner, which are themselves pretty shit. There's also not nearly enough of them.
Think like a pidor, bros
They know NATO will see everything, and can call them out at any time
So they know they can't fool any audience to whom NATO has broadcasting access
The only people whom they can fool are useful idiots and the home front
That is who the message is for
This isn't a military op. It's political. And political means internal
There'll certainly be a period of adjustment as the AFU adapts to a different fighting and command style
>where's my cock
>say it
>Think like a pidor, bros
You're still not doing it. You have to remember all these people involved have 89 IQ max.
>Wagner failed to take Bakhmut
>Prigozhin will provide us with kino chechen massacre
based retard, love him more by day
he's the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with. that qualifies him for president - president of russia, president of the USA, president of the world even
Many such cases
>president of the USA
You have to be American (as in born in USA) and have lived there for 14 years consecutively. This means that Boris Johnson could run for POTUS if he lived in USA for 14 years straight.
I know you're memeing and all but some people don't know this requirement.
Ehh that rule can be suspended. Obama wasn't born in America after all but America didn't want to appear racist for using that to remove him from office so everyone just looked the other way.
Hawaii is part of the USA, bruh.
>he's the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with
and then wake up 12 hour later in an ice-filled bathtub with a stitched-up wound on your abdomen, your wallet and clothes missing and with a very sore ass.
You can sit down with anyone and drink a beer, you sound comically retarded.
Jokes aside Prigozhin’s upfront nature makes him endearing compared to the rest of the MoD. He also has the phenotype of a bloke you’d meet at a pub
He's got the phenotype of a bloke you’d find passed out outside a pub.
>He also has the phenotype of a bloke you’d meet at a pub
yeah just a normal dude at the pub, nothing to see here
Prigozhin is the bald one mate
ah fuck me
I thought we were talking about chechens here and I jumped to conclusions.
you're a fucking retard
that's kadryov, a bitch made chechen
not prigozhin
>ЗA MOHOЛИT!
you're goddamn right
bro gotta stay drippin even in combat a true homie always attend to his fashion needs even in the ghetto fr
>Ramzan Kadyrov showing his loyalty to Putin and Shoigu
He has the phenotype of a bloke that will try to mug you outside a pub. It's such a typical "subhuman criminal with a communist past" mug.
yeah he's like that kind of bloke that talk drunk shit in a pub and then get his teeth pushed in.
>also has the phenotype of a bloke you’d meet at a pub
Well he is one, look up his past
Meet a lot of nosferatu at the local watering hole?
>Prigozhin’s upfront nature
He's quite upfront about his incompetence. He also owns the agency you work for.
Kadyrov is going to send mobiks and not chechens. Chechens are the comissars who shot you if you step back.
tik tok kino incoming
>when you bought AR500 plates
Somehow I doubt they'll want to put their performance online.
seriously he looks like he's straight out of the norf fc meme. make him a bit fatter maybe
He's one of those bald middle aged dudes that would really fucking benefit from some facial hair
I guess Ukraine is retaking Bakhmut then. The Tiktok brigade is going to get massacred.
>Wagner does most of the work
>Chechens take the glory
>Dumb Russian kids look up to the brave and masculine Chechen fighters
It's like what the USA does with blacks.
You missed
>Russian fags now want to fuck Chechens
>see your russian ladyboy in Grozny
>raise you a furpersona russian nationalist
Urawr!
I am concerned by how many different fetish dogwhistles I was able to recognise from that post
Both for the person that wrote it and myself
aint no fucking way HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Are these people aware what chechens does to gays?
Check his steam account. The femboy is a Chechen boi.
Kadyrov's words in the last video
-the Wagner PMCs are good and brave guys, we need you, and we will give you the best conditions for work.
-Evgeny, you will be on the defensive for now, when we come, we will decide where to send you next
-I am offended that you behave like this, Evgeny, we must justify the desire of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
-you captured only what was easy to capture, and where it was hard, you didn't go there
-you said that you captured Popasnaya, but there were Chechens there too, and the Chechens also captured Mariupol
-we have the strength to replace anyone whose nerves can't stand it
Funny since Kadyrov returned home crying when his personal warlod was killed.
> Be still, my dog of war. I understand your pain. We've all lost someone we love.
Supposedly that cocksucker goatfucker is still alive.
This is going to be interesting. Wagner success was based in suicidal attacks one after another non stop.
The Kadyrov tiktok brigade will never use that tactics with their people. Mariupol was just a siege with no artillery or himars danger for them fighting an enemy tired and with no supplies. The nu chechens are unirnonically not used to this kind of meatgrinder battles..
Aren’t Chechens the king of guerrilla warfare? Wouldn’t it be smarter to place Akhmat Batallion in cities that might be hit by the Ukrainian counteroffensive?
>Aren’t Chechens the king of guerrilla warfare?
no, those are all the guys who either died or left Chechnya and now are fighting for Ukraine against Russia lmao. The current Chechen government are kings of licking the Russian boot.
>Aren’t Chechens the king of guerrilla warfare?
Those hardcore chechens were killed or exiled.
Some of those classic chechens are fighting with Ukraine to keep beheading russians like the old times. They think that Kadyrov is a traitor.
The veterans of those wars are either dead or are fighting for Ukraine.
The same principle applies to Chechens as to other durka durkas. They only fight well during Jihad, while turning into absolute retards while fighting for the "establishment". Look at Chechens that are fighting for the Ukrainians vs the Kadyrovite tik-tik battalions. Look at ISIS vs any of the Arabic state armies. Russian sponsored Chechens would get absolutely slaughtered in Bakhmut, by, among others, Chechens from the Sheikh Mansur Battalion lmao.
John Keegan posits that people are culturally influenced to fight in a certain way, and they perform best when that way happens to be suitable for the battlefield, and perform badly when the battle calls for a different kind of tactic
For example, perhaps the US military is best suited to fighting a conventional and just war, and would do badly at fighting, say, a guerilla war (in which they are the guerillas)
The american revolution was a guerilla war in many ways, though
And a set piece battle in others. Also it was over 200 years ago. Cultural attitudes have changed significantly.
Dunno man, I think the idea that americans would somehow lose a guerilla war because reasons is just about the most retarded idea I've heard all day.
Have Americans ever been, collectively, outnumbered, outgunned, on the back foot, and dependent on a foreign ally to survive? And have they shown that they can fight, take disproportionate losses, retreat, and fight again another day? To fight a dirty war, to have the civilian populace suffer reprisals, to stoop to suicidal tactics, to have to scatter into the hills, have small bands crushed one by one, and be able to bleed and suffer while waiting to inflict a blow? I don't mean the military, but as a nation, to have the political will and morale to support such a war.
Personally I *hope* so. But I don't think modern America has been tested in this way. In fact, what we've seen is the American population get fed up with not having a crushing victory all at once, and get tired of taking casualties even while the casualty ratio favours the USA and while still having the upper hand (Vietnam, Iraq). Modern America seems only to be comfortable fighting like a superpower, not like a guerilla.
War Vs bongs? Civil war?
>War Vs bongs? Civil war?
modern America, anon
I'm not American, clearly, but as I understand it, the American Revolutionary War was mostly quite conventional. The Civil War is more like it in some areas, but even there the front line was well demarcated, more or less - North and South - and both sides manoeuvred large armies in conventional set-piece battles.
I'm not sure there's ever been a war where modern Americans have had to fight like the French Resistance, the Viet Cong or Al Qaeda, hiding amongst the population, or in the hills, avoiding combat, pulling off the odd sabotage, scattering then regrouping. A fight against a far superior occupying power.
This type of war is a subject that's been endlessly fascinating to me. From the Troubles to fiction.
So your big brain post is that Americans would be incapable of fighting a hypothetical guerilla war against a hypothetical superior force that hypothetically doesn't exist. And your evidence for this is some literal who bongistani historian who died in 2012 saying he thinks cultures reflect and determine a "battle affinity" like some strategy game military research and then you apply it to a culture you aren't a part of based off of America not fighting a guerilla war against non-existent superior forces in the modern era. A culture with a thriving sub culture cemtered around literally having a guerilla war with its own government. Good job
>some literal who
if you don't know John Keegan, you're not well-read enough.
>a thriving sub culture cemtered around literally having a guerilla war with its own government
a subculture of larpers wasting their lives preparing for a day that will never come. Zombie apocalypse preppers covered with a thin veneer of political expediency.
Granted what I posited is hypothetical; if it weren't, I would have made the assertion more strongly. But frankly so is this "subculture". As I said,
>America has not ever been put to that particular test in the last century or so
Forcing you off of "having never ever fought a guerilla war" to "having never ever fought a guerilla war in the last hundred years" is a loss in itself. You moved the goalposts. The skidmarks in the grass are right there. You've lost but believe that as long as you keep replying, it means you've won. Nobody lurking this thread thinks you've defended any point whatsoever. You and only you do. I say this as a lurker to the conversation. Take your L and fuck off.
>moved the goalposts
There's that word again.
Like I said:
Sweaty, bringing it up after missing it the first go round isn't "pointing out" anything. It's being slow.
>You've lost but believe that as long as you keep replying, it means you've won
Ah yes, the good ol "if you reply you've lost", always useful to try and pre-empt rebuttals with.
Just shut up already
>Have Americans ever been, collectively, outnumbered, outgunned, on the back foot, and dependent on a foreign ally to survive? And have they shown that they can fight, take disproportionate losses, retreat, and fight again another day? To fight a dirty war, to have the civilian populace suffer reprisals, to stoop to suicidal tactics, to have to scatter into the hills, have small bands crushed one by one, and be able to bleed and suffer while waiting to inflict a blow? I don't mean the military, but as a nation, to have the political will and morale to support such a war.
Dude you are literally describing the american revolution word for word.
>In fact, what we've seen is the American population get fed up with not having a crushing victory all at once, and get tired of taking casualties
Any country is going to get tired after a decade of war, and to be fucking honest we didn't have any business being in vietnam or 2003 iraq in the first place. We had a good justification for going into afghanistan, but since we didn't focus on it we eventually lost control over the situation to the point where staying was politically untenable.
>Modern America seems only to be comfortable fighting like a superpower
That's because we are a superpower, retard.
>Any country is going to get tired after a decade of war
See, this is precisely the kind of blind spot I'm talking about.
Name one fucking country that has conducted a full scale war for ten years that wasn't tired of it by the end.
There was this famous one called "hundred year war"
Yes, and everyone was tired of it long before the end.
Hundred Years War is a misnomer. It was periods of lulls and peaks.
There was no frontline back them, your lord would randomly levy you and send you to fight in France, but it wasn't as dedly as war nowday
It wasn't actually 100 years of war
The country that outlasted yours. In Vietnam they call that war "the American war", as opposed to "the French war" and then "the Chinese war".
They beat off three invaders back to back to back while you're sat here whining about being tired of raping insurgencies from the air for more than ten years.
It is a shame America decided to help the French when the Viet literally tried to paint themselves as a continuation of the Founding Fathers (US)
Not really. Even as I'm sitting here respecting the Viets for going through all that, I still think it was a good war. The Communists *were* drunk off WW2 and hoping to knock down every country and bring it into the light of Communism one by one by one. That had to be stopped somewhere.
Fine. So they were tired then. But they were tired and beat you, while you were tired and bravely ran away.
Perhaps that's the essence of guerilla warfare you fail to perceive - the fortitude to
>hold on when there is nothing in you
>Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
>But they were tired and beat you
Nah, they outlasted us. Very important difference, because we undeniably won that war militarily. Authoritarian countries are great at that sort of warfare because they don't give a shit about the welfare or opinions of their people. Besides, I already said we had no business being there, but cool attempt at shifting goalposts. I feel like you lost the plot of this argument very quickly.
>beat you
But they didn't. The words you use have meaning.
Pointless meme answer. What a great thinker.
You're the one who lost the plot. I asked if America could fight like a guerilla, you said they could and expressed incredulity that anyone would last that long, I showed you an example, and you gave a host of excuses why America's sociocultural makeup is not like Vietnam's. Which brings us back to my original thesis; that America is socioculturally unable to fight like a guerilla, such as in the way Vietnam did.
All your "rebuttals" in fact support my original proposition.
delusional
>You're the one who lost the plot.
No, you tried to claim america has never fought a guerilla war which is blatantly untrue, then tried to shift the goalposts to if countries other than america get tired of long wars (lol), then you shifted goalposts again to america's involvement in vietnam. Just take your L with some grace, retard, we're having a pointless internet argument on an internet korean basket weaving forum.
Vietnam and America both survived a cataclysmic guerilla war against a vastly superior opponent because of extensive outside help, which is why that other anon brought up that we should've had more appreciation for vietnam's situation at the time. We experienced the same shit. So no, you are not correct in thinking america has never fought a guerrilla war.
>b-but whatabout AMERIKA
Why are they like this bro
America lives rent free in some people's heads. Meh, it's all good.
America should live in the hearts and minds of everyone worldwide.
When did America fight guerilla warfare? Maybe some time during the civil war?
Lol where did America, are you retard, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Somalia, Afghanistan? brainwashed much eh?
>unable to follow thread
>HURR DURR BRAINWASHED DURR
Americans...
>you tried to claim america has never fought a guerilla war which is blatantly untrue
You zeroed in on this point while ignoring the context in which it was set. Nonetheless, you try naming one war America fought as guerillas within the last hundred years.
The only point you ever made that wasn't cope was
>That's because we are a superpower.
If you're trying to say it was equally conventional in parts as much as it was equally insurgent in others, or that Vietnam was constantly supplied with copious external funding, training and leadership, I'm well aware of the facts.
True. On home ground, so to speak.
Nonetheless, the point is that America has not ever been put to that particular test in the last century or so. Or even fought under unfriendly skies for that matter.
>You zeroed in on this point while ignoring the context in which it was set.
I didn't zero in on anything lmao, you claimed america can't fight a guerilla type war and I pointed out that it already has.
>Nonetheless, you try naming one war America fought as guerillas within the last hundred years.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the original argument. You're trying to add new qualifiers to this because you've backed yourself into a corner but are unwilling to give up.
>>The only point you ever made that wasn't cope was
>>That's because we are a superpower.
I made you admit that countries other than america do get tired of war. But I guess that somehow doesn't count now that you're seething over nothing.
>I don't think modern America has been tested in this way
>modern America
>MODERN America
Yes, you certainly did point it out, which makes you wrong from the very start.
Learn to read.
I did read your post. This is what you started it off with:
>Have Americans ever been, collectively, outnumbered, outgunned, on the back foot, and dependent on a foreign ally to survive? And have they shown that they can fight, take disproportionate losses, retreat, and fight again another day? To fight a dirty war, to have the civilian populace suffer reprisals, to stoop to suicidal tactics, to have to scatter into the hills, have small bands crushed one by one, and be able to bleed and suffer while waiting to inflict a blow? I don't mean the military, but as a nation, to have the political will and morale to support such a war.
A long, rambling question on if america has ever fought a guerrilla war, which it has. Adding the "modern" qualifier at the end of your post just muddied the first part of your point and made it unclear what you were trying to argue for.
>Adding the "modern" qualifier at the end of your post just muddied the first part of your point
No, it provides context.
You failed to spot the context, that's all.
In all subsequent mentions of the American War of Independence, whether by you or other posters, I've always clarified that the discussion is on modern America.
>No, it provides context.
If you don't see how those two concepts you brought up contradict each other than you really must be high on krokodil.
>In all subsequent mentions of the American War of Independence, whether by you or other posters, I've always clarified that the discussion is on modern America.
Yeah, I'm aware that you tried to make that distinction after I pointed it out to you. And you're trying to accuse me of missing context? Lol.
>after I pointed it out to you
Sweaty, bringing it up after missing it the first go round isn't "pointing out" anything. It's being slow.
I accept your concession.
If it salves your wounded Yank pride to imagine so, by all means.
Just to be clear, 'Modern' refers broadly to the Renaissance onwards. I find it's helpful to point this out. The word you are looking for is "Contemporary'. See how that is an important shift to the conversation?
>Just to be clear, 'Modern' refers broadly to the Renaissance onwards
No it doesn't.
You could start by researching the Vietnam war instead of sticking to the pop-culture version of it.
My guy if you genuinely think the vietnamese weren't already tired of war by the time we arrived then you are probably mainlining krokodil.
After reunification they still had steam to beat back the Chinese and liberate Cambodia.
It's a lot easier to summon up the will to fight when you're the one being attacked
America is a utterly different country compared to revolution.
For better of for worse, the American public does not like war crimes or total war. The closest we’ve seen to American bloodlust as of late was the Iraq War, which has turned into disdain.
Arguably, American Bloodlust exists for Russia right now. But even then, a lot of Americans shill Russia, even politicians
We started off on the backfoot basically every war until Vietnam
Don't think so. The US has been a superpower since WW1 at least.
You obviously do not know anything about US involvement in WWI, the early phases of WWII, and Korea.
Lmao
It really does look like unless Americans have a clear and overwhelming superiority, they refuse to play, and view themselves as "underdogs".
You really think the USA entered WW2 at any kind of relative DISadvantage compared to everyone else? really?!
Yes. The US Army was actually much smaller in 1941 than you realize and lacked a tank on par with European powers. Its fighters were also initially inferior to British, German, and arguably the Japanese Zero. American participation in North Africa was as much about getting the US up to speed to fight in Europe effectively. America had to extensively retrain and reequip in early on in WWII.
While I actually agree with all that, the power of American industry, the US Navy (such as it was), and its unparalleled geostrategic location gave it far more advantages. Certainly it was not considered an underdog, even in prewar assessments.
So you agree the US started off on the backfoot
Not at all.
>'Modern' refers broadly to the Renaissance onwards
That is one definition of "modern". If you choose to, you can adopt that definition for future discussion. It's by no means a universal or even the widest-accepted understanding of the word "modern" in usual discourse however.
>See how that is an important shift to the conversation?
As I said, any time the American War of Independence was brought up, I clarified immediately.
The US entered WWII because of a surprise attack which disabled a sizable chunk of its navy with a relatively small, poorly equipped, and undertrained military. This is starting off on the backfoot
>The US entered WWII because of a surprise attack
>surprise attack
Not really a surprise if you know it will happen in advance.
I'm aware. That's why I called it such
>Japan is invading its surrounding islands. We can suspect they might attack us, the Philippines, or our allies colonies.
>this means the Americans were omnipotent and knew exactly when are where Japan was going to attack.
Retard
The US had been tooling up for war since before hostilities started in 1939.
They already had much of the production in place and had been increasing the troop readiness for years.
That's the first thing they teach you in history college courses
They also teach you that field-specific technical definitions are not the same as how people use words in dinner conversation.
So? See my post just above yours. Pearl Harbor barely evened the odds in the field, the Japs had an industrial and GDP base several times smaller than the USA, and it took all of six months for the USN to take back their initial advantage.
That's not a "back foot". That's barely even equal odds.
The US being wealthy, powerful, and being assailable does not mean it was actually ready to fight
>wealthy, powerful
>unassailable
>g-g-guys gimme a chance I'm the underdog here
The US was not actually perpared to fight and to extensively retrain, reequip, and retool for a war it was not yet ready to fight
Delusional.
The US being powerful does not mean it was prepared to fight
US was absolutely not a superpower by the start of WWI. It was the outcome of WWII (our allies & adversaries all depleted) that placed us firmly in the superpower category
Since WW1, I said, not since "the start of" WW1. The interwar naval treaties firmly cemented the position of the US as at least the equal of the British Empire. What other great powers were there that could say the same? Remember, this is at a time when battleships were regarded the same as nukes today, as indicators of national strength and status.
As for industrial might, the USA had the highest GDP after the British Empire since the late 19th century at least. I'm not sure when the British Empire was overtaken by the USA.
>Wouldn’t it be smarter to place Akhmat Batallion in cities that might be hit by the Ukrainian counteroffensive?
That would work in the Caucasus where Akhmat would look like every other churka in the region, anon.
Perfect way for Putin o kill off the chechens and replace them in the whole region with ethnic russians.
They'd just get replaced by Chechens hostile to Russia.
While he keeps replacing Russians with Tajiks and Buryats?
> ethnic russians
Already tried that twice, didn't work out.
They will leave in 2 weeks
Some animation from Mother Russia
what the fuck is this shit? i'm not sure if this is pro-russian or anti-russia... but i suppose if a russian made it... it has to be able to be twisted as pro-russian to make sure you aren't gulag.
pro-russian or not but comments are full of z-tards and z-bots approving "we will nook everyone to win, we dont care" message they see in it
Russians are perfectly capable of making unsubtly anti-Russian or anti-Putin clips.
If you want to know which side made a video, the quality enough should be a good enough indicator.
e.g. compare and contrast
This is better than the shit Bethesda makes, quality stuff.
But, but my psyop....stop it lol, nobody but your subhuman russian people believe this shit. You know vatnik, you keep doing the same mistake over and over, you still think that everyone is an idiot like in your shithole country.
moron did you even watch the video I was replying to?
It's anti-Putin enough I'm surprised the author managed to make sequels without getting drafted.
>Wagner says they're gonna pull out on 10th and be replaced
>go full ham and capture Bakhmut before 9th
>get hailed as heroes and Putin loves Priggy for saving him and gives him a huge bonus
devilish
That's a Ukrainian Progozhin.
Are 2 battalions of Chechens enough to take Bakhmut?
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1654903986808315904
only 8% left so sure.
>undoubtedly
hahaha Eugene is trollin
Kadyrov signed a letter addressed to Putin with a request to give instructions to relocate the Akhmat units to Bakhmut.
time to update an old classic
Reminds me of that one unit that called for reinforcements on Telegram
I love this war it is sad seeing Ukrainian suffering for this, but it is so energizing seeing russians and soon chechens being removed from the gene pool, its encouraging thinking that having less of this subhumans garbage to deal with, will make the future of this planet a better and safe place to live.
More blood for the blood Gods
Chechenbros…Chechnya has fallen…
I like the fact you included the "pp cage" post, you cheeky cunt. Puts it nicely into perspective.
>Pp cage
Kek
I would post the full pic but it’s his cock in a cage
so this is the "white trad values" rusmorons are fighting for lmao?
Cuckstians need to turn to the true chad religion to fix their problems
Kadyrov elite guard are trained since children to be brutal, they will rape and kill to achieve all objectives, Ukrainians are done.
Oh no, all goats in Bakhmut will be raped and all traffic lights killed. I am demoralized.
Did I understand this correctly? Prigozhin think Kadyrov want to lose his entire power platform blowing his forces holding a town already reduced to rubble, just so Pirgozhin can withdraw what remains of his forces to safety? How noble! How Chechen!
Imagine all the tiktok videos of chechens getting blown up lmao!
Will they be able to take it by the 9th?
I notice vatniks are in wishful-thinking overdrive, going into a masturbation-frenzy on how it's this time literally over for oinkrainians and Bahmut will literally for real fall this time.
>mudslimes are now the bulk of russia's offensive in ukraine
you love to see it
>Bakhmut PT. I: Ukraine vs Mafia mercenaries is over
Bakhmut PT II: Ukraine vs Chechen Mafia warlord private army begins
YESSSS YESSS YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
God I wish there were more mari art in theater.
>I'm leaving
>Ok sure I'll bring my forces to replace you
The fuck is the Russian army? Is it just warlords acting independently? What were the Chechens doing before that they can just get up and leave for Bakmut? I'm so confused.
>What were the Chechens doing before
Tiktok vids
Incidentally I think volunteering the Chechens is some hilarious trolling by Prigozhin after they talked so much shit.
>Oh I'm sure the brave manly Chechen warriors will have no trouble filling our shoes, they'll surely take Bakhmut in a flash. isn't that right Kadyrov?
>Y-yeah of course! Who do you think we are! We're the best warriors in Russia!
Does anyone have that screenshot of Kadyrov raging at someone shitposting about him? He says something about they have the money to fly there and he's not opposed to flying across the world to kick some trolls ass
>My brother, Kadyrov
>when I said we must BLOW UP, I didn't mean like this.
Hey PrepHole, is this Wagner's motto?