Prigozhin says that Kadyrov has agreed to take take up the. positions held by Wagner while his troops leave.

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

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here we go again.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >yfw Ukraine finishes the Chechen genocide

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It will be Chechens that finish off Kadyrov.

      This sounds completely moronic. Akhmat is tiny. I doubt it has 1k people. They will all die in days.

      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.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    This sounds completely moronic. Akhmat is tiny. I doubt it has 1k people. They will all die in days.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that great?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      sounds fine to me

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that great?

      It's absolutely hilarious

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        they have quite a lot of volunteers who have signed a contract for 3 months, absolutely untrained people

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >""""""""""""""""""""Volunteers""""""""""""""""""""

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            what surprises you? a lot of people from all over russia go there for an easy contract to pay off loans

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              There's been a lot of forced conscription in Chechnya

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forced conscription in Chechnya
                lol, chechens are not even subject to regular conscription

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                i thought they were dagestani?

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AKHMAT SIL-ACK

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Chief Orc forgot that Hohols have NATO ISR.
      I've been feeling much the same, and I'm no vatBlack person. 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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The "loudness" of this whole thing is pretty notable.
        prig has been loud about literally everything starting from day one

        There may be some tomfrickery going on here, who knows, but personally my gut says the pullout is more or less genuine.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The whole idea is moronic, kadyrovs troops are shit in comparison to wagner, which are themselves pretty shit. There's also not nearly enough of them.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Chief Orc forgot that Hohols have NATO ISR.
      I've been feeling much the same, and I'm no vatBlack person. 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.

      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

      https://i.imgur.com/PuqdDem.jpg

      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..

      There'll certainly be a period of adjustment as the AFU adapts to a different fighting and command style

      https://i.imgur.com/fSviMqT.png

      you're goddamn right

      >where's my wiener
      >say it

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Think like a pidor, bros
        You're still not doing it. You have to remember all these people involved have 89 IQ max.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Wagner failed to take Bakhmut

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Prigozhin will provide us with kino chechen massacre
    based moron, love him more by day

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Many such cases

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hawaii is part of the USA, bruh.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can sit down with anyone and drink a beer, you sound comically moronic.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's got the phenotype of a bloke you’d find passed out outside a pub.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Prigozhin is the bald one mate

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            ah frick me
            I thought we were talking about chechens here and I jumped to conclusions.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          you're a fricking moron
          that's kadryov, a b***h made chechen
          not prigozhin

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ЗA MOHOЛИT!

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          you're goddamn right

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          bro gotta stay drippin even in combat a true homie always attend to his fashion needs even in the ghetto fr

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ramzan Kadyrov showing his loyalty to Putin and Shoigu

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah he's like that kind of bloke that talk drunk shit in a pub and then get his teeth pushed in.

      • 11 months ago
        Aoymous

        >also has the phenotype of a bloke you’d meet at a pub
        Well he is one, look up his past

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Meet a lot of nosferatu at the local watering hole?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Prigozhin’s upfront nature
        He's quite upfront about his incompetence. He also owns the agency you work for.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kadyrov is going to send mobiks and not chechens. Chechens are the comissars who shot you if you step back.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    tik tok kino incoming

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >when you bought AR500 plates

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Somehow I doubt they'll want to put their performance online.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    seriously he looks like he's straight out of the norf fc meme. make him a bit fatter maybe

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      He's one of those bald middle aged dudes that would really fricking benefit from some facial hair

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess Ukraine is retaking Bakhmut then. The Tiktok brigade is going to get massacred.

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You missed
      >Russian gays now want to frick Chechens

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >see your russian ladyboy in Grozny
        >raise you a furpersona russian nationalist
        Urawr!

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        aint no fricking way HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are these people aware what chechens does to gays?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Check his steam account. The femboy is a Chechen boi.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Funny since Kadyrov returned home crying when his personal warlod was killed.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Be still, my dog of war. I understand your pain. We've all lost someone we love.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Supposedly that wienersucker goatfricker is still alive.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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..

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The veterans of those wars are either dead or are fighting for Ukraine.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The same principle applies to Chechens as to other durka durkas. They only fight well during Jihad, while turning into absolute morons 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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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)

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The american revolution was a guerilla war in many ways, though

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              And a set piece battle in others. Also it was over 200 years ago. Cultural attitudes have changed significantly.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dunno man, I think the idea that americans would somehow lose a guerilla war because reasons is just about the most moronic idea I've heard all day.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Aoymous

                War Vs bongs? Civil war?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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 frick off.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just shut up already

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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 fricking 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, moron.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Name one fricking country that has conducted a full scale war for ten years that wasn't tired of it by the end.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                There was this famous one called "hundred year war"

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, and everyone was tired of it long before the end.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hundred Years War is a misnomer. It was periods of lulls and peaks.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It wasn't actually 100 years of war

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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)

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                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.

                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!’

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >beat you
                But they didn't. The words you use have meaning.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pointless meme answer. What a great thinker.

                >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.

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                delusional

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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, moron, 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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >b-but whatabout AMERIKA
                Why are they like this bro

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                America lives rent free in some people's heads. Meh, it's all good.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                America should live in the hearts and minds of everyone worldwide.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                When did America fight guerilla warfare? Maybe some time during the civil war?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol where did America, are you moron, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Somalia, Afghanistan? brainwashed much eh?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >unable to follow thread
                >HURR DURR BRAINWASHED DURR
                Americans...

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

                You could start by researching the Vietnam war instead of sticking to the pop-culture version of it.

                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.

                It's a lot easier to summon up the will to fight when you're the one being attacked

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concession.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                If it salves your wounded Yank pride to imagine so, by all means.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just to be clear, 'Modern' refers broadly to the Renaissance onwards
                No it doesn't.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You could start by researching the Vietnam war instead of sticking to the pop-culture version of it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                After reunification they still had steam to beat back the Chinese and liberate Cambodia.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's a lot easier to summon up the will to fight when you're the one being attacked

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                America is a utterly different country compared to revolution.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                We started off on the backfoot basically every war until Vietnam

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't think so. The US has been a superpower since WW1 at least.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You obviously do not know anything about US involvement in WWI, the early phases of WWII, and Korea.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?!

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you agree the US started off on the backfoot

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not at all.

                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?

                >'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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The US entered WWII because of a surprise attack
                >surprise attack
                Not really a surprise if you know it will happen in advance.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm aware. That's why I called it such

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.
                moron

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just to be clear, 'Modern' refers broadly to the Renaissance onwards
                No it doesn't.

                That's the first thing they teach you in history college courses

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They also teach you that field-specific technical definitions are not the same as how people use words in dinner conversation.

                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

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The US being wealthy, powerful, and being assailable does not mean it was actually ready to fight

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >wealthy, powerful
                >unassailable
                >g-g-guys gimme a chance I'm the underdog here

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Delusional.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The US being powerful does not mean it was prepared to fight

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perfect way for Putin o kill off the chechens and replace them in the whole region with ethnic russians.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      They'd just get replaced by Chechens hostile to Russia.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      While he keeps replacing Russians with Tajiks and Buryats?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      > ethnic russians

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Already tried that twice, didn't work out.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They will leave in 2 weeks

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some animation from Mother Russia

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      what the frick 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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is better than the shit Bethesda makes, quality stuff.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Black person 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.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's a Ukrainian Progozhin.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are 2 battalions of Chechens enough to take Bakhmut?

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1654903986808315904

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      only 8% left so sure.

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >undoubtedly
    hahaha Eugene is trollin

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kadyrov signed a letter addressed to Putin with a request to give instructions to relocate the Akhmat units to Bakhmut.

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    time to update an old classic

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Reminds me of that one unit that called for reinforcements on Telegram

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous
  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    More blood for the blood Gods

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Chechenbros…Chechnya has fallen…

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like the fact you included the "pp cage" post, you cheeky c**t. Puts it nicely into perspective.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Pp cage
      Kek

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I would post the full pic but it’s his wiener in a cage

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      so this is the "white trad values" rusBlack folk are fighting for lmao?

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cuckstians need to turn to the true chad religion to fix their problems

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kadyrov elite guard are trained since children to be brutal, they will rape and kill to achieve all objectives, Ukrainians are done.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh no, all goats in Bakhmut will be raped and all traffic lights killed. I am demoralized.

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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!

  31. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine all the tiktok videos of chechens getting blown up lmao!

  32. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  33. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mudslimes are now the bulk of russia's offensive in ukraine
    you love to see it

  34. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      God I wish there were more mari art in theater.

  35. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm leaving
    >Ok sure I'll bring my forces to replace you
    The frick 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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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!

  36. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >My brother, Kadyrov
      >when I said we must BLOW UP, I didn't mean like this.

  37. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hey /k/, is this Wagner's motto?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *