Russia just underwent through a humiliating defeat in Bakhmut

Russia just underwent through a humiliating defeat in Bakhmut

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bakhmut is essentially just sunk cost fallacy. Bakhmut was only important in early on the in the war, but not now.
    >b-but why does Ukraine keep defending it
    Because its a kill box. You do not let the enemy take land without a fight, especially if its something they want. You need to do that to ensure they would lose their momentum.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >You do not let the enemy take land without a fight
      That makes no sense, why would you waste men and resources on a place with no strategic value? Either it had strategic value and they lost it, or it had 0 strategic value and Ukrainians were moronic enough to defend it.
      >And considering they are already stretched for resources, I doubt they had extra to just waste on being "ironic" with the territory they considered important.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Despite what russian shills want you to believe, Ukrainians are killing russians pretty much for free in bakhmut, so it's only logical to continue doing so until all the fortifications are destroyed and unusable.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The ukranus is clenching

          Ukrainians are reporting heavy casualties themselves though, like that video from the Ukie recon guy saying they lose about a battalions worth of people a week.

          Bakhmut is essentially just sunk cost fallacy. Bakhmut was only important in early on the in the war, but not now.
          >b-but why does Ukraine keep defending it
          Because its a kill box. You do not let the enemy take land without a fight, especially if its something they want. You need to do that to ensure they would lose their momentum.

          >You need to do that to ensure they would lose their momentum.
          This is the only plausible justification. I still think the more likely reason is that both sides are slavs autistically fixating on it rather than any real strategic planning.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >video from the Ukie recon guy saying they lose about a battalions worth of people a week.
            That was confirmed fake, unlike wagner video with countless dead ziggers. Just as i said - free kills.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Ukraine is reporting
            Ukraine knows Russia is listening jackass. Bait that’s not tasty does not get bitten.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          But it has value:
          If Ziggers get it they keep pushing and it will be harder to stop them onwards so you will have to do it anyway.

          If they dont get it, they will keep pushing and get casualties and 130+ armored vehilcles in a day trying to breakthrough.

          Where they ARE pushing, and they have proven they have commited to claming Bakhmut, is also everwhere else they are not pushing. Meaning if you keep them there, they cant be doing it elsewhere on the front.

          The point is to bleed your enemy dry. If they keep persisting on one area that has no strategic advantage, then you have to bleed through some way or another. For an invasion force, attacking a place with no strategic advantage is a good way to lose momentum.

          So what is the next position they will likely go to after this?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There's another line of defense behind bakhmut. Originally, it was supposed to be there after bakhmut falls in the first months of the war.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              So this second line of defence will be even harder to take now that Ukies gained a few extra months of time to prepare?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Probably, nobody expected bakhmut to last this long. The city was expected to be taken within the early days of the invasion and had Ukrainian troops fall behind another line of defense. Bakhmut is essentially a buffer between that line of defense and RU forces.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No because Ukraine lost all it's best soldiers in Bakhmut

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Thats actually the 4th line by this point. The first Post Bakhmut defensive line is what abruptly cut down western momentum from Russia near Vasuivka.

              [...]
              [...]
              So what is the next position they will likely go to after this?

              In sequence, and mind you, these are all targets of similiar size, urbanization and fortification as Bakhmut and Soledar:

              >Chasiv Yar
              >The massive urban sprawl around Zalizne
              >Kostiantynivka (Almost the size of Severodonetsk)
              >Druzkivka
              >Kramatorsk, which is more formidably fortified than anything Russia has even come near to at this point, given that it was the line where Ukraine expected to decide the course of the war.
              >Sloviansk: Not quite as well fortified but near it.
              >Retaking Lyman and Izium
              >Dozens of smaller cities in west Donetsk Oblast.

              Outside of the cities, the Donetsk oblast filled with farmland seperated from eachother by rivers. Its quite a nightmarish region to attack.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Despite what russian shills want you to believe, Ukrainians are killing russians pretty much for free in bakhmut, so it's only logical to continue doing so until all the fortifications are destroyed and unusable.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But it has value:
        If Ziggers get it they keep pushing and it will be harder to stop them onwards so you will have to do it anyway.

        If they dont get it, they will keep pushing and get casualties and 130+ armored vehilcles in a day trying to breakthrough.

        Where they ARE pushing, and they have proven they have commited to claming Bakhmut, is also everwhere else they are not pushing. Meaning if you keep them there, they cant be doing it elsewhere on the front.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The point is to bleed your enemy dry. If they keep persisting on one area that has no strategic advantage, then you have to bleed through some way or another. For an invasion force, attacking a place with no strategic advantage is a good way to lose momentum.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Fighting is inevitable, may as well fight where you have an advantage such as Bakmut. Choose the right battles, Ukraine chose bakmut, Russia is funneled there by logistical aspects.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Have you ever heard the term, defense in depth? That's why.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Right to exsplain in most brain dead terms. For ukrane yes bakhmut held no strategic value after Izum fell but then russians started showing they for some fricking reason still wanted that town so they did bunker down and held it and they saw its was basecly curbing russian offense( russians keep throwing at it resources while other fronts don't get supplied as much) they kept killing russians to to their advantage and kept destroying their armor where we saw they had to pull out btr-50 out of storage. In other words ukrane only strategic impact here was that it was killing gayner and russian army effectly till they turned the town to rubble

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        imagine you are doing BJJ with a man and he is trying to secure a position on you that is actually worth very little strategically. he expends 50% of his energy to get this position and you expend 15%. it was worth it to resist even if it wasn't a decisive position? obviously yes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake
        If Russia is willing to sacrifice thousands to take Bakhmut and it costs Ukraine next to nothing to defend it, why would they retreat when they get to decimate Russian forces for free?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ukraine losing Bakhmut, means losing Donbass. WHY? Because it’s heavily fortified last line of defense.Ukraine does not have the ammunition or manpower desired to defend Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. This is why Ukrainians are determined to protect Bakhmut at any cost.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's more so because of the PR hit. Bakhmut has been fought over for 9 months, it looks terrible for Zelensky and Ukraine that they couldn't hold it and shows Russia is still in the game. Ukraine needs the West to believe they can still win this to keep getting weapons or at some point they'll lose patience and tell them to negotiate.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's more so because of the PR hit. Bakhmut has been fought over for 9 months, it looks terrible for Zelensky and Ukraine that they couldn't hold it and shows Russia is still in the game. Ukraine needs the West to believe they can still win this to keep getting weapons or at some point they'll lose patience and tell them to negotiate.

            Not sure if samegayging or not, but bakhmut is not the last line of defense in Donetsk. Infact, there is another line of defense thats been there since last spring. Bakhmut holds no significant role aside from being a meat grinder to any invading russian forces.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is English not your first language? Are you an actual russian shill?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Please understand that this was purely propaganda. Bakhmut was in Russia's favor. They outnumbered Ukrainian artillery 4:1 and they were spending penals in exchange for professional Ukrainian troops.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >costs Ukraine next to nothing to defend it
          It cost them more than that if they ultimately retreat. These copes are getting nonsensical.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What it costs Russia is infinitely more. Do you know what a Pyrrhic Victory is or not? The point of Bakhmut is to bleed the Russian forces and buy time for Ukraine to launch a counterattack.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        to win the ukranians need to kill russians at a rate of 3 to 1, they estimated they were killing them at a rate of 7 to 1 at bakhmut, s fight on as long as the exchange rate is favourable, especially as it ties down russians frm attacking elsewhere

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because Wagner was PAID to take Bakhmut and thus their contract is on the line. This is fricking GREED, plain and simple.

        So let Wagner fricking DIE for the pursuit of avarice.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why are you assuming the value must be symmetric?
        Bakhmut had considerable defensive value due to the industrial facilities that gave a massive defensive buff, but those facilities aren't mobile so they don't give a corresponding offensive buff. The 9-month-long puzzle has been why the frick has russia been so hell bent on assaulting one of the strongest parts of the line? We haven't seen that sort of pig-headed senselessness since Verdun, not even hyperdimensional Pisky.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Vatniks are idiots. They automatically think "MUH VICTORY" automatically means Ukraine will surely fall, instead of correctly recognizing Bakhmut is a huge Pyrrhic Victory/Trap.

          >"Sir, the Ukrainians have Attritioned us to defeat!"
          >"But I was Attritioning them!"
          >"I know. The irony is most unfortunate. Our strategy has been used against us."
          >"IRONIC?! *shoots minion in ass* YOUR BUTTHOLE IS IRONIC!"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >one of the strongest parts of the line
          Now that the "strongest part of the line" has fallen Russia can roll up the rest at their leisure. Simple as, and obvious as frick for those of use with triple digit iq's.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >why would you waste men and resources on a place with no strategic value
        because the enemy is making the mistake of wasting even more resources to take it

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Oh yeah well so did I but you don't see me whining about it.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >russia gained land and completed its objective
    >ukraine lost land and failed to win
    a victory is a victory and a loss is a loss. deal with it. i'll be so glad when this conflict is concluded so you insufferable wiener sucking propagandist homosexuals can finally frick off for a while

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      And what is the strategic advantage of that land, moron? How does it help with russia's offensive in the east? What advantage does it provide them in the long run?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        who the frick even cares. when is ukraine going to take moscow? when? ukraine loses a city and that is a great ukrainian victory as their troops shuffle off to dig more trenches outside of town.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          it's a junction of some roads that don't really matter anymore. no one knows why Russia broke it's own back on it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >who the frick cares
          >who cares if the objective wasn't strategic, a win is a win even if they lose it later on due to the frick ups later on
          Again, what strategic advantage does it provide for russia?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            again, you lost. deal with it.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              And what is the significance of that loss?how does that impact the russian army and their advances in Donetsk?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i have already told you i do not care. frick off

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But yet you cared enough to voice your opinion about the matter. How does that loss influence the russian advances in Donetsk? What strategic advantage does that city provides?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Let it go Anon. Vatnik shills need something for copium after a year of contant failures.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I cared enough to say I don't care and to tell you to frick off. That's the extent of it. Read the line of posts you fricking moron. All that was originally stated is "you win some you lose some" and you're here like some autistic frothing at the mouth homosexual going on about "buh buh muh strategic advantages."

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You entered this conversation homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i entered the thread, you entered this conversation you dumb c**t

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >has zero confidence in his beliefs
                >knows his beliefs can’t hold up to the most basic of criticisms
                >bitches and moans before rage quitting the argument after getting bent over and fricked like a cheap prostitute via basic follow up questions

                Cya homosexual, don’t come back

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lmao frick off. you homosexuals are grasping at straws

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Mad cause bad

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >how does successfully capturing land in an offensive help with the offensive
        These /k/ope homosexuals I swear get stupider by the day.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          How does bakhmut provide that strategic advantage? It doesn't look like it provides any momentum aside from a symbolic victory.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Can you clarify which parts of south east Ukraine are strategic and which are not?

            Was Mariupol strategic? If none of them is strategic, how exactly is it a problem that Russia is conquering them?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Because it bogs down your army from making significant gains in other areas of significance. Mariupol was moronic because russia went in and got alot of their BTGs bogged down in one area when it can be used in other areas. Same with bakhmut, a bunch of BTGs gets bogged down in one area, which caused a stagnation in their advances in other areas. Which will create an opening due to the military having fatigues in their offensive capabilities.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                At the end of the day, Russia is conquering territory, which is precisely their plan.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And how will they reinforce that territory, anon? How will they reinforce that tactical gain if there is no strategic gain?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                if i was a betting anon i'd say those sneaky ruskies might just use the methods they're already using. their troops and supplies aren't getting tossed out of planes quite yet and things aren't exactly spawning in either. so whichever supply lines they already have will probably be how they reinforce the area

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ukraine took back what 2k square km in one offensive? Don't you have to say something nice about that then? Also yes, it's gonna happen again and sooner than some of you homosexuals think

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I thought the plan was to prevent NATO expansion not revitalize it

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The plan is to kick NATO out of eastern Ukraine, to force them to retreat behind the Dniepr.

                So far it's going in the right direction, for Russia, but slowly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Our plan is to push NATO back!

                >NATO Casualties: 0
                Russian casualties: Many fields full

                Might wanna rethink fighting NATO

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The plan is to deny NATO the ability to station heavy equipment east of the Dniepr.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I thought it was De-Nazifaction, or De-Satanifcation? The SMO goals changed again?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Congratulations, you now extended nato's borders even closer to moscow.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How so? If they succeed in denying NATO access to eastern Ukraine, the Dniepr will act as a formidable natural border.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Finland, homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cope, homosexual

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Finland in NATO is bad but not as bad as east Ukraine in NATO, for various geographical and cultural reasons.

                Aside from the terrain being different, the number one thing Russia is afraid of is the "weaponization" of Ukrainians remote-controlled by the US (which is precisely what is happening right now actually).

                It's going to be much more difficult for the US to convince Finnish authorities to force Finnish youth to go die in a frozen trench for fight Russia.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Look at a map of Finland….moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks a river would stop nato from glassing Russia
                Sorry man nato isn't playing with the same limitations you are

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Russia is not fighting nato or shit like you would have been jdam'd

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >take land
          >lose momentum immediately afterwards
          >take land
          >able to utilize its strategic significance to increase your momentum later
          Taking land does not matter if its insignificant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine must have really shit command, sending all those troops to insignificant place that doesn’t matter anyway. Or you’re just /k/oping haha

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >still spams the same image without knowing what the markings mean
              Are you stupid? Also, its insignificant only for russia because it provides no strategic significance in their advances. It was originally supposed to be significant when izyum was a thing, but now its not.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > Also, its insignificant only for russia
                So it’s a significant loss for Ukraine?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No, because the city is only a buffer between another line of defense and RU forces. The city is not significant to Ukraine or russia aside from symbolic and Ukrainians wanting to drain russia of resources. If Russian troops are bogged in one area, then they will not advance in another area.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > If Russian troops are bogged in one area, then they will not advance in another area.
                You said bakhmut has no strategic value for Russia. How can that be, if taking the city lets them advance in other areas? Why is your /k/ope so bad, is this a false flagging Z troll?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But I am not saying that the city can lead to more advances to other areas? Are you so moronic that you think that I am talking about bakhmut when it comes to russia allocation of resources? I will explain it to you /leftypol/ homosexual
                >russians are bogged down in bakhmut(a non strategic city after izyum got recaptured)
                >that means they will not focus resources on other areas in Donetsk or southern Ukraine
                >russians will keep sending more and more troops, which will overextend their logistics and momentum, especially after they capture the city
                The city itself holds no significance aside from bogging down Russian forces from spreading to other areas in Donetsk. If they keep sending troops to bakhmut, then they will not send troops to other aspects of eastern Ukraine.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > The city itself holds no significance aside from bogging down Russian forces from spreading to other areas in Donetsk
                So it’s strategically significant for Russia to get un-bogged down in bakhmut? Or winning in bakhmut is not strategically significant? Which one is it, Down’s syndrome boy?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe you can just not pretend to be moronic, homosexual. The city itself hold no strategic significance, it doesn't provide an advantage to russian forces, especially after they lost izyum. If russia keeps sending more forces, they will lose their momentum in the grand scheme of things because of overextension of logistics and personnel will lead to the disruption of their offensive capabilities. Going all in is moronic for a invading force. Especially in a place that holds no strategic significance.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You claimed Bakhmut is keeping Russians bogged down from advancing in other areas. In light of this, how is winning in Bakhmut not strategically significant for Russia? Keep embarrassing yourself with this Ukrainian shill script that is clearly not up to the task lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Bakhmut has already served it purpose for months, to delay the advance of Russian troops to build defenses behind it. The fact it’s held out this long is an embarrassment

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Bakhmut delayed the Russian offensive enough for us to build real defenses elsewhere

                Because Russia has lost the war. It can no longer conduct offensive operations, it cannot do the last logistical leg to supply its massive front line because it is out of lorries and tankers. Every day from now on Russia deliver less and less food fuel and ammunition to its front line troops. They are already trying o move artillery shells in scooby doo vans. Its over. The first Russian troops on the front line will be starving by may at this rate. The Russians squandered their last offensive capable units on nothing. The war is over. Ryssia lost. Russia is Ukraines b***h now, the mud is in early, the front won;t move for 30 days because of that. The Russian troops won;t even be able to do counterbattery. Russia has lost the war.

                >Russia can no longer conduct offensive operations
                It’s like Schrödingers /k/ope in here

                Are you going to call off the defensive lines being constructed north of Kiev if they can’t even conduct offensives any more?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you going to call off the defensive lines being constructed north of Kiev if they can’t even conduct offensives any more?
                A murderous hobo can still kill you even at your house. If you focus that many troops and you don't rotate them, then that means they will not be focus on other fronts. Their availability after the operation will be limited because troops will need to have rest and resupplied until the next deployment or movement.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you going to call off the defensive lines being constructed north of Kiev if they can’t even conduct offensives any more?
                might as well actually. Russia has lost the war.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Russia has lost the war. It can no longer conduct offensive operations, it cannot do the last logistical leg to supply its massive front line because it is out of lorries and tankers. Every day from now on Russia deliver less and less food fuel and ammunition to its front line troops. They are already trying o move artillery shells in scooby doo vans. Its over. The first Russian troops on the front line will be starving by may at this rate. The Russians squandered their last offensive capable units on nothing. The war is over. Ryssia lost. Russia is Ukraines b***h now, the mud is in early, the front won;t move for 30 days because of that. The Russian troops won;t even be able to do counterbattery. Russia has lost the war.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It can no longer conduct offensive operations
                18.02 GMT
                Russia loses at least 130 tanks and APCs in Vuhledar in 'biggest tank battle in Ukraine war' – report
                Russia has lost at least 130 tanks and armoured personnel carriers in a three-week battle in the town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.

                Ukrainian officials said the “epic” fight on a plain near Vuhledar produced the biggest tank battle of the war so far and a stinging setback for the Russians, the New York Times reports.

                Both sides sent tanks into the fray, “with the Russians thrusting forward in columns and the Ukrainians manoeuvring defensively, firing from a distance or from hiding places as Russian columns came into their sights”, the paper writes.

                When it was over, not only had Russia failed to capture Vuhledar, but it also had made the same mistake that cost Moscow hundreds of tanks earlier in the war: advancing columns into ambushes.

                The remains of the Russian tanks, blown up on mines, hit with artillery or destroyed by anti-tank missiles, now litter farm fields all about the coal mining town, according to Ukrainian military drone footage.

                Russian troops also suffered a lack of experienced tank commanders in Vuhledar, and many of the fighters consisted of newly conscripted soldiers who had not been trained in Ukraine’s tactics for ambushing columns, the paper says. Ambushes have been Ukraine’s signature tactic against Russian armoured columns since the early days of the war.

                By last week, Russia had lost so many machines to sustained armoured assaults that they had changed tactics and resorted only to infantry attacks, Ukrainian commanders said.https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/mar/01/russia-ukraine-war-live-finland-mps-to-vote-on-nato-bid-blinken-warns-central-asia-against-ignoring-russian-aggression

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                General Mark Milley, chairman of America’s joint chiefs of staff, has said Russia has lost “strategically, operationally and tactically” and that they are “paying an enormous price on the battlefield” in Ukraine.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It can no longer conduct offensive operations
                lmao

                Isn't the capture of Artyomovsk precisely a successful offensive operation?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                In what terms? What did it provide strategically?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It is pushing the front closer to where Russia wants it and further away from where Ukraine wants it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thats not a strategic advantage. Thats a tactical advantage. Bakhmut has no use after the kharkiv offensive.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's not a strategic advantage, just a strategic gain.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukrainians take 6 months to capture a city of 280k
                >Russians take 8 months to capture a city of 70k

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Isn't the capture of Artyomovsk precisely a successful offensive operation?
                No its not these losses

                >It can no longer conduct offensive operations
                18.02 GMT
                Russia loses at least 130 tanks and APCs in Vuhledar in 'biggest tank battle in Ukraine war' – report
                Russia has lost at least 130 tanks and armoured personnel carriers in a three-week battle in the town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.

                Ukrainian officials said the “epic” fight on a plain near Vuhledar produced the biggest tank battle of the war so far and a stinging setback for the Russians, the New York Times reports.

                Both sides sent tanks into the fray, “with the Russians thrusting forward in columns and the Ukrainians manoeuvring defensively, firing from a distance or from hiding places as Russian columns came into their sights”, the paper writes.

                When it was over, not only had Russia failed to capture Vuhledar, but it also had made the same mistake that cost Moscow hundreds of tanks earlier in the war: advancing columns into ambushes.

                The remains of the Russian tanks, blown up on mines, hit with artillery or destroyed by anti-tank missiles, now litter farm fields all about the coal mining town, according to Ukrainian military drone footage.

                Russian troops also suffered a lack of experienced tank commanders in Vuhledar, and many of the fighters consisted of newly conscripted soldiers who had not been trained in Ukraine’s tactics for ambushing columns, the paper says. Ambushes have been Ukraine’s signature tactic against Russian armoured columns since the early days of the war.

                By last week, Russia had lost so many machines to sustained armoured assaults that they had changed tactics and resorted only to infantry attacks, Ukrainian commanders said.https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/mar/01/russia-ukraine-war-live-finland-mps-to-vote-on-nato-bid-blinken-warns-central-asia-against-ignoring-russian-aggression

                >18.02 GMT
                >Russia loses at least 130 tanks and APCs in Vuhledar in 'biggest tank battle in Ukraine war' – report
                >Russia has lost at least 130 tanks and armoured personnel carriers in a three-week battle in the town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.

                Were the end of Russias ability to fight offensive manoeuvre warfare. Last wasteful push and the really notable thing was that these were teh Russian Navy Marines and you know what some of them were in? Old Russian reserve T62s. That's the best a supposedly elite unit could be given for a major offensive.? Russia has lost the war. Its over. The Ukrainians could go home now and logistic weakness in the Russian forces in fuel and ammunition transport to frontline units would mean they collapse anyway by summer (May actually). Russia has lost the war. There are two kinds of Russian troops in Ukraine today those who will die there or be taken prisioner and those that ill try making it back to Russia. I'm far more interested in how Russia controls a routed chaotic mob of 100,000 cold hungry and terrified men with small arms arriving on food in Belogrod Oblast thjis summer who are all on paper deserters and criminals. Russia has no force left that can even impose order there. If the fat drunks in the
                Rosgvardiya try fighting them its civil war and
                Rosgvardiya won't last a week.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because they keep moving forces to the area away from other fronts. Are you fricking stupid? The city itself provides no advantage for their momentum unless they are able to gey izyum and other areas in eastern Ukraine.
                If russia wins bakhmut, their forces will lose momentum due to overextension of supplies and forces. When it comes to advancing, you need to advance in a place where you're able to consistently keep up a momentum while garnering big gains. Kharkiv offensive is an example of an offensive that was able to utilize large gains with enough momentum. Bakhmut is not an example of that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Your damage control is why people on other boards make fun of /k/. Russia is tasked with liberating the entire territory of the DPR, why should they think Bakhmut doesn’t matter? It’s just something you squeak because Ukraine is losing it.

                It’s like someone is conquering South Dakota (about DPRs population), and the idea that taking Rapid City (about Bakhmuts population) would somehow be embarrassing for the invader. You are a joke.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh your buddies said the purpose was so the 3000 NATO mercenaries can’t put equipment on that side of the river. And the leader of Russia said it was to disarm and de-Nazify all of Ukraine.

                Now it’s changed again? Get y’all’s story straight

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because bakhmut does not provide an advantage in the grand scheme of things to focus alot of your invading force there, moron. If russia wants to take over donetsk, it will not be making moronic decisions like doubling down on a strategically insignificant city. If you focus on other areas of strategic significance, then you can make it more easier to capture the city and the rest of the story. You're now making WW1 tier of copes on how its significant to capture a worthless pile of land while you lost 1500 in a single day.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >grand scheme of things
                >a lot
                >a worthless pile of land
                Translation: you’re just coping and can’t think of anything to say to defend yourself from people’s ridicule. “Gaining land is embarrassing for the invader” . It’s called Artemovsk now btw

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You do realise that Russia has lost the war anon?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's funny how as soon as Bakhmut's fall seems imminent by Wagner/RU forces, we see a sudden BARRAGE on Western mainstream media calling for a peace deal.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Opinion article by some literally who 5th columnist

                NAFO sisters I’m so demoralized

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                >opinion peices
                >kissinger
                Lmao

                the narrative is changing. you will see an abrupt turnaround, screencap this

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >please let me win

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Bakhmut
                >KEY DONBASS CITY GUYS WERE SUPER SERIOUS

                Russia is fricking pathetic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Literally, he has no say or control over Ukraine coming and gong as they please right now. He knows that the Ukies have a planned fallback position that is beyond his grasp to dream about taking. When Ukraine falls back to its true line of defense, this shitlicker will claim "it was a gesture of goodwill."

                Screencap this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Literally, he has no say or control over Ukraine coming and gong as they please right now. He knows that the Ukies have a planned fallback position that is beyond his grasp to dream about taking. When Ukraine falls back to its true line of defense, this shitlicker will claim "it was a gesture of goodwill."

                Screencap this.

                OKay. Here ya' goez.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >anyone that disagrees with me is a heckin' 5th columnist contrarian vatBlack person.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/E8xdrhP.png

                https://i.imgur.com/5Co7SwN.png

                https://i.imgur.com/8DGon8y.png

                >opinion peices
                >kissinger
                Lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Gaining land means frick all if you can't find a strategic significance to it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If it's a worthless pile of land, why isn't Ukraine ceding it to Russia?

                I think Russia would legit be more interested in trading it for something than fighting for it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Ukraine can make russia bleed while taking it. For an invading force, its not significant aside from being a shooting gallery for the defenders.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukraine wins when they get pushed out of areas they were defending
                /k/ope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Where did I say that? Does russia win in the long term? How does the city itself provide a strategic advantage in the long term?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >He doesn’t know that defenders can withdrawal or what the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Pyrrhic victory is your script from severodobetsk . “It was just to keep Russia bogged down” is your Mariupol cope . Combine the two for double strength Bakhmut /k/opium.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The definition of pyrrhic victory is best defined by the battle of bakhmut and mariupol. Whats up with russia and them making obvious strategic frick ups?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And your script has gone from
                >Just a week to Kiev, and another to the Rhine. Russia strong!
                To
                >Sure it took us 8 months to seize a single town, and we had to recruit prisoners so that the population wouldn’t get upset about sending Moscow babies in human waves, but grand victory!

                leave homosexual

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukraine losing a city
                >but Russia changed strategies so it’s not really a win for them!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Having to change strategies to a grinding war of attrition against your impoverished neighbor

                That’d be like if America invaded Mexico and had to send waves of prisoners recruited in Blackwater to seize Sabinas. Oh and Mexico also sank the USS Gerald R Ford in the Gulf

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                us would get ass raped by the cartels. they'd pull out as soon as little johnny was beheaded on video

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Post El Chapo

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                In your chinese dreams maybe. An actual U.S invasion of Mexico would be met with cheers and applause from the Mexicans and they'd be pointing out who is cartel and where they are hiding

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >WE WILL BE GREETED AS LIBERATORS!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thats how the russians thought before getting kicked out of kyiv and kharkiv. The image is just pure projection.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                First thing I read was 100% Aryan and stopped to laugh, I can't finish that bullshit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Unironically yes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Were totally Aryan and White.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/COWs0sP.gif

                First thing I read was 100% Aryan and stopped to laugh, I can't finish that bullshit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Average “white” /misc/ user

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lel

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ethiopia - August 8, 2020
                and? even the nogs see how based he is

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Is this image satire?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Is this image satire?
                Virgin vs. Chad meme is by its very nature satirical. Do anons not understand how memes work?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Uh, maybe by origin. But the virgin vs chad meme can often times be made without a sense of irony.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                hilarious and factual

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Left can't meme

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And what you're poor right?
                It's like being black member of kkk.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Left is obsessed with people who have more than them and cannot comprehend having principles. The drive for punishing those who are successful barely makes you human, and is shared by all of the worst civilizations on this planet. Loser.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The Right, Principals
                Now that's a good joke.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Implying the cartels wouldn't join the US side
                Only a chunk or a vatnik would think what you posted. In reality Mexico would be check-mated long before the military starts to move. All it would take would be for the US government to make cartels into "freedom fighters"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Laughs as the cartel flays the skin off of billy's face with a boxcutter

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                god i hate stonetoss

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I know torture gets Vatniks ducks hard but come on stop projecting

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >implying the cartels aren't under control of the CIA from the start.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Not all of them, the ones you actually hear about probably not on the team. But like I said if the US actually does invade they will all just probably rebrand to some "Mexican freedom front" or something and take over Mexico so their activities will be completely legal and open instead of just understood.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >has to make up a fantasy scenario to win

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cartels have a defacto rule of not fricking with the U.S. government directly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                God damn imagine how much damage the cartels would unleash on the US if they imprisoned El Chapo... oh wait

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >El Chapo
                i didnt realize that he ran all the cartels. sure would be funny if russia decided to help them coup the gov and armed them
                poetic one might say

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Russia couldn't even coup their neighbor after two attempts and can't help Armenia even though that was the entire point of CIS, they aren't helping cartels that only excel at killing other wetbacks. Now go back to butchering each other to sell burgers avocados lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I know what you're hinting at, but there was no coup in Ukraine.
                >b-b-but
                No.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                of course we did. we totally had nothing to do with the "arab spring" either

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Is this homie serious?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are you stupid to think that every revolution is somehow CIA or foreign government instigated? By your logic, every revolution in history is inorganic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >every revolution in history is inorganic.
                Name a revolution without outside involvement

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Organic revolutions are big and has lots of support. Inorganic revolutions have little support and influence. A revolution will not work if it doesn't have the support of the people.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Probably the French

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Uncle Adolf

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                wasnt he from austria?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >every revolution is somehow CIA
                Just the ones that are instigated by the U.S. State Dept. and the CIA, my gaslighting anon

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Your idea of an organic revolutions is essentially
                >pro western
                Inorganic
                >pro russia/china
                Organic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Your idea of an organic revolution
                I can't help it if you are historically illiterate.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Only a moronic diversity hire night shift glowBlack person would think that one will work. Norm Eisen and color revolutions. Talks of cia backed regime change are as common as water is wet.
                >well the cia must have coupled every government in history then
                yeah only governments after the cia was founded. Who was giving weapons to the contras? Who was supplying weapons to isis? Yeah the cia has never ever done anything questionable. have a nice day

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Soros’ own group—IRF or International Renaissance Foundation—admits in its 2015 annual report that it has spent more than $180 MILLION in Ukraine since 1990.

                NED or National Endowment of Democracy is a US taxpayer-funded group that specialises in … ahem … regime change. Its chief, Carl Gershman, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in 2013 (just before the protests) that “Ukraine is the biggest prize.”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >revolution against the west
                Totally natural, nothing to see here
                >revolution against none western nations
                COUP! COUP!
                Ukraine never had a coup. Infact, Yanukovich got outted by his own parliament. A coup would involve the change in all of the government, illegally. Yanukovich was about to get impeached, but he ran away. So the parliament removed him because he abamdoned his position as president to go to russia.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >A coup would involve the change in all of the government, illegally
                not necessarily, also it was a chimpout because of Tymoshenko(pro eu) getting voted out

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The ape out was a result of Yanukovich being a terrible and corrupt homosexual that sold everything to russia. He promised closed relations with the west to only nack track on it. The ape out eventually lead to his impeachment, which he made a deal with the protesters that he stays within the country while he is in trial. He did not listen and just left the country. Since the parliament has nobody to impeach, they voted to out him since he left the country and defected to russia. Which resulted in them voting to kick him out. This is not the first time Yanukovich started a riot, the last protest started in the 2000s when he was involved in a election fraud scheme.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Michael McFaul—US Ambassador to Russia, 2012–2014—wrote an op-ed in WaPo in 2004 where he asked, “Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine?” Then he answered it, “Yes.”

                Why did McFaul write the article? Because in 2004, Soros and other NGOs fomented the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Basically, the election was won by a pro-Russia guy. So people protested and demanded a new election. Then, a month later, the pro-US guy won the new election with 52% of the votes. Democracy, America-style.

                BTW, that guy—Yanukovych—who lost the election in 2004 … ran again in 2010 and won fair and square. That’s why we had Euromaidan

                hows langly this time of night?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thats not really evidences of anything. After the orange revolution, they did some clean up within their governments.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well, has anyone heard of Brzezinski, the geopolitical expert who influenced US foreign policy for 40 years? He came up with the idea of Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the USSR, created Al Qaeda, and then repeated the same strategy of using Islamic terrorists in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Libya and Syria. Brzezinski explained in The Grand Chessboard that “Ukraine is a geopolitical pivot. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” He also said that Ukraine must be brought into NATO by 2010.

                In 2013, Soros, NED and other NGO’s riled up some ordinary people in Kyiv. (BTW, outside Kiev, there were no protests. In many parts of Ukraine, people are very pro-Russia and were happy with President Yanukovych).

                Then Neo-Nazi thugs acted as provocateurs and attacked the police with metals, chains, fire-bombs, guns and grenades.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Then Neo-Nazi thugs acted as provocateurs and attacked the police with metals, chains, fire-bombs, guns and grenades.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yea, unlike you.

                >Yea, unlike you.
                shills are getting lazy and tired.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm having a good time seeing my actions have world stretching consequences

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh neo nazis
                >muh rusophobia
                Go back to /leftypol/, homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lol frick off Black person

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >posting political cartoons
                >complain about neo nazis
                >complain about rusophobia
                >inane babble
                Yup, a /leftypol/ troon. Posting the black sun does not take away from the fact that you complained about neo nazis.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon why is it illegal to question the holocaust in Russia?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon why is it illegal to question the holocaust in Russia?
                Not him, but I'd guess its for the same reason it is illegal in Germany, and the same reason, it will get the ADL on your ass in the U.S? What the frick is your point you water muddying moron?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Only Russia and Germany outlaws the denial of holocaust. Putin also outlawed the depiction of Mohammed because it was "offensive"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sixteen European countries, along with Canada and Israel, have laws against Holocaust denial

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Only Russia and Germany outlaws the denial of holocaust.
                Wrong, moron.

                >outlawed the depiction of Mohammed because it was "offensive"
                Then you better not look at how hate crime laws are enforced in the U.K. Get better material morons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >literal whataboutism
                Kek

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh whataboutism
                I am sorry if someone responds to the moronic distraction shit that you brought up in a way that proves you wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >someone mentions problems about russia and germany
                >B-but what about the UK?????????

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                mentions problems about russia and germany
                >>B-but what about the UK?????????
                Black person brain moron.

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

                Distraction?

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

                Distraction?

                >Distraction?
                >DAAAA JOOOOOOOOS

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Buck broken

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Distraction?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/K1SKWEi.jpg

                wasnt he from austria?

                >we have an unironic russian shill here
                How's the morning in moscow?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >they did some clean up within their governments.
                It's totally normal for a foreign government to hand pick government posts after a totally organic 'not revolution' ouster of the elected leader.
                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thats not evidences of anything aside from making predictions and suggestions from the whole situation.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >making predictions and suggestions
                lol, Ok.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, making predictions and suggestions is nothing new. Whats next? Going to claim sports are rigged because people placed bets on who will win the most?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Deflecting this hard

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Concession accepted. Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder btw.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >US Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) repeatedly attended political protests
                She just happened to be in the neighborhood to drop off muffins and bottled water, nothing to see here goyim.

                Something inorganic wouldn't have this many support or large scale protests. An example of something organic is the Russian attempt at starting riots in odessa and eastern Ukraine, which failed compared to the maiden

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                US/EU officials engineered protests and chaos and drove a democratically elected president out of the country. Then, without an election, new oligarchs—a billionaire and an IMF guy—were handpicked by the West to become the President and the Prime Minister of Ukraine! Democracy in action!

                That’s the truth about the coup in Ukraine, and it hasn’t benefited anyone other than the warmongers. Ukraine is split in half and stuck in a frozen civil war; its debt-to-GDP ratio has doubled; pensions, social services and minimum wages ($140 a month) have been slashed; and the people are still ruled by corrupt oligarchs. The regime change ops also ignited a chain reaction of needless hostility, hysterical Russophobia and crippling sanctions. EU has lost more than $100 billion in trade with Russia in the last four years; and the US has pushed Russia deep into China’s orbit. Just like the neocon adventures in Iraq and Syria, the meddling in Ukraine will go down as another disastrous US foreign policy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh Russophobia
                Cry

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yea, no. Not every revolution is artificial. And if it is, it would not be this big and successful.
                >muh Rusophobia
                Holy frick, you homosexuals really are no different than liberals.

                totally normal guiz

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I hope has many slavs die as possible because of this war

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yea, unlike you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yea, no. Not every revolution is artificial. And if it is, it would not be this big and successful.
                >muh Rusophobia
                Holy frick, you homosexuals really are no different than liberals.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's not a disaster just yet, but it will be. The longer this drags on the longer CIA will lose control of the situation and corporate lobbyists will wedge themselves into this mess to profiteer off it for whoever they represent. It'll be just like Afghanistan with no strategy but all the spending.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >replying to your own post
                For what reason?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Spoken like a true russian propagandist
                >Russia deep into China’s orbit
                Why the frick does that matter? Why do you care about a nation, with similar ambitions to china, get closer to china? Russia being an ally is impossible.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you care about a nation, with similar ambitions to china, get closer to china?
                Tell me you are strategically illiterate without telling me you are strategically illiterate.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ally with russia is impossible. Russia has its own ambitions, its own goals in regards to how they handle geopolitics. Russia is fundamentally different from the west and cannot comes to terms with it because russia is looking for a master slave relationship, not partnership. Any ambitions about "muh russian" ally is a pipe dream.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I am russian and think you're a homosexual. The west and russia will never be friends.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I am russian and think you're a homosexual.
                I am American and don't think much of you at all
                >The west and russia will never be friends.
                You did not understand my point at all. Germany was plenty interested in buying Russian energy, and that was enough to make U.S. neocons piss their pants. Now Russia can sell energy to China, who is more than fine with supplying them with mfg's goods in exchange.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You seem too moronic to understand the significance of making people rely on your energy. More reliance=more influence. Russia is no exception to this and do not mistake their intent when it comes to doing business. Again, the west and russia will never be friends.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You seem too moronic
                No U , you fricking moron. Why were nordstream pipelines built in the first place you fricking mongrel? You can't even understand the obvious.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Simple, to gain more leverage over those stupid germans. More reliability=more influence. Sorry you don't understand this as a moronic american.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Simple, to gain more leverage over those stupid germans.
                You are a mental midget.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Damn, you really are moronic. You're no different than chechens.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What’s the official narrative about the events in late 2013 and early 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine? There was the spontaneous and peaceful Euro-maidan “revolution” by the great freedom-loving people, which forced the corrupt Ukrainian President to flee the country, right? Not so simple. There are many intriguing facts about geopolitics, 70 years of US meddling in Ukraine, and covert regime-change operations.

                First, objectively speaking, it’s curious that a US Senator (John McCain) and the US Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) repeatedly attended political protests in another country. Oh, Nuland is also the wife of a prominent warmongering Neocon, Robert Kagan.

                Victoria Nuland also admitted during a speech in 2014 that the US had spent $5 BILLION since the 1990s to spread “democracy” in Ukraine.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thats not evidence that its a coup or anything. Infact, Yanukovich has more ties with the CIA(or the people he knew)than anybody in ukraine.
                >Victoria Nuland also admitted during a speech in 2014 that the US had spent $5 BILLION since the 1990s to spread “democracy” in Ukraine.
                The U.S. has been sending aid to countries in the post Soviet era to prop up their economies or other shit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >US Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) repeatedly attended political protests
                She just happened to be in the neighborhood to drop off muffins and bottled water, nothing to see here goyim.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >US Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) repeatedly attended political protests
                She just happened to be in the neighborhood to drop off muffins and bottled water, nothing to see here goyim.

                pic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the citizenry would do fine against the cartels. lucky for the cartes, the US government hates their citizens and oppress them at every opportunity. harm a hair on a cartel members head and prepare to have the full weight of the US government brought down upon you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You know Russia is going to end up winning this, right?
                So this psyop narrative shit, and it will end up the same way no matter what.
                Whether it takes 1 year or 10, Russia will defeat Ukraine. And the west still get rich from all of it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And what if russia didn't win, what will you do?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing. I'm in the u.s. I don't give a shit. But that's not going to happen.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And if it does?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then great. Good for Ukraine I wish them the best.
                But dude, it's not. I'm sorry. The west and zelinsky are dragging you guys into a way worse situation then you should be in.
                You are cannon fodder for the west to exploit for a proxy war. You will be sold down the river like every other proxy country.
                There is no happy ending for the people of Ukraine. The west will keep moving you all the weapons you need to keep the fight going, while your countrymen die en masse and military industrial machine rakes in the cash.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He knows. That's why xir is being such a whiny little b***h.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And considering the pre war population of Donetsk Oblast (former Ukraine), it is about the same as Kentucky. It would be like saying Bowling Green is too small to matter if Russia takes it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                False equivalency, homosexual. If you are invading those states, then you need to capture strategic areas to make it more easier to capture the rest. Bakhmut is an example of sunk cost fallacy on a military level.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                After losing izyum and lyman, yes its insignificant. Whats the point if you don't have the territories to make it significant?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It would be like saying Bowling Green is too small to matter if Russia takes it.
                Nah man, it's like they lost more than TWO Beverly Hills! Or 3/4s of a Compton!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >other boards
                You mean just /misc/ and really just them seething and shitting in their sheets and streets? And why the frick did they fight harder for Bakhmut than Kherson?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Your damage control is why people on other boards make fun of /k
                lol no. Everyone laughs at /misc/ (you) for being a bunch schizo morons who hooked their horse to wrong wagon, for no reason other than pure contrarianism, and now refuse to back down at of stubborn autism.
                >Russia is tasked with liberating the entire territory of the DPR
                Yeah. "Liberating". Not because they tried to conquer the entirety of Ukraine only to get their shit slapped back.
                >would somehow be embarrassing for the invader.
                It is embarrassing. Just as Hostomel was embarrassing. Just as Moskva was embarrassing. Just as the 40km convoy was embarrassing. Just as this entire war has been one big, giant embarrassment for Russia.
                >You are a joke.
                The only joke is that you vatniks somehow still think that anyone takes you clowns and circus a country seriously.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >only to get their shit slapped back
                Then why are you here today doing damage control about cities in Ukraine being taken by Russian forces?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                take it to your tumblr blog, fruitcake

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >how is winning in Bakhmut not strategically significant for Russia?

                Because Russia has lost the war. It can no longer conduct offensive operations, it cannot do the last logistical leg to supply its massive front line because it is out of lorries and tankers. Every day from now on Russia deliver less and less food fuel and ammunition to its front line troops. They are already trying o move artillery shells in scooby doo vans. Its over. The first Russian troops on the front line will be starving by may at this rate. The Russians squandered their last offensive capable units on nothing. The war is over. Ryssia lost. Russia is Ukraines b***h now, the mud is in early, the front won;t move for 30 days because of that. The Russian troops won;t even be able to do counterbattery. Russia has lost the war.

                >Because Russia has lost the war.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > claimed Bakhmut is keeping Russians bogged down from advancing in other areas. In light of this, how is winning in Bakhmut not strategically significant for Russia?
                How would it be? Line just moves a little bit back. They’re not capturing anything but a symbolic victory that’s not actually to have too much of an effect on slowing down their attrition rate or creating any kind of victory conditions.

                Like in terms of grand strategy what do you think they’re accomplishing by blasting through all that armor and men for months to then have to divert more men to occupying a dead city when they’re basically nowhere closer to ending the war?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bakhmut does not provide a strategic advantage. You think this is a game, but seiging a city will cost alot of resources. If the city provides no significance, then it will just lead to your forces suffering from stagnation in their offensive operations. Russia winning in bakhmut does not have any strategic significance and nothing in that city will help their momentum in other areas.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                then why are they trying to hard to surround and take it?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because russians are bad at war.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Propaganda. They’ve humiliated themselves at it and need it to show the unhappy populace back home that “We can’t still win!”

                All while in the terms of the war it lost its grander strategic importance after it successfully delayed their offensive.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sunk cost fallacy. Originally, it was important until the kharkiv offensive took territories that made bakhmut significant.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because after a year of failure they need ANY sort of victory. Bakhmut is for morale/propaganda purposes only. Monke only wants it so he can assure the masses that this entire invasion wasn't a huge mistake that will cost them everything.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Why does Russia want it then

                This has been a subject of debate for months. Nobody knows what Russia is trying to do with Bakhmut. The amount of men and material lost in trying to take this dumb fricking town doesn't make any sense.

                It doesn't have a large population, whatever infrastructure it once had is completely destroyed, it has no natural resources, it has nothing. Tankies, Russians, and Russian apologists think there is some huge 5D Chess/Galaxy brain IQ behind the assault.

                The truth however is that it was a town that was close to Russian supply routes so it made sense to try and take it. But the UA army had no intention of giving up any ground to the Russians without a fight. Russia continued to attack with their army being made up mostly of Wagner PMCs and Russian convicts so to the Russian leadership not much was being lost. But at this point Russia has lost hundreds of vehicles and equipment trying to take it and Putin is desperate for a win, even if it's for a ruined town like Bakhmut. Russia will likely take the town but the cost has been fricking enormous and it will be a pyrrhic victory.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Nobody knows what Russia is trying to do with Bakhmut

                Incorporate it in Russia like the rest of the land they conquered in this war so far.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then why did they give up Kherson?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                if nothing else it's pretty impressive how every defeat and every step backwards is a victory for ukraine somehow.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Your right, clearly Ukraine can’t win with what it has, we must double our supply shipments to Ukraine immidiately

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Let's just cut to the chase and have some Ohio-class submarines surface offshore near St. Petersburg

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >MacArthur reportedly told Truman that he was confident of early success in the North Korean offensive, and that he no longer feared Chinese intervention.
                >Just 10 days later, the Chinese army, which had been secretly massing at the border, made its first attack on the allies. In the days that followed, the allies' headquarters received intelligence that Chinese forces were hidden in the North Korean mountains, but this was disregarded.
                >The Chinese troops withdrew, and the allies interpreted these initial skirmishes as simply defensive. Undeterred, General MacArthur ordered a bold offensive on 24 November to push right up to the Yalu River, which marked the border between North Korea and north-east China.
                >He optimistically hoped this would finish the war and allow the troops "home by Christmas". But it was instead to mark yet another turning point in the conflict. The next day, about 180,000 Chinese "volunteers" attacked.
                >A shocked MacArthur told Washington: "We face an entirely new war."
                >He ordered a long and humiliating retreat - performed in sub-zero temperatures - which took the troops below the 38th parallel by the end of December.
                >As Chinese troops unleashed a renewed offensive, the allies were forced to withdraw south of Seoul in January 1951. Here, in the relatively open terrain of South Korea, the UN troops were better able to defend themselves.
                >After a few more months of fighting, the front eventually stabilised in the area of the 38th parallel.
                Imagine unironically calling a military operation "Home by Christmas Offensive" lmao, no wonder MacArthur tried to use nukes after he got BTFO'd by the chinks and the war got dragged on for years (the same way Putin keeps threatening to use nukes after his 3 day SMO failed and is being dragged on right now with no victory in sight):
                https://www.bbc.com/news/10162993

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/lllc8OW.png

                The Russian performance in Ukraine is very similar to the US in the Korean war:
                >The original plan for Operation Showdown called for simultaneous attacks on both Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge. One battalion from the US 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division would take Triangle Hill from Gimhwa-eup, while one battalion from the ROK 32nd Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division would attack Sniper Ridge along a parallel northbound route. UN planners expected the operation to last no more than five days with 200 casualties on the UN side.
                >The immediate UN objective was Triangle Hill (38°19′17″N 127°27′52″E), a forested ridge of high ground 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) north of Gimhwa-eup. The hill was occupied by the veterans of the PVA's 15th Corps. Over the course of nearly a month, substantial US and Republic of Korea Army (ROK) forces made repeated attempts to capture Triangle Hill and the adjacent Sniper Ridge. Despite clear superiority in artillery and aircraft, the escalating UN casualties resulted in the attack being halted after 42 days of fighting, with PVA forces regaining their original positions.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Triangle_Hill
                Both "military superpowers" greatly underperformed despite having clear superiority in firepower against supposedly "weaker" opponents (Ukraine now and China back in Korea)

                >This fricking false equivalency. Again.
                I forget, how many casualties did the combined UN/south Korean forces suffer during this controlled retreat? And, how many Chinese/North Korean casualties were there in the bugstorm meatwave?

                Please refresh my memory. Last I heard, China doesn't occupy South Korea, either.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Guess what fricked up the Chinese? Shitty Logistics. They only carried supplies for:

                They broke when the Americans STOOD their ground and let the Chinese exhaust their limited supplies. The Chinese sacrificed supply chain for lighting speed.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Seriously /k/, you want to knock a massive army off balance? Strike the Logistics.

                Ukraine War has shown us this a thousand times over.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pusan_Perimeter_logistics

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >MacArthur reportedly told Truman that he was confident of early success in the North Korean offensive, and that he no longer feared Chinese intervention.
                >Just 10 days later, the Chinese army, which had been secretly massing at the border, made its first attack on the allies. In the days that followed, the allies' headquarters received intelligence that Chinese forces were hidden in the North Korean mountains, but this was disregarded.
                >The Chinese troops withdrew, and the allies interpreted these initial skirmishes as simply defensive. Undeterred, General MacArthur ordered a bold offensive on 24 November to push right up to the Yalu River, which marked the border between North Korea and north-east China.
                >He optimistically hoped this would finish the war and allow the troops "home by Christmas". But it was instead to mark yet another turning point in the conflict. The next day, about 180,000 Chinese "volunteers" attacked.
                >A shocked MacArthur told Washington: "We face an entirely new war."
                >He ordered a long and humiliating retreat - performed in sub-zero temperatures - which took the troops below the 38th parallel by the end of December.
                >As Chinese troops unleashed a renewed offensive, the allies were forced to withdraw south of Seoul in January 1951. Here, in the relatively open terrain of South Korea, the UN troops were better able to defend themselves.
                >After a few more months of fighting, the front eventually stabilised in the area of the 38th parallel.
                Imagine unironically calling a military operation "Home by Christmas Offensive" lmao, no wonder MacArthur tried to use nukes after he got BTFO'd by the chinks and the war got dragged on for years (the same way Putin keeps threatening to use nukes after his 3 day SMO failed and is being dragged on right now with no victory in sight):
                https://www.bbc.com/news/10162993

                Yes, MacArthur was a moronic homosexual failure, just like the moron that keeps spamming that gay 'mcarthur' cartoon.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >take land
          >lose momentum immediately afterwards
          >take land
          >able to utilize its strategic significance to increase your momentum later
          Taking land does not matter if its insignificant.

          I've heard the line "Land does not matter in a battle of attrition" argument thrown around a bit, but it is a bit more nuanced;

          If the rate at which you take land is sustainable at both a political, military and economic level, it matters.

          If taking land allows you to break out of attrition, it matters.

          If the enemy does not have adequate land themselves, it matter. Because losing all your land is typically a loss condition for any nation.

          Unfortunately for the Russians, none of these are true for them, so they are stuck in a doctrine and pacing that will see them reach Kiev in about twice the male Russian population and a full generation worth of time.

          Can you clarify which parts of south east Ukraine are strategic and which are not?

          Was Mariupol strategic? If none of them is strategic, how exactly is it a problem that Russia is conquering them?

          Because war isn't a purely militarily affair, anon. In fact, most wars aren't lost due to military depletion, but due to economic and political depletion. For Ukraine, there is a strong political argument both domestic and for their foreign policy to set up these "david and goliath" situations where they make any Russian victory look utterly unsustainable.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The blunt fact is Russians are fricking jokes at Attrition Warfare.

            It all boils down to KILL RATIO. If the force you are trying to wear down has Lend-Lease, all the motivation in the world to kill you, superior equipment, lots of volunteers, and can kill you in much greater numbers.........

            You're fricked. You end up getting worn down yourself.

            And Ukraine has ZERO interest in talking to Russia now. They want fricking blood. Welcome back to Bakhmut, Vatniks. Enjoy the fun Russians via the greatest show unearthed. Have this song to set the mood for your upcoming visit to hell.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Politics? Politics is Ukrainians getting angrier and angrier with a bloodlust we haven't seen since the fricking Viet Cong.

            We could drop a million meat cleavers into Bakhmut and the Ukrainians would unironically use them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      made it to the gates of Moscow, they gained land and completed an objective
      lost land and failed to win

      a bigdory is a bigdory and a lobs is a lobs, deal bid id =====DDDD

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >losing 20k plus young men for a shitty town of no value

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        a town of no value that dear leader zelensky fought tooth and nail to hold and ultimately failed to do so. cope, seethe, and dilate

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Only because russBlack folk kept flinging bodies at it for some moronic reason.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Like the Ukrainians didn't do the same trying to keep the city.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Ukrainians are not the ones invading and they did not expect the city to last this long either. It was originally supposed to fall in last spring.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Attackers take frickload more casualties though so defending is obviously preferable. But you already knew that and just wanted to act moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what's done is done. go ahead, move more ukrainians into bakhmut to grind up those russian invaders. wait... oh wait... oh my... oh no that's right you can't anymore.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So russia has officially captured all of bakhmut? Oh, no? Then why are you implying that it did? Oh, cause you need at least some kind of win for a whole year of humiliation? Well, too bad you ain't getting it lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Go ahead, take the city back. What's stopping Ukraine from taking the city? Ukraine is so big and powerful, go ahead and push those Russians right back to Moscow. Come on, when are they going to do it? It has been a year of Russian humiliation, but Ukraine still hasn't pushed them completely out of their country yet so what gives.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >hasn't pushed them completely out of their country yet
                True but then the entire Russian conventional military would not be destroyed and Ukraine would be back at square one. To win Ukraine had to destroy the Russian military and its stocks of modern weapons and that's always been the case. Russia has of course lost the war. Anyone who follows it and is not a Russian propagandists knows Russia has lost. /k/ formally declared the war over yesterday and /k/ is never wrong.

                [...]

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Anyone who follows it and is not a Russian propagandists knows Russia has lost.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ukraine is poorest country in europe and Russia is 2nd military on the planet, so it'll take some time. Also, ukraine can't take back bakmut since russians didn't capture it yet. After 8 months. Pathetic. Embarrassing. Russia.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >humiliating

                >Embarrassing

                Because Bakhmut has already served it purpose for months, to delay the advance of Russian troops to build defenses behind it. The fact it’s held out this long is an embarrassment

                >embarrassment

                >Embarrassing

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

                >Your damage control is why people on other boards make fun of /k
                lol no. Everyone laughs at /misc/ (you) for being a bunch schizo morons who hooked their horse to wrong wagon, for no reason other than pure contrarianism, and now refuse to back down at of stubborn autism.
                >Russia is tasked with liberating the entire territory of the DPR
                Yeah. "Liberating". Not because they tried to conquer the entirety of Ukraine only to get their shit slapped back.
                >would somehow be embarrassing for the invader.
                It is embarrassing. Just as Hostomel was embarrassing. Just as Moskva was embarrassing. Just as the 40km convoy was embarrassing. Just as this entire war has been one big, giant embarrassment for Russia.
                >You are a joke.
                The only joke is that you vatniks somehow still think that anyone takes you clowns and circus a country seriously.

                >It is embarrassing. Just as Hostomel was embarrassing. Just as Moskva was embarrassing. Just as the 40km convoy was embarrassing. Just as this entire war has been one big, giant embarrassment for Russia.
                It's funny how in the middle of a war, all one side can think about embarrassment, and humiliation. Neither are military factors, or objectives. I guess Russia is supposed to pack up and leave from embarrassment?

                The definition of pyrrhic victory is best defined by the battle of bakhmut and mariupol. Whats up with russia and them making obvious strategic frick ups?

                >The definition of pyrrhic victory is best defined by the battle of bakhmut and mariupol.
                Interesting how Russia manages successive pyrrhic victories.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Surprisingly Pyrrhus survived multiple pyrrhic victories as well. It’s almost like the term has some nuance and meaning to it

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Some troons and the NAFO founder explain in this 2 minute video. They are trying to use humor as a weapon lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh NAFO
                A cartoon dog really mindbroke you Black folk into utilizing them as a strawman for anything pro Ukrainian.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nice gaslighting you fricking homosexual. have a nice day

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a cartoon dog
                Do cartoon dogs usually have founders who appear on the Center for strategic international studies? Get a better script dumbass

                You tards were calling yourselves that up until last September when someone figured out how ridiculous it made you trannies look

                Utilizing them as a strawman never works and its just make people not take you seriously.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh optics
                obvious leftist homosexual. Go back.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >deflecting to leftists because you're too moronic to justify a strawman

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >debate me!
                No. You redbit tourists are so fricking transparent and pathetic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >if you disagree with me, then you're a redditor!
                Says the redditor lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >projecting this hard

                >nafo troony out of responses, only left with “no you”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >b-b-but
                No.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                /k/ is such shit now that they send the B squad trannies

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                “Cartoon dog” damage control, followed by an awkward sentence about people “not taking you seriously” if you make fun of NAFO. Looks like we may have a live example here kek

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                When did I defend them, homosexual? All I said is being mindbroken by a group of trannies to the point of strawmanning is funny. Not even defending them because they are homosexuals, like you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You’re still speeding out because someone made fun of them, and using your weak, likely female written, m script about everything being embarrassing or socially unacceptable to cope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >projecting this hard

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >4chinz iz srs bzns gys
                lol. lmao even.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Never claimed that

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >let me just gaslight a little bit more
                once more. have a nice day

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Says the one that is trying to strawman.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a cartoon dog
                Do cartoon dogs usually have founders who appear on the Center for strategic international studies? Get a better script dumbass

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You tards were calling yourselves that up until last September when someone figured out how ridiculous it made you trannies look

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are these trannies.. in the room with you right now?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are my knuckles bloody from crushing the skull of some freakshow? No? Then I guess not.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >internettoughguy.jpeg
                I totally believe you have a positive k/d. I bet San Francisco shuts down for the day when you blow into town.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't speak fairy and have zero idea what this psychobabble means

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why don't you go play bloody knuckles at the local gay bar or whatever you were crying about earlier if you can't read.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Lol, trannies mad. No, I will not go harass upstanding gay folk on your behalf. It's funny how they find you just as creepy as I do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You've gone from killing trannies on sight to LARPing as a gay ally. I've been outplayed. You win this round of bantz, anon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >larping
                if I'm larping then it's super weird that my dick smells like butt

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Post (1) example

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No. homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he can't

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >debate me!
                No. You redbit tourists are so fricking transparent and pathetic.

                This applies to you too, nerd.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Lol is this a bot programmed to counter samegayging?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What was the point of the screenshot?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Post (1) example of this magical place calling themselves Nafo, bonus if its not satire

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Go search archives for me
                No, you fricking weirdo. How disconnected from reality are you that you think it's not super fricking weird to try and order someone to do this? Again, you are an obvious redditgay as this is the kind of bullshit that's commonplace there. Go be a homosexualnerd somewhere else.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i accept your concession

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, gay. Give yourself a gold star and then go tell the other nerds on reddit that you totes pwnd a natsi or something. So pathetic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I am a nazi

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The most boring, milquetoast, mediocrities, explain how they will obliterate their information war opposition in monotone

                >muh NAFO
                A cartoon dog really mindbroke you Black folk into utilizing them as a strawman for anything pro Ukrainian.

                See pic

                Are these trannies.. in the room with you right now?

                >Are these trannies.. in the room with you right now?
                They are on twitter posting NAFO cringe, which is why the anons had to drop it. It was just too obvious what the nature of the western Ukraine support base was.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Twitter and social media are not a representation of everyone. This is exactly how misinterpretation of election results in both 2016 and 2020 happened. Because people assume social media support is automatically a representation for all.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Proof?
                >No, NOT THAT PROOF!!!

                >This is exactly how misinterpretation of election results in both 2016 and 2020 happened.
                I guess that's easily explained by Twitter hiring its own FBI filed office ahead of the 2020 election.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Twitter represents a significant amount, but not all. And twitter is not the only social media platform.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >And twitter is not the only social media platform.
                Do you have an actual point to make, or just pointing out the obvious?

                >310 post and 59 posters
                Totally organic and not full of samehomosexualry and the same people replying to each other.

                >>310 post and 59 posters
                310/59 = ~5 per anon
                >NO you can't heckin post more than once per thread!!!!!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I guess Russia is supposed to pack up and leave from embarrassment?
                It would be the best decision they could make right now.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It would be the best decision they could make right now.
                Unfortunately for Ukraine, it doesn't work that way, so they are going to have to settle for more dead Ukrainians.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >more dead goblins
                >more dead orcs
                Sounds like a win-win to me

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>more dead goblins
                >>more dead orcs
                >Sounds like a win-win to me
                No actual skin off my ass either, just the U.S. gov't (or rather a faction of it) be-clowning itself once again.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why would Ukraine risk capturing bakhmut after its been captured? Thats a good way to strain your forces. Do you know how much resources it takes to seige and take over a city?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not all victories are created equal. Is it worth losing 1,000 men to claim a mile? How about 10,000? How about 100,000? How about a million? The goal is to win a war, not a battle, or even multiple battles. If I were in a war I’d happily deal with insignificant losses if it meant killing frickloads of the enemy, knowing I’d be coming back later and taking it right back.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the ukraine foreign legion is recruiting and has plenty of spots that just opened up mr. armchair general. why don't you go join them

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russia occupied all of the following when the Battle of Bakhmut first started:
      >Kherson
      >Izyum
      >Kupyansk
      >Lyman

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you're supposed to use that with a greentext, reddit
    now it looks like you're implying you're a chochol saying "absolute state of /k/ope"

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just take the fricking L you propagandist fricks.

    Frickers are receive top of the line equipment, causing casualties and they still act it's the end of the world and the Russians are in Kyiv again.

    Goddamn it's just as annoying as Zigger propaganda.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >kill 50k+ vatniks for free
      >pull out successfully when the town is rubble
      There's no L to be seen let alone to be taken
      Oh also
      >russia will lose the town in spring anyway
      Lmao

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    These threads are just Discord shills arguing with each other

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So, what's so important about this city anyway? Why does the media want me to care about some random city?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know. Knowing russia, there's nothing left after they're done with it so it's nothing more than rubbish and pride. Though both can be the same thing in this case.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Ziggers have been real quiet about this decisive Ukrainian victory

    Keep coping Putin

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >this video, that video WAAHHHH WAHHHH
    Just post some fricking combat footage of Russians killing Ukes and Ukes killing Russians

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What happened did Russia take Bahmut?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, russia failed miserably. The brave defenders of Bakhmut stand firm and victorious atop endless piles of vatBlack folk corpses. The Ukrainian flag still flies in the city. The defense of Bakhmut was an outstanding, quick, and decisive Ukrainian victory.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Get your shit pushed in despite sending half your army to hold a city
    >somehow this is a victory
    Lol. Lamo even.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >half of your army
      >can't even read the meanings behind the labels
      If half the Ukrainian army is there, then why is russia not advancing in other areas?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russia lost like 50k gayners against like 3k defenders lmao. Cope some more shitskin.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Stop reposting this same reply on more than one thread bot

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He's admitted to raiding here in another thread.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          But has he said why exactly?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      does someone have a key for this

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Joint_Military_Symbology
        Bakhmut appears to have mostly light and motorized infantry. This coincides with reports I've heard of the city being manned mostly by conscripts while the better trained army is on other fronts or training in different countries.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          does someone have a key for this

          Also, the "x"s signify that they're brigade-sized, so that's at least 2,000 and less than 20,000 according to NATO terms. My money's on the lower end for these.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ok cool so advance on the rest of the front whilst the enemy is pinned down in one place?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Humiliating defeat (yes, defeat) as losing close to 10-15k to capture 42 km2 of non strategic land is defeat
    The correct term is "pyrrhic victory"

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    "If your enemy wins, you win" -- Justin Nafeau

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So basically because you won and we make up your casualty numbers it really means you lost (Yes, lost according to us)
    >No, nevermind our casualties
    HoholBlack folk and their simps are so tiresome

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Casualties for the defending force means frick all in a invasion.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      10-15k is extremely generous, given that Wagner claimed to have lost 30k just by themselves before the start of the year

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There's zero proof of said "heavy ukrainian casualties" unlike countless videos of rusBlack folk dying by the hundreds over and over again

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hohol Potter and the strategically insignificant impenetrable fortress that doesn’t matter

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Turns out it was impenetrable, because the eastern, south-eastern and southern line hasn't fricking moved deeper into the suburbs for weeks now. And realistically it only will once Ukraine pulls back beyond the river.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      then why do russia keep sending people to die there?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you will never be a woman

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Where's all the webms? I know they be happening but I'm surprised people aren't posting them just to dance on the morons still being pro-russian

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Russian performance in Ukraine is very similar to the US in the Korean war:
    >The original plan for Operation Showdown called for simultaneous attacks on both Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge. One battalion from the US 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division would take Triangle Hill from Gimhwa-eup, while one battalion from the ROK 32nd Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division would attack Sniper Ridge along a parallel northbound route. UN planners expected the operation to last no more than five days with 200 casualties on the UN side.
    >The immediate UN objective was Triangle Hill (38°19′17″N 127°27′52″E), a forested ridge of high ground 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) north of Gimhwa-eup. The hill was occupied by the veterans of the PVA's 15th Corps. Over the course of nearly a month, substantial US and Republic of Korea Army (ROK) forces made repeated attempts to capture Triangle Hill and the adjacent Sniper Ridge. Despite clear superiority in artillery and aircraft, the escalating UN casualties resulted in the attack being halted after 42 days of fighting, with PVA forces regaining their original positions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Triangle_Hill
    Both "military superpowers" greatly underperformed despite having clear superiority in firepower against supposedly "weaker" opponents (Ukraine now and China back in Korea)

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I still don’t see how Ziggers can possibly see anything that happened at Bakhmut as a win. The supposedly 2nd most powerful army in the world that can crush NATO and make it to the Rhine in a week… took 8th months to take a single town, being forced to utilize waves of penal soldiers to force a war of attrition. For once again a single town

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    All the way back to Mariupol, every time Google get surrounded in a city, there are shills on PrepHole saying it’s still a loss for Russia, the city doesn’t matter, conquering entire cities is humiliating for Russia, and it was only a feint to delay them. The same script each time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hohols get surrounded*

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, mariupol did frick all in the russian advances aside from bogging all their btgs in one area. Mariupol was originally supposed to bog down russian forces from the rest of Donetsk to buy some time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Post Kherson (eternal Russian clay)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Of course. Russians are fricking barbarians making play they're civilized.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is some amazingly salty seethe. When all you have is accusing the victor of being corrupt, the longer term outlook cannot be very good.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How bad is Ukraine losing that Wagner founder is asking Zelensky to let Ukrainian soldiers retreat before they all get killed.

    You know shit has hit the fan when your enemy is begging you to save the lives of your own soldiers and not let them die cause of your ego.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If you failed to capture a city in 9 months and begging the enemy to surrender, thats not a sign of winning.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If he cared at all, he wouldn't have shut down negotiations. We know he still doesn't care because he still refuses to entertain peace talks. I just hope enough of his troops survive that they can overthrow this monster after this is over.

        Old men and teenagers are sent into battle. Limited training, poor equipment and little artillery, armour or air support. They are up against Wagner units full of Spetnaz. I’m glad these guys were captured and will survive.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What about russian forces?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The shills and psychopaths are still hardlining zelensky not negotiating. It's unbelievable.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why won't russia just leave the country? All of this could have ended if russia just leave.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Putin had legitimate grievances and demands that were mostly reasonable. Zelensky shut down talks. Nobody had to die.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Most of those demands were bullshit. Putin just wants Ukraine for a neosoviet ambition and resources. Russia could have left the country and nobody has to die.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >shuts down negotiations because frick Russia
                >gets ass kicked by Russia
                I'm a victim. Give me money!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >robber invades your house
                >gives demands
                >you fight back the robber
                Yes, if someone invades your fricking home, you're the victim.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then just force them out. You kill or injure the robber that invades your house. Are you going to let someone invade your house and rape your wife as an exchange for peace?

                Either way you're at their mercy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bucha proves they don't have much mercy

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >at their mercy
                You fight back to retain your land, property and culture. The robber is there to steal that, so you fight back. Are you this much of a cuck to just let people waltz in to your home, rape your wife and steal your belongings in exchange for peace? Mext time someone invades your home, don't fricking bother fighting back.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >slap your neighbors kids around
                >surprised that they come onto your property to kick your ass.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, russians are invading and are suprised to see a form of resistance.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you're fricking embarrassing with this goofy bullshit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >b-but
                If someone invades your home, you're automatically the victim. You have all rights to defend your property and land from unlawful invaders.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cool story, goober. I guess no invasion has ever been justified.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justified by any means, moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cry more, nerd.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mostly, yes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Someone today mentioned the shills not really caring about Ukrainians and only wanting to harm Russia, and there were a bunch of responses saying “yes, and?”

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I honestly think the combination of pharmaceuticals and war video games has short circuited a lot of people to the point where they're questionably human.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They should have pushed for peace after the Kherson withdrawal. Any fair peace deal at this point would include serious Ukraine concessions and there is just no way the US and EU will accept that.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              How about russia leaving the country? Why won't russia go back to its country?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Most of those demands were bullshit. Putin just wants Ukraine for a neosoviet ambition and resources. Russia could have left the country and nobody has to die.

                But they won't.
                So now what?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then just force them out. You kill or injure the robber that invades your house. Are you going to let someone invade your house and rape your wife as an exchange for peace?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Then just force them out.
                Have you considered putting in an application to be secretary of defense for Ukraine? You sound like a brilliant strategist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                An option to force someone out is always on the table.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kiev rulers murdered 14.000 people in Donbass since 2014. 500 were children. RUSSIAN children

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No evidences to support this. Majority of none military deaths were associated with mines, why do you Black folk keep spreading this?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How can you believe anything coming from either country?
                The first casualty of war is truth. Everything you learn about this conflict is probably a lie. From both sides.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So not a single human life lost? based
                >the west giving Ukraine cold war leftovers is destroying the collation of Russia, India, Iran, North Korea, and Israel while scaring China out of invading Taiwan
                double based

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/97tDBi0.jpg

              How bad is Ukraine losing that Wagner founder is asking Zelensky to let Ukrainian soldiers retreat before they all get killed.

              You know shit has hit the fan when your enemy is begging you to save the lives of your own soldiers and not let them die cause of your ego.

              >let Ukrainian soldiers retreat before they all get killed
              > "let"
              Ukraine is currently evacuating anyone and everyone who wants to leave. There was about a 72-73K population before the invasion in Feb 2022. as of this past week, the population was under 4000, the last remaining die hards, some of whom are vatnik supporters waiting to be liberated by Wagner and refuse to leave.

              There is no "let" happening here. Ukraine still comes and goes as it pleases as of this very minute. They are sending supplies, ammo, and soldiers into Bakhmut right now (today, this minute as I type this) to kill more vatBlack folk.

              Which also addresses the lie that over a week ago nobody could evacuate the wounded. bullshit. They are evacuating the wounded still today. vatBlack folk have no say in the matter. There are still reporters physically inside Bakhmut broadcasting live at this very minute.

              Wagner has not captured Bakhmut, nor encircled it, nor cut off Ukraine from going in or leaving.

              youtube, search string "france 24 bakhmut" and watch live and near-live reporting:
              https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=france+24+bakhmut&sp=CAI%253D

              Also of note, France24 and several other media outlets are using language from Kremlin disinfo scripts in their reporting for some incomprehensible reason. Probably to make it look like a horse race of some sort to keep it exciting and generate clicks & views. Idiotic phrases like "most important battle of the war" keep cropping up without a shred of explanation or evidence to support it. By omission, they are also lying about Bakhmut being a temporary delaying action from 9 months ago that has somehow turned into a massive clown circus for vatBlack folktan.

              russia is pulling of the first Pyrrhic Loss in human history, for a small town that they turned into a gravel pit with continuous artillery bombardment. There's nothing left except burning rubble.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          If the hohols are so weak, and ziggers so strong, why hasn't bakhmut fallen

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If he cared at all, he wouldn't have shut down negotiations. We know he still doesn't care because he still refuses to entertain peace talks. I just hope enough of his troops survive that they can overthrow this monster after this is over.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >negotiations
        Whats the point of negotiating with a party that wants your territory? Would you give up your country's land over a false pretense of peace?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, I'd give away California and DC for free. He didn't have to "give away" any of it had he not broken off negotiations.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yea, just like how germany wanted to negotiate for peace with poland?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I'd give away California and DC for free
            And I'd happily squeeze your balls through a garlic press. If only wishes were fishes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >begging pls leave in a propaganda video after spending the last few weeks fighting with everyone in the Russian military about ammo is a sign of strength

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This really is Schrödingers Bakhmut. The strategically most valuable but at the same time strategically most irrelevant city in all of Ukraine.

    If it is valuable, it’s loss is devastating for the war effort. If it’s irrelevant, Ukraine just sacrificed close to a hundred thousand men to defend it.

    What people also don’t get is the same injury rate of the Ukraine. Combat losses are high enough, injured personnel is arguably worse. Needing care and often unable to be reintegrated due to missing limbs. All for Bakhmut.

    I’m pretty sure in the future this will be seen as one of great blunders, holding strategically unimportant sites has never been a winning strategy.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Source: The same dude that was telling about the Ghost of Kiev and Bucha

    Yeah, i definitely believe it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >You do realise that Russia has lost the war anon?

      [...]

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I can't tell if that's satire or delusional troonybabble

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I say that Bakhmut proves that the Wagner group is being targeted by the top officials of the Russian military by being sent purposefully into meat grinders

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    its is currently 10 am in russia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This thread was probably linked on /misc/ or /leftypol/. So its either genuine shills or just morons from those 2 places.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >if you take the city, you lose

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If that "city" is a bombed out rubble that no longer has any strategic value while every other taken city gets liberated then yes. You traded gold and got tin

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It was a blunder to waste so much resources into defending Bakhmut. The Russians got what they wanted, they baited the Ukrainians into defending some strategically unimportant town where they'll get their forces destroyed via attrition. Russia/Wagner doesn't care about their casualties, they can replace them easily, but every Ukrainian killed is a soldier Ukraine can't replace.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/NAFO/
    Literally 99% is seething about some meme people only know because /misc/ is full or redditors

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every bullet point can be applied to both sides except for the 42km2

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    TRULY an embarrassing victory. Whatever, bakhmut garrison has fulfilled its combat mission

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >an embarrassing victory
      yes let the delicious cope FLOW

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >310 post and 59 posters
    Totally organic and not full of samehomosexualry and the same people replying to each other.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >full of samehomosexualry and the same people replying to each other.

      its called a conversation

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I get the vibes from this poster

      Says the one that is trying to strawman.

      , that if this was /misc/ and you hovered over their ID, it would say 61 posts by this ID

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I get the feeling you're the one that will have that amount of replies by this ID. But people can utilize proxies and use different IDs.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >no you

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone notice how shitposting kicks into high gear when the sun is up in India?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >when the sun is up in India?
      It's almost 12am in U.S. Western Time zone.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And almost 3 am in eastern timezone. 🙂

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >And almost 3 am in eastern timezone
          Hello insomniac fren

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they don't call this board /k/ope for nothing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I do not condone this illegal war, this illegal encirclement and this illegal thread

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ukraine gibs russia its rightful clay

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >forcefully displace the population
      >make referendums that you control and known to scew
      >make up results
      >LOOK! 90% VOTED TO JOIN
      Is this image ironic?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because Russia deported the true locals to Siberia and imported RU shitskins so there would be less political resistance

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union
          From 1930 to 1952, the government of the Soviet Union, on the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin under the direction of the NKVD official Lavrentiy Beria, forcibly transferred populations of various groups. These actions may be classified into the following broad categories: deportations of "anti-Soviet" categories of population (often classified as "enemies of the people"), deportations of entire nationalities, labor force transfer, and organized migrations in opposite directions to fill ethnically cleansed territories. Dekulakization marked the first time that an entire class was deported, whereas the deportation of Soviet Koreans in 1937 marked the precedent of a specific ethnic deportation of an entire nationality.[9]

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >From 1930 to 1952
            Anon, that was 70-90 years ago. Those people are all dead.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >all dead
              No, they are not and their off springs can inherit their will

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >believing in bullshit referendums that are obviously bullshit
      Anon, don't tell me you believe in the results like a moron?

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So when the Russians gather in the center of Bakhmut to celebrate will UAF shell the shit out of it?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Of course. They'll just relentlessly bombard it with precision strikes via HIMARS. What the frick is Prozakob***h going to do? Dare visit the ruins and get his ass capped?

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Bakhmut
    It's Artyomovsk since yesterday anon.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Uncle Vanya sends another batch of Kiev govt soldiers back home.
    He said they fought bravely and handles their remains respectfully.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >if they win they lose
    is this the new /k/ope?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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