Russian invasion of Ukraine

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Ah - the old verge of tears line.

Check.

Where's the Ainsley meme?

You are just utterly predictable.

Given your previous postings even denying there had been war crimes - I'd personally take your mewlings with a huge shovel of salt.

 

Truly devastated not to have your seal of approval. Still, I'm sure that you'll be around yet again soon to have another go with your 'any historical context at all = whataboutery' shtick. Because without that, you'd have literally nothing of consequence to contribute. 

[Londonwell]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Truly devastated not to have your seal of approval. Still, I'm sure that you'll be around yet again soon to have another go with your 'any historical context at all = whataboutery' shtick. Because without that, you'd have literally nothing of consequence to contribute. 

Who hurt you? 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Truly devastated not to have your seal of approval. Still, I'm sure that you'll be around yet again soon to have another go with your 'any historical context at all = whataboutery' shtick. Because without that, you'd have literally nothing of consequence to contribute. 

Which is not what I said.

Of course there can be historical context - the issue is when fannies like you completely abuse it or are not even vaguely open to an alternate view.

I personally expect very little to happen as consequence of Russian war crimes - that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued - which seems to be your stance.

[bairn88]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

The fact that war crimes from 60 years ago have still not been punished in fact underlines the point that contemporary 'war crimes' charges will also... not be punished. Because we continue to live in a world where strong powers play by entirely different rules in reality.

^^^ verge of tears

It doesn't actually take an expert to dismantle the litany of nonsense hot-takes peddled on here via Twitter, which include Putin going to The Hague and the Russians marching on Constantinople in the last 24 hours alone.

You seem to have a problem with such obvious nonsense being called out for what it is, with pesky facts and reason. 

 

Haven't read much on here - is this a troll? Or a genuine opinion?!

[jagfox]

 

 

[doulikefish]

2 minutes ago, jagfox said:

 

 

Trenches in the open ffs the Russians really are bad unless it's the beginning of anti tank type trenches which could explain the concrete blocks 

[ICTChris]

I just came on to post similar tweets

 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 
 

Fighting a 21st century war with badly imitated 20th century tactics.

You'd imagine that precision artillery would make mincemeat of that.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

Which is not what I said.

Of course there can be historical context - the issue is when fannies like you completely abuse it or are not even vaguely open to an alternate view.

In what way is demonstrating that war crimes perpetrated by a fellow global great power did not get punished a 'complete abuse' of context?

It's almost as if you've actually got no fucking clue what historians do, and are just flailing wildly at any factual information that you don't like to read. Well that's just tough. 

4 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

Quote

I personally expect very little to happen as consequence of Russian war crimes - that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued - which seems to be your stance.

No, you've simply made up that second part in your head. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

No, you've simply made up that second part in your head. 

Swing and miss champ - my mother was a historian - she studied Modern History at Dundee and was the prizewinner in her honours year.

I do have a very clear idea about what historians do - and have done for the past 40+ years since she graduated.

As for the second part I did say "seems to be" - for clarity - do you or do you not believe Russian war crimes should be pursued?

[Clown Job]

[DeeTillEhDeh]

And in other news.

The Pope is a Catholic.

And bears shit in the wood.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Swing and miss champ - my mother was a historian - she studied Modern History at Dundee and was the prizewinner in her honours year.
 

Don't post in this thread much but that's surely a pisstake?

[jagfox]

 

[dorlomin]

1 hour ago, jagfox said:

 

 

Trench warfare like that is man power intensive, but I do not think these are meant to be infantry trenches. 

Russia has been focussing on artillery dominant warfare were infantry act as OPs, that is small forward observation posts to call in the heavy stuff. But these are likely simply anti tank\MRAP type impediments and not meant to be manned trenches. Just vehicle obsitcles.

The lack of crenulations and bunkers hints strongly these are not really for infantry. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_(trench_warfare)#/media/File:Schwaben_Redoubt_aerial_photograph_10-05-1916_IWM_HU_91107.jpg

You build trenches with zig zags of some kind or another so it breaks up the artillery hits. So one hit does not take out a whole company. 

This is how the engineers get you over and through obstacles like this

 

Engineering tank dumps some fascines into the trenches and they can either blow through the ramps with Bangalores or go over them with bridging kit. 

Its not easy mind, this is the kind of thing that really takes a lot of training. 

Edited October 11, 2022 by dorlomin

[TxRover]

39 minutes ago, jagfox said:

 

That’s a true winner!

[Detournement]

And when you have the good weapons. 

 

[jagfox]

 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Swing and miss champ - my mother was a historian - she studied Modern History at Dundee and was the prizewinner in her honours year.

I do have a very clear idea about what historians do - and have done for the past 40+ years since she graduated.

As for the second part I did say "seems to be" - for clarity - do you or do you not believe Russian war crimes should be pursued?


 

Studying History at undergraduate level does not actually make you a historian. Unlucky.

It's completely pointless to pursue war crimes against the sovereign leader or indeed any other major decision-maker of a great power. All it does is encourage hardline elements within Russia to double down with their paranoia about the West seeking 'regime change', with absolutely zero prospect of actually bringing anyone to justice. That is the geopolitical reality of the situation, as opposed to the fantasyland morality plays favoured on social media. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Studying History at undergraduate level does not actually make you a historian. Unlucky.
It's completely pointless to pursue war crimes against the sovereign leader or indeed any other major decision-maker of a great power. All it does is encourage hardline elements within Russia to double down with their paranoia about the West seeking 'regime change', with absolutely zero prospect of actually bringing anyone to justice. That is the geopolitical reality of the situation, as opposed to the fantasyland morality plays favoured on social media. 

She also taught and lectured in History for 35 years - I suspect longer than you did.

So your second response confirms that you don't support pursuing war crimes - which is exactly what I said:

"I personally expect very little to happen as consequence of Russian war crimes - that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued - which seems to be your stance."

A second question - if Russian war crimes should not be pursued should they then be completely ignored?