It's obvious that you're not interested in honest or rational discussion here and just keep deflecting. I love how you think you're being clever while being utterly transparent.

[–] harcesz@szmer.info 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What's "deflecting" about giving you very simple, clear historical evidence your argument is invalid?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

your reply had fuck all to do with the comment you replied to

Oh look, the same clown who’s cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain’t fooling anybody.

Faced with the fact that you don't actually give a shit about other people, you simply hop on to a different topic like the clown that you are.

[–] harcesz@szmer.info 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You're hillarious, here's a refresher of your own escaping https://lemmy.ml/comment/15056594

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not escaping anything there, but hey you cope the best you can there.

[–] harcesz@szmer.info 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You claim Finland is somehow impossible to cross, even tho Russia itself invaded over these terrains at least 3 times in the XX century. You claim Ukraine is somehow key to Russian security even tho both times Moscow was reached by European countries it was done over Belarus. I'm coping? That is nearly funny.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fact that Russia had as much difficulty in Winter War as they did actually shows why Finland is bad terrain. It's hilarious how you keep doubling down on your idiocy here.

[–] harcesz@szmer.info 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You picked the one with the worst effect for Russia out of three, yes, but still won by Russia, so what was your point exactly?

And have you ever seen any footage of actual fighting in Ukraine? It's either armored units getting butchered in the open fields, or tree-lines being the only safe means of approach and defensible entrenched positions.

Finland is exactly the type of terrain that enables modern military action. Unless you're expecting NATO to use heavy cavalry, or (the earlier) battle of Kursk style mass tank formations, which is by now even less likely then cavalry. Pick your favorite highway of death between the Iraqi and the north of Kyiv one for a reality check my dear tank aficionado. Not to mention the absolutely spectacular position of Severomorsk - northern fleet command, relative to NATO borders nowadays. Or the fact that Russia is in reality so scared of NATO that there's hardly any equipment or experienced troops left in that region currently as a cherry on top.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I've seen plenty of footage of fighting in Ukraine, and if you pay attention to Kursk then you'll see how much harder fighting there is because of terrain. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, yet you're brimming with confidence. Absolutely incredible stuff.

[–] harcesz@szmer.info 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

How is the terrain there different?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

look at a map sometime, Kursk is a heavily forested area