cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
that gave me a chuckle.Speaking in absolutes is always wrong
that gave me a chuckle.Speaking in absolutes is always wrong
Even though I do...that gave me a chuckle.
Please explain what part of "leave an outlet free" I do not understand. I will explain my point afterwards.You seem confused as to what "leave an outlet free" might mean. Otherwise I don't see what alternative point you're trying to make here.
Great, but you've not said why Sun Tzu's words are wrong here. In what scenario are we best to ignore the words:Speaking in absolutes is always wrong, modern armies are more dependent on logistics over longer distances than traditional ones, during ww2 the Germans surrounded vast numbers of Russians in pincher encirclements. Another example might be invading Russia, that could provoke nukes, so in a way, leave them a way out by not invading their territory after destroying their army in the field. Without nukes on the table Ukraine could turn on Moscow after dealing with the Russians in their own country, little would stand between them and the couple of hundred miles to Moscow from the border.
So what alternative were you trying to explain? You started your post with "no" to what part did you mean "no" to?Please explain what part of "leave an outlet free" I do not understand. I will explain my point afterwards.
Aye, that's why I quoted Sun Tzu lol
What alternative point was printer trying to make, do you think?
The Russians are holding thousands of Ukrainian POW. Do you think they will just give them back at the end of the war? You do not even know that prisoner exchanges are done on a one to one ratio? That soldiers that surrender hope for a return home some day and that they expect their country to try to get them back? I do not understand what part of this you do not understand.Well that's great. But what alternative to "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free " do you think that @printer might be talking about since that's what we're talking about here. He said "no" to Sun Tzu's words and I'm wondering why.
Do you think Sun Tzu's words are wrong in this climate?
That's fantastic and has nothing to do withThe Russians are holding thousands of Ukrainian POW. Do you think they will just give them back at the end of the war? You do not even know that prisoner exchanges are done on a one to one ratio? That soldiers that surrender hope for a return home some day and that they expect their country to try to get them back? I do not understand what part of this you do not understand.
All I'm saying it depends on circumstance and in war absolute rules don't apply. Take for instance dividing your forces, that is what the Ukrainians appear to have done, though they have short internal lines of communication and can move forces from the south to the east overnight. I guess the problem with the line, is while it is a consideration, it is not an absolute rule, it depends on the objective. Perhaps something was lost in the translation or through the passage of time, Sun Tzu would have destroyed a surrounded enemy if it was to his advantage to do so and left them a way out if he figured that was best. If you let them run into the swamps sometimes, they won't come out the other side. Also an ancient army that is scattered and on the run is a frightened mob and not a threat, scare the Jesus out of them and let them run for the Hills rather than your guys getting killed for nothing fighting them.Great, but you've not said why Sun Tzu's words are wrong here. In what scenario are we best to ignore the words:
"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free."
I'm not dissing you, I'm just wondering why anyone would have complaint with that line.
Lobbing a few thousand shells into the place would get the attention of the Russians and most of the remaining army in Ukraine would redeploy in a hurry inside Russia!
When an army can do harm to you then at times it is good to leave an exit. But when you can capture them it is a good idea to do it. Would you like me to repeat that but slower?That's fantastic and has nothing to do with
"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. "
What did you say "no" to there? What part of that statement did you disagree with?
So you think that we shouldn't offer an encircled enemy a way out? What "ancient" reason was there that this was good advice in the past?All I'm saying it depends on circumstance and in war absolute rules don't apply. Take for instance dividing your forces, that is what the Ukrainians appear to have done, though they have short internal lines of communication and can move forces from the south to the east overnight. I guess the problem with the line, is while it is a consideration, it is not an absolute rule, it depends on the objective. Perhaps something was lost in the translation or through the passage of time, Sun Tzu would have destroyed a surrounded enemy if it was to his advantage to do so and left them a way out if he figured that was best. If you let them run into the swamps sometimes, they won't come out the other side. Also an ancient army that is scattered and on the run is a frightened mob and not a threat, scare the Jesus out of them and let them run for the Hills rather than your guys getting killed for nothing fighting them.
No, I'd like you to answer my question.When an army can do harm to you then at times it is good to leave an exit. But when you can capture them it is a good idea to do it. Would you like me to repeat that but slower?
That would not be wise, that is some attention they would not want. If they had overwhelming strength then maybe. At the moment they do not have the ammo to get the Russians out of Ukraine.Lobbing a few thousand shells into the place would get the attention of the Russians and most of the remaining army in Ukraine would redeploy in a hurry inside Russia!
I really need to question your sources on that one. Wars are not fought on ammunition alone.That would not be wise, that is some attention they would not want. If they had overwhelming strength then maybe. At the moment they do not have the ammo to get the Russians out of Ukraine.
Usually it's a binary choice these days, surrender or be destroyed and when you are out of ammo and fuel, you cannot fight. Good terms of surrender and good treatment are ways out too and the Ukrainians are exploiting this. However war criminals might be desperate and their options rather constrained.So you think that we shouldn't offer an encircled enemy a way out? What "ancient" reason was there that this was good advice in the past?
Do you even understand why "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free" is good advice? No offence like, but do you?
144 Ukraine Fighters Freed from Russian Captivity in Prisoner ExchangeNo, I'd like you to answer my question.
What part of the statement "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free" do you disagree with? Are you somehow under the illusion that a cornered enemy is a safe enemy?
It is a major supply hub for the Russians, they can limit strikes to military, transport and logistics targets. The point is it would cause a major redeployment of Russian forces in a blocking defensive posture, then an offense to drive them back out of range. It would be more of a diversion than an attack, they already hit the place several times, but artillery kinda changes things! Something to consider, I think it is in 155mm range from the border?That would not be wise, that is some attention they would not want. If they had overwhelming strength then maybe. At the moment they do not have the ammo to get the Russians out of Ukraine.