Ukraine updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,201
2,108
113
kingston
Russia posted these photos but some are saying its not the same ship.
Its still unclear.

If the ship is back in port then why is it that on airtracker Forte10 is still surveying the attack area at 1:21 pm Mar 26.
This morning there was a Turkish helicopter in the area as well.
1685121783627.png
Now overlay the above with the below and tell me why there would be (identified by the blue dots and blue ship shape) 7 tugs and special craft in the area of the strike due North of Zonguldak as well.
1685122191059.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

NotADcotor

His most imperial galactic atheistic majesty.
Mar 8, 2017
7,202
4,862
113
Sure. But they left without accomplishing any objectives. That's a loss.



That was my point. Vietnam was a test of a new American theory: limited warfare. A hybrid maneuver/attrition strategy. It failed, they lost, but they learned from it. Even against a conventional army it fails. That was played out in wargames. As an operational art, it's an unmitigated disaster.
1: South VIetnam fell because the Americans lost interest.
2: When they did leave nam the south was mostly cleared of VC. Pacification did work.
"
Pacification, once it had been fully
fleshed out, freed South Vietnam from communist subversion and forced the communists to
broker a peace with the United States and to carry out mass military offensives against South
Vietnam as they could no longer win by soft power and ideology. "

I've read similar elsewhere in actual books.
It was a long conflict and the Yanks eventually figured it out after many mistakes.

Also this rando makes a similar point
• That the demilitarized zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel would remain a provisional dividing line between North and South Vietnam.
• No military movement across the DMZ.
• Would not use force of any kind to unify the country.
Sounds like a win to me. It didn't hold, but again, lost interest.

By the time the US left, South Vietnam was pretty much pacified and the VC couldn't do shit.
The yanks left with a treaty, the North upped the logistics unmolested by air attacks and in time launched a full on conventional attack.
The Americans were not beat by peasants in Pajamas, they beat them, they signed a treaty and lost interest allowing the North to go in and run over the South.

What is odd is that it is VERY hard to actually find this information on line, or maybe my google fu is shit.

It was the US that drove North Vietnam to the treaty table and had them agree to stop. The US was not drivin out of South VIetnam by combat, they just lost interest.
Just like Afghanistan. They were clearly in control, they just lost interest. Sometimes that is the right response.
 
Last edited:

NotADcotor

His most imperial galactic atheistic majesty.
Mar 8, 2017
7,202
4,862
113
I know. They really haven't lost any wars - mainly because they were always a lot bigger than their opponents. Custer was the best I could come up with.
This was a bigger one.

After they got over the shock, they drove the north et al back to the current DMZ and then lost interest in doing another dug out doug. But technically they went in to clear the south and they did.
As for the second one, well shit happens with noobs.
Also Guam, Wake [although they did very well there], probably come up with more if I was more sex nuts and retard strong over US military history.
Great thing about the Civil War is, no matter how bad either side did, still counts as a win for 'merica! ;)
 

NotADcotor

His most imperial galactic atheistic majesty.
Mar 8, 2017
7,202
4,862
113
ROTFLMFAO!!!! If Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, America/NATO will do EXACTLY nothing.
Under what circumstances, pray tell, would NATO "retaliate " in kind, if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?????
You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?

"b) General Petraeus : "Any use of tactical nukes, the US would use conventional weapons to destroy every Russian military asset including the Black Sea fleet" Russia loses quicker if it uses nukes"

I guess this is where you respond with ROTFLMFAO like some sort of manic mentally ill person for establishing both your lack of understanding and your inability to read... because being shown up is just so funny???
Just looking forward to the day when you react to something honestly and show some self awareness that you are out of your depth.

Fact, the US can respond to nukes, not in kind,
2: At least one US general has explained how in a post above your comments.

An adult would admit they were wrong/mispoke, a child would respond with laughter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,509
6,738
113
You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?

"b) General Petraeus : "Any use of tactical nukes, the US would use conventional weapons to destroy every Russian military asset including the Black Sea fleet" Russia loses quicker if it uses nukes"

I guess this is where you respond with ROTFLMFAO like some sort of manic mentally ill person for establishing both your lack of understanding and your inability to read... because being shown up is just so funny???
Just looking forward to the day when you react to something honestly and show some self awareness that you are out of your depth.

Fact, the US can respond to nukes, not in kind,
2: At least one US general has explained how in a post above your comments.

An adult would admit they were wrong/mispoke, a child would respond with laughter.
Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation. 😆 🤣 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: danmand

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
If the ship is back in port then why is it that on airtracker Forte10 is still surveying the attack area at 1:21 pm Mar 26.
This morning there was a Turkish helicopter in the area as well.
View attachment 235706
Now overlay the above with the below and tell me why there would be (identified by the blue dots and blue ship shape) 7 tugs and special craft in the area of the strike due North of Zonguldak as well.
View attachment 235707

According to addyski, that is all fake msm propaganda!

Russia is the only source of information that history has shown is accurate and pravda!
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation. 😆 🤣 😂

You really should get in touch with some country's military and offer them your astute, always certain, analysis.

And when they tell you that only fools are certain, you can tell them you are certain you are no fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adriel

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?

"b) General Petraeus : "Any use of tactical nukes, the US would use conventional weapons to destroy every Russian military asset including the Black Sea fleet" Russia loses quicker if it uses nukes"

I guess this is where you respond with ROTFLMFAO like some sort of manic mentally ill person for establishing both your lack of understanding and your inability to read... because being shown up is just so funny???
Just looking forward to the day when you react to something honestly and show some self awareness that you are out of your depth.

Fact, the US can respond to nukes, not in kind,
2: At least one US general has explained how in a post above your comments.

An adult would admit they were wrong/mispoke, a child would respond with laughter.

That's what I think would happen. If Russia escalates and uses a tactical nuke to 'show zey myean beeeeznyezz,' , the US would then realize that Russia is even more in need of a little tickle... like sinking their entire Black Sea fleet.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,509
6,738
113
You really should get in touch with some country's military and offer them your astute, always certain, analysis.

And when they tell you that only fools are certain, you can tell them you are certain you are no fool.
Certain about what? I asked a simple question and got a mindless Petraeus quote from another poster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danmand

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
106,099
31,353
113
Under what circumstances, pray tell, would NATO "retaliate " in kind, if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?????
You think the US and NATO wouldn't retaliate?
If the ship is back in port then why is it that on airtracker Forte10 is still surveying the attack area at 1:21 pm Mar 26.
This morning there was a Turkish helicopter in the area as well.
View attachment 235706
Now overlay the above with the below and tell me why there would be (identified by the blue dots and blue ship shape) 7 tugs and special craft in the area of the strike due North of Zonguldak as well.
View attachment 235707
Someone pointed out that the Russian claims couldn't be true, the Khurs couldn't have returned that fast.

This may be more accurate.
 

NotADcotor

His most imperial galactic atheistic majesty.
Mar 8, 2017
7,202
4,862
113
Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation. 😆 🤣 😂
Called it.

Also you didn't understand that I was pointing out that you were wrong in implying that the only response by the west to tac nukes being used is in kind. Whooosh.

Also you do know that the US has just as many nukes as Russia AND much fewer targets to spend them on. The US and the old USSR had about 300 population centers to wreck, Russia is half the population and the west has NATO.
But yeah I get it. When Poutine uses nukes, he is smart and being stronk, but when the US replies to said nukes by sinking Naval assets, or manning the Belurus border with peace keepers releasing Ukraine troops for the front, or perhaps stationing the USAF and everything from F-35s to A-10s and anti air assets to wreck everything within Ukraine's old borders, or sending troops to Ukraine itself to wreck shit up with orders not to cross the old borders, or sending fuck tons more drones to Ukraine to fuck over every airfield within 600 miles of the front lines... or why not all of it.

If it is unthinkable for the US to do any of that should Poutine use nukes because Poutine has nukes, it should be equally unthinkable for Poutine to use tactical nukes in the first place.


Let me guess ROTFLMFAO, right, that's your response. You must know that that response makes you come across as a child and a slobbering idiot. That you keep responding that way proves to me and any other rational person watching this that you are not engaged in sincere debate but that just being a trolling asshat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery

NotADcotor

His most imperial galactic atheistic majesty.
Mar 8, 2017
7,202
4,862
113
Certain about what? I asked a simple question and got a mindless Petraeus quote from another poster.

That mindless quote as you called it, showed you were wrong in thinking the only possible response was to respond to a nuke attack in kind.
You would have to be pretty mindless or a troll not to understand this. Regardless of the wisdom of the general's comments.

And again, why is it nuts to take out the black fleet sea fleet but not nuts for Russia to stop lobbing tactical nukes. Again you do know don't you that the US has nukes. ALso I don't think West Taiwan would be too thrilled if Russia went beyond that line [considering they are facing off vs India who also has nukes] and oh you know who else has nukes doncha... West Taiwan.
You have to be a cultist to take the position that one nuke power can do what ever they want because they have nukes, but another nuke power can't even though they have the same capacity. Or perhaps you think Poutine is absolutely bat shit crazy.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,704
113
1: South VIetnam fell because the Americans lost interest.
2: When they did leave nam the south was mostly cleared of VC. Pacification did work.
"
Pacification, once it had been fully
fleshed out, freed South Vietnam from communist subversion and forced the communists to
broker a peace with the United States and to carry out mass military offensives against South
Vietnam as they could no longer win by soft power and ideology. "

I've read similar elsewhere in actual books.
It was a long conflict and the Yanks eventually figured it out after many mistakes.

Also this rando makes a similar point
• That the demilitarized zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel would remain a provisional dividing line between North and South Vietnam.
• No military movement across the DMZ.
• Would not use force of any kind to unify the country.
Sounds like a win to me. It didn't hold, but again, lost interest.

By the time the US left, South Vietnam was pretty much pacified and the VC couldn't do shit.
The yanks left with a treaty, the North upped the logistics unmolested by air attacks and in time launched a full on conventional attack.
The Americans were not beat by peasants in Pajamas, they beat them, they signed a treaty and lost interest allowing the North to go in and run over the South.

What is odd is that it is VERY hard to actually find this information on line, or maybe my google fu is shit.

It was the US that drove North Vietnam to the treaty table and had them agree to stop. The US was not drivin out of South VIetnam by combat, they just lost interest.
Just like Afghanistan. They were clearly in control, they just lost interest. Sometimes that is the right response.
Note: This is not in topic and so will be my last reply regarding Vietnam so as to stop detailing the thread.

If you say "I'm taking my ball and going home," you didn't win. Also saying the south was pacified is weird considering everything that happened after the US withdrawal. Clearly it wasn't very well pacified if that's the case.

They won the war in Iraq and failed the occupation. They lost the war in Vietnam so there was no occupation. I respect you posted a source that shares your opinion, but I suggest something more academic. You should be able to find "Historical Commentary: Vietnam and Revisionism" by Culver (an actual historian who has studied the Vietnam war). It has some interesting remarks. Here's a good quote from it;

'General William Westmoreland told a Boston College audience that politicians caused America's defeat in Vietnam. "The Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefield," the Commander of
United States forces in Vietnam said, "but lost in the halls of Congress." '

Westmoreland was there. He should know if it was a loss or not, don't you think?

Some other choice quotes and some remarks from me about them:

'Revisionism salves the national psyche
and restores a self-image of power.' Again, I don't know why Canadians are trying to save the fragile American ego.

'While highly critical of the French for any compromise with communism, the United States moved to establish South Vietnam as a barrier to further communist advances in Southeast
Asia. Containment would consist of restricting communism to North Vietnam and treating South Vietnam as an independent country and part of the "free" world.' As stated: this was one of the core objectives: hold communism to North Vietnam, and that failed. A unified, communist Vietnam did emerge. You can't fail to achieve your objectives but say you "won" because you quit and went home.

'In 1946 Ho had declared, "kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours. In the end, you will lose and I will win." He was speaking to the French, but the equation applied no less to the Americans. North Vietnam, willing and able to fight longer, would outlast the United States.' The North literally said, "We will lose more people, but you will eventually give up and leave, and that's our condition for declaring victory." Exactly that happened, so the US can't say, "Nah, they lost and we won despite the fact that their objective was achieved using the exact strategy they said they would and we failed to achieve ours." That's inane and I don't know why you're trying to make that argument. It's untenable.

'But the "peace agreements," which provided for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of American troops, did not resolve the political future of South Vietnam, the central issue of the war. The war soon resumed, and in April 1975 the communists marched triumphantly into Saigon, drawing the
painful war to a close.' The key phrase there is "central issue of the war". The North Vietnamese did the thing that the US went to war against them to stop them from doing.

'the United States could have bombed North Vietnam back to the Stone Age and invaded the North. But would the public have supported a costly invasion against a dedicated foe that would
have risked war with China and the Soviet Union (China had threatened to respond if the United States had moved north). In any case, what would
have been left after "Victory?" As Senator Stuart Symington asked of Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "What do we win if we win?" At the least, it would have meant an indefinite American occupation of Vietnam with all its costs and strains.' Note the wording: a "victory" would have resulted in occupation. This is why the Iraq War was a win. The US lost the occupation (because again, if you give up and leave, that's a forfeit, not a victory), but won the war. In Vietnam there was no occupation to lose because the war was never won.

'Revisionism also underestimates the power of Vietnamese nationalism, whose banner had been captured by Ho and whose goal was to rid Vietnam of foreigners.' This drives home the point again: the US leaving was the primary objective of the North, and their strategy to achieve the was pure attrition knowing the US would give up. The North's strategy played out a they predicted. They absolutely outdied the US. And their objective was achieved because of it. Therefore the North won. And if the North won, their opponent can't also have won. The US lost.

'In the end the public recognized that the
American goal of propping up South Vietnam was unachievable.' The objective of the war could not be obtained. So the US gave up and left. That's a loss.

There are several other good books out there. Weirdly enough, "revisionism" when talking about Vietnam used to mean "If we had employed a different military strategy we would have won," because the idea that it wasn't a loss is relatively new. No one back in the 70s or even most of the 80s ever argued the US one. That's even newer "revisionism".

It's very simple: the US realized that their military actions had resulted in creating a situation where they could never achieve their goal (aka it was impossible to win"), so they cut their losses and left. Realizing you can't win and giving up may be smart, but it's not a victory. In sports that's called "conceding", and it's a loss. Likewise, the US conceded in Vietnam. It was 100% not a win, and since the North achieved their objectives it wasn't a stalemate. By every metric, if you don't win and don't stalemate, and if your opinion wins, you lose.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
Let me guess ROTFLMFAO, right, that's your response.

You must know that that response makes you come across as a child and a slobbering idiot.

That you keep responding that way proves to me and any other rational person watching this that you are not engaged in sincere debate but that just being a trolling asshat.
Nailed it
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
More good news for Addyovski from his beloved Republican Party! CLUSTER BOMBS FOR UKRAINE!

I bet the Tangerine Imbecile can't stop the normal Republican party members from supporting Ukraine if he gets elected.

And finally I get to say something good about the weasel Lindsay Graham.

US senator Lindsay Graham meets Zelensky, calls for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on May 26 and called for supplying long-range ATACMS missiles and cluster munitions to Ukraine, news agency Interfax-Ukraine reported.

The faster ATACMS and cluster munitions are delivered to Ukraine, the more territory Kyiv will be able to liberate and the fewer lives will be lost, he said.

Graham went on to say that he would encourage his colleagues in the Senate and the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with the long-range weapon system.

Good article here.... https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-meets-with-us-senator-graham-in-kyiv/
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
14,976
9,601
113
Why some Ukrainian soldiers use Nazi-related insignia

You're closely following the living history of a nation bravely resisting an imperialistic war of aggression that has inspired the world when, all of a sudden, you come across a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Totenkopf "skull and crossbones" patch or giving the Nazi salute.

Rightfully so, the use of Nazi or neo-Nazi-related symbols by Ukrainian combatants is shocking and almost always causes controversy.

These symbols, reminders of some of history's worst crimes against humanity and the attempt to exterminate entire groups of people, are deeply offensive.

Of course, seeing these symbols on soldiers is always distressing, to say the least. While these soldiers do not represent a widespread practice in the Ukrainian military, the use of these symbols nonetheless discredits Ukraine and scares away some potential supporters worldwide.

After almost a decade of reporting on this war, I'd like to chip in with a couple of thoughts on why you might see these symbols on the battlefield in Ukraine. Not to justify these soldiers' decisions — as any use of Nazi symbols should always be condemned — but to offer my explanation for this phenomenon.

So, why are these symbols present on the battlefield?

First of all, let's establish one fact. No, Ukraine does not have "a Nazi problem."

Ukraine is no more "Nazi" than any country that has its small number of misfits who admire Adolf Hitler and form fringe groups and gangs based on those views. Ukraine has its groups like the U.K. has the neo-Nazi organization Combat 18, the Scandinavians have the Nordic Resistance Movement, and the United States has the Aryan Brotherhood.

With absolutely no proof, the Kremlin's war propaganda created the absurd narrative that Ukraine is a full-fledged, World War II-style Nazi nation that needs to be "de-Nazified" as justification for its brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Just like in many places around the world, people with far-right and neo-Nazi views, driven by their ideology, are prone to joining the military and participating in conflicts. One also has to take into account that in Ukraine, nationalism with deep historical roots is tied to a desire for independence from Russia. It has driven many to take up arms to fight in what they believe is an existential war against a neighbor that seeks to subjugate and destroy their country.

Among them, people with far-right views.

This feeling was very real back in 2014, in the early days of Russia's war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas. Ukraine's military was deeply disorganized and disoriented. Ultra-nationalist and far-right groups were among the many others that organized volunteer battalions to fight Russia's invasion in the east.

These groups were aggressive and highly motivated. It is, of course, true that, for instance, the Azov Battalion was originally founded by neo-Nazi and far-right groups (as well as many soccer ultra-fans), which brought along with it the typical aesthetics — not only neo-Nazi insignia but also things like Pagan rituals or names like "The Black Corps," the official newspaper of Nazi Germany's major paramilitary organization Schutzstaffel (SS).

But as with any country, real neo-Nazis in Ukraine were and still are a tiny minority.

All former guerilla groups with far-right ties were quickly absorbed into Ukraine's Armed Forces or the National Guard between 2015-2016 as linear, disciplined, and fully-controlled combat units.

From my experience observing this war over the years since 2014, the Ukrainian military has done a rather good job of "secularizing" and isolating these units from their far-right origins, largely due to pressure from the West.

This policy could be described as "keep your views to yourself and train hard."

This is what happened with Azov. Far more moderate servicemembers rose to prominence (and even to fame during the Battle of Mariupol and the siege of Azovstal), along with military specialists from other branches of service, who joined Azov because they wanted to serve with a highly professional combat unit.

It hasn't helped that, since 2014, some Western journalists have made the supposed "rise of the far right" a staple of their coverage of Ukraine, as headlines of supposed neo-Nazis in the country are consistently attention-grabbing.

And right before the full-scale invasion, certain American journalists wrote about how Ukrainian neo-Nazis were allegedly using the threat of Russia's full-scale invasion to seize power in the country.

But guess what — the Russian invasion did happen, and the neo-Nazi power grab never did. Not only was there no serious evidence ever presented to support claims of an attempted "coup," these fringe elements are nothing compared to Ukraine's state and military machine.

A drop in the ocean, as the saying goes.

Nevertheless, notorious Nazi and quasi-Nazi symbols are sometimes used by soldiers who do not come close to having any extremist or hateful views.

So why is this happening? In the oversimplified memory of some around the world, particularly within various militaristic subcultures, symbols representing the Wehrmacht, Nazi Germany's Armed Forces, and the SS are seen to reflect a super-effective war machine, not the perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history.

While this, of course, does not absolve these soldiers of wearing extremely offensive insignia, it offers a partial explanation as to why, in my opinion, these symbols have become an integral part of global militaristic subcultures that embrace different historical symbols of war, particularly Nazi ones.

As these insignia were absorbed into militaristic subcultures around the globe, many who wear Nazi patches on their uniforms have come to disassociate these emblems from the crimes committed by their original users 80 years ago.

Although the presence of Nazi symbols on the battlefield generates the most controversy, they are just a fraction of the militaristic emblems embraced by combatants worldwide. Norse and pseudo-Norse, or Viking, symbols of war — the very symbols that the Nazis themselves used to create their own insignia — are also very common.

The culture of modern war patches, a strange, pseudo-art form in militaristic subcultures, has developed into a standalone phenomenon in which those who bear them sometimes completely divorce their modern use with any former ideology. And some symbols hardly have any ideology behind them at all – such as the ubiquitous Punisher skull patch coming from the famous Marvel show.


This phenomenon is hardly unique to Ukraine.

One might remember a scandal over the fact that U.S. Marines Scout Snipers used the SS runes as their unofficial symbol. In 2012, they thought it was a good idea to take a picture of themselves posing next to an SS flag in Afghanistan, prompting swift action from the Corps.

Russia's propaganda created and cultivated for years the myth about the Ukrainian far-right, inflating their numbers and so-called power within the country. Many Western journalists have built their entire careers feeding off of Moscow's narrative.

The irony is that Russia has long promoted not only Nazi-style symbols but Nazi practices, morphing into a fascist state that has made war crimes part of its foreign policy.

The Russian far-right and neo-Nazi paramilitary unit Rusich uses both the swastika and the 88 symbol, a neo-Nazi numerical code for "Heil Hitler."

Dmitriy Utkin, the alleged co-founder and top commander of the notorious mercenary army Wagner Group, has a large swastika and the Wehrmacht symbol tattooed on his body. And yes, he goes under the nom-de-guerre Wagner not because he's a big fan of the opera. Hitler was a great admirer of the 19th-century German composer Richard Wagner and glorified him during his reign.

Russia's official policy is ethnic cleansing, killing those speaking Ukrainian, kidnapping Ukrainian children and raising them as Russian, and denying a nation of 40 million the right to exist.

For some Ukrainians, the use of some of these symbols is meant to overtly demonstrate a fierce opposition to Russia – which, for its part, is insanely obsessed with the aggressive weaponization of everything about the Soviet Union's role in World War II, which Russian propaganda portrays as largely a Soviet defeat of the Nazis and fascism.

So yes, while Nazi symbols are not widespread within Ukraine's military, it is still a difficult issue that needs to be resolved.

If I were in charge of such things, I'd enforce severe punitive action for wearing Nazi-related insignia. Nazi symbols do not deserve to be on a Ukrainian soldier's shoulder in this war, where Ukraine is fighting for the very fundamental values the free democratic world is built on.

A military has all kinds of people — and Ukraine's is a very large one. With all of its branches, Ukraine's Defense Force now has some 1 million people in ranks.

And problematic pictures of those who think it's "cool" to wear Nazi-related insignia represent nothing but the attitudes of a select few – not the entirety of this military and, least of all, of this nation.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts