How will they manage to believe that when the Kyiv government will remain in power and the vast majority of Ukraine will remain free of Russian troops? Because whatever happens from here on, it's clear that Russia is simply unable to take Kyiv and unable to bring down the government.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
How will they manage to believe that when the Kyiv government will remain in power and the vast majority of Ukraine will remain free of Russian troops? Because whatever happens from here on, it's clear that Russia is simply unable to take Kyiv and unable to bring down the government.
Russia has been successful in portraying itself as the eternal victim. In reality, in modern times it has been attacked twice, in 1812 and 1941. Meanwhile, it has been attacking to the west and south and east almost constantly.
Agreed
The military reality says otherwise. Russia does not have enough troops to even encircle the vast perimeter of Kyiv, far less take a city where, in an urban environment, the general rule is that attackers will die at six times the rate of of defenders.
You literally said Khadyrov has an army that could take on any country in Europe.
It's not 1915 anymore, you can have the finest or deadliest troops on the planet, it's almost irrelevant when you're invading a country with high tech bombers, helicopters and missiles and without air superiority. They would get obliterated within 1km into the first NATO country.
But these Chechnyans....I hear they can dodge explosions, breathe fire AND they all look like Anna Kournikova (used to).
Thought the Ukrainians had caused them severe casualties?
Last edited:
I typically like The Drive’s analysis.
I missed the speech earlier today where Boris Johnson compared the struggle of Ukrainians fighting the Russian invasion to British people voting for Brexit.
How‘s the Daily Star for credibility?
I'm glad someone agrees with me on this. He doesn't believe any of this propaganda, doesn't fit his personality.
The thing is Ukraine will take a decade to even reach the same level they are now. The country will be sent years back economically and even demographically.
Russia will have “no problems” with that as they don’t want Ukraine to be a developed state or reach the standard of some European country. They want it to be weak and dependent just like Belarus.
In terms of how long a puppet govt will stand? Yes, can’t see it standing for even couple of years as Putin pretty much severed all relations with the west of Ukraine and all Ukrainian people that will be still there. He can try to install some separatists in the already captured regions but it will take massive resources to keep controlling this vast area.
I agree with this 100%. A lot of Russians have friends or relatives in Ukraine. Let's not forget that Russia has 145 million people, and Ukraine 45 million people, so there is not a huge difference in population, at least not the same as the size of the two countries. And when Russians look at Ukraine and see that it gets more and more democratic and perhaps is accepted in EU, they will question themselves "why do we have the same old guy as president for 25 years???" That would be a danger for Putin himself, and his cronies, not for Russia.
NATO has never been a factor. It is just silly to talk about NATO in this situation.
Apparently this is an advertisement for the event were seeing (in the first post), before it happened, and this is why they used old footage.
Gotcha.
And once the occupational forces fall, the remaining UA forces from the West will head eastwards again to retake the land. And once Ukraine regains it's independence, I think the Western countries will help to rebuild as much as possible.
Putin has the upper hand on the attack with all his bombs, but when the tide shifts to him defending and occupying he is severely disadvantaged in the sense that he will have less and less money as time passes to 'maintain peace'.
What are you talking about? Do you know that Chechnya's population is only 1.4 million? They are nothing.
But all of them are like avengers from MU. Imagine 1.4 million avengers.
It sounded like he was talking about some comic book stuff.
I assumed that he meant their effectiveness in a protracted guerilla campaign. Which would have made more sense given their numbers.
A country with allegedly 1300 warplanes including gen 5 stealth jets, has failed to dominate the airspace against a country with 37 MiG-29s and 32 Su-27s. And that's despite the defenders having no long-range/high-altitude SAM missiles like S-400 or Patriot. Their air defences are literally low altitude MANPADS.
They will write books of this level of failure.
I think the time to stop talking about NATO aggression was when the guy who would happily, and frequently has, used the spectre of NATO aggression to his benefit at any opportunity, went on National TV and gave a long rambling evil speech about how Ukraine wasn’t a real country, Russia deserved its glorious empire back, and also Ukrainians were basically Russian anyway… and then promptly Invaded the whole of Ukraine, despite most initial consensus being he was only going into the Donbass.
Any point discussing the merits of NATO’s viable threat to Russia kinda became irrelevant then. To the point that it’s sort of weird people are still so intent on doing so.
Last edited:
He was talking about invading a country. A guerilla campaign in a foreign country is far from the best scenario. And we're not even mentionning what would happen to them before they actually reach the 1st city (unless they infiltrate the area one by one).
Yeah that’s how I feel too. Mentioning NATO is like him having a coherent moment to try and excuse what he’s done. It’s an ill thought power grab
This is one of the most confounding parts of all of this. Russian ground forces have the excuse of terrible logistics and poor morale. Russian jets on the other hand, should be able to fly from Russian bases, fire off or drop their munitions, then fly back. The fact that that they don't even have air supremacy is just bizarre.
There have been rumours for years that the air force couldn't afford to run itself and their 5th gen aircraft don't really work. Guess there must be truth to it.
I think the Su-57 does work and seems to be a capable jet. They just don't have many of them. Which seems to be a recurring theme with the Russians, not being able to mass produce their top equipment.
Christ.
What does this mean?