dove
New Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,899
Right, what else? Apology from us for ruining your plans? Funny they still think they have an upper hand in negotiations.
They're just waiting to see who wins the white house next year.Right, what else? Apology from us for ruining your plans? Funny they still think they have an upper hand in negotiations.
Ukraine has cross party support?They're just waiting to see who wins the white house next year.
Not in magaUkraine has cross party support?
Ukraine has cross party support?
Yep, I remember that vividly.I've been looking at some stuff at the anniversary and the one thing that stuck with me was a Khersonian woman offering sunflower seeds to Russian soldiers. "Put some in your pockets, you're gonna help us grow a sunflower field".
Right now they do, sure. But both leading candidates for the Republicans are negative on further support to Ukraine. And we should know by now just how much the President sets the agenda for his party (see: Never-Trumpers).
I think even if they win it, it will be very hard to stick to this diplomatic line once they are elected. Imagine the outrage, both nationally and internationally. And the opposition from security advisors, the military, etc.
That aside, they're digging their own grave with this. There will be significant parts of their voter base who will not support that surely, especially those that grew up during the cold war and were brought up to hate communism.
Most Republicans support aid for Ukraine as do most Dems, so any attempt to curtail it by (lets say) a Trump or DeSantis would meet fierce resistance from both Congress and by a large swath of the US public, which is something no new President will want to have to deal with. Moreover, by the time of the next inauguration in Jan of 2025, I expect the Russians will have been sufficiently beaten down and will have probably drawn back by then, which will make the issue a moot point.
I'm not sure when this conflict will end. Russia was written off quite quickly I think. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually do manage to sustain this war for another two years unfortunately. Sanctions, war economy, loss of citizens etc. obviously will take its toll but it seems as if it is very difficult to make any assumptions when it all implodes on Putin.
The whole “we will nuke you” threat has gotten really weak now. Seems like that’s all they have left.
Definitely. All he'd need to do in that scenario would be changing a few thousand soldiers into protestors, unite them with the armed soviet fans in transnistria and the Moldovan government would be easily overthrown.
By the way "Putin" today in Sevastopol. The mask probably itched in the end
If you bring body doubles, make it less obvious.
If you bring body doubles, make it less obvious.
If someone still had any doubts:
......... and for economic reasons (cheap energy and a big market to offload their products).
Meanwhile, Russians are gaining some ground in Avdiivka, apparently using same "outdated" tactics.
Isn’t it the case we’ll keep getting these towns that suddenly become important like Bakhmut and now Avdiivka as the line flexes back and forth? It’s clear Russia’s tactics have been poor (even if you just completely ignore 100% of media coverage and look at the liveaumap) but they have had some successes and will continue to do so.Meanwhile, Russians are gaining some ground in Avdiivka, apparently using same "outdated" tactics.
I am just desperate for some good news like the counterattack and what not.You seem to be very critical with the media coverage and general optimism. I generally understand that and you're obviously not completely wrong but on this specific topic, do you believe it is sustainable for Russia to burn through their conscripts and weaponry at this rate?
I mean, the prevalent argument isn't that Russia cannot achieve some results in the short term (even though their failed blitzkrieg is still often ridiculed) but that their long term perspective looks bad for various reasons. One being that the sanctions and war expands will break them but for me, it is also very important that their military structure and culture lead to lots of phyrric victories.
It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.Isn’t it the case we’ll keep getting these towns that suddenly become important like Bakhmut and now Avdiivka as the line flexes back and forth? It’s clear Russia’s tactics have been poor (even if you just completely ignore 100% of media coverage and look at the liveaumap) but they have had some successes and will continue to do so.
All ammo and western IFVs/MBT/etc are getting stocked up now for the spring counter-offensive for UA, I don’t think they have fired more than a handful of HIMARS during past 2 months. Everyone is aware of what’s coming, that’s why Russia is building massive fortifications in Crimea right now. The heroes in Bakhmut/Mariinka/Avdiivka are currently living on low ammo and old soviet junk, you won’t see any modern stuff there at the moment, while Russia is throwing everything they have at the moment. They’re simply buying the time until the April/May/June while assault brigades are being prepared in the western Ukraine/Europe.
Why do they need to hold on to those cities? Modern battlefield tactics is all about high maneuverbility and elastic defenses, If anything the one thing Ukraine is doing wrong is putting to much recourses into defending these cities.It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.
If the Ukrainians are preparing a counter offensive they can start attacking pretty soon since the bulk of winter is over.
Your last point was what I meant. They are not flexing the lines there. They seem to try to hold on as much as they can but we are not seeing much of successes with it right now with the amount of resources they are pouring in. You would have to ask their capability there.Why do they need to hold on to those cities? Modern battlefield tactics is all about high maneuverbility and elastic defenses, If anything the one thing Ukraine is doing wrong is putting to much recourses into defending these cities.
Depends on how the war develops surely? If Russia can continue this attritional war of advancing what a handful of km in months at supposedly great expense (and I don’t think we have that much reason to doubt an aggressor is coming off worse) then sure but if the continued attrition then leads to them not being able to capitalise/retreating clearly not. All depends on how the war ends.It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.
Your last point was what I meant. They are not flexing the lines there. They seem to try to hold on as much as they can but we are not seeing much of successes with it right now with the amount of resources they are pouring in. You would have to ask their capability there.