barbos
Contributor
I don't have buddies, you are my buddiesI wonder if Barbos has any biddies who could join in.
![Big grin :D :D](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png)
I don't have buddies, you are my buddiesI wonder if Barbos has any biddies who could join in.
Ukraine can stop gas transit without invading Russia and losing their men pointlessly. And I understand Kiev Regime are planning to stop transit at the end of the year, that's assuming they will get to the end of the year.It is likely a lot better described as Russia was likely surprised by the random effort and lacked the ability to actually counter it as brute force wasn't as much an option in Russian territory. Russia might not have cared too much as well, knowing the Ukraine would clearly be very limited to the breadth of such an incursion. However, there is a massive gas utility that could have been compromised had Ukraine really wanted to and you've got Europe and the US to thank for that remaining in one piece.
The west underestimated Russia even more. You thought that sanctions alone would be enough to overthrow Putin and start pillaging Russia. Now, you are trapped, you made your Ukraine Project existential for yourself, and you are losing.The Russians have underestimated the Ukrainians quite a bit, as well as underestimating the West's intent on not just allowing Putin to steamroll in.
None?How Much Land Have the Ukrainians Seized in Russia?
Here is the strategy explained:I look at the status of the war now as Russia having established a kind of Maginot Line to defend against Ukraine taking back its eastern and southern territories. What happened in Kursk was a bit like the German strategy in WWI and WWII, which went through Belgium to go around the French Maginot Line. However, I don't know what the strategy is other than to grab some lightly defended piece of Russian territory and hold onto it as long as possible. It poses no threat to Moscow or the vast Russian nation, and I don't see Ukraine using Kursk to try to flank Russian forces dug in and slowly advancing in eastern Ukraine. So the Maginot Line analogy doesn't quite work here, I guess.
Financial problems, supply-side problems. Did I say that? But what will be the response if NATO keeps on increasing its circle? It is not good for US. Live and let live. Otherwise, at some point of time, US will get locked with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. They are quite close to it even now with submarines sent against Iran. NATO is not defensive, it is a predatory organization, Russia being its prey #1.What problems? Are you trying to say that encouraging Russia to not invade a country is bad for Russia? And or good for “American supremacy”? That’s odd. Again please defend your position that a defensive alliance keeps America supreme. Are you trying to say that preventing Russian looting and stealing land keeps them down?
Is this some kind of a joke, Jim? UN prevented a war! Who among the big fish, or even among the smaller fish, cares about UN?Russia didn't invade is large part because of the UN and NATO. US missiles in Turkey and Russian missiles heading to Cuba didn't end in war because of the UN.
Here is the strategy explained:I look at the status of the war now as Russia having established a kind of Maginot Line to defend against Ukraine taking back its eastern and southern territories. What happened in Kursk was a bit like the German strategy in WWI and WWII, which went through Belgium to go around the French Maginot Line. However, I don't know what the strategy is other than to grab some lightly defended piece of Russian territory and hold onto it as long as possible. It poses no threat to Moscow or the vast Russian nation, and I don't see Ukraine using Kursk to try to flank Russian forces dug in and slowly advancing in eastern Ukraine. So the Maginot Line analogy doesn't quite work here, I guess.
First of all, Henry, Tervetuloa to IIDB. You are clearly going to be the Ukrainian nemesis to our longstanding member barbos, although you seem to be Finnish rather than Ukrainian. Much of what you post here seems to be the Ukrainian answer to Russian propaganda. Although I support Ukraine, I am also familiar with how propaganda works in that part of the world. My Russian is fairly fluent for an American, and my Ukrainian is good enough for me to read a lot of materials without the aid of a dictionary. My Finnish is far more limited, although I have enjoyed building up some vocabulary with Duolingo.
Thanks for the posted video, which I watched and listened to carefully. It explained only the tactics used by Ukrainian forces to penetrate and occupy a lightly defended border area in Russian territory. As I've said previously, digging in and holding that territory might be a bargaining chip in negotiations to end the war, but I don't see much strategic value beyond that for the operation. I don't see its value now beyond striking a humiliating blow at Putin and changing the narrative away from the depressing recent gains that Russia has made in Ukrainian territory. What I don't see here is a huge victory that will change the fairly stable stalemate between Ukraine and Russia. Russia will inevitably win any war of attrition, and I don't see this incursion in Kursk as changing that dynamic.
Anyway, I asked for the strategy, and you gave me essentially the tactics used to carry out the incursion. I still don't see this as more than a minor victory in a war that has devastated, and will continue to devastate, Ukraine. Russia itself is not going to get away unscathed, but Putin and people who depend on him seem to be firmly ensconced for the long term. There is no serious opposition to Putin and his allies within Russia, although I think Russians generally do not support this stupid invasion of Ukraine. They are more afraid of sticking their necks out to do anything to stop those in power. Putin can be humiliated, but he is not going to be dislodged from power by this tactic. If anything, he will use it to justify expanding conscription to those urban centers in Russia that have still not been fully tapped for manpower.
The UN was a forum to be an emergency brake. Doesn't stop the car, but it helps slow it down. We haven't had WWIII yet in large part due to it.Is this some kind of a joke, Jim? UN prevented a war! Who among the big fish, or even among the smaller fish, cares about UN?Russia didn't invade is large part because of the UN and NATO. US missiles in Turkey and Russian missiles heading to Cuba didn't end in war because of the UN.
UN is a debate forum, like IIDB. Every one is free to express their view.
Forces ambushed in transit and not spread out like they should be I can easily see it happening. This is away from the main battle area, there's probably no SAM cover against low level attackers.Honestly,That can't possibly be true, unless "lost" means killed or captured, which would be a very loose use of the word lost. And even then, there aren't enough Ukrainians to manage 1000 Russian POWs.
1000 killed, injured, captured, or a combination doesn't seem remotely out of line given the circumstances. A couple of years ago it might have, but not now.
Tom
Block the road in some fashion. Traffic comes to a halt, they get close to increase firepower against an expected ground attack and present a big target for attack from above.In one attack? The claim is HIMARS, but is that a viable targeting platform for something that is mobile? And isn't Ukraine restricted from using it against Russian Territory?Honestly,That can't possibly be true, unless "lost" means killed or captured, which would be a very loose use of the word lost. And even then, there aren't enough Ukrainians to manage 1000 Russian POWs.
1000 killed, injured, captured, or a combination doesn't seem remotely out of line given the circumstances. A couple of years ago it might have, but not now.
Tom
Ukraine lies to keep hopes up. Russia lies to keep Putin from being vertically challenged. I don't trust any of it. I'm typically on a one-week delay when it comes to claims on the region.
The fact that they are still there says an awful lot about your lack of ability to throw them out. Putin is obviously throwing whatever's available at them, but they're rushing in recklessly and getting shot to pieces.I don't follow you here.The point is you seem to feel it's not important and that it will be easy to throw them out. It's not a big force, the fact that you haven't done much of anything to them says an awful lot your ability to throw them out.You are extremely quick to jump on russian fuck-ups and veeeeery slow noticing ukrainian one.The fact that you haven't repulsed them yet says a lot. And you were rushing people to the defense--got a convoy smashed by a missile strike. That means you were not taking care to spread out because they were in a hurry.
What is your point anyway? lets assume you are right, so what?
Russia must die becasue Russia is weak and incompetent? Is that it?
The point is if they were your creation they would speak Russian. Same as we speak English.Again, whaaa??Checkmate.This. "Ukraine was created as a republic in USSR by Vladimir Lenin in 1920.Ukraine was created as a republic in USSR by Vladimir Lenin in 1920.
Kiev is a Russian city.
Kiev is a Russian city."
So I assume that 1920 Lenin gathered some 768 professors to invent the Ukrainian language and culture? And all the Russians in Kiev liked the newly invented language and culture?
And
Finland became an independent country 1917, so maybe we also invented our language and culture and what not? This happened after Lenin spoke to us 1905?