Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean the assessment you made in July that Ukraine would be incapable of ejecting Russia from the territory Russia had captured?
That sure aged well.
While you ignored the rest of my post and write curious comments about military vs. political events, while ignoring war and politics go together.... then again you do think that Ukraine is actually winning this war.
Let's wait and see what happens next. Ukraine has made some impressive gains, but still has a long way to go. I don't feel like we can assume anything, yet. They tried to regain some territory in the south, and couldn't get very far. That doesn't inspire confidence.
Yes, I know; Russia's army is a mess. But we don't know what else the command may have up its sleeve. I mean, "the command" already announced it will use the ultimate weapon if NATO equipment is used on "Russian" soil. And it got the backing of Parliament, and some of the public. But let's see what else they've got, if anything.
NATO equipment already been used on Russian soil as they already took town that Russia claim as their. The reality is that Russian military is not capable of defending the territory that they currently holding.
Also:
CNN team visits key city of Lyman, hours after Ukraine regains control from Russian forces.
They had left the city on Friday in an orderly fashion:
“They got on their tanks, and drove out,"...
The possibility Russian forces may have conducted, even in part, an orderly withdrawal on Friday raises an important question of timing for the Kremlin. During that day, Russian President Vladimir Putin was signing documents falsely claiming to annex Lyman, and other parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, and holding a rally in Moscow’s Red Square claiming victory would be Russia’s.
Many of the Ukrainian troops had already moved on towards the next target in Russia’s rapidly faltering lines of defense – Kremmina, further to the east...
NATO equipment already been used on Russian soil as they already took town that Russia claim as their. The reality is that Russian military is not capable of defending the territory that they currently holding.
What a lot of folks are unaware of is that some of the weaponry being sent to Ukraine by NATO was actually technology from the Cold War era. Given Ukraine was itself once a Soviet Socialist Republic, it had (even if old and in unknown condition) the parts, the tools, etc., to repair tanks that were from former Warsaw Pact countries.
If the west continues to send tanks to Ukraine, what tanks will they send?
Western tanks - which are different. They require different ammunition, different parts for repairs, and they require training. All of us once learned how to drive a car, and that took a bit of time. It wasn't a case of us turning 16 or 17, getting a permit, and suddenly driving our parents' vehicles down the interstate with the confidence and experience that adults who have driven for decades have. Thusly with tanks - training crews take time.
Then there's artillery. More than a few C-D posts celebrated the decision by western countries to send military hardware to Ukraine. Among these was HIMARS. But they take years to build. Can Ukraine fight Russia for the time it takes the HIMARS to be built and delivered without suffering casualties and territory to the extent that continuing to fight Russia becomes counterproductive?
And this must be juxtaposed against the fact that Russia does not lack artillery; on the contrary, its artillery boasts a range far superior to whatever Ukraine has had. This is why the Ukrainians lost so many men - the Russians just blew them asunder with their artillery shelling.
On Friday, Russia annexed a territory whose land mass is roughly the same as that of Portugal. Ukraine failed to reject Russia from Crimea, and for those who don't understand that a serious maneuver such as the annexation of territory is a political event with far-reaching military/geo-strategic consequences: even if the U.S., the UK, and of course, Ukraine refuse to recognize Russian sovereignty over those four regions, now that they (even if not all of them in their entirety) are under Russian control, if Ukraine attacks the Russians there, while to Ukraine it will be seen as a simple attempt to retake lost territory, to the Russians, it will be an attack on Russian soil.
The U.S. took territory which once belonged to Mexico. Following that transfer of real estate, had Mexican troops attacked those areas, the U.S. would have seen this as an attack on sovereign U.S. soil - no less serious than if Mexico attacked New England or Virginia.
From here, therefore, the stakes will rise. But your assertion Russia can't hold that territory is incorrect; Kiev, as other cases, were situations the Russians preemptively withdrew from; and in others, Russians troops were sparsely deployed. When the Russians were present in large contingents and in dug-in defensive positions, efforts by the Ukrainians to get them out failed miserably. You probably won't, but read my post above where I mention a "turkey shoot."
Followed by retreating Ukrainian units, of course.
Yes the Ukrainians keep retreating to the east.
At this point, I think the only way the Russian army is going to be willing to really fight for the Oligarchs is if Ukraine started bombing vodka production facilities.
What a lot of folks are unaware of is that some of the weaponry being sent to Ukraine by NATO was actually technology from the Cold War era. Given Ukraine was itself once a Soviet Socialist Republic, it had (even if old and in unknown condition) the parts, the tools, etc., to repair tanks that were from former Warsaw Pact countries.
If the west continues to send tanks to Ukraine, what tanks will they send?
Western tanks - which are different. They require different ammunition, different parts for repairs, and they require training. All of us once learned how to drive a car, and that took a bit of time. It wasn't a case of us turning 16 or 17, getting a permit, and suddenly driving our parents' vehicles down the interstate with the confidence and experience that adults who have driven for decades have. Thusly with tanks - training crews take time.
Then there's artillery. More than a few C-D posts celebrated the decision by western countries to send military hardware to Ukraine. Among these was HIMARS. But they take years to build. Can Ukraine fight Russia for the time it takes the HIMARS to be built and delivered without suffering casualties and territory to the extent that continuing to fight Russia becomes counterproductive?
And this must be juxtaposed against the fact that Russia does not lack artillery; on the contrary, its artillery boasts a range far superior to whatever Ukraine has had. This is why the Ukrainians lost so many men - the Russians just blew them asunder with their artillery shelling.
On Friday, Russia annexed a territory whose land mass is roughly the same as that of Portugal. Ukraine failed to reject Russia from Crimea, and for those who don't understand that a serious maneuver such as the annexation of territory is a political event with far-reaching military/geo-strategic consequences: even if the U.S., the UK, and of course, Ukraine refuse to recognize Russian sovereignty over those four regions, now that they (even if not all of them in their entirety) are under Russian control, if Ukraine attacks the Russians there, while to Ukraine it will be seen as a simple attempt to retake lost territory, to the Russians, it will be an attack on Russian soil.
The U.S. took territory which once belonged to Mexico. Following that transfer of real estate, had Mexican troops attacked those areas, the U.S. would have seen this as an attack on sovereign U.S. soil - no less serious than if Mexico attacked New England or Virginia.
From here, therefore, the stakes will rise. But your assertion Russia can't hold that territory is incorrect; Kiev, as other cases, were situations the Russians preemptively withdrew from; and in others, Russians troops were sparsely deployed. When the Russians were present in large contingents and in dug-in defensive positions, efforts by the Ukrainians to get them out failed miserably. You probably won't, but read my post above where I mention a "turkey shoot."
You started an entire pile of blather based on "if" lol.
Seems the Ukrainians are doing just fine with what they've gotten so far but to your point...they are certainly able to be effective with all the stuff the Russians have abandoned and left behind.
I think that you're entirely unable to face up to the rot within Russian and it's military.
What a lot of folks are unaware of is that some of the weaponry being sent to Ukraine by NATO was actually technology from the Cold War era. Given Ukraine was itself once a Soviet Socialist Republic, it had (even if old and in unknown condition) the parts, the tools, etc., to repair tanks that were from former Warsaw Pact countries.
If the west continues to send tanks to Ukraine, what tanks will they send?
Western tanks - which are different. They require different ammunition, different parts for repairs, and they require training. All of us once learned how to drive a car, and that took a bit of time. It wasn't a case of us turning 16 or 17, getting a permit, and suddenly driving our parents' vehicles down the interstate with the confidence and experience that adults who have driven for decades have. Thusly with tanks - training crews take time.
Then there's artillery. More than a few C-D posts celebrated the decision by western countries to send military hardware to Ukraine. Among these was HIMARS. But they take years to build. Can Ukraine fight Russia for the time it takes the HIMARS to be built and delivered without suffering casualties and territory to the extent that continuing to fight Russia becomes counterproductive?
And this must be juxtaposed against the fact that Russia does not lack artillery; on the contrary, its artillery boasts a range far superior to whatever Ukraine has had. This is why the Ukrainians lost so many men - the Russians just blew them asunder with their artillery shelling.
On Friday, Russia annexed a territory whose land mass is roughly the same as that of Portugal. Ukraine failed to reject Russia from Crimea, and for those who don't understand that a serious maneuver such as the annexation of territory is a political event with far-reaching military/geo-strategic consequences: even if the U.S., the UK, and of course, Ukraine refuse to recognize Russian sovereignty over those four regions, now that they (even if not all of them in their entirety) are under Russian control, if Ukraine attacks the Russians there, while to Ukraine it will be seen as a simple attempt to retake lost territory, to the Russians, it will be an attack on Russian soil.
The U.S. took territory which once belonged to Mexico. Following that transfer of real estate, had Mexican troops attacked those areas, the U.S. would have seen this as an attack on sovereign U.S. soil - no less serious than if Mexico attacked New England or Virginia.
From here, therefore, the stakes will rise. But your assertion Russia can't hold that territory is incorrect; Kiev, as other cases, were situations the Russians preemptively withdrew from; and in others, Russians troops were sparsely deployed. When the Russians were present in large contingents and in dug-in defensive positions, efforts by the Ukrainians to get them out failed miserably. You probably won't, but read my post above where I mention a "turkey shoot."
Considering that Russians are leaving stuff behind and running away, seems like they are getting plenty of weapons that is in perfect working order. Also they have no problem using American and Western country made hardware.
But we don't know what else the command may have up its sleeve.
We keep hearing that, don't we? Putin has some sort of ace up his sleeve.
Here's the thing, though - the mobilizations are massively unpopular, won't have a noteworthy effect for months, and have cost Putin a lot of political capital. He'd probably have liked to avoid that.
If he has a surprise waiting, he should have uncovered it before the mobilization. And say what you want about Putin, but he's not dumb.
So now the truth comes out. The Ukrainians did not encircle Russian troops at Lyman. The Russians withdrew from that town. I will add that it was a very controlled withdraw over several weeks. Not a situation of Russian troops abandoning their equipment and running away.
From the horse's mouth: 2:48 “We took our ground, but the main thing for our army is not just to take ground, but to cause losses for Russian army and that goal was not fully achieved during this operation. However I was sure that we had encircled the Russians”
What a lot of folks are unaware of is that some of the weaponry being sent to Ukraine by NATO was actually technology from the Cold War era. Given Ukraine was itself once a Soviet Socialist Republic, it had (even if old and in unknown condition) the parts, the tools, etc., to repair tanks that were from former Warsaw Pact countries.
If the west continues to send tanks to Ukraine, what tanks will they send?
Western tanks - which are different. They require different ammunition, different parts for repairs, and they require training. All of us once learned how to drive a car, and that took a bit of time. It wasn't a case of us turning 16 or 17, getting a permit, and suddenly driving our parents' vehicles down the interstate with the confidence and experience that adults who have driven for decades have. Thusly with tanks - training crews take time.
Then there's artillery. More than a few C-D posts celebrated the decision by western countries to send military hardware to Ukraine. Among these was HIMARS. But they take years to build. Can Ukraine fight Russia for the time it takes the HIMARS to be built and delivered without suffering casualties and territory to the extent that continuing to fight Russia becomes counterproductive?
And this must be juxtaposed against the fact that Russia does not lack artillery; on the contrary, its artillery boasts a range far superior to whatever Ukraine has had. This is why the Ukrainians lost so many men - the Russians just blew them asunder with their artillery shelling.
On Friday, Russia annexed a territory whose land mass is roughly the same as that of Portugal. Ukraine failed to reject Russia from Crimea, and for those who don't understand that a serious maneuver such as the annexation of territory is a political event with far-reaching military/geo-strategic consequences: even if the U.S., the UK, and of course, Ukraine refuse to recognize Russian sovereignty over those four regions, now that they (even if not all of them in their entirety) are under Russian control, if Ukraine attacks the Russians there, while to Ukraine it will be seen as a simple attempt to retake lost territory, to the Russians, it will be an attack on Russian soil.
The U.S. took territory which once belonged to Mexico. Following that transfer of real estate, had Mexican troops attacked those areas, the U.S. would have seen this as an attack on sovereign U.S. soil - no less serious than if Mexico attacked New England or Virginia.
From here, therefore, the stakes will rise. But your assertion Russia can't hold that territory is incorrect; Kiev, as other cases, were situations the Russians preemptively withdrew from; and in others, Russians troops were sparsely deployed. When the Russians were present in large contingents and in dug-in defensive positions, efforts by the Ukrainians to get them out failed miserably. You probably won't, but read my post above where I mention a "turkey shoot."
Do you get paid by the word?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
