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.
Ukraine doesn't want to march on Moscow but the point in that is so that Russia feels some of the pain and consequences of the war and that all the damage is not just in Ukraine.
IMO, unless you have the capability and will to crush your enemy, you don’t take it to their civilian infrastructure. Random terrorist attacks usually energize the civilian base against you. Look what happened to Chechnya after the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings. They’re now even fighting for Russia!
Ukraine’s best bet is to continue inflicting casualties on Russian military forces and pretending to be angels to the international community. That will galvanize not only international pressure on Putin but internal as well. As soon as they begin with the terrorist route, they will be beaten back to the stone ages
True...but I'm hearing there is speculation it might not take that long...say Feb/March. Russia is throwing untrained cannon fodder into one of the bloodiest front lines since WW2...they don't have adequate training, clothing or gear....and the arms they are providing may end up being pointed at the ones issuing it.
Its certainly possible. It could happen by the end of the year if they have another significant breakthrough in the north. But the odds are it will take the sanctions to weaken Russia's army and logistics enough so that Ukraine can drive them out. And that will take time.
Ukraine doesn't want to march on Moscow but the point in that is so that Russia feels some of the pain and consequences of the war and that all the damage is not just in Ukraine.
The money and resources need to be focused on more useful purposes. A few missiles at Moscow, with its excellent air defenses, isn't going to bring Putin down. Sending home body bags will be much more effective.
Putin is just further uniting Ukraine with his terror campaign.
I'm pro Ukraine (or perhaps better termed, Anti Russian war), but that chart is likely as accurate as the stuff coming out of the Kremlin.
Keep an eye on the amount of real estate going either way. Yes I know it is accurate only after the fact, but beware of buying propaganda of the side you prefer.
Russia has been "Nearing complete collapse" since May and it still has not happened.
Life is not an UPTV movie. Sometimes bad people like Putin win. (Yes I am hoping not)
No, but they have lost about half the Ukrainian territory they held at their high tide in late March.
IMO, unless you have the capability and will to crush your enemy, you don’t take it to their civilian infrastructure. Random terrorist attacks usually energize the civilian base against you. Look what happened to Chechnya after the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings. They’re now even fighting for Russia!
Ukraine’s best bet is to continue inflicting casualties on Russian military forces and pretending to be angels to the international community. That will galvanize not only international pressure on Putin but internal as well. As soon as they begin with the terrorist route, they will be beaten back to the stone ages
If not for the fact that Russian civilians died and the fact that this was a terrorist act, it would be funny for one reason: other than heavy trucks, vehicle traffic (road and rail) resumed in less than 24 hours.
Furthermore (and this isn't at you, but just want to mention it), if the Ukrainians were indeed winning the war as some on this thread have said they are "now," why would the Ukrainian side even have to bother with the idea of striking a non-military bridge in Crimea, given the fighting is happening elsewhere? I mean, the Ukrainians allegedly forced Russian troops to retreat, but what the former have done is to take a few villages back - which must be viewed in the context of the latter having liberated and now annexed and administratively taken over entire regions.
It is also important to note that from the start, the Russian military presence was smaller than the Ukrainian one. Yes, that's correct; there have been fewer Russian troops on the ground than Ukrainian troops. But Russian forces have killed far more Ukrainian forces than the other way around.
Why, then, the pivot towards an attack on a bridge?
Surely, a winning side doesn't resort to attacking civilian targets if it's clearly and unmistakably winning at the battlefront, does it?
A few posters told me with a straight face Russia did not have this capability
Well at least the missile defense system has worked like a charm. Time for NATO to cut Ukraine loose and sit down with Russia and end this before it becomes more than a regional conflict.
Guys-this is going to end very badly for this planet. I pray it doesn't go any further. I don't think you guys understand how quickly this can turn into WW3
No, but they have lost about half the Ukrainian territory they held at their high tide in late March.
And see me not complaining about it. My point is I am taking that chart with a giant grain of salt.
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.
