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.
But Ukraine's power grid has been all but destroyed and Ukrainian forces have taken severe losses in that their offensives had to grind to a virtual halt. Couldn't take Kherson at all during these last few weeks. So were instead "gifted" it. So who has really blundered and who is really in trouble?
The Ukrainians cannot expel the Russians out of Ukraine despite this Russian "failure". And it still is about Ukrainian de-nazification. Nothing has changed about that. The war continues. It ain't over til it's over.
Is there a metric for the “denazification” goal? How’s progress on that front? Is the metric going up or down?
‘Leaving for military reasons in order to avoid heavy losses’ is just another way of saying outmaneuvered.
It just takes 10 words instead of 1 so that you feel better about it.
Kherson had to be abandoned because it could not be supplied. Russia troops were bound to be slaughtered.
Now the question becomes, why will Crimea be abandoned? It may be abandoned because it, too, has been isolated by the coming destruction of the Crimea Bridge. The Crimea Bridge is now 205 miles from Kherson, meaning it can be hit.
Ukrainians are going to have to be careful, since HIMARS operating in the area of Kherson will be under attack. For that matter, I would expect Kherson to come under attack no matter what the Ukrainian army does.
Perhaps Ukraine can keep Russia busy by sinking their Black Sea Fleet as it comes into port at Sevastopol.
Is there a metric for the “denazification” goal? How’s progress on that front? Is the metric going up or down?
Don't know what metric is being used but I think that less and less of these nazis is better. Tribunals are being held for the ones that are captured. How many will be killed or captured? Perhaps a list of them will be published by the Russian government after the war.
Kherson had to be abandoned because it could not be supplied. Russia troops were bound to be slaughtered.
Now the question becomes, why will Crimea be abandoned? It may be abandoned because it, too, has been isolated by the coming destruction of the Crimea Bridge. The Crimea Bridge is now 205 miles from Kherson, meaning it can be hit.
Ukrainians are going to have to be careful, since HIMARS operating in the area of Kherson will be under attack. For that matter, I would expect Kherson to come under attack no matter what the Ukrainian army does.
Perhaps Ukraine can keep Russia busy by sinking their Black Sea Fleet as it comes into port at Sevastopol.
It can not be hit. If it could be hit the Ukrainians would have hit it a long time ago. The longest range weapons the Ukraine has is the ATACMS. The absolute maximum distance for those is 190 miles. Biden has refused to give the Ukraine any weapons with a greater range, for fear of making Putin angry. Because OMG, we don't want to make Putin mad.
With Biden pushing the Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, it's questionable if the US will even support the Ukraines efforts to liberate Crimea. Weapons shipments could dry up once Ukraine gets close to the Crimea border.
Kherson had to be abandoned because it could not be supplied. Russia troops were bound to be slaughtered.
No way! BMIT assures me that it was a choice for Russia to abandon Kherson. Ok, a choice because if Russia did not do it they would not be able to supply their troops and would lose a lot of them. But a choice. Had nothing to do with being outmaneuvered.
Quote:
Now the question becomes, why will Crimea be abandoned? It may be abandoned because it, too, has been isolated by the coming destruction of the Crimea Bridge. The Crimea Bridge is now 205 miles from Kherson, meaning it can be hit.
Ahh, but see, that would be a choice too! Russia chose to withdraw from Kherson and allow HIMARS systems to come into range of the only land route they have for resupply. Those clever Russians, choosing to allow Ukraine to bombard their supply lines.
Quote:
Ukrainians are going to have to be careful, since HIMARS operating in the area of Kherson will be under attack. For that matter, I would expect Kherson to come under attack no matter what the Ukrainian army does.
To be fair, Russia could choose to attack the HIMARS systems no matter where they are located. Russia just chooses not to do so. That may continue to be their choice.
Quote:
Perhaps Ukraine can keep Russia busy by sinking their Black Sea Fleet as it comes into port at Sevastopol.
No, you fail to see the brilliance in the Russian choice. By choosing to abandon Kherson and luring the Ukrainians close enough to bombard their Black Sea fleet, Russia is choosing to allow their ships to be sunk. Just imagine the number of tanks that do not get blown up because Ukraine is sinking ships instead. It isn't Ukraine keeping Russia busy, it is Russia keeping Ukraine busy.
No way! BMIT assures me that it was a choice for Russia to abandon Kherson. Ok, a choice because if Russia did not do it they would not be able to supply their troops and would lose a lot of them. But a choice. Had nothing to do with being outmaneuvered.
Ahh, but see, that would be a choice too! Russia chose to withdraw from Kherson and allow HIMARS systems to come into range of the only land route they have for resupply. Those clever Russians, choosing to allow Ukraine to bombard their supply lines.
To be fair, Russia could choose to attack the HIMARS systems no matter where they are located. Russia just chooses not to do so. That may continue to be their choice.
No, you fail to see the brilliance in the Russian choice. By choosing to abandon Kherson and luring the Ukrainians close enough to bombard their Black Sea fleet, Russia is choosing to allow their ships to be sunk. Just imagine the number of tanks that do not get blown up because Ukraine is sinking ships instead. It isn't Ukraine keeping Russia busy, it is Russia keeping Ukraine busy.
The Russians could be supplied in Kherson, just not well. Based on that, they decided to retreat. If the Russians could not have been supplied then they would not have been able to repel all these Ukrainian attacks for the last few weeks. They would have needed a constant supply of weapons, ammunition, food, etc. So they were being supplied or they would have been overrun. They could have chosen to remain and they might have been successful in holding on. But they decided not to.
Of course, retreating is creating other problems for Russia, but that is a tradeoff. Each choice has its advantages and disadvantages. So there is no brilliance in the Russian choice just pragmatism.
What Ukrainian forces do with their new proximity to Russian supply lines remains to be seen. None of what you describe by that proximity advantage has been exploited yet.
Russian choices during this war have resulted in Ukrainian defeats and retreats in that about 12% of Ukraine has been occupied. Ukraine must make their own choices to try to eject Russian forces out of Ukraine. Its choices must be made carefully.
We should have stayed the hell out of it, these wars are no longer effective at maintaining the dollar as the world reserve currency; or creating the illusion of world stability.
The current unrest between Ukraine and Russia is strengthening the USD as the world reserve currency, not weakening it. Global uncertainty continues to drive conversions into dollars for anything other than very short term transactions. No one outside of Russia holds roubles; as much as China tries to push the Yuan as a reserve people trust their central bank even les than they trust the US Federal Reserve so no one’s biting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoy64
Here is an interesting read
Russia’s Position in Central Asia Continues to Slip
Russia sees that part of the world as a source for cheap day labor that can come into Russia. China sees Central Asia as a potential much larger market and business partner and is willing to make far more significant investment into the region than a Russia that has taken Central Asia for granted is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
With Biden pushing the Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, it's questionable if the US will even support the Ukraines efforts to liberate Crimea. Weapons shipments could dry up once Ukraine gets close to the Crimea border.
Biden encouraging Ukraine to negotiate really isn’t much about actually getting Ukraine to make concessions; it’s about de-escalating with the Russian side and making them feel less backed into the corner where there is no exit strategy.
Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson City is igniting an ideological fracture between pro-war figures and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eroding confidence in Putin’s commitment and ability to deliver his war promises. A pro-war Russian ideologist, Alexander Dugin, openly criticized Putin—whom he referred to as the autocrat—for failing to uphold Russian ideology by surrendering Kherson City on November 12. Dugin said this Russian ideology defines Russia’s responsibility to defend “Russian cities” such as Kherson, Belgorod, Kursk, Donetsk, and Simferopol. Dugin noted that an autocrat has a responsibility to save his nation all by himself or face the fate of “king of the rains,” a reference to Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough in which a king was killed because he was unable to deliver rain amidst a drought. Dugin also downplayed the role of Putin’s advisors in failing to protect the Russian world and noted that the commander of Russian Forces in Ukraine, Army General Sergey Surovikin was not responsible for the political decision to withdraw from Kherson City. Dugin noted that the autocrat cannot repair this deviation from ideology merely with public appearances, noting that “the authorities in Russia cannot surrender anything else” and that “the limit has been reached.” He also accused the presidential administration of upholding a “fake” ideology because of its fear of committing to the “Russian Idea.” Dugin also made a reference to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which he vaguely stated was “the end” and proceeded to note that overdue Russian changes to the military campaign have not generated any effect to change the course of the war. He also suggested, however, that Russia must commit to the Russian Idea rather than pursuing the “stupid” use of nuclear weapons.
Biden encouraging Ukraine to negotiate really isn’t much about actually getting Ukraine to make concessions; it’s about de-escalating with the Russian side and making them feel less backed into the corner where there is no exit strategy.
Put in another manner, giving Russia an actual victory so Biden can be chummy and warm with Putin?
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.
