Russia - threadbanned users in OP

A two party system encourages unquestioning support of one camp over the other.

People are elected not on their merits but because they are identified as one of us rather than one of them.

This destroys political discussion and tears society apart.

One party systems also destroy democracy.

That does not mean that two party systems do not also do this.

We are watching it in action as America cannot function as a whole .

And ,obviously on this island as well.

Often the issue is that third parties (Russians, the media etc) use propaganda to spread discontent. I am becoming increasingly suspicious of Sky News. All they seem to want to do is attack everything.

America has managed to get do far up its own ass, its no longer sure which is up, down, left right or sideways. like a crazy gyroscope.

I think it is also a desire to bully Ukraine into submission. If they invade Ukraine (they won't at this stage) they would face a huge insurgency problem that would go on indefinitely. They want to avoid this by spreading terror to make Ukrainians submissive, like Russians.

I think it is the way they fight wars (that at least partly accounts for it). They haven't gone all in on air power and precision weapons the way the US has, don't have the technology or capability.

When they go to war, they do alot of bludgeoning almost everything within range of their artillery and missiles and bombs (e.g. look at what has happened to parts of Ukraine where they can bring the full weight of their weapons to bear, some of the aerial video and photography is shocking; turned them into moonscapes that will take years to make habitible again).

I think it is what they did in Syria and what they did in Chechnya long before that, but this is of course on a far bigger and more serious scale, more destruction and likely far more deaths caused when that can finally be tallied.

No need for this but as posted before, I kind of think NATO countries should agree with Ukraine to protect this particular border area with air defences based in Romania. I believe it is now critical for storage + export of Ukraine's grain (that is why the drones are being rained down on it).

edit: Maybe in my ignorance there's other reasons I have not considered why that can't be done, but only reason I can think of is fear/caution either of Romania, or other NATO members who probably would have to provide the air defences.

Would save Ukraine's military having to do this job. Also Russia/Putin has to escalate once again if they want to attack any air defences located outside Ukraine. Puts the ball back in their court.

Good thing Russia has lots of other allies like eh North Korea

In a twisted way I guess it can work against already captive populations or weak opposition.

If Ukraine take over the first and second lines around Roboytne and the other village's nearby before the year is out would it prove almost impossible for Russia to ever take it back? Ukraine would use the Russian defenses against them which they would strengthen. The terrain is mostly flat open fields, they'd have a field day with their cluster munitions.

It's important any hard fought gains for Ukraine are even harder for Russia to regain.

1. It seems too powerful to be an anti air missile. Sounds like a cruise missile.
2. They're saying on the net that an anti air missile launch was heard 2 seconds before impact. Anti air only 2 seconds away? Also, how could an anti air missile reach such speed in 2 seconds? The missile coming in was going really fast. I'm no expert but I have questions. No doubt it will all come out in the wash.

Looks at best like this will be a stalemate heading into the winter. Neither side seems to have the ability or the willingness to take bigger risks to make real progress. It's worth remembering that when Russia first sent a merry band of thugs in to the Donbass in 2014 the aim wasn't to win a conflict but to create a permanent state of destabilised perception.

That could be Russia's aim here as well as they show no signs of moving anywhere on the front despite reportedly having the means to do so in the east.

The strategy may be to just keep Ukraine destabilised and by extension NATO at arms length.

You could argue the current situation is just a continuation of destabilisation since 2014.

You could argue but you'd be wrong.

It makes complete sense if you understand what Russia has done in the Donbass prior to this conflict.