Russia - threadbanned users in OP

How is that the very definition?

Attacking with smaller groups of men isnt necessarily "throwing men at lines" or not caring.

It isnt. It is you defining it that way to suit your argument.

It is you displaying confirmation bias and circular logic. You have clearly already decided the offensive has failed and therefore frame any lives lost from that point on as wasted.

Your claims have zero standing, zero foundation and therefore zero merit.

How the Ukrainians conduct their war against illegal and unprovoked aggressive expansionism (accompanied by threats of genocidal extermination) is up to them.

I am not sure whether your characterization of "throwing men at lines" comes from (wars are hardly neat and orderly affairs and this is a struggle against barbaric armies from totalitarian regimes).

You apparently wish to come to a modus vivendi with Russia that allows them to retain territory they have illegally captured and would seemingly like to convince us that they will be content with their acquisitions once pen is put to paper(and expulsions /colonizations /mass murders are duly carried out)

He and I posted the same thing. How I posted it is how it normally comes up but you can rewrite links. I only ever see it done to hide the source which this time was a ".ru" site that he knew needed hiding.

Not yet anyway. Will he use them in the future? Now that's the million dollar ( or more) question. Also its often mentioned about sandal clad Afghans defeating the mighty Russian army, but its worth remembering that it took 10 years to get them out, and the two main reasons for defeating them were, (1). The US started supplying the Mujahidin with shoulder held weapons capable of downing the Russian helicopter Gunships ( the Hind) Once the Russians lost air superiority, they were doomed, and (2) the Afghan war was driving Russia to bankruptcy. When the last Russian has left Ukraine, then I'll believe that its over, and Ukraine has won, and Putin has lost. But until then, and despite all of the talk about Russia losing etc. I'll be keeping an open mind on it, and especially any miracle break through, causing the Russians to down tools en-masse, and head back to Russia. Which of course would be the best possible outcome.

Well if nothing else the war from June to the next US elections will have weakened the Russian army so it will be longer for them to rebuild and break said agreement.

Which they will do.

Well you were right about one thing Breezy, My use of the word "Balkan" instead of "Baltics" . Mea Culpa. But aside from that, You have Serbia, who while not 100% in support of Putin, many are, and far too many, in my opinion.

But he’s right

That Russian global affairs article is some read I must say.

The world in 1939 was very much a “multi-polar world “. That’s the world they want to bring back??

They really are just shaking their fist at the sky.

The consequences of them nuking a mid size city in Eastern Europe are unknown and unthinkable but how they can think they could gain any favourable outcome from such action is unbelievable.

Is it really a multipolar world today though???

As Breezy has already pointed out, I typed "Balkans" in stead of "Baltics". My mistake, but it was Russian and Ukraine I was talking about. You mean the Dayton Agreement in 1995?

Who would he be like? Hitler or one of those mad fellas? Worse than Hitler. You wouldn't find Hitler playing jungle music at 3 o'clock in the morning.

I prefer playing me flute.

Agree 100%