Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Yes, maybe decades, BUT IT WILL RECOVER.

No problem with that as long as it retains the right to have them if it wants. IMO When all this is ‘settled’ Russia should have ABSOLUTLY NO part in any decision that UKr makes to manage its state

Ukraine should recover faster than Russia, in theory at least. Russia is a corrupt shithole; at least Ukraine is addressing its corruption and improving oversight. It has access to Western funding and support and a clear recovery plan, whereas Russia is in thrall to China and is already scabbing ammunition from North Korea.

Having said all that, now would be a great time to equip Ukraine properly and end Putin's insanity.

Hardly a great example - is it? How safe and secure is Israel today, compared to how it was three months ago? Are we looking at a future of peace and tranquility for all the residents of the far eastern shores of the Mediterranean now, thanks to those 100k shells?

Still with the "might is right (and better)" Why does Ukraine need to level areas? Can you point to one single advantage such a tactic has brought to the Russian army in the last two years? Sure, they completely destroy towns like Marinka and Bakmut and can proclaim they've conquered another few square kilometres ... and yet that doesn't stop Ukraine driving their Black Sea Fleet out of the Black Sea, or their A50s out of the Azov Sea.

As I've asserted before: just like in the Somme in WW1, the fighting in the trenches isn't moving more than a few metres east or west from one week to the next, but the effective frontline has moved a hell of a lot further east since the infamous "failed" counteroffensive of last year, and that's without levelling whole cities or killing thousands of civilians.

1000 patriot missles won't start to delivered to NATO countries until 2027- 2030 at least

The only way to take cities or towns is to flatten them, that's it unless you want to waste an entire army running them down a street where a sub rate soldier can drop several of them from a window..

You don't fight door to door. You put a shell through the house and then go in, as the Iraqis did in Mosul.

Ukraine held in to Bakhmut for so long because they were turning it in to a neat grinder for Russia.

What do you see as the benefit of forcing Ukraine to fight attritional battles against a dug in enemy while being short of arms.

Why would the Ukrainians or anyone else take the past route which has been consistently shown that urban fighting without massive suppressive fire is the quickest way to destroy your own army?

The risk of your approach is that after a few months Ukraine will have nothing left manpower wise.

Might is right?

In war you either kill or injury so many enemy combatants that their army is forced to retreat or go home.

You hit their infrastructure again and again so that their society can not be a fully functioning support to their army or be willing to endure the price.

Effective lines far from the front. They have been the norm for decades and usually at a much greater scale than either Russia or Ukraine have done to date and neither have been game changers

That's not to say they won't have their own in the future.

Still don't see under any circumstances they get nukes ,I definitely do see any will from the international community to assist them either

"In war you either kill or injury so many enemy combatants that their army is forced to retreat or go home."

Seems like you are right that frontal assaults are not yielding much in the way of territorial gain in Ukraine but as you say yourself in the part of your post I have reprinted the enemy can be forced to retreat if enough of their combatants are killed and injured. Once again the number of moskovytes the armed forces of Ukraine are after killing is about the thousand mark along with large amounts of military equipment that can no longer be used by putin to attack Ukraine. The costs for putin in this conflict are only getting higher as Ukraine is finding more ways to strike further into putin's terrorist state and his army is being demolished so in time putin will be forced to retreat.

In more news from the war putin continues their terrorist attacks on civilians with 21 missiles reported to have been shot down over night but still many deaths and injuries to innocent people because of his empire building dream.

Well they're hardly keeping you in the loop with daily emails are they? It's not something that will be talked about now, it's a subject that will definitely be discussed in years to come though. Ukraine will pull the israeli reason for the need for nukes and I honestly don't see too much opposition coming their way (apart from Russia, Belarus and possibly Hungary).

You're the one suggesting the neanderthal (Russian) approach to battering each other with sticks and rocks until either there are no rocks left or no heads left to bash them against. I'm saying that Ukraine are going to win the attritional battle by not throwing their own people into the pointless destruction of their own land, and instead are being innovative in how they use what resources they have to do maximum strategic damage to Russia.

There is absolutely no point in Ukraine sending 10000 Ukrainans to die in an attempt to re-take Bahkmut (for example) when they can destroy a whole battleship (and crew) or a best-they've-got AWACS aircraft (and crew) with a few well-targetted missiles. "Attrition" does not mean that one life lost here has the same value as one lost there; nor does one Bradley lost in Avdiivka equate to the shooting down of one IL-22 over the Azov Sea.

It's significant (to me, at least) that Zelenskyy recently said of the on-going mobilisation debate that they need people to return to Ukraine to work, not to fight. That suggests to me that Ukraine already has an idea of how they're going to undermine Russia's aggression in the short to medium term, and have the country ready to leap forward when the Kremlin is finally forced to concede defeat.

The cynical side of me thinks that "the West" is happy enough to continue as is, as long as Russia is taking heavy losses (or being "degraded" in military terms). A war of attrition, with Ukraine also capable to eliminate some high-value targets with HIMARs, Storm Shadow missiles and the likes.

The reason everyone jumped to support Ukraine was the fear that if Putin takes Ukraine, where would it stop. We could be next.

If Russia now tried to annex, say, a Balkan state they would need a hell of a lot of men to do so. Which seems implausible as they are already running out of men in Ukraine, including top Generals. And a NATO country would not have to go begging for sufficient ammunition like Ukraine has to. Not to mention the decreasing popularity of the war within Russia, and the grinding effect of sanctions and just the sheer death toll. The alleged 350,000 dead Russians all have families back home.

Basically, job done.

Absolutely I said that early on this thread it will have to be the way forward, the EU can't rely on the US anymore we need an EU army but the usual suspects will bog any plans down trying to decide who gets command of any EU army and where the HQ would be built looking at the french and Germans here and we will still have the issue of countries not Willing to meet an financial spending as we have seen with NATO heading to year three of this war and still countries meeting the NATO spending requirements,but yet still have a say and expect to defended, it we are going forward with an EU army everyone has to commit to increased defence spending and assisting those like us who have seen our defence completely abandoned in the hope everyone else will fight and defend us in a future conflict

What could Ukraine do for Europe that the nuclear armed UK and France couldn’t do.

ukraine won’t be getting help from the Us to get nukes and definitely won’t be getting help from Europe either.

Friends of Russia can't see that happening either,I could see alot of EU states suddenly saying we're not interested in funding Ukraine if they are going to try acquire nukes