Please use this thread to continue discussing the war in Ukraine.
All mod instructions from the previous thread remain in force here
Original thread:
There's something that you (and all the other "Putin's making gains" posters) continually overlook - or disregard: back in 2022 Putin controlled more than 50000 additional km² of Ukraine. He lost that, and nothing he has done in the two years since has recovered it. Despite the hundreds of thousands of conscripts, criminals, immigrants and other "disposable forces" that he's sent to fight, he has been barely able to recover even one hundreth of the ground he already lost.
And yet the Ukrainians managed to capture a comparable amount of Russian territory in a fortnight, with minimal losses. And destroy a few airfields at the same time. And destroy a major strategic reserve oil storage facility. And continue to shoot down most of the drones and missiles that Russian fires into Ukrainian airspace.
So whatever Putin is "managing to do" it's certainly not wage an effective war against anyone. Like his orange-tinted admirer in the other hemisphere, he is a loser by every metric.
Hinted at Da Bomb being used
No I havent. Thats now the third time that lazy nonsense has been bandied about. I actually think 'da bomb' bluff has been called a long time ago and whould hope it remains that way but in any case your wrong, so good start.
2. Propagate the “Russia has endless manpower” meme which Kursk shows is a joke
It doesn't; Kursk was poorly defended; it's been widely commented on.
3. Are exasperated like Russians as to why Ukrainians won’t sink to their level of battlefield stupidity
Never have I even hinted at that- show me where I've said this.
4. Try to downplay the size of the area lost in Kursk by playing at the “Russia is big” meme
Not the "Russia is big" part - wrong again but that the area won in Kursk V what they are looking likely to lose & what they've lost already should also be included before we get ahead of ourselves. Granted the Ukrainian incursion in Kursk is only a few weeks old, so hopefully not finished but there's a long way to go yet.
5. Ignore the non military consequences that Putin and Russia are trying hard to sweep under rug
Like what?
And in the battles at Avdiivka, Vuhledar and Bahkmut he wasted the majority of his modern armor and artillery. Armor and artillery he can't replace easily, cheaply or at a rate faster than Ukraine have been destroying them due to sanctions from the west and his throwing his workforce into the meat grinder of those battles.
Recent Ukrainian strikes on airfields, weapons stores, fuel stores and downing of aircraft will have also reduced his ability to strike Ukrainian defence lines with the glidebombs that preceded the meat wave attacks in those battles too.
He may still be able to throw barely trained, poorly armed infantry at Ukrainian lines and even back them up with some cold war/ WW2 era armor (or Chinese golf buggies) but the law of diminishing returns will certainly factor into the equation (if indeed, it hasn't already.
Even if it was poorly defended …Ukrainian troops would be overstretched and would not have the numbers to take a city the size of Kursk …I think it was never an option anyway to take it
There's something that you (and all the other "Putin's making gains" posters)
But he is making gains…and I've never denied the losses.
It seems you cannot reference the gains without being quickly labelled some Putin shill. Have a read of my posts on this and you'll see you're quite wrong.
Hopefully but the war wasn't 12 months old when we heard the same - "Russia has lost too much and are a spent force"; yet here we still are unfortunately.
Yes you're correct - fat fingers. I'd crudely pulled a line that was 55 miles.
Well if you gain 2 square kilometer in on place and loose 1200km2 in another you could be obtuse and state he's gaining ground "somewhere"… But its not the smartest point to make.
Russia is not making any net gain and they havent since they got their asses kicked in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions
You did hint at 'da bomb' - it was subsequently changed to chemical weapons (similar response too if he did use 'Da bomb') once Nukes were mentioned as a response to your original post advising not to antagonise Putin in case he gets cross.
They don't need to be getting bogged down policing a whole city either. Peacetime population of 440k so even assuming some have left it's still an unnecessary burden. Strike at any rail and motorways in the vicinity and that would be good enough.
Would love to see them just flatten it from a distance.
Unfortunately… right.
If Ukraine shouldn't put Russia on the back foot to avoid antagonising Putin, as you advise, by invading Russia… Do you think Ukraine should request a ceasefire and be ready to give up land so they can have peace in the rest of Ukraine?
Are the 2km/2 V the 1200km/s comparable to what I've said though? Povrovsk & Chasiv Yar are in no way "2km/s" loss.
Is it not unfortunate? Is it good that we're still watching this?
If Ukraine shouldn't put Russia on the back foot to avoid antagonising Putin, as you advise, by invading Russia…
Nice twisting of words/outright misrepreentation; I never 'advised' this in any way, shape or form. Have a look at post 4821 - "Any success by Ukraine is to be welcomed"
Every time I ever read about or hear about an A10, I have to immediately go to Youtube to hear a few brrrrrrrrrtttt's
I remember hearing somewhere years ago that they could lose a half of a wing and still maintain controlled flight…
How about answering the question?
And if you are playing silly buggers, isn't 'right' an affirmative to what you said?
How about admitting the misrepresentation of what I said before making demands.
And if you are playing silly buggers, isn't '….right' sarcasm on your part as if to insinuate what I had written as disingenuous. Why include it in that manner if only to make it look disingenuous?
I never mentioned "da bomb" or "Nukes". I did say chemical/biological (as used in Syria is what I'd mentioned)
To say I subsequently "changed" is a lie you've made up.
"Any success by Ukraine is to be welcomed"
Oh well that settles it then. No one would ever in the history of the internet sends post after post laden with content against someone and then throw in a one liner supporting them 🤣
What is the difference ? all three are weapons of mass destruction.
Putin already used chemical weapons in Ukraine anyway
The best you can do? Couldn't read the other posts no?
That settles it then.
I read them.
You are 100% pro Russia and no amount of "I want Ukraine to win but" is gonna fool anyone.
double post
Wrong again, nothing I've written hints at being 100% pro-Russian. It seems to be all you have.
A nuclear war hasn't been seen in actuality in 80 years; (cold war dick swinging aside) it would be a significant escalation to say the least. Far more than chemical warfare. As I said though, the nuclear bluff's been called a few times now.
But that's still not addressing the fact that what you'd stated I'd written was wholly incorrect.
And no matter how many times his mouthpieces mention the word nuclear… Putin can't go there. Not only would he lose Chinese backing, Biden has told him it'll be the end of his conventional forces if he does. Just imagine the damage a single squadron of F35s could do to Russia's military capabilities. Then consider what the entire air power of NATO could do. Russia would be bombed back to the stone age.
Technically we never had a Nuclear war… as where two sides using them. The closest we got was 1962
On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick
Russia using proper chemical and/or biological agents would just as much be seen as an escalation.
"
"On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick"
You will have to explain how it could be a good idea for Russia to use a tactical nuclear bomb on innocent Ukrainians.
A blessing for who?
Dear gawd, having to read through your, er, contributions is bad enough the first time.
"The danger in all of these recent Ukrainian success's is that the response from Putin also increases in its requirement for retribution - both in actuality on the ground and in propaganda."
This is your post - "retribution" are you saying it's totally unreasonable to assume you're talking about 'Da bomb' here, considering the context?
Once I mentioned nukes you pivoted to chemical weapons etc as possible retribution.
Anyway, now that that is cleared up for any reasonable person, are you advocating Ukraine seek peace as it's best option right now?
Meanwhile ISIS taken over a prison in Volgograd and running riot with hostages
Poor Putin can’t get a break
Second time that's happened. What's that saying, first time is a misfortune, second time is careless. 😂
