Please use this thread to continue discussing the war in Ukraine.
All mod instructions from the previous thread remain in force here
Original thread:
The posts about countdown to Moscow and Russian soldiers in Kursk surrendering as soon as a shot is fired spring to mind, Russian railway system on verge of collapse, there were plenty more.
However, rather than trying to deflect, why not answer the original question: is the situation in Pokrovsk part of a bigger plan, and if so what? And has the Kursk operation been a wise move several weeks in? I honestly don't know but am very open to hearing different viewpoints. What do you think?
The soldiers in context did surrender once surrounded (after killing Ukraine hostages).
The "countdown" to moscow were tongue in cheek posts matching similar to what happened with Prizoghin.
These points were also made at the time but you attempted to skip past it and then started calling out other users again. Context matters, if you're going to constantly call out other users, expect to be challenged on it. I am able to supply in context evidence, you haven't thus far, thus they can be dismissed.
that’s only half the story. For example, there are ,say, 1000 trucks to be driven every day in Russia but there are only 500 drivers available to drive them. That’s what happens when one conscripts/pick up civilians for the front line. They are never asked ‘AREYOU a truck driver’?
One case of surrender is not representative of a broad trend (I wish it was). And even if Moscow comment was slightly tongue in cheek, the sentiment was genuine: Russia was in for a rout (I wish it was). So now you're the one taking things out of context.
I don't know to be fair. They might have to redeploy their better forces out of kursk if Russia keep up the advances and make more head way so they might end up having to leave weaker forces in kursk in due time and redeploy them back against Russian forces in the donbass. I say more Russia might try and deal with kursk during the winter months.
They wont swap. Donbas contains Trillions in mineral wealth.
Still can't figure out what Ukraine can achieve in Russia while appearing to lose more territory in the Donbas region .Certainly doesn't look like Putin will re deploy his troops so that Ukraine can occupy them enough to drive them back in the Donbas at the same time. Hopefully I am wrong but the outcome doesn't look good at this point .
No, I didn’t and I am really surprised you ask that question. You regularly question other posters about their choice of sources but you decided that a journalist claiming Russian economy was flourishing met your standards and was worth 30min of your time.
I am not saying she is wrong by the way but I wouldn’t trust her.
You and many others are assuming that not engaging in the Kursk offensive would mean they would not be losing the territory in Donbas.
Not engaging in Kursk would most likely just mean they have no Kursk and no Donbas. A little slower losing ground maybe but that's about it.
Unfortunately, the biggest news from the Kursk region in the last few days appears to be that the Russians have (for now, at least) retaken Korenevo. Ukraine may have to do more in order to really peel Russian battalions away from hot areas like Pokrovsk, like directly threaten the city of Kursk, or something like that.
It's just that Russia is such a huge landmass that it's looks nearly impossible for Ukraine to do enough to really put the frighteners on the Russians that could change things .
Russia has more mineral wealth that it could ever use, under the old pure communist system Ukraine and Russia were importing food. The Donbass and south west Russia is the best stretch of farm in the world but that's communism for ya.
The corn belt in America has similar soil, 6 inches deep. In the above it is often 6 feet deep. They grew grain at the same level per acre 2500 years ago as good hard wheat farms do now.
Only vast western support with long range capabilities will stop it, Russia may be bolloxed after this war but it will have a large skelp of Ukraine, Ukraine will be a failed state and every shi7 house group or state will have a green light to go for it because the west no longer will maintain global security and peace and we will all pay for that it for decades to come.
Kursk is an opportunity but also borne of desperation on the need to change the dynamic, much of Europe and Washington have decided to let things settle where they will
Poison the sites with plutonium.
I'd be reasonably sure that the Ukrainian high command had a series of aims Goals and plans before they invaded Kursk , probably including showing the US that this isn't a frozen conflict ,
As it is we're not privy to their main aims ,
It's pretty certain that kursk has drawn potential resources from Donbass ,for both sides , it'll only be after it's all over that anyone can rate the kursk offensive as successful or failure , it's still in play..
if the 42D genius in Kremlin manages to push the Swiss out of neutrality where does that leave us
Aside, rumours today that Lavrov is on his way to meet Prigozhin in hell
Good advice. Lots of rumours. Zero evidence.
Yes, and a war economy does not in itself generate wealth, it needs funding from its national wealth, which is not sustainable in the lomg term.
In all likelihood russia’s nukes do not work.
Good advice, though that twitter account holder is himself known for promoting outlandish rumours, so a bit ironic
Russia apparently destroying their own towns in Kursk, appalling if true (don't know how reliable this outlet is):
Again your criticisms are off the mark: journalists do the reporting, they don't choose the headlines, so the misleading "flourishing" term has nothing to do with her; all her points about sanctions are backed up by facts; oh and she speaks for 10 minutes not 30. Basically not a single valid argument against her except prejudice. Fair enough
Without a doubt news about war is bad for mental health, and the Ukraine war has been one of the grimmest and most angering events of recent years, you are right about that
While they may fudge some "closer cooperation" there is almost zero chance of Switzerland abandoning it's neutrality stance I think.
It's possible that many of their older land based ICBM systems have not been maintained & upgraded since the fall of the Soviet Union, however their submarine nuclear deterrent, including new & modernised vessels have had plenty of money spent on them in recent times, including upgraded weaponry.
They might well have as many or more nuclear missiles on their subs as Britain & France combined. Would western hunter killer submarines be able to take out all Russia's nuclear deterrent vessels before it nukes could be launched, we don't really know. I suspect Russian land based systems would be at severe risk of being targeted, however hitting their nuclear missile subs is not as easy.
I think we should abandon ours asap. Putin can nuke Ireland and how does that go with Article 5? No Article 5 for Ballynuko. And Putin knows this.
Should we test it by just bombarding all their military strongholds and finally ending this thing? Is it worth the risk?
Me too largely. I'm hoping to be Swiss in 6 months and I'd be happy for us/them to abandon it to.
I just don't think either will.
Russia closing in fast on Pokrovsk, can Ukraine still halt this?
It's similar to the atomic bomb question in 1945. I think I read that they'd calculated that it would cost over 200.000 us soldiers lives to just fight the Japanese back to their mainland.
