Great video of drone destroying Russian T-90...watch all the way through. A Russian S-400 system attempting to defend itself against ATACMS. It was not successful.
Four more Russians (and an MBT) who no doubt “don’t count” toward Russia’s total casualty count of — what is it? — 600-700, most of whom went down due to seasonal flu.
In Kharkiv, Ukraine is preventing Russia from doing what Russia has no intention of doing … “The broader point here is that Russia’s vastly superior force generation allows it to accelerate the burn off of Ukraine combat power in two ways. First, by widening the front, they can create more and more hotspots that force the rapid reshuffling of Ukraine’s premiere assets; secondly, simply extending the active front can force Ukraine to feed newly mobilized personnel into the front faster.” Russo-Ukrainian War: Widening the Front
weak shit. Blaming a U.S. diplomat for Russian aggression. What is wrong with you. Trump says more inflammatory shit before breakfast then Nuland did her entire career and you slobber all over him.
body blows having the intended effect. Putin knows he is in trouble..tick, tick, tick, just a matter of time until the bridge falls Ukrainian Strikes in Crimea Shake Russian Military Logistics and Supply Lines (msn.com) The strategic blows landed by Ukrainian forces on Russian military assets in Crimea are highlighting the logistical vulnerabilities of the Russian occupation there. The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ successful strikes on key components of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, including large landing ships such as the Yamal and Azov, as well as a communications center and various infrastructure facilities, have sent ripples through the peninsula’s logistical networks. Military expert Pavlo Narozhny, speaking to Radio NV, described the Ukrainian strikes as “a very powerful blow to Russian logistics.” The targeting of landing ships, which are utilized for transporting ammunition and equipment, underscores the significance of Crimea as a logistical hub for the Russian military effort in the south of Ukraine. The destruction of these vessels not only disrupts the immediate supply chain but also has the potential to impede longer-term military operations. The expert further noted the downing of an oil depot, suggesting that fuel reserves for Russian warplanes were likely obliterated in the attack. Narozhny also referenced Russian “milbloggers” who reported the loss of up to 50 soldiers, including 30 officers, and the damage inflicted upon three aircraft at a local airfield. These personnel and equipment losses add to the logistical strain on Russian forces.
Ukranian podcaster I listen too claims 500,000 Russian KIA, Disabled or seriously wounded to date. Are any of you folks seeing the "tide" shift back to Ukraine a bit? Seems the aid package is now taking serious effect, especially with the atacam coming into play. Obviously the Russian gains have come at serious cost. I think it's about to get even bloodier with NATO shells finally arriving and the US aid package kicking into gear. Add the fact the F-16's will be deployed soon and maybe Ukraine can further stabalize the front, maybe even push back in certain sectors. Interesting rumors flying about Poland and the Baltic States considering indirect military intervention in the Northern Ukrainian sector. Don't know how "real" this is. Time to get rid or Orban or kick Hungary the hell out of NATO. Glory to UKRAINE!!!
Interesting article comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, with the current war: Blundering on the Brink I suspect most on this board will concur with the author's take, which amounts to Kruschev blundered in '62, as Putin blunders today. I beg to differ as far as Kruschev goes as I believe the Soviets "won" as far as winning goes (they got control of Cuba AND they got NATO/the US to remove their nukes from Turkey--our *victory*, was that we averted nuclear war; a *win* I'll certainly take, but to pretend that Kruschev thereby blundered in daring to seek to establish nukes in Cuba, is a laughable joke. A bad joke. One in piss poor taste, frankly). I do see a different similarity though, between the CMC and today, to wit: in both cases, it was the West (NATO) encroaching towards Russia, which precipitated both escalations. US/NATO's establishment of nukes in Turkey prior to '62, and our determination to expand NATO into Ukraine--at Russia's door step--here. Turn the tables, and have Russia seeking to recruit Mexico into the Russia Federation, and we'd be in collective nuclear melt down mode, with out a doubt. Like we'd have invaded Mexico, before letting it become Russian, melt down. Here is a key quote/excerpt which seemingly concedes the point--at least as far as Kruschev and the CMC go--apparently without even realizing it: The evidence shows that Khrushchev’s idea to send missiles to Cuba was a remarkably poorly thought-through gamble whose success depended on improbably good luck. Far from being a bold chess move motivated by cold-blooded realpolitik, the Soviet operation was a consequence of Khrushchev’s resentment of U.S. assertiveness in Europe and his fear that Kennedy would order an invasion of Cuba, overthrowing Castro and humiliating Moscow in the process. And far from being an impressive display of Soviet cunning and power, the operation was plagued by a profound lack of understanding of on-the-ground conditions in Cuba. The palm tree fiasco was just one of many blunders the Soviets made throughout the summer and fall of 1962. The underlined of course refers to our establishment of nukes in Turkey. For my part--I'm glad Russia does not have nukes in Cuba--I don't give a shit whether we have them in Turkey or not; just as I could scarcely care less if Ukraine remains indy, or gets subsumed into the Russian Federation. But I think it's rather disingenuous to pretend that this is Russia seeking to gratuitously expand, rather than defensively seeking to preserve a buffer between it, and NATO, regardless what thinks of their system of governance. What's more, I'll conclude by saying that I'd much rather see us free Cuba--who's in our own back yard--and topple their oppressive regime--than freeing Ukraine, in Russia's back yard. (Of course I'll own my bias here).
. What's more, I'll conclude by saying that I'd much rather see us free Cuba--who's in our own back yard--and topple their oppressive regime--than freeing Ukraine, in Russia's back yard. (Of course I'll own my bias here).[/QUOTE] You own your bias, but share any facts you have that support your statement " and our determination to expand NATO into Ukraine--at Russia's door step--here." Also how does Khrushchev (USSR) win "Cuba" after the missile crisis when they already had Castro in power?
The answer to that is the public pledge we made, and have kept to this day, to never invade Cuba in (partial) exchange for the Soviets pulling out the nuclear weapons. Prior to that, Cuba lived under the constant threat that the U.S. would use the slightest pretext to overthrow the Castro regime after the Cuban exiles failed to do it themselves at Bay of Pigs a year earlier.
You claim that we would freak out if Russia claimed influence over a state close to us and start a war. That ignores that they did in Cuba and we haven't started a war over it. Second, NATO is not conquering or forcing membership on anybody. Countries join NATO via their own decisions taken freely. Third, NATO was not interested in Ukrainian membership due to the instability of the country's government. This is especially true as members deal with Hungary and Turkey and their new found authoritarianism. BTW, Russia has multiple countries on their border that are members of NATO, so invading Ukraine to preserve a buffer would be beyond dumb.
So how does all of Putin’s statements about Ukraine not being a real country, historically being part of the Russian Empire, etc, fit into your theory about this just being about NATO expansion? I agree that Putin couldn’t have Ukraine joining NATO (not that it was ever really in the cards), because that would guarantee that Russia couldn’t just gobble it up as soon as it had the strength. Putin’s strategic objectives vis-à-vis the Baltic states are far more complex precisely because they joined NATO when Russia was too weak to prevent it. You need to understand, though, that “reunification,” however you want to phrase it is the purpose of this war, not a buffer with NATO, and it was always going to happen at some point. NATO is merely an obstacle to the objective, not the cause of the war.
A conditional pledge to a non-existent entity. The pledge expired with the Soviet Union, as the conditions ceased to be applicable (ie--no longer any threat of placement of nukes on the island).
