War in Ukraine

What have we seen there exactly that would lead you to believe they have the coordination to take territory across a river? They can barely take territory even when they really want it across flat terrain…

 

Avdiivka was supposed to be impenetrable and untouchable. The Ukrainians had so heavily fortified it. It could never fall. Until it did…

 

I am not suggesting the sanctions don't hurt Russia, but they have not led to economic collapse.

 

Avdiivka was never supposed to be impenetrable. For whatever reason, Ukraine has not done a whole lot of defensive construction that I've seen, with the exception of digging trenches. (Obviously, they don't put down a lot of minefields, partly because they don't have much mines, and partly because they will have to live with the unexploded mines after the war.) Whether they have limited access to concrete or a limited workforce for it, I don't know. Bahkmut was more of a fortress not because it was intended to be a fortress, but because of the construction of a high density of tall, reinforced concrete apartments, it was highly defendable. Ukraine is at a disadvantage because their factories and electricity suppliers are under siege and they have limited manpower. They make up for it with ingenuity and commitment, plus western aid.

Ukraine is doing a great job of making Russia pay for every yard of territory that they gain in Avdiivka, just like they did in Bahkmut. They are doing this while attacking supply routes and storage locations, as well as damaging Russia's naval and air forces and air defenses. And they have also made advances across the Dnipro River outside Kherson. They have a good strategy, and they are slowly winning the war. They do not have the technology or manpower for a sudden dramatic military victory, like most Americans have gotten used to in places like Iraq.

 

LOL the delusion.

 

The attrition is not equal on both sides. Russia is likely losing 10 times as many troops as Ukraine in places like Avdiivka, because Putin is desperate for a victory. It is also worse because Russia places little value on recovering its wounded soldiers and does not provide very good medical care near the battlefield. Ukraine is much more innovative in getting its wounded soldiers off the battlefield and into medical care. Russia cannot afford to win too many more Bahkmut's or Avdiivka's. At some point, their lines will be too weakened to effectively defend them, and Ukraine will have some major breakthroughs leading to Russian units being encircled, and we will see large numbers of Russians surrendering.

 

Putin is as cool as a cucumber. It’s his Western counterparts who are coming apart at the seams.

 

In its proxy war, vs the Russians, the U.S. is winning.

Over the European economy.

 

If Ukraine wants to win just drop drums of ROT gut vodka via parachute to the Russian front lines.

 

Their civil aviation fleet is being sent to Iran for repairs because they cant get parts. Iranian repairs are substandard and in flight failures are increasing. Look for more aviation accidents in Russia

 

What a shame.

 

Russian stereotypes could win this war for Ukraine.

 

Who will try Putin and his generals for war crimes once it’s over?

Also, why aren’t there protests for Ukraine like for Gaza? Putin has done more atrocities to Ukrainian women and children than the IDF who are defending their country after an assault on Israel.

 

^ Be the person your dog thinks you are. Think.

 

You don't have to be a jackass. Comments like this have no place in this forum. Especially from someone who needs to be told what to think by propagandist agitators.

 

Putin will get a free pass from the west unless Ukraine can invade Moscow before we stop them. More likely that Putin will be retired (removed from office) if Russia loses the war. He may not survive his retirement party.

 

There is no evidence that Putin is dead. But I like the way you think on this issue. He'll be dead soon enough.

 

War crimes only exist for losers and in the fantasies of people who believe international liberalism is, like, the way the world works instead of an ideal about the way the world should work. What is dangerous about using idealism to make strategic decisions is that it leads governments to naively assume that you can deter aggression through economic sanctions, shaming the aggressor in the UN, or appeasing the aggressor in one way or another. In the world we have, aggressors are only deterred by bonafide threat of force.

 

It will happen in The Hague. There are already charges pending. The tricky part will be for them to get their hands on Putin.

 

Bro, please live in the world we have, not the one you wish we had. Unless Russia gets militarily defeated so bad that the Russian people turn over Putin (which looks unlikely in the most optimistic of scenarios), war crimes trials are a fantasy.