The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 30,273
I wonder how this offensive compares historically to other blitz types of advancements speed wise , since ww2.
Brilliant comedy
Except Asad used them against civilians , I do think the UAF have better protective gear for that.I could see Russia resorting to chemical weapons soon. Assad got away with it and Syria wasn't even a nuclear power.
My guess is that, due to technology advances and completely broken enemy, they are moving more quickly than earlier armies. Could be wrong, of course.I wonder how this offensive compares historically to other blitz types of advancements speed wise , since ww2.
Except Asad used them against civilians , I do think the UAF have better protective gear for that.
Hard to beat Desert Storm in that regard. The used technology hasn't advanced since those daysMy guess is that, due to technology advances and completely broken enemy, they are moving more quickly than earlier armies. Could be wrong, of course.
Then the whole world sees he is a terrorist, without achieving any tactical objective.Yeah, but what if he unleashes them in a city where there are tons of civilians as well?
Then the whole world sees he is a terrorist, without achieving any tactical objective.
That’s where US steps in, they have already mentioned (?) that any use of nukes on Ukraine will be met with equal countermeasures. I think they only need to announce it and Russia won’t dear to even think about it.They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he? The tactical objective would be to "not lose". Ukraine doesnt have a deterrent against WMD's and that kind of stuff.
I dont think he can get away with it. Almost nobody will want to do business with Russia until he goes , even after the war. Also, in the short term the US will start sending even more advanced weaponry, and some nato members such as Poland may say feck it and join in by themselves.They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he?
But what would it actually achieve apart from making Ukrainians even more motivated to fight? Russia's main troubles steam from exactly that, they seem to focus more on killing civilians which achieves absolutely nothing, rather than trying to defeat Ukraine's army. Them using weapons like this would definitely mean they have already lost a war.They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he? The tactical objective would be to "not lose". Ukraine doesnt have a deterrent against WMD's and that kind of stuff.
That’s where US steps in, they have already mentioned (?) that any use of nukes on Ukraine will be met with equal countermeasures. I think they only need to announce it and Russia won’t dear to even think about it.
But what would it actually achieve apart from making Ukrainians even more motivated to fight? Russia's main troubles steam from exactly that, they seem to focus more on killing civilians which achieves absolutely nothing, rather than trying to defeat Ukraine's army. Them using weapons like this would definitely mean they have already lost a war.
Well Truzz can be that person then, she’s very hawkish regarding Ukraine. It only requires one public statement.Biden said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Russia does. So what is the US going to do? The US and Nato countries have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be in hot war with Russia over Ukraine.
Biden said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Russia does. So what is the US going to do? The US and Nato countries have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be in hot war with Russia over Ukraine.
Incredible really.
Sorry its a poorly put question.
What I mean is even if Ukraine take back occupied territory will Russia just keep rearming and keep coming back?
Is the whole war likely to last years
Hard to beat Desert Storm in that regard. The used technology hasn't advanced since those days
Saying they wouldn't retaliate with nukes doesn't mean they won't go hot war with Russia. Nuclear escalation is what they have made clear they don't want, nobody wants. Fortunately NATO doesn't need nukes to neutralise Russia.
I thought the orcs had digged in. This is equal parts very impressive advancement and total disorder from the Russians.
This says Donetsk Airport is occupied... what?
It probably won’t be a smart move as this will allow Putin to call for a global mobilization, which will significantly increase the amount of man power (albeit, most likely, extremely ill-equipped).I seriously think with such a force they can move into west Russia, it will be completely undefended. They won't cause they get nuked, but still conventionally it would be possible within the logistical limits of course.
That'd mean they are breaking through 2014 front lines which would be massive.Yeah, double checked myself on google maps how come that's a thing.
Donetsk airport is NW from Donetsk, and not far from Pisky town, which was heavily contested, so not far from frontline in the area. If true, ukrainians pushed close to Donetsk city limits on that frontline.
I agree it will not be the correct move since it will also erode int support for Ukraine, some countries will be very quick to condemn it, politically it will make no sense. It was purely as a thought exercise whether will be possible with the current state of both sides.It probably won’t be a smart move as this will allow Putin to call for a global mobilization, which will significantly increase the amount of man power (albeit, most likely, extremely ill-equipped).
Although I do wonder at what point Putin will admit his defeat and stop the offensive, considering that losing Crimea and accepting it would most likely be a rare thing that would be able to overthrow him. Losing Donetsk and Luhansk will cost him dearly but I’m not going to underestimate the power of his propaganda again, he may withstand this (although I’d still hope that he wouldn’t, after betting so much on this invasion to literally lose and end up in a worse position that he had started off…).
They are the one part of the UK government still doing public-facing business as usual in terms of briefing the media and public. Gives you an idea of what the singular key issue of the day remains.Not getting the coverage given the effective media blackout in the UK but you would imagine/hope that the Foreign Office/MoD are keeping a close eye given how apparently decisive this counter-offensive has been.
That'd mean they are breaking through 2014 front lines which would be massive.
Not operational for civilian traffic but it still an airport it has military uses. Unless the runways have been destroyed beyond repairNot sure how massive it is, as I don't think airport has been operational since 2014-15 battles, and Donetsk should (key word here) be fortified. Symbolic victory if anything, most likely chance opportunity due to RF moving reserves north to help.
Not operational for civilian traffic but it still an airport it has military uses. Unless the runways have been destroyed beyond repair
I don’t think that it’s in any way operationalNot operational for civilian traffic but it still an airport it has military uses. Unless the runways have been destroyed beyond repair
I don’t think that it’s in any way operational