Reashot Xigwin
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2012
- Messages
- 5,747
- Reaction score
- 0
Who's willing to bet this is not made out of metal and just larp gear?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
UK is in indeed an Island , therefore they don't have many tanks to spare . This is clearly a demonstrative move , to influence Germany to free their leopard 2 ,
10 tanks can make a difference my friend. At least at Bakhmut. Not that easy to target the western tanks. They are very agile very protected. With western tanks coming Ukraine will adopt NATO standard of “Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen” or combined arms battle. The tanks will not run alone. They run along with aviation and infantry.
View attachment 910578
Almost the same
Verdun is France’s strongest defense on the eastern flank, same for Bakhmut for Ukraine. Neither France nor Ukraine can’t afford to lose. Strategically both Verdun and Bakhmut are not important. Cities with few thousands inhabitants, no industrial no weapons manufacturing. It’s just symbolic for the population the gov can say hey! Look, our armies will defend the fortress until the bitter end, no matter the costs.
So we have months long frontal assaults on fortified urban defenses manned by better trained defenders.It is stupid for Ukraine to lose 10s of thousands of men to defend a small place like Bakhmut. It is really makes no any military sense to lose over 35,000 soldiers in a place that has no significant population or an industrial base.
Instead, the Ukrainians could've opened a second front where they could've relieved the pressure from Bakhmut. They could've also focused on cutting down the Russian supply lines that sustain the grinding Bakhmut offensive.
As for the Russians, it makes perfect sense to pool their resources on this front and maintain the grinding and the gradual assault on the huge Ukrainian soldiers who were all gathered in Bakhmut. This is a perfect chance for Russia to kill or cripple the most experienced Ukrainian forces, and as we can all see it is all going well.
So when you compare the tactical and strategies that these opposing armies are pursuing in Bakhmut, you can see the Russian approach makes perfect sense. This is the reason why the Ukrainian casualty rate is far higher than the Russians in Bakhmut.
This should also explain why Russians withdrew the East side of Kherson. They didn't want this front to distract their offensive in the Bakhmut front, and it is paying dividend.
Bradleys
Strykers
Challengers
Leopards
AMX-10s
Marders
HMMWV
PATRIOTS
HIMARS
M777
M109
M270
Next up:
ABRAMS
ATACMS
MQ 9s
Apache
Black Hawk
F-15
F-16
THAAD
#PrayForRussia @Hassan Al-Somal
So we have months long frontal assaults on fortified urban defenses manned by better trained defenders.
Assuming higher ukranian casualties (let alone much much higher…) is pure copium going against all military logic.
This pretty much sums up. The Bakhmut meat grinder has taken its toll on the Ukrainians.
Better trained soldiers who were sitting ducks for aerial, artillery, and grand assaults.
All done for a 3 day operation. wow.Russians have transformed their industry into a war production, meaning most of their factories are geared towards winning this war. Their factories are working 24 hours, and anyone with a technical degree is directed to work in the arms industry. They're rolling artillery pieces, tanks, ammunition, and helicopters in a rate that you can't imagine.
Russians are also filling the gap in their arms industry by reaching out to countries like Iran, China, and DPRK, and acquiring whatever that was missing in the puzzle. This is where those Shaheed-136s/131 drones and DPRK's artillery pieces come into the picture.
What you asked is reasonable, but there is a risk.I think the most feasible short term solution would be ta achieve a ceasefire. That would lead its way to negotiations and possible agreemnents in the long term with different Ukrainian, Russian governments. No one can force Ukraine to agree on losing those regions but at least a ceasefire can be achieved. The situation would be tense like North and South Korea but at least further escalation of war would be averted.
Everytime ceasefire subject is brought up Ukraine side gives the excuse of Russia can plan another offensive gathering resources and further mobilisation so they can't remove their grip from southern regions to keep Russian forces focusing there. This needs to be clarified by Russian side officially from the top to remove this excuse by saying that there won't be further operations and expansions into Kharkiv, Sumy, Kiev, Odessa or in any other part of Ukraine after the ceasefire including Bakhmut. The SMO aims and limits should be declared officially as an initial step with its limits and there wont be further advances or aims by Russia.
Additionally eventhough the regions are recognized by Russia the borders are not recognized yet. In Kherson and Zhaporijia Russia can leave downward to much smaller sector and northern parts of Kherson,Zaporijia would be a buffer zone stationing UN peace keeping forces leaving administration of those regions to Ukraine as well almost as before the pre-war conditions. The buffer zone would be a security guarantee for Crimea as well which Russia wants. Ukraine wont be forced to recognize Crimea or Donbass and economic sanctions are the price for keeping those regions for Russia to solve this issue with future agreements with Ukraine. At least the current meat grinder situation for both sides and a possible Crimea based nuclear escalation situation can be averted now instead of later which can be too late.
Problem is, as always "Trust"I think the most feasible short term solution would be ta achieve a ceasefire. That would lead its way to negotiations and possible agreemnents in the long term with different Ukrainian, Russian governments. No one can force Ukraine to agree on losing those regions but at least a ceasefire can be achieved. The situation would be tense like North and South Korea but at least further escalation of war would be averted.
Everytime ceasefire subject is brought up Ukraine side gives the excuse of Russia can plan another offensive gathering resources and further mobilisation so they can't remove their grip from southern regions to keep Russian forces focusing there. This needs to be clarified by Russian side officially from the top to remove this excuse by saying that there won't be further operations and expansions into Kharkiv, Sumy, Kiev, Odessa or in any other part of Ukraine after the ceasefire including Bakhmut. The SMO aims and limits should be declared officially as an initial step with its limits and there wont be further advances or aims by Russia.
Additionally eventhough the regions are recognized by Russia the borders are not recognized yet. In Kherson and Zhaporijia Russia can leave downward to much smaller sector and northern parts of Kherson,Zaporijia would be a buffer zone stationing UN peace keeping forces leaving administration of those regions to Ukraine as well almost as before the pre-war conditions. The buffer zone would be a security guarantee for Crimea as well which Russia wants. Ukraine wont be forced to recognize Crimea or Donbass and economic sanctions are the price for keeping those regions for Russia to solve this issue with future agreements with Ukraine. At least the current meat grinder situation for both sides and a possible Crimea based nuclear escalation situation can be averted now instead of later which can be too late.
The same RUSSIAN sources and Russian government itself have always claimed the srebrenica massacre was a lie and made up. Yet funny enough they used it to also justify their intervention in Ukraine saying they wanted to avoid a srebrenica like massacre in Ukraine . LolRussian sources are saying that British women are trading sex for heat and food. Can you confirm or deny this? Are you in the UK?
What you asked is reasonable, but there is a risk.
Prior to WW II, China was weak on the international stage, and JPN occupied Manchuria. The US, believing that China was essentially a nobody, spoke for China and conceded Manchuria to JPN. The result were the atrocities the JPNese committed to the Chinese in Manchuria.
History is not kind to concessions.