What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
the US didn't do too great in Iraq or A-stan either.
USA also did not do well in Somalia against a bunch of fishermen with AKs and RPGs
AP_mogadishu_ml_131004_16x9_992.jpg
 
Photos are more difficult to fake, than text.

Yeah, they are doing everything to stabilise the ruble. In reality it won`t happend. What will they do it if they don`t get paid in rubles ? Cut of Europe from their Gas and Oil? These are like the Sactions EU is discussing. Russia is going to sanction themselfs ?

Russia has and is moving oil/gas sales to China. A massive market. Russia can keep selling. Europe can’t keep heating or driving. Some countries get 40% of their fuel from Russia.:azn:
 
WW3 looming
NATO accuses China of backing Russia aggression against Ukraine. Even calling Chinese as liar.

 
Germany sends 2,000 more anti tank rockets to Ukraine. In total 4,000 pieces anti tank and anti aircraft missiles.


Ein Soldat hält auf dem Truppenübungsplatz im Rahmen der Informationslehrübung Landoperationen 2016 eine Panzerfaust 3 in der Hand.

Ein Soldat hält auf dem Truppenübungsplatz im Rahmen der Informationslehrübung "Landoperationen 2016" eine Panzerfaust 3 in der Hand. Foto: picture alliance / dpa.
 
Nothing much left of this Russian T72 destroyed in Chernihiv today. The crew didn't survive.

FOjDVqbWYAgQ4IZ.jpg
 
Kharkiv - I have already said other than "Historical" value of it, I do not see any value to attack Kharkiv, and you are describing the Historical Value. And Historical Value means nothing in term of Strategic term. As in it does not help the Russian to win the war. It is only strategically important if Russia cannot attack from Belarus. But since they can, that put Kyiv just 150km south of Belarus border, which make taking Kharkiv pointless.

Mariupol is important, but you don't really need to attack them on day 1. Because Mariupol was locked in by sea of Azov (Russian have Kerch Strait and Crimea) They can pin the defender down like they do with Odesa to pin down the defender without using any troop, so they can take it after they took Kyiv. In fact, if Russia should use troop, they should have used them on Odesa not Mariupol.

Kyiv is THE ONLY objective they should have taken ASAP. Their goal is to demolish the Ukrainian Government and install their own regime, that's what "Demilitarization and Denazification" means, and you cannot do them without taking Kyiv first, because the president was there, and the entire government was there. You need to take them out to install your own government. And you need to do them As Soon As Possible.

Uh Kharkiv is northwest of the main Ukrainian Donbass front which is a primary objective. Getting it would mean a straight drive southeast to encircle them on Highway M03. Why is this militarily unimportant?

In addition how did you get "historical value" from "many ethnic Russians, possibility of an uprising or surrender"? That has nothing to do with history.

Why do you believe Kiev is an important military objective re: demilitarization? Surrounding the Donbass front and actually destroying their military would achieve that as well, but unlike Donbass doesn't require a narrow drive south that can't rely on backing from elsewhere. This is the only front that has this problem, every other front doesn't yet you place supreme emphasis on the Kievan front. Why?

Every single Russian press release emphasizes that Ukraine needs to leave Donbass region. Every negotiation with Ukraine including prewar involves those regions, and Crimea. Most Ukrainian forces are there. Most of the intense fighting is there. Attacks like on Kharkiv only make sense in this context. Yet why do you think Kiev is the main objective despite all this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom