What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

. .
If Ukrainian Nazis hadn't been exterminating Russian speaking people in the border region then the Ukrainians wouldn't be in this pickle.

Most nationalist activists fighting on Ukrainian side are indeed ethnic Russians. Not Russian speaking Ukrainians, but specifically Russians who lived in Ukraine for a few generations.
 
.



Most nationalist activists fighting on Ukrainian side are indeed ethnic Russians. Not Russian speaking Ukrainians, but specifically Russians who lived in Ukraine for a few generations.

Proof? From what I gather after 1991 millions of ethnic Russians left Ukraine and moved to Russia.

Most nationalist activists fighting on Ukrainian side are indeed ethnic Russians. Not Russian speaking Ukrainians, but specifically Russians who lived in Ukraine for a few generations.

There isn't any difference between ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian. They can speak both languages and can identify as either or both. Hell, in Canada we recently added an ethnic Canadian category to foster national unity.
 
. . . . .

Bakhmut is about the attrition of Russia forces , not holding territory. Bakhmut can’t be surrounded because the Ukrainian supply lines are guarded by Ukrainian fire support situated in hills that overlook the roads used. So Russian forces must enter the town and engage Ukrainian forces to remove them. All 30,000 of them.

Bakhmut is a trap to get Russian forces to engage in urban warfare where their losses will be much heavier than Ukrainian’s losses. Ukraine gives up a block of Bakhmut and Russia gives up three hundred soldiers. That’s the way attrition warfare works. Fifty more blocks to go and Russia ‘wins’. Worse even, Russia is losing many elite VDV paratroopers and battle-hardened Wagnar PMC soldiers while Ukraine is losing only a small number of its lowly-trained TDF soldiers that won’t be otherwise useful in the coming counter offensive.

Here’s an example of how urban warfare works..
 
.



Bakhmut is about the attrition of Russia forces , not holding territory. Bakhmut can’t be surrounded because the Ukrainian supply lines are guarded by Ukrainian fire support situated in hills that overlook the roads used. So Russian forces must enter the town and engage Ukrainian forces to remove them. All 30,000 of them.

Bakhmut is a trap to get Russian forces to engage in urban warfare where their losses will be much heavier than Ukrainian’s losses. Ukraine gives up a block of Bakhmut and Russia gives up three hundred soldiers. That’s the way attrition warfare works. Fifty more blocks to go and Russia ‘wins’. Worse even, Russia is losing many elite VDV paratroopers and battle-hardened Wagnar PMC soldiers while Ukraine is losing only a small number of its lowly-trained TDF soldiers that won’t be otherwise useful in the coming counter offensive.

Here’s an example of how urban warfare works..

True. But Russia has 4 times the population of Ukraine. Russia can afford heavy losses. Ukraine cannot. Besides, Ukrainian losses have gone up since Russia started using JDAMsky which can damage supply routes and high rise buildings outside the range of Patriot and NASAMS. On top of that, Ukrainians aren't einsteins and Russians aren't idiots. Ukrainians are not the only people who knows how to fight urban warfare or offensives. In June Russia will launch its own counteroffensive.
 
Last edited:
. . .
I am sympathy with Ukraine but that’s unrealistic. That would mean increasing military assistance to $500 billion from $50 billion per year. That’s too much.
Russia military spending is about $110 billion per year. If Ukraine could get $100 billion per year then Ok. Would require the west to double the assistance.


THe flaw in your argument is the assumption that Ukraine's "issue" with Russia in Eastern Ukraine is a financial issue, no its not, its a military-technical issue, so money cant solve it, but if NATO and US keep applying the financial tactics in the war, they will hollow out their economies that will lead to economic abysses and trauma. THe days of free and cheap credit for the West is over, that's real equity- everyone actually getting what they deserve for the real efforts they put in.
 
.




I am sympathy with Ukraine but that’s unrealistic. That would mean increasing military assistance to $500 billion from $50 billion per year. That’s too much.
Russia military spending is about $110 billion per year. If Ukraine could get $100 billion per year then Ok. Would require the west to double the assistance.



Not going to happen. Macron is already facing widespread protest for cutting pension to fund war in Ukraine. Any more cut will lead to revolt and his ouster from power.
 
Last edited:
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom