- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,799
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
Right at the beginning of this. I reported the view of a pro military strategist, who said that the more the Ukranians resist, the more it'll hurt because we already know who's going to win. He's still right.
Popular as it may be to enjoy moments of Russian loss and incompetence, it's still true that if they get annoyed enough they can escalate as much as they fancy. So far they've not been at war with Ukraine as a whole. If that had been the case, they'd have flattened Kyiv's centre, and gone for the entire country's C & C, comms, transport, power, water and fuel services and so on.
So far they've been selective about which targets they hit from afar, like the arms dumps in Lviv and arms factories near Kyiv.
Unless we suggest they're running out of ammo, they could just as easily sit back in Russia and hit very many key infrastructure targets.
Why hasn't he done that? Because he wants it for himself? Is Putin sparing Zelesny so he can surrender?
If western-supplied arms become a nuisance to him, Putin has many options. Someone suggested a small Nuke in the North sea, as in "F off, this is my back yard, not your concern". He could hit oil supplies, all sorts. Western supplies are public knowledge, so surely he has to take out railway interchanges?
At the moment he's inching forwards with updated ww2 methods, using tools which he can deploy extensively, assuming a competent commander, which seems to have been lacking on the move towards Kyiv.
Effective resistance to that will mean Putin ratchets up, and up.
Unless we really are prepared for my initial response - bomb Moscow - , I think we have to take it on the chin, with a realisation that the all of the border countries have to become too well defended for Putin-types to invade in future.
Ukraine has in many ways, already lost enough, while Jenny Longface reports from Moscow, that nothing much has changed and Putin is still popular.
Popular as it may be to enjoy moments of Russian loss and incompetence, it's still true that if they get annoyed enough they can escalate as much as they fancy. So far they've not been at war with Ukraine as a whole. If that had been the case, they'd have flattened Kyiv's centre, and gone for the entire country's C & C, comms, transport, power, water and fuel services and so on.
So far they've been selective about which targets they hit from afar, like the arms dumps in Lviv and arms factories near Kyiv.
Unless we suggest they're running out of ammo, they could just as easily sit back in Russia and hit very many key infrastructure targets.
Why hasn't he done that? Because he wants it for himself? Is Putin sparing Zelesny so he can surrender?
If western-supplied arms become a nuisance to him, Putin has many options. Someone suggested a small Nuke in the North sea, as in "F off, this is my back yard, not your concern". He could hit oil supplies, all sorts. Western supplies are public knowledge, so surely he has to take out railway interchanges?
At the moment he's inching forwards with updated ww2 methods, using tools which he can deploy extensively, assuming a competent commander, which seems to have been lacking on the move towards Kyiv.
Effective resistance to that will mean Putin ratchets up, and up.
Unless we really are prepared for my initial response - bomb Moscow - , I think we have to take it on the chin, with a realisation that the all of the border countries have to become too well defended for Putin-types to invade in future.
Ukraine has in many ways, already lost enough, while Jenny Longface reports from Moscow, that nothing much has changed and Putin is still popular.