Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
Two slight glimmers of hope:
Senate has voted to put 'cloture' on the foreign aid bill, meaning that MAGA idiots can't block the vote by filibuster.
The US has already put stocks into places like Poland so it can be got to the frontline quickly as soon as Biden signs the bill, so Putin might get a bloody nose rather sooner than he'd feared. Given that (if I've read the report correctly) that Russian troops have outnumbered Ukrainian ones in key areas by 10 to 1, it's surprising they've not lost more ground while they've been waiting.
1 -
Obviously a large degree of UA propaganda, but there do seem to be more of these drone & missile strikes since the US unblocked its aid.
On a technical point, how on earth does a tiny drone achieve this degree of destruction?
0 -
-
like to point out Russians have given up a town 20km inside pre war Russian territory.
battle of Kursk.
seems Russians lost a lot of airpower and Ukrainians have managed to have some successful combined arms, including air power
0 -
I love how they are playing the victim at Ukrainian troops being in ‘Russian’ territory. Snowflakes.
0 -
Deeper Ukraine go, the more complicated the “let’s call it at the current battle lines” settlement becomes
0 -
I've also seen that Ukraine are now using F16s in anger at last too.
These were the recent fireworks I was thinking of. There's just a crater where there used to be an airbase.
0 -
Must admit that I've not read up on the tactical thinking behind this. But it does seem a vaguely significant gain, given the difficulties elsewhere... maybe it's designed to draw troop away from Ukrainian soil.
0 -
-
I guess the Ruskies didn't quite get that oil depot blaze in Rostov under control then...
Meanwhile, in the Kursk province, the Ukrainians have destroyed the last of the three proper bridges that that allowed access/retreat for the Russians. The whole Kursk operation seems bold & interesting as to how it might change the dynamic in both Russia and Ukraine.
0 -
It does seem to be inherently risky and bold move, but that fact that it has been nearly 2 weeks since Ukraine went in, with no visible sign of Russia successfully pushing them back is encouraging. Also the usual Russian bluster about a heavy response and red lines is being shown up for what it is - an empty threat.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Worth remembering what General Heinz Guderian said to Hitler...:
Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?
Putin is not going to nuke someone over a place like that.
0 -
I assumed the point is to draw forces from elsewhere then counter-attack in the region that get taken from before withdrawing from Kursk?
0 -
I think it's a few things.
1) the opportunity presented itself. One of the few weak parts of the Russian line
2) it gives lots of political leverage. a) it shows how worthless the Russian red lines and threats are, and b) it complicates Russian attempts to freeze the borders along the current battle lines, and gives Ukraine more leverage
3) it opens up a new Russian objective that will take some attention away from their current successful (if very costly) attack.
I think there is a small tactical advantage too because it is a local rail hub and so helps protect parts of the Ukrainian positions further down the line as Russia is a rail-based army.
Obviously how Ukraine maximises it depends a lot on how much manpower and effort they themselves expend in holding it/ taking more.
0 -
Yeah, re the last bit, one assumes that they won't want to try to hold onto it 'in perpetuity', so one assumes they'll bargain it for... ??? ... Crimea?? Or pre-war borders, rather than pre-2014?
0 -
Just an uninformed guess but I assumed the main objective was to Destroy the bridges to hamper future Russian movements. I doubt they want to hold the area. I could be wrong.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's less about whether Kursk is strategically important than the fact the Putin is bluffing generally. He's done it on a number of occasions and people are realising it's hot air.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
There is also the political damage to Putin, who tried to project an image of himself as 'Mr. Security' for the Russian people while exaggerating the threat from 'the West'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
