Now that Ukraine is getting smoked, they put forth a proposal that the Russians turn themselves in for war crimes and give up Crimea and all other territory they have taken.
And those dastardly Russians would not take the deal!
-
15
-
#11342
This post was removed.
-
Newname wrote:
It's always worse than we thought it was
Clayton Morris? The f*cking idiot couldn’t find the U.S.A. on a map, let alone Ukraine. Remember when he declared the Kherson counteroffensive a failure? I do. I would sooner trust the janitor at my local Walmart to perform brain surgery, than Clayton Morris on Ukraine (or anything else).
42 -
GoodGollyMissLolly wrote:
Newname wrote:
It's always worse than we thought it was
Clayton Morris? The f*cking idiot couldn’t find the U.S.A. on a map, let alone Ukraine. Remember when he declared the Kherson counteroffensive a failure? I do. I would sooner trust the janitor at my local Walmart to perform brain surgery, than Clayton Morris on Ukraine (or anything else).
You are funny
14 -
Babylon wrote:
Now that Ukraine is getting smoked, they put forth a proposal that the Russians turn themselves in for war crimes and give up Crimea and all other territory they have taken.
And those dastardly Russians would not take the deal!
By “getting smoked” you mean closing in on liberating Kreminna and mowing down Russian convicts that have spent months failing to occupy Bahkmut?
31 -
agip wrote:
XY wrote:
It is critical, however, that the populace in Moscow and Petersburg are insulated from any negative consequences, whether it is from casualties or economic privation.
interesting question if or when UKR will start blowing stuff up in Moscow and St Pete. I'm sure USA has asked them not to, but come on - taking out power in RU is probably hard to resist. On the one hand you want RU citizens to feel what they are doing to UKR citizens...but on the other hand you don't want downtown Kiev turned into a dustbowl or USA backing off supplies.
Taking out power in Russia doesn't have much strategic benefit and would be a clear escalation that could very well take the war beyond Ukraine. Substantial attacks on Russia could be seen as an existential threat to Russia and raise the chances of a nuclear response. Also Ukraine doesn't have the military capability to do this at a meaningful scale.
The western powers could provide Ukraine with longer range weaponry, but have been loath to do so because of the potential for strikes on Russia with western weaponry to escalate the conflict. However, the current state of the war seems to have settled into a siege war of attrition. Thus the western supporters of Ukraine are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons that would enable a more offensive posture.
Some strategists have advocated for giving Ukraine longer range rockets to enable a Crimea offensive on the condition that these weapons not be used on (internationally recognized) Russian territory. This would break the current stalemate and plausibly spark meaningful diplomacy to end the war. It would require the west to trust Ukraine to respect their conditions and it would require Ukraine to trust the west's commitment to Ukraine.
As it stands, with no side having a clear advantage, Russian leadership is ok with a war of attrition lacking a better outcome and Ukraine isn't going to concede while they can see a path to regaining territory, albeit at very high cost.
10 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
agip wrote:
interesting question if or when UKR will start blowing stuff up in Moscow and St Pete. I'm sure USA has asked them not to, but come on - taking out power in RU is probably hard to resist. On the one hand you want RU citizens to feel what they are doing to UKR citizens...but on the other hand you don't want downtown Kiev turned into a dustbowl or USA backing off supplies.
Taking out power in Russia doesn't have much strategic benefit and would be a clear escalation that could very well take the war beyond Ukraine. Substantial attacks on Russia could be seen as an existential threat to Russia and raise the chances of a nuclear response. Also Ukraine doesn't have the military capability to do this at a meaningful scale.
The western powers could provide Ukraine with longer range weaponry, but have been loath to do so because of the potential for strikes on Russia with western weaponry to escalate the conflict. However, the current state of the war seems to have settled into a siege war of attrition. Thus the western supporters of Ukraine are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons that would enable a more offensive posture.
Some strategists have advocated for giving Ukraine longer range rockets to enable a Crimea offensive on the condition that these weapons not be used on (internationally recognized) Russian territory. This would break the current stalemate and plausibly spark meaningful diplomacy to end the war. It would require the west to trust Ukraine to respect their conditions and it would require Ukraine to trust the west's commitment to Ukraine.
As it stands, with no side having a clear advantage, Russian leadership is ok with a war of attrition lacking a better outcome and Ukraine isn't going to concede while they can see a path to regaining territory, albeit at very high cost.
No side having a clear advantage?
Unreal
05 -
Newname wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
Taking out power in Russia doesn't have much strategic benefit and would be a clear escalation that could very well take the war beyond Ukraine. Substantial attacks on Russia could be seen as an existential threat to Russia and raise the chances of a nuclear response. Also Ukraine doesn't have the military capability to do this at a meaningful scale.
The western powers could provide Ukraine with longer range weaponry, but have been loath to do so because of the potential for strikes on Russia with western weaponry to escalate the conflict. However, the current state of the war seems to have settled into a siege war of attrition. Thus the western supporters of Ukraine are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons that would enable a more offensive posture.
Some strategists have advocated for giving Ukraine longer range rockets to enable a Crimea offensive on the condition that these weapons not be used on (internationally recognized) Russian territory. This would break the current stalemate and plausibly spark meaningful diplomacy to end the war. It would require the west to trust Ukraine to respect their conditions and it would require Ukraine to trust the west's commitment to Ukraine.
As it stands, with no side having a clear advantage, Russian leadership is ok with a war of attrition lacking a better outcome and Ukraine isn't going to concede while they can see a path to regaining territory, albeit at very high cost.
No side having a clear advantage?
Unreal
So Russia is using their clear advantage to retreat from Kharkiv, Kherson, and Kreminna?
51 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
agip wrote:
interesting question if or when UKR will start blowing stuff up in Moscow and St Pete. I'm sure USA has asked them not to, but come on - taking out power in RU is probably hard to resist. On the one hand you want RU citizens to feel what they are doing to UKR citizens...but on the other hand you don't want downtown Kiev turned into a dustbowl or USA backing off supplies.
Taking out power in Russia doesn't have much strategic benefit and would be a clear escalation that could very well take the war beyond Ukraine. Substantial attacks on Russia could be seen as an existential threat to Russia and raise the chances of a nuclear response. Also Ukraine doesn't have the military capability to do this at a meaningful scale.
The western powers could provide Ukraine with longer range weaponry, but have been loath to do so because of the potential for strikes on Russia with western weaponry to escalate the conflict. However, the current state of the war seems to have settled into a siege war of attrition. Thus the western supporters of Ukraine are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons that would enable a more offensive posture.
Some strategists have advocated for giving Ukraine longer range rockets to enable a Crimea offensive on the condition that these weapons not be used on (internationally recognized) Russian territory. This would break the current stalemate and plausibly spark meaningful diplomacy to end the war. It would require the west to trust Ukraine to respect their conditions and it would require Ukraine to trust the west's commitment to Ukraine.
As it stands, with no side having a clear advantage, Russian leadership is ok with a war of attrition lacking a better outcome and Ukraine isn't going to concede while they can see a path to regaining territory, albeit at very high cost.
I was thinking more of a bunch of UKR guerrillas sneaking into RU and firing on a bunch of electric substations or whatever it takes. I'm sure a significant amount of a city's grid could be taken out by small arms. And I'm sure RU hasn't secured them or made any redundancies, given how bad RU is at everything except methodologically reducing cities to rubble and curing their livers.
20 -
agip wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
Taking out power in Russia doesn't have much strategic benefit and would be a clear escalation that could very well take the war beyond Ukraine. Substantial attacks on Russia could be seen as an existential threat to Russia and raise the chances of a nuclear response. Also Ukraine doesn't have the military capability to do this at a meaningful scale.
The western powers could provide Ukraine with longer range weaponry, but have been loath to do so because of the potential for strikes on Russia with western weaponry to escalate the conflict. However, the current state of the war seems to have settled into a siege war of attrition. Thus the western supporters of Ukraine are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons that would enable a more offensive posture.
Some strategists have advocated for giving Ukraine longer range rockets to enable a Crimea offensive on the condition that these weapons not be used on (internationally recognized) Russian territory. This would break the current stalemate and plausibly spark meaningful diplomacy to end the war. It would require the west to trust Ukraine to respect their conditions and it would require Ukraine to trust the west's commitment to Ukraine.
As it stands, with no side having a clear advantage, Russian leadership is ok with a war of attrition lacking a better outcome and Ukraine isn't going to concede while they can see a path to regaining territory, albeit at very high cost.
I was thinking more of a bunch of UKR guerrillas sneaking into RU and firing on a bunch of electric substations or whatever it takes. I'm sure a significant amount of a city's grid could be taken out by small arms. And I'm sure RU hasn't secured them or made any redundancies, given how bad RU is at everything except methodologically reducing cities to rubble and curing their livers.
.
Ukraine has had strikes in Russian territory (and Crimea) and it hasn't been clear from public information how these are accomplished. Ukraine is being coy to protect their methods and Russia isn't talking to protect their vulnerabilities.
These strikes have had a significant impact on the information space and some strategic impact (the Kerch Strait bridge and hitting some aircraft on the ground), but the potential to scale up guerrilla operations is limited. This is, good on them for pulling these things off, but it's not going to win the war. Attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure might give Puting public support to mobilize at a larger scale which wouldn't be great for Ukraine.
20 -
Putin went groveling to China. China gave vague responses and said they’d visit Russia in the spring. Putin goes home empty handed and devastated.
40 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
agip wrote:
I was thinking more of a bunch of UKR guerrillas sneaking into RU and firing on a bunch of electric substations or whatever it takes. I'm sure a significant amount of a city's grid could be taken out by small arms. And I'm sure RU hasn't secured them or made any redundancies, given how bad RU is at everything except methodologically reducing cities to rubble and curing their livers.
.
Ukraine has had strikes in Russian territory (and Crimea) and it hasn't been clear from public information how these are accomplished. Ukraine is being coy to protect their methods and Russia isn't talking to protect their vulnerabilities.
These strikes have had a significant impact on the information space and some strategic impact (the Kerch Strait bridge and hitting some aircraft on the ground), but the potential to scale up guerrilla operations is limited. This is, good on them for pulling these things off, but it's not going to win the war. Attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure might give Puting public support to mobilize at a larger scale which wouldn't be great for Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
15 -
Lolly’s Master stated Finland and Sweden will never be part of NATO.
Looks like he’s going to be wrong about that:
41 -
Newname wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
Ukraine has had strikes in Russian territory (and Crimea) and it hasn't been clear from public information how these are accomplished. Ukraine is being coy to protect their methods and Russia isn't talking to protect their vulnerabilities.
These strikes have had a significant impact on the information space and some strategic impact (the Kerch Strait bridge and hitting some aircraft on the ground), but the potential to scale up guerrilla operations is limited. This is, good on them for pulling these things off, but it's not going to win the war. Attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure might give Puting public support to mobilize at a larger scale which wouldn't be great for Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
first off, UKR has already struck inside Russia. Seems to be ok so far.
second off, short of nuclear weapons or gas attacks, RU doesn't have the capacity to fight much harder. But I'm sure RU could come up with something barbaric, like poisoning water supplies or that kind of thing yeah.
51 -
Newname wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
Ukraine has had strikes in Russian territory (and Crimea) and it hasn't been clear from public information how these are accomplished. Ukraine is being coy to protect their methods and Russia isn't talking to protect their vulnerabilities.
These strikes have had a significant impact on the information space and some strategic impact (the Kerch Strait bridge and hitting some aircraft on the ground), but the potential to scale up guerrilla operations is limited. This is, good on them for pulling these things off, but it's not going to win the war. Attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure might give Puting public support to mobilize at a larger scale which wouldn't be great for Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
Like hitting the Engels airbase 400 miles inside Russia?
41 -
GoodGollyMissLolly wrote:
Newname wrote:
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
Like hitting the Engels airbase 400 miles inside Russia?
And what has happened since then?
13 -
La Bomba 1 wrote:
Putin went groveling to China. China gave vague responses and said they’d visit Russia in the spring. Putin goes home empty handed and devastated.
That's really bad news for any Russian leaders who spend time near windows. Russia health authorities should broadcast a nationwide defenestration warning.
10 -
agip wrote:
Newname wrote:
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
first off, UKR has already struck inside Russia. Seems to be ok so far.
second off, short of nuclear weapons or gas attacks, RU doesn't have the capacity to fight much harder. But I'm sure RU could come up with something barbaric, like poisoning water supplies or that kind of thing yeah.
So the massive number of missile strikes Russia has hit Ukraine with over the past few days shows things in Ukraine are okay?
Amazing
13 -
Newname wrote:
GoodGollyMissLolly wrote:
Like hitting the Engels airbase 400 miles inside Russia?
And what has happened since then?
Did Russia end Ukraine? Or was your previous post just meaningless blabbering, like everything else you post on this website,?
30 -
Newname wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
Ukraine has had strikes in Russian territory (and Crimea) and it hasn't been clear from public information how these are accomplished. Ukraine is being coy to protect their methods and Russia isn't talking to protect their vulnerabilities.
These strikes have had a significant impact on the information space and some strategic impact (the Kerch Strait bridge and hitting some aircraft on the ground), but the potential to scale up guerrilla operations is limited. This is, good on them for pulling these things off, but it's not going to win the war. Attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure might give Puting public support to mobilize at a larger scale which wouldn't be great for Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes in Russia proper, Russia will end them.
If Russia had the ability to do this they would have done it already.
34
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/43JURZJUQJFKNAN3EYNE5W6PFU.jpg)
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.