Abrams showing up in the fall, far earlier than expected
Now France is training UKR pilots on Mirage 2000s.
Tide is building for UKR. Sounds like NATO wants this thing done and dusted in the spring.
Arnaud Castaignet @arnocast France is currently training Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000 fighter jets
I wish you were right about NATO wanting to put Putin out of his misery this spring. But Abrams coming in the fall does not seem to be an indicator of trying to accomplish that this spring.
It is frustrating to watch the US and NATO provide the needed weapons in dribs and drabs rather than providing what is needed to do the job.
I don't really pay attention to Milley. Not a fan.
However I do have close friends in the US military who were previously deployed to Ukraine. They said a Russian invasion would be disastrous for Russia and they were correct. Nazi Putin's miscalculations are costing him much more than Milley's incorrect assessment.
In the short term… probably. In the long term (10, 20, 50 years)? Far more disastrous for Russia, *if* it even survives the war in its current form, which is far from guaranteed.
Russia's future was bleak in the first place. That's a large part of why they invaded.
Ukraine's ruling elite stand to get very wealthy stealing from the aid coming in. Ordinary Ukrainians will be negatively impacted much more than any Russians will.
What are your thoughts about November 24th 2013, when neo-nazis in Ukraine turned a peaceful protest into a violent one, starting events leading to war...
"Demonstrators celebrate the birthdayof WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who fought against Soviet army"
What are your thoughts about November 24th 2013, when neo-nazis in Ukraine turned a peaceful protest into a violent one, starting events leading to war...
"Demonstrators celebrate the birthdayof WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who fought against Soviet army"
Abrams showing up in the fall, far earlier than expected
Now France is training UKR pilots on Mirage 2000s.
Tide is building for UKR. Sounds like NATO wants this thing done and dusted in the spring.
Arnaud Castaignet @arnocast France is currently training Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000 fighter jets
I wish you were right about NATO wanting to put Putin out of his misery this spring. But Abrams coming in the fall does not seem to be an indicator of trying to accomplish that this spring.
It is frustrating to watch the US and NATO provide the needed weapons in dribs and drabs rather than providing what is needed to do the job.
This is actually a very complicated issue and not NATO trying to draw out the conflict. The first issue on weapons has been the fact that NATO largely shifted to a hi-tech military after the first Gulf War. The emphasis has been on air superiority and the idea of an infantry war was outdated. So, NATO countries have sharply reduced their capacity to manufacturer artillery, which has turned out to be the most important armament in this conflict. Ramping up this manufacturing capacity without the mandate of a declaration of war is tricky because weapons manufacturers are not betting on the future of artillery shells.
Then, there is the problem of Russia's red lines, the risk of technology transfer and battlefield discipline with advanced weapons systems. Whatever we give UA could fall into RU's hands if UA loses the war or has to make a hasty retreat and leave behind weapons systems. Also, while UA has shown great discipline in avoiding attacks on RU soil, the temptation is definitely there especially as RU is starting to go back to bombing residential housing as frustration mounts with RU's inability to execute a spring offensive. So, NATO is wary of providing long range missiles, predator drones, etc. that would make it easy for UA to attack targets within Russia. Finally, there has been constant diplomatic dialog between RU and the West over where RU draws the line on military support. NATO does not want a wider war and the fear is that RU would launch an attack on Poland or Romania in order to target weapons systems in transit to Ukraine, which would then require a NATO response.
A new slogan adopted by the Ukrainian army has drawn criticism for its links to World War II-era nationalist groups. The decision has sparked a debate about how the country should address its history.
What are your thoughts about November 24th 2013, when neo-nazis in Ukraine turned a peaceful protest into a violent one, starting events leading to war...
"Demonstrators celebrate the birthdayof WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who fought against Soviet army"
Even neighboring Poland, a staunch ally of Kiev in the ongoing war with Russia, has criticized the Verkhovna Rada’s Jan. 1 celebration of the birthday of Stepan Bandera. Read Here
I wish you were right about NATO wanting to put Putin out of his misery this spring. But Abrams coming in the fall does not seem to be an indicator of trying to accomplish that this spring.
It is frustrating to watch the US and NATO provide the needed weapons in dribs and drabs rather than providing what is needed to do the job.
This is actually a very complicated issue and not NATO trying to draw out the conflict. The first issue on weapons has been the fact that NATO largely shifted to a hi-tech military after the first Gulf War. The emphasis has been on air superiority and the idea of an infantry war was outdated. So, NATO countries have sharply reduced their capacity to manufacturer artillery, which has turned out to be the most important armament in this conflict. Ramping up this manufacturing capacity without the mandate of a declaration of war is tricky because weapons manufacturers are not betting on the future of artillery shells.
Then, there is the problem of Russia's red lines, the risk of technology transfer and battlefield discipline with advanced weapons systems. Whatever we give UA could fall into RU's hands if UA loses the war or has to make a hasty retreat and leave behind weapons systems. Also, while UA has shown great discipline in avoiding attacks on RU soil, the temptation is definitely there especially as RU is starting to go back to bombing residential housing as frustration mounts with RU's inability to execute a spring offensive. So, NATO is wary of providing long range missiles, predator drones, etc. that would make it easy for UA to attack targets within Russia. Finally, there has been constant diplomatic dialog between RU and the West over where RU draws the line on military support. NATO does not want a wider war and the fear is that RU would launch an attack on Poland or Romania in order to target weapons systems in transit to Ukraine, which would then require a NATO response.
This has basically turned into high tech siege warfare. Russia's vaunted offensive hasn't made any significant geographical progress. Does anyone believe that they'll ever get near Kyiv again? Not a chance.
This is actually a very complicated issue and not NATO trying to draw out the conflict. The first issue on weapons has been the fact that NATO largely shifted to a hi-tech military after the first Gulf War. The emphasis has been on air superiority and the idea of an infantry war was outdated. So, NATO countries have sharply reduced their capacity to manufacturer artillery, which has turned out to be the most important armament in this conflict. Ramping up this manufacturing capacity without the mandate of a declaration of war is tricky because weapons manufacturers are not betting on the future of artillery shells.
Then, there is the problem of Russia's red lines, the risk of technology transfer and battlefield discipline with advanced weapons systems. Whatever we give UA could fall into RU's hands if UA loses the war or has to make a hasty retreat and leave behind weapons systems. Also, while UA has shown great discipline in avoiding attacks on RU soil, the temptation is definitely there especially as RU is starting to go back to bombing residential housing as frustration mounts with RU's inability to execute a spring offensive. So, NATO is wary of providing long range missiles, predator drones, etc. that would make it easy for UA to attack targets within Russia. Finally, there has been constant diplomatic dialog between RU and the West over where RU draws the line on military support. NATO does not want a wider war and the fear is that RU would launch an attack on Poland or Romania in order to target weapons systems in transit to Ukraine, which would then require a NATO response.
This has basically turned into high tech siege warfare. Russia's vaunted offensive hasn't made any significant geographical progress. Does anyone believe that they'll ever get near Kyiv again? Not a chance.
They don't need to.
And the offensive hasn't started yet on either side because it's been mud season for months.
A Twitter post cheering Stepan Bandera’s birthday has caused a backlash among Kiev supporters A post on social media by Ukraine’s parliament that celebrated the birthday of WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (1909-1959) ha...
You a paid Russian troll. Lower than the lowest whore.
And in your own pathetic little way, partly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands and on-going genocide in Ukraine.
//////
While your skills with the English language are pretty good for a Russian troll, you seem to be having trouble with the expression, "point conceded." It does not mean what you think it means.
Out of the goodness of my heart, I will give you a quick English lesson. When you say, "point conceded", you are saying that you are conceding the point. You are acknowledging your error. My guess is that this is not your intent.
For extra credit, you may go back to your trainers and see if they can help you express what you are trying to express rather than the opposite of what you are trying to say.
