Republican primary voters most popular issues: This is the way
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
I don't think i used those words, but Ukraine was able to make a lot of progress in August-November of last year because Russia neglected defense.
There has been no "counteroffensive", just smaller advances in limited areas.
The traditional idea of a WW2 offensive like D-Day, Stalingrad, Kursk, or Bagration simply are not relevant to this war. Both sides recognize that defense is dominant & that they lack the power to overcome defenses with large scale attacks without taking unacceptable losses.
Russia is no longer neglecting defense, instead, Russia has become extremely paranoid of Ukraine getting breakthroughs & so has invested very very heavily in layers upon layers of defenses.
Neocons care. But they are hated by the American public & will be thrown out of power come 2025.
No. Ukraine is a Euro problem. Russia is a Euro problem.
It did. I think you said something like: "You were coping saying that it was bad defenses, but Ukraine just kept rolling. LOL".
They said the 'counteroffensive' had begun, but then later denied it when people were not impressed by the results.
The strategy you said it should follow. You said General Armageddon (Surovkin) was holding the line defensively and baiting attacks, but that Putin then listened to Gerasimov in attacking Bakhmut (which did not hold, btw, contrary to NYT claims). Now it seems they are absorbing.
Maybe the Russian general staff is reading your comments. Let's hope so, because I want Odessa and Kharkov at the very least.
You can't throw them out of power. Just like McCarthy (who otherwise has surprised positively) said that he would not support a 'blank check' but then turned out to be the same old, same old.
Why? Russia is not bothering me. They're not occupying my country nor controlling my pathetic excuses for leaders.
True. The Russians have usually come around to the correct strategy even if they take longer than they should getting there.
The whole Wagner/Bakhmut thing was a total waste of resources so it won't be repeated.
This will leave the war stalemated in the big picture. Sure, there might be some small advances here & there, but nothing big like the early days or the war or Kharkiv or Kherson.
Yes Surovkin was right & now Russia is able to hold because he laid the foundation for it. Bakhmut & Prigozhin were wastes of resources. Sure, he technically "took" it as a ruin, but didn't make any progress or gains beyond that, and the cost was so great that Russia won't try to do it again elsewhere.
Neither side has the ability to execute a successful large scale offensive anymore.
Hahah I just figure out the obvious answers faster than some other people thanks to a lifetime of reading about military history & being into strategy.
You can bc they're all Democrats. A DeSantis Admin would be run by realists like Elbridge Colby, not neocons like [every Ukraine cheerleading think tank].
I don't believe he has let through any more Ukraine funding since saying that. Biden's Ukraine funding all came from last year before the Republicans took over. There hasn't been any new funding this year. Correct me if you can find a bill in Congress providing it.
This is why Biden had the pentagon claim an "accounting error" to lowball all the value of funding already given - so he could squeeze more into the $113b.
Maybe not you but most of Europe except for France feels very threatened by Russia.
The question is: who lost more? As I understand it, Zelensky was actually trying to hold the city, while the Russians were trying to bleed the other side like the Germans at Verdun. Else, their actions make no sense. Or maybe getting prisoners killed was good trade-off vs. killing elite Ukrainian units.
Maybe we'll know 20 years form now.
The lying media is now reporting that Surovkin has been arrested because of the Wagner probe, which just fills me with such utter despair.
Do they really make the decisions though? With Trump, we saw that no matter who's in charge, the neocons always remain in charge. And Obama continued the neocon Victoria Nuland's reign even though she was a Cheney hack.
I think you are correct, but they pushed through a massive bill so that McCarthy wouldn't have to immediately discredit himself. When the time comes, he'll push it through. I don't think the Twenty are strong enough to prevent that, McCarthy would sooner make a deal with the Democrats than give up on neoconism.
Note: I regard McCarthy fairly positively, but it is what it is.
The only ones who actually do are the Baltic states and Poland, and they're of course wrong to feel threatened. Spain, Italy, even Germany do not feel threatened. The threat inflation is just an excuse for their proxy war.
Russia lost more as you'd always expect from being the attackers, though the K:D ratio was less favorable than other places once Bakhmut was surrounded on 3 sides.
Ukraine has plenty of manpower & isn't going to lose on manpower grounds. Also it didn't have its best units there anyway. So Russia could keep doing that strategy over & over & it would never really get anywhere. Ukraine isn't going to run out of people.
Only way I see for Russia to win is to focus on the artillery war not infantry battles & win by massively outproducing the West on artillery ammo until Ukraine is too ammo starved to keep up its defenses.
I am skeptical of this as well. Surovkin is unfortunately associated with Prigozhin & thus not favored by Shiogu, who is clearly the winner in this whole debacle. So Shiogu might be using Wagner as an excuse to take out Surovkin. Maybe he will be reassigned out of the war.
Trump was an idiot who didn't know how to put together an Admin & so just picked whoever kissed his ass. DeSantis is different & knows how to build an effective team with no leaks.
Also Nuland started in the Clinton admin & the GWB admin foolishly kept her & promoted her.
Republicans don't want to vote for more money for Ukraine. However, if the Democrats used it as a bargaining chip & said "we will give you $50b more for the Pentagon if you give us $20b for Ukraine" would Republicans cave in & say yes? Very likely.
Question is if even the Democrats want to help Ukraine had enough to be willing to spend political capital on it like that.
This is true & I also don't think Putin would attack NATO. If anything he would attack Georgia or something.