Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Musk would identify with Putin, his methods of working are similar. Enrich himself with other peoples money, come up with an idea then ask others to implement it. Blame them if its not going fast enough, blame them if it doesn't work, Fire with impunity, bully and silence, push an image of being a disruptor for good when really his only interest is power and wealth. Berate how the rest of the world works, if only everyone were like me. Rinse and repeat.

Here's some text from an older post of mine that explains it.

" I think it's a mixture of poor training, paranoia and a very different theatre of operations compared to Syria. Russia knows that there is now a pretty strong SAM threat in Ukranian airspace, with both Russian built high altitude units and low level, shoulder-launched systems. There is also a major Overwatch operation of Ukranian and, to some extent, Russian airspace by both NATO and US aircraft with Radar and Signals gathering systems.

Russian pilots train less than 100 hrs a year. They are also not used to multi-aircraft, multi-objective operations. This is why, in Syria, you only saw one or two flying missions.

Finally, Russia do not train in a Red Flag type of scenario ( I'll let you Google Red Flag for a reference..). NATO are much better at launching multiple platform, multi-role and multiple target missions in one foul sweep. Putin knows this. He knows that Nato have everything in place to hit Russia in one night, conventially, that would destroy the Russian military infrastructure. Hence the Nuclear threat.

This is why there is a massive sub hunt going on at the moment. The West needs to account for every single sub at the moment, including the one that left the Northern base yesterday.

It's an attempt to dehumanise them so that the deaths are more pallatable. 60k orcs dead is a lot easier for most people to digest than 60k men. It's standard in war, German's were called the huns and pictured as Gorillas for eg.

I've been a little drunk on the successes of the UA in the last few weeks, celebrating every win, and Russian loss, but I have to remember that there are many variables in this war - Ukrainian skill and grit, Russian mismanagement, continued Western support, and the emerging influence of the weather. I've never felt so optimistic as I do now, but I won't sleep well until the Russians finally sue for peace.

Problem is you are trying to defend open countryside. The front was probable over a thousand KM long.

It's virtually impossible to harden that length of area in a few months. Even if you do you need artillery and air cover to protect against attack. As well you need tanks and APV's to have a mobile for e to counter attack any incursions.

This is where Hitler failed in Normandy. Remember the Allies got ashore under tremendous fire, but Hitler failure to commit his tanks and reserves allowed the allies to secure bridgeheads.

The Russians have no tanks or artillery and there airforce is unable to fly as they will be shot out of the sky

I find it really strange that Russia are abandoning this position. It's one of the most defendable parts of the front given its geography. I suppose we will see what happens today/tomorrow.

There is a very small section of society that take digs at Bill Gates because they detest his support of vaccine programmes and philanthropy.

Mick Ryan was a bit tongue in cheek when he says:

This thread has largely been cleared of the bots and apologists now so perhaps the real discussion of what the future holds can take place. There will eventually be an end to this war and post war both Ukraine and Russia will need to find their place in the world. At this stage (indeed once Russia failed to take Kiev), it is obvious that Russia has lost the war in so far as their war objectives failed. It will probably drag on for a year perhaps 2 and eventually an increasingly well armed Ukrainian army will drive an increasingly poorly armed Russia out of most or all of Ukraine.

Then what? Russia (Putin-led or post Putin led) will have to face some home truths. The army they had before February was a paper tiger and post war even that paper tiger will have been severely damaged or destroyed in Ukraine. A NATO threat to Russia was always a lie. NATO and or the EU never had any intention of invading Russia and the suggestion they would have was always an obviously stupid assertion. Why, because there was and never was any need to. The EU, America, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea (The West) was happy to simply trade with Russia.

The ONLY threat to Russia has always been China, because it is another autocratic regime, and post Ukraine war the Russian army will not be capable of defending against a conventional attack from China. I do not for a moment believe China will attack Russia but I do believe they will meddle, invest, spy, undermine and generally stir trouble in Russia-in-Asia and eventually "little Green men" backed by China will do what the "little green men" backed by Russia did in Crimea.

At that stage Russias destroyed army will not have the capability to resist and I believe their only option will be to look to NATO.

It's a good question and I was wondering the same. It seems that the handheld AA weapons are only part of the answer - they are effective at lower altitudes, but Russian aircraft are using those lower altitudes to avoid other air defences e.g. medium and high-altitude SAMS and the Ukrainian air force itself which has has been careful not to throw its aircraft into the battle willy-nilly. This article seems to explain it well, and also discusses how the west may have something to learn from Ukrainian methods.

His tweets are priceless !!

Borrell: We provide military aid to Ukraine and are taking diplomatic steps to support it in Russia's war against it

the Uruk-hai are on the back foot