Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The overarching Russian objective in February 2022 was to take the entire territory of Ukraine. By contrast, the overarching objective of Ukraine was to hold what is recognised to be their territory. A year on, Ukraine retains control of the vast majority of that territory. Vs. the alternative, I think Ukraine would have taken that situation. Few commentators were giving the country a chance of holding out that long.

Not only has Ukraine held out, but they are restricting Russia to the eastern and southern oblasts and Russia show little sign of making significant headway. Still, there are those who act as if it's only a matter of time. Probably worth remembering the old quote about the victors in war not being those who can do more damage, but who is prepared to suffer more. The Ukrainians fighting for their homeland? Or Russian conscripts who will be undersupplied and have only a rote notion of why they're there?

Bakhmut holds,

German tank manufacturer Rhemmeintal wants to build a new tank factory producing the lastest panther tank in Ukraine while the war is still ongoing they aren't even worried about airstrikes,

Talking about confidence,they just need customers for their new tank to make it viable...

It’s extremely important for Ukraine to break the Russians this year. If they don’t the west have two choices, keep supplying the current levels of weaponry and supports for an unknown long period of time, maybe decades, or let Russians win.

"It's not who can inflict the most but who can endure the most will conquer."

Terence macSwiney, Lord Mayor of Cork, died on hunger strike in an English jail 1920.

Glóir do na laochra.

Good twitter analysis from Mick Ryan on Bakhmut situation

And not another regular Russian guy would have to die if Putin did the sensible thing for Russia and withdrew his forces. Putin is in far too deep to do this, of course, but the principal of the thing remains the same.

This is an excellent interview with someone who knows Putin well & gives her expert insight into how things might develop. She was an adviser to three US presidents

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Fiona-Hill-Working-with-Trump-and-fighting-against-Putin-Podcast/B0BWX8FWSP?ref=a_pd_Leadin_c4_lAsin_0_0&pf_rd_p=a202f891-0d90-47a2-ac3f-8ebc4b2943db&pf_rd_r=FE2NZK0XPBY9205VWV7A&pageLoadId=igf4NC9k5pDNYSjd&creativeId=43463e8d-6f2b-4d01-a759-854a1034c4b8

What an ordinary Russian is in civilian life, and what comes out of Putins de-humanization machine are too different things. Any Russian on Ukrainian territory and wearing Russian military uniform is a legitimate target.

The fight for Bakhmut, whether won or lost for Ukraine can change the war trajectory. That quote doesn't imply winning that battle equals winning the war. Nor does Ukraine having to withdraw from there equal a defeat.

Not if they are historians familiar with the concept of pyrhhic victories... and such precdents as the Battle of Bunker Hill:

General Clinton echoed Pyrrhus of Epirus, remarking in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America."

The latest forecast from Strelkov. I think he's right to be pessimistic. After Bakhmut falls, it's going to take months for the Russians to take another significant Ukrainian city.

The big question for me is whether Ukraine will have any better success than the Russians when they decide to attack.

This guy has done a great job in providing intel of the defences that the Russians have been building up in southern Ukraine since last year.

The task ahead looks very daunting.

Nah it would spoil the surprise.

We will have to disagree then. If Ukraine prevails, Poland won't need the tanks and can receive supplies at leisure, so worst case is a delay; If Russia prevails, they may well need the tanks and there will be a lot of dead Poles as well.

Denmark did the correct maths and sent them all of their Caesars, Estonia did likewise and sent all of their 155mm Howitzers; Slovakia is considering sending all of it's Mig-29s, bar one for a museum.

Estonia has done the correct maths and is giving Ukraine 44.6% of it's entire military budget. In all, 11 European countries are giving larger proportions of their defence budgets than is the US. Yes that's off a low base, but thats a different conversation.

These countries all have a first responsibility to themselves as much as Poland does, but have IMO reasoned correctly that their best protection is to arm Ukraine to the best of their abilities.

The US should be prioritising Abrams deliveries to Ukraine, not Poland, or Morocco , or it's own armed forces which have ±8,000 Abrams already. There simply is no greater need than in Ukraine, whose inevitable success is a stupid and potentially deadly assumption to be making.

Never underestimate the enemy. There is a lot of cocky bravado going on that Ukraine is doing so well, victory is all but in the bag, no need for fighter jets, or anything advanced since it's clear they will defeat Russia just with the 1990's era weapons, with a bit of precision added, being parsimoniously drip fed to them. I hope that's right and am as susceptible to the hype and promise from Ukrainian successes as anyone, but it's potentially a deadly assumption. The Ukrainian security forces have managed to nab around 600 FSB agents and saboteurs so far, if they miss some who discover the locations of most of Ukraine's handful of advanced AA batteries...

The stripy bit I added is roughly the total US funding to Ukraine (it overlays the end of the US bar). While a lot is done to talk it up and make it seem like a lot, it really isn't in the scheme of things.

And it's not just me who thinks it's not enough:

General Ben Hodges ret.

General David Petraeus ret.

Admiral James G. Stavridis, former commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Europe.

General Christopher G. Cavoli, Supreme commander of NATO in Europe.

All of them have urged fighter jets and more in general be provided sooner, rather than later, so I'd be surprised if they wouldn't think as I do on the Abrams question.