Russia - threadbanned users in OP

A couple of weeks ago some units ran out of mortars rounds and 40 mm grenades which they are reliant on for close quarters engagements,the issue there is they then become solely reliant on artillery, what happens when the Artillery slows or god forbids stops,and this is a side effect of being solely reliant on the US to defend Europe

The problem now though that Ukraine is now going to be the attacking side again soon.

It looks like Ukraine is settling in for a sustained period of defensive operations , Building up supplies and also dealing with the shortage of soldiers, this is a country that has about 10% of the population under Russian occupation and another 25% in western Europe, that's an incredible problem for them.

But nukes are expensive to develop, create and maintain. Considering everything else Ukraine requires to get back on track as a functional country, I'd say nukes are far down their list of priorities

I don't say i believe/disbelieve it but in Russia all kinds of things are possible. People who are capable of editing historical photographs to alter the perception of history are capable of anything.

At first yes they will be, but in 10/20 years (and with a little under the table help from their friends) I could easily imagine a once again nuclear armed Ukraine.

They are nice to see and they are important single strikes but they are only one slice of the pie.

It's a matter of scale though. Ukraine are getting enough artillery for 2000 fired a day, on a 600 mile front, their soldiers talk of having 2 shells delivered and nothing again for days, and that's where the action is hottest in a 600 mile front.

Israel fired 100k shells in the first 7 weeks in a small strip of land 15 miles long and that was it being secondary to air strikes, because the reality of urban warfare calls for that.

Precision strikes by Ukraine are all well and good but they also need to level areas. The Russians were firing 60k a day at one stage.

Russia can lose, If the will is there in the West, it can also have a victory of sorts, in that it holds what it has, that might come at near a million dead and injured and their economy on a par with Pakistan, this is the kicker though. Their leadership is willing to do that.

The Ukrainians have been short changed for the first 2 years, their best troops are dead or injured or exhausted by the reality of war, the West should have backed them to the hilt from day one, stepping up military aid is far less effective now but it should start.

Putin has more reason to be hopeful than this time last year and Zelensky has more concerns. The Ukrainians might be forced into defensive positions themselves, which is what is happening now, and a stalemate settles in.

Stalemates, ceasefires etc, in the current wars we hear lots of are a benefit and victory of sorts for the aggressor.

You forgot to mention that when Putin conscripts another 500000 into the army, - after the election, - there will be 500,000 vacancies created. These is my life people are not twiddling their thumbs and sitting on a wal looking for something to ‘excite’ them. They are more than likely drivers , service engineers, etc. the low hanging fruit has already been conscripted. So we can expect ‘ a bit more’ resistance when the next round starts

A good 5 days of shelling by Ukraine in 2026.

That's what that will buy, about 200k shells.

It's a good step but if there isn't the same press release every week for the next year, it is immaterial.

It feels like that Western armies became so reliant on technology and airpower that they overlooked the need to plan for wars of attrition, of duration and of annihilation. It was short term shock and awe, the balance was lost. Europe is looking at Trump in 2025 saying, no you pay your own bar tab from now on and it mostly isn't ready or willing to do that, just imagine the political reaction to govts saying we have to spend several percent a year on our armies, reintroduce conscription, and all it entails being able to be a society that pulls its own weight.

If this isn't settled this year, it will just become stagnant lines with occasional hot spots back and forth.

Ukraine needs a game changer for that to be avoided and where will that come from? Germany has certainly changed its tune and really stepped up, though it was disappointing to see Taurus missiles not been given, they are what they need, still they have changed and that counts.

Ukraine should recover faster than Russia, in theory at least. Russia is a corrupt shithole; at least Ukraine is addressing its corruption and improving oversight. It has access to Western funding and support and a clear recovery plan, whereas Russia is in thrall to China and is already scabbing ammunition from North Korea.

Having said all that, now would be a great time to equip Ukraine properly and end Putin's insanity.

Hardly a great example - is it? How safe and secure is Israel today, compared to how it was three months ago? Are we looking at a future of peace and tranquility for all the residents of the far eastern shores of the Mediterranean now, thanks to those 100k shells?

Still with the "might is right (and better)" Why does Ukraine need to level areas? Can you point to one single advantage such a tactic has brought to the Russian army in the last two years? Sure, they completely destroy towns like Marinka and Bakmut and can proclaim they've conquered another few square kilometres ... and yet that doesn't stop Ukraine driving their Black Sea Fleet out of the Black Sea, or their A50s out of the Azov Sea.

As I've asserted before: just like in the Somme in WW1, the fighting in the trenches isn't moving more than a few metres east or west from one week to the next, but the effective frontline has moved a hell of a lot further east since the infamous "failed" counteroffensive of last year, and that's without levelling whole cities or killing thousands of civilians.

1000 patriot missles won't start to delivered to NATO countries until 2027- 2030 at least

The only way to take cities or towns is to flatten them, that's it unless you want to waste an entire army running them down a street where a sub rate soldier can drop several of them from a window..

You don't fight door to door. You put a shell through the house and then go in, as the Iraqis did in Mosul.

Ukraine held in to Bakhmut for so long because they were turning it in to a neat grinder for Russia.

What do you see as the benefit of forcing Ukraine to fight attritional battles against a dug in enemy while being short of arms.

Why would the Ukrainians or anyone else take the past route which has been consistently shown that urban fighting without massive suppressive fire is the quickest way to destroy your own army?

The risk of your approach is that after a few months Ukraine will have nothing left manpower wise.

Might is right?

In war you either kill or injury so many enemy combatants that their army is forced to retreat or go home.

You hit their infrastructure again and again so that their society can not be a fully functioning support to their army or be willing to endure the price.

Effective lines far from the front. They have been the norm for decades and usually at a much greater scale than either Russia or Ukraine have done to date and neither have been game changers

That's not to say they won't have their own in the future.

Still don't see under any circumstances they get nukes ,I definitely do see any will from the international community to assist them either