Yesterday Russia signed a deal on Uktaine Grain exports - Today they bombed Odesa sea trade port

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Grimpachi

If you were not in a constant fear response you would be going after your government for pushing Russia to this point.

I'm proud of my governments response to the unprovoked attack on Ukraine , fascist dictatorships need to be opposed.

Yet, you support fascists.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: turretless
Will we see any evidence here?

Or everything will happen as usual?

What exactly does Putin gain from this attack?

I keep hearing you all talk about these things Russia is doing that make no strategic sense. Either Putin is as big of a moron as the people who said he was working with Trump claim. Or those people are lying like usual and this is all an attempt to make misinformed people think their hardships are from an external source.

Considering Ukraine's infrequent compliance with its treaties, the Russian Ministry of Defense probably saw fit to destroy the US naval missiles and the Ukrainian warship (which was most likely capable of launching those missiles).

For some reason, everyone here thinks that with this attack, Russia violated the recently signed agreement.

I want to ask you, have you seen the text of this agreement?

A few hours ago, I tried to find the text of this agreement on the English and Russian Internet and could not do it.

However, I doubt that there is a clause in this agreement in accordance with which Russia undertakes not to attack Ukrainian warships and Ukrainian naval infrastructure.

originally posted by: Cutepants

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xtrozero
What I am sure of is there is nothing that will stop Ru until they believe that they have achieved their security.

I still don't understand why you view them as superhuman or something. Russia's economy was less than that of Texas when this started, and stretched much thinner. It's only been five months too, we're still in the early stages.

Never said they were superhuman. I just pay attention to all the information available instead of some here that get all their info from MSM which comes from our government and the Ukraine government.

I am honestly surprised that no one on here was crowing about 2,000 Ru troops being encircled at Kherson because that was being claimed by some Ukrainian officials over the last week.

Of course, it turned out to be another Snake Island Ghost of Kyiv moment.

Again, nothing superhuman. Ru has the equipment and supplies and training to accomplish their goals while UA is almost out of ordinance for their Ru model equipment. Their senior military has been reduced to only a fraction of what it was. They are almost completely dependent on NATO handouts. Their command structure is not coordinating with each other. The commanders in the field use their soldiers as cannon fodder.

It also seems that Ru has adjusted to the capability of HIMRS reach.

What I don't get is where you are getting your optimistic view from that lets you think that UA will ever be able to take back lost territory.

The translation to this video was posted today.



This last week.



Those are from UA soldiers on the frontline and I believe their assessment over the Ukrainian government, my governments, and especially MSM.

Russia try to do some thing good!
No can not have that.
so the CIA drop a bomb on it and make it look like Russia did it.

Wake up and read some old Roman history.
man has been doing this for over 2000 years.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You are either taking the piss or you are being fooled.

Here is the video you posted. It is supposedly the 131st Reconnaissance Battalion Of The Ukrainian Army posted July 24th.



And look here. This is a video of The 6th Rifle Battalion posted July 17th.



Notice anything ? It's the same video.

You must think people are idiots with the rubbish you post.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I believe their ability to take back territory is entirely dependent on how much weapons they get from the west, always did believe that. If they stop getting weapons completely then I think Russia could occupy the whole country by next summer at the latest, then it'd be asymmetrical warfare after that. I do think Russia would have success in that, at least as long as Putin remains in control.

And I try to avoid speculating too much. I'm not sure how many troops are encircled, 2000 sounds like an exaggeration. But there's nothing outlandish about it, happens in war. Especially when the situation changes like with HIMARS.

I said superhuman because you keep saying you're absolutely certain Russia can't loose and Ukraine can't win. That's just divorced from reality, even if you just look at this war. Russia has gained territory compared with pre-2014, lost compared to the first weeks of the war, and then slowly gained in the last few months. What I see is that their gains have been getting slower and slower since February. This could result in a reversal or in a stalemate for some time.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: alldaylong

You must think people are idiots with the rubbish you post.

No, just you.

What is your claim besides getting the designation wrong.

Nice one, you have now edited the video titles to make them the same.

We are not idiots pal.


Edit.

What you have actualy done is deleted the video of The i31st Battalion and inserted the video posted last week of the Rifle Battalion, as it now clearly says " copy "

Here for all to see.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Cutepants

I believe their ability to take back territory is entirely dependent on how much weapons they get from the west, always did believe that. If they stop getting weapons completely then I think Russia could occupy the whole country by next summer at the latest, then it'd be asymmetrical warfare after that. I do think Russia would have success in that, at least as long as Putin remains in control.

It is not just weapons. It is training and having a functional command structure with NCOs. Aside from the 10,000 I read about being trained in Europe to basic foot soldier qualifications in the next 4 months I don't see them being able to keep up. In that 4 months, UA will lose 10s of thousands of soldiers based on what UA said their casualty rate is.

I have also yet to see any movements that would signify that Ru is trying to take the whole country. The Donbass region and coast where they have a lot of Kyiv Rus support is what they seem to be concentrating on.

They didn't even try to take Kyiv. I think that was a gamble to shock them into surrendering. High risk, high reward that didn't pan out. They didn't try to keep the territory that they were already overextended in. They fell back and concentrated on Donbas. While they were in the surrounding areas of Kyiv they took Mariupol.
If you noticed they didn't pull back from Kyiv until Mariupol was mostly under their control.

It is called a fixing operation. They kept Kyiv from reinforcing Mariupol. It is a tactic they have used repeatedly in Syria. They have used it repeatedly in Ukraine with Kherson and Kharkiv. I am sure they will keep using it. It is part of their established military doctrine.

This next phase of the war for control of Bakhmut is going to be a bloody grind once it starts moving. However, when Bakhmut falls then UA will have no other option than to retreat from the Donbas area. That is a key city to the entire region.

And I try to avoid speculating too much. I'm not sure how many troops are encircled, 2000 sounds like an exaggeration. But there's nothing outlandish about it, happens in war. Especially when the situation changes like with HIMARS.

It turned out that no one was encircled. It was just hype.

I really don't get why so may think HIMRS is a huge game changer. They flipped the script with them for a few days by hitting ammo depots which was really a failure on Rus part. They should have moved them further back but either they were complacent or overconfident in their antimissile capability.
I know that since the depots were blown they seem to have dialed in their radars to the missiles far better but some still get through.
It complicates supply but it is just a matter of burning more fuel with elongated lines.
I read that those depots only amounted 4 or 5 days worth of ammo so they have had more than enough time to adjust.

As for the HIMRS, if people think 16 to 20 of them is a game changer then how are they ignoring that RU has an equivalent and far more of them that outrange and carry more ordnance.

I said superhuman because you keep saying you're absolutely certain Russia can't loose and Ukraine can't win. That's just divorced from reality, even if you just look at this war. Russia has gained territory compared with pre-2014, lost compared to the first weeks of the war, and then slowly gained in the last few months. What I see is that their gains have been getting slower and slower since February. This could result in a reversal or in a stalemate for some time.

Ukraine doesn't have the ability to win. Not without hundreds of billions in additional NATO aid. I think that if they don't get some substantial aid very soon that their defenses are going to crumble when Ru starts pushing again.
If they do get that aid then it will be a bloody fight in the Donbass which I said months ago on ATS that the main battle was going to occur.

While their gains have slowed they are still gains against the most entrenched area of the country. There hasn't been a comparable war like this in modern history. Technologically they are near-peer with all the NATO assistance.
Neither one is like Iraq where a decade of sanctions left their military dilapidated following the decimation of their military before we invaded with a coalition of forces in a shock and awe campaign crippling infrastructure.

As I have mentioned here before, Ru could take out UAs bridge infrastructure greatly weakening their ability to bring NATO weapons in but they haven't. I don't know why they haven't but I am sure they still could if they needed to.
They could also knock out electrical across the country but they haven't even tried. They have held back a lot of their capability.
The only reason I can come up with as to why is to make this more of a victory for the DPR/LPR over Ukraine than one of Ru over Ukraine. After this is all done there may be political aspirations of the DPR/LPR taking power. That is just a guess.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

What I am gathering is that you prefer hyperbole over talking about or offering an explanation as to why they haven't destroyed the the bridges whichwould cut off the supply of western weapons.

You bring up a point with zero understanding, but for some reason you think you do. Whether a bridge is destroyed or not has everything to do with strategic planning and ZERO to do with taking it easy. 100s of bridges have been destroyed and the reality is Russia doesn't want to do it because they need them to advance, so Ukraine will blow bridges as they get moved back otherwise the Russians will use them too. You bring up just BS points that only you think is some profound counter point and it is a point of ignorance more than anything else.

So I don't engage every crappy point you make because it really isn't worth my time.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

A bunch of idiots with millions worth of HIMRs obviously didn't know that. Have you considered going over there to lend your vast experience and knowledge to them to help win the war?

They did it because that is all they have for range...right now... Maybe they did it to show how far they can reach. It seems it has worked a good deal as the Russians have move a good deal farther back due to it, including their Black fleet. A bridge that size is extremely hard to take out unless you have a good number of 2000 pound bombs to do it, and outside of heavy fighters and bombers there is nothing that can deliver stuff that large, but wait until they get some A-10s and F-16s and that will be interesting.

Their equipment will be getting better and better, so Russia better get going soon...lol

originally posted by: turretless
Do you want me to respect you after this?

I don't care what you do... As I said you are unwilling to see anything that isn't 100% pro Russian. "Analyze the evidence" lol OK...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
. It is training and having a functional command structure with NCOs. Aside from the 10,000 I read about being trained in Europe to basic foot soldier qualifications in the next 4 months I don't see them being able to keep up. In that 4 months, UA will lose 10s of thousands of soldiers based on what UA said their casualty rate is.

I can say the same thing with Russia, but much worst. They have already demonstrated an extremely poor leadership structure. The whole idea of an NCO leadership structure is from the US mostly as that is what makes our military much more formable than most others.

The typical Russian soldier will not do anything without an officer telling them what to do and that has been hurting them a good deal. Also most Russian soldiers do not want to be there in the first place, so moral is in the gutter. The US and EU is training their military in Western concepts, skills and technical abilities on our equipment. Think of an endless flow of all that as Russia continues to draw from its civilian population with people that do not want to go. Its ugly for Russia now and is only going to get uglier, not better while Ukraine started off kind of ugly, but every month this goes on they will get better and better.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am honestly surprised that no one on here was crowing about 2,000 Ru troops being encircled at Kherson because that was being claimed by some Ukrainian officials over the last week.

Maybe you just aren't as clever as you imagine.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You must think you have some insight that no one else has to write something that is obvious to everyone.

The only explanation for making such a contradictory statement about why they haven't blown the bridges is if you think that no one else would think of it.

"Russia wants to use the bridges"

"But Ukraine will blow the bridges as they retreat"

No s**t Sherlock.

What was it that gave you that idea? Was it the dozens of times they have done it already?

You claim strategic planning. How is this for strategic planning? Cutting off the supply of NATO weapons reduces the ability of Ukraine to hold territory and fight back.

Does that sound like something that may have strategic importance in a war?

Never mind, you obviously think you know something no one else does when in reality you are stating a lot of self-evident things that already have a precedent.

They aren't blowing the bridges for some other reason than they want to use them because it is very obvious that Ukraine will blow them themselves if they are pushed back.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Aren't you aware that Ukrainian casualties have lowered because of less intense artillery fire? And there's no reason their soldiers can't be trained in other places than Britain too.

I'm not saying whether Russia plans to take the whole country or not. Just that they could under certain circumstances.

It complicates supply but it is just a matter of burning more fuel with elongated lines.
I read that those depots only amounted 4 or 5 days worth of ammo so they have had more than enough time to adjust.

lol, sure. If they have a bunch of extra supply trucks waiting around unused. The point is simply that they're forced to spend more resources on supply.

As for the HIMRS, if people think 16 to 20 of them is a game changer then how are they ignoring that RU has an equivalent and far more of them that outrange and carry more ordnance.

It can't be that hard to figure out, can it? They are a game changer because they are under Ukrainian control rather than Russia. A gun is more valuable to someone with no gun than to someone who already has a gun, right?

Ukraine doesn't have the ability to win. Not without hundreds of billions in additional NATO aid. I think that if they don't get some substantial aid very soon that their defenses are going to crumble when Ru starts pushing again.

You've been saying this for months now. Meanwhile I have been right so far, although admittedly I'm more conservative in my predictions so they're pretty boring.

Ru could take out UAs bridge infrastructure greatly weakening their ability to bring NATO weapons in but they haven't. I don't know why they haven't but I am sure they still could if they needed to.

Right, they're going to win as soon as they start trying for real I guess. I'm not sure about the bridges though, that's a good question.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Grimpachi

A bunch of idiots with millions worth of HIMRs obviously didn't know that. Have you considered going over there to lend your vast experience and knowledge to them to help win the war?

They did it because that is all they have for range...right now... Maybe they did it to show how far they can reach. It seems it has worked a good deal as the Russians have move a good deal farther back due to it, including their Black fleet. A bridge that size is extremely hard to take out unless you have a good number of 2000 pound bombs to do it, and outside of heavy fighters and bombers there is nothing that can deliver stuff that large, but wait until they get some A-10s and F-16s and that will be interesting.

Their equipment will be getting better and better, so Russia better get going soon...lol

Yeah man, they did it for show.

That is a load of copium and you know it.