RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Two good points in this article, https://www.ft.com/content/769ff234-ea5 ... 66693effe2:
a) The German govt are spineless
b) NATO needs a change of plan

I don't subscribe to the FT so can't read, but I get the general idea from the headline. Germany has been pathetic regarding Russia for years, and that's before you consider Schroeder. Sadly the level of support for continuing the conflict in many western European countries isn't high.

Funnily enough, the US has been the one leading the charge, but it's clear the Dems have been extremely sick of Putin's shit for years now.

I'm just glad the fucking tankies that used to be around here no longer are.

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I don't subscribe to the FT so can't read, but I get the general idea from the headline. Germany has been pathetic regarding Russia for years, and that's before you consider Schroeder. Sadly the level of support for continuing the conflict in many western European countries isn't high.

Funnily enough, the US has been the one leading the charge, but it's clear the Dems have been extremely sick of Putin's shit for years now.

I'm just glad the fucking tankies that used to be around here no longer are.

I wonder how different things would have been if this had happened during the Trump era? I do think that Russia was emboldened following the Afghanistan fiasco. Trump fans are alleging that Putin wouldn't have dared to invade when Trump was in charge; I think the wind down in Syrian commitments and Afghanistan withdraw have more to do with it from a geo-strategic perspective.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote: Funnily enough, the US has been the one leading the charge, but it's clear the Dems have been extremely sick of Putin's shit for years now.

I'm just glad the fucking tankies that used to be around here no longer are.

I wonder how different things would have been if this had happened during the Trump era? I do think that Russia was emboldened following the Afghanistan fiasco. Trump fans are alleging that Putin wouldn't have dared to invade when Trump was in charge; I think the wind down in Syrian commitments and Afghanistan withdraw have more to do with it from a geo-strategic perspective.

The Afghanistan fiasco would have happened just the same under Trump since Biden was just following Trump's plan. And while we can never be sure with these counterfactuals, I suspect that Trump would have been far less willing to give the Ukrainians any effective help - he'd have acted tough but done little to impede his pal Putin's aims.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I wonder how different things would have been if this had happened during the Trump era? I do think that Russia was emboldened following the Afghanistan fiasco. Trump fans are alleging that Putin wouldn't have dared to invade when Trump was in charge; I think the wind down in Syrian commitments and Afghanistan withdraw have more to do with it from a geo-strategic perspective.

The Afghanistan fiasco would have happened just the same under Trump since Biden was just following Trump's plan. And while we can never be sure with these counterfactuals, I suspect that Trump would have been far less willing to give the Ukrainians any effective help - he'd have acted tough but done little to impede his pal Putin's aims.

Totally agree, despite his protestations, the Afghanistan debacle was made on Trumps watch, although that doesn't absolve Biden from the shambolic way it was implemented.

I suspect Trump would have been more favourable to Putin also.

Galfon wrote:Severodonetsk now Lysychansk under Russ. control
Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, two biggest cities in the Donetsk region still in Ukrainian hands but in the sights.
No sign of new long-range weaponry setting up noticable counter-offensive; is this a timing thing or just not enough gear yet ?

Galfon wrote:H&M join Nike and Mcdonalds in leaving Russia.
A number of local withdrawls/retreats by Russ now reported at sea (tactical..), and in Kherson and Donetsk regions after Ukr counters.Russ struggling to get intended troop rotation in allegedly..slog on.
Rouble in good shape though..

Zhivago wrote: Of course the ruble is in good shape. All these western companies pulling out will mean there's less rubles sold for Euros.

Galfon wrote:Kherson looks a real possibility now which would help nobble another big objective (Odesa/Moldova). Taking a pop at Crimea after that would be a massive kick in the nethers, and hugely symbolic. Just how far yer man reacts to that is anyones guess.

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:Kherson looks a real possibility now which would help nobble another big objective (Odesa/Moldova). Taking a pop at Crimea after that would be a massive kick in the nethers, and hugely symbolic. Just how far yer man reacts to that is anyones guess.

I mean, taking Crimea would be both highly symbolic and amusing, but is it a target that Ukraine wants to spend its energy on? They haven't really got the ability to split their attention too much and, while it's not exactly a full-on second front, it would detract from using forces elsewhere.

Puja

Zhivago wrote:Ukraine softening up Kherson area for their soon-to-come offensive. Kherson cut off from resupply by recent strikes on two bridges. Antonivka Bridge over the Dnipro to the south side and Dariyivka Bridge over the Inhulets to the east side. Combined with the recent strikes on ammo depots, going to be a tough period for the Russkies. Ukraine will probably wait a few more weeks until their supply runs out more and then start.