Yommie
Elite Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 63,227
- 37,138
- Country of Origin
- Country of Residence
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Russias states aims was freedom for the Russian speaking Donbass, that is now almost complete
Anything else is a security question and if it goes to negotiations, for peace Russia will keep the liberated land and demand that Ukraine remain a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO
First of all, there are NO POSSIBLE WAY for Russia to declare a win in this war strategically , because that would mean they have to occupy Ukraine in the entirety. Can they do that? Because if not, whatever left of Ukrainian control will turn to NATO, Ukraine joining NATO is a foregone conclusion. As I mentioned time and again, the only thing Ukraine didn't operate to NATO standard is their Navy, but then they are getting their Ada Class. There are literally entire NATO arsenal in Ukraine, so it would be the biggest shot in the foot for NATO not to accept Ukraine into NATO and make them run back to Russia or China for all the NATO secret they had. That's a no brainer. Becuase we aren't changing the entire NATO playbook for them.
Which mean unless Russia can either keep this war indefinitely (which is impossible) or to capture Ukraine in its entirety (which is also impossible) Even if Russia get the entire Donbas and whatever Zaporizhya they are holding, losing the rest country to NATO is a strategic failure.
Even for Donbas, you are talking about decade of war to capture the remaining 20% if we go bay the progress we had, 2024 is almost gone, and Russian advance is around 1000 sq kilometer since last november when they start pushing, there are still about 16,000 square kilometers of Donbas to go, and some of them would make places like Charsiv Yar or Avdiivka a child play, Russia is going to lose a lot more troop in the coming years, I don't think they can capture the entire Donbas before they culminated.
Now whether or not Ukraine invaded Kursk is a mistake is up for debate, I personally don't see the need to invade Kursk, but the impact was there, the only thing we don't know is how that impact the overall situation in the south to both Ukrainian and Russian, now this is an unanswerable question since it's still 2 weeks old, anyone forming any sort of opinion in this matter would be haevily depends on guess work. They may shoot themselves on the foot, or that may turn out to be a genius move, that we know some time down the road.
The guy keeps saying "Russia has strategically lost this war" since years.The level of cope![]()
The guy keeps saying "Russia has strategically lost this war" since years.
Now whenever I see this phrase it reminds me of Windows XP cursor bug where it kept repeating itself.
The Ukrainian military was never or is small they are probably around a million soldiers all round the number of combat soldiers is probably larger then USA army of 400k before anyone says USA has 1,2 million that is with airforce and navy
USA/NATO have been subsidising the Ukrainian military heavily since the invasion of Crimea. I think OP is being a little hypocritical for mocking Russians…
Again, it's still early.Back to Kursk. The , Russia is not taking the bait and just keeps on grinding through the Donbas lines knowing full well that it was exactly their advances in the East that led the Ukies to this desperate diversionary folly. Everyone knows they can't hold what they raced through toward Kursk, it's an enormous strain on already depleted manpower and paper thin logistics that still racks up lots of casuaties the Ukies can't even begin to afford.