Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FADH1791

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bill Blazo said:
But is that true though? Is most of the Ukrainian army actually around Kiev? You could be right, I'm just not sure. I read that most of it was still on the eastern front, about 70,000 in and around the Donbas. This huge concentration of troops is the biggest reason why the Russians are having a hard time breaking through the Severodonetsk-Rubizhne-Lysyschank urban agglomeration in Luhansk. And also why the Ukrainians are giving them a tough fight for Izium.
Click to expand...
The majority of Ukraine’s military is in the east. The 70k fighters are the most trained, most experienced and most tough test fighters they have. Taking them out is paramount. Also attacking Kiev prevents massive amounts of fighters from the west to reinforce the Ukrainian forces in the east. They are putting a very stiff defense plus they are in urban areas which benefits defenders. And they have had 8 years to prepare defenses. So them getting more reinforcements will make the war become an even bloodier stalemate. Best thing is keep potential reinforcement in the west, while grind away the 70,000 UKR forces in a slow bloody assault. Once they collapse that’s when things will get bad for Kiev as this free up forces to make a final assault into Kiev. As I think that’s the plan at least.
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
If you are an American CIA warhawk, you schizophrenically shift between "China copies/steals from Russia, Zero innovation" and "Russia requests high-end equipment from China, accomplice bad guy to imperialism".

In reality, Russia asked about Chinese equipment BEFORE the invasion, not in response to the invasion. Russia has long been aware of Chinese advances in Drone technology and discussion about military purchases have been ongoing for long time. It's another US attempt to frame the situation as China aiding an imperialistic war, when it's just routine military sales for long time.
Click to expand...
In both FT articles, when did they said “before”? I thought it was after the invasion. Also, when did Russia ever consider buying Chinese military equipment? The Russians despise buying and using foreign equipment.
 
T

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
The article provides no compelling reason to cut Putin off except "Don't have US sanctions imposed on China" which I somewhat understand BUT the author seems to forget how China routinely trades with sanctioned states like Iran and North Korea, and avoid retailiatory US sanctions. There are significant loopholes to Western sanctions on Russia that China can exploit to prevent total economic collapse.

The article naively suggest China's reputation is harmed by neutrality. Yes, maybe amongst Western imperialist nations, but neutrality is the correct position to take, since both sides are engaged in different degrees of imperialism if we want to objective, fair, and impartial. Both sides are imperialistic, so China should remain neutral, but lean towards Russia since it's the weaker imperialist aligned with China's interests.

It's also supremely naive to thing US will drop it's anti-China mentality if it joins in anti-Russian crusade. Yes, Russia's actions is imperialistic, but that's not China's problem to fix, the mess was created by Western countries. China isn't obligated to toe Western line to fix the mess West created and help kill it's strategic partner out of some faux outrage on "muh internation law!!" which US routinely ignores.
Click to expand...

China doesn't want to see Russia cave to the West. It is in China's interest that Russia stand against the west as long as possible
 
B

Bill Blazo

Junior Member
Registered Member
FADH1791 said:
The majority of Ukraine’s military is in the east. The 70k fighters are the most trained, most experienced and most tough test fighters they have. Taking them out is paramount. Also attacking Kiev prevents massive amounts of fighters from the west to reinforce the Ukrainian forces in the east. They are putting a very stiff defense plus they are in urban areas which benefits defenders. And they have had 8 years to prepare defenses. So them getting more reinforcements will make the war become an even bloodier stalemate. Best thing is keep potential reinforcement in the west, while grind away the 70,000 UKR forces in a slow bloody assault. Once they collapse that’s when things will get bad for Kiev as this free up forces to make a final assault into Kiev. As I think that’s the plan at least.
Click to expand...
Yeah so this is what always frustrated me about the Russian strategy. The priority should have been the destruction of the Ukrainian army in the Donbas. Achieving that objective in a reasonable timeframe would require vastly more troops than the Russians devoted to the eastern front. If they did go after Kiev as a gigantic diversion to throw off the Ukrainians, then it doesn't look like they succeeded. And the stiff Ukrainian resistance on the eastern front is proof of that. Had they actually thrown 100,000 troops in a major push across a broad front in the east, they would already have the Donbas by now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top