- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,867
- Reaction score
- 35,791
Well, in fairness, all he really needs to do (and appears intent on doing once his Blitzkrieg attempt failed utterly) is occupy all the coastal territory and land-lock the rest of Ukraine, forcing Ukraine to pay through the nose to ship their export goods--and receive imports, obviously. It's a potential strangle hold financially.For sure I do.
The map says Russia illegally occupies about 20 % of the Ukraine?
That's a catastrophic failure, no?
What strategic or real-terms value does the Donbas region actually have, once you've cut through the nonsense about Nazis and the idiocy of the 'protecting' Russian ethnic people in the region?
None.
Without Kyiv, Russia's assault on Ukraine is nothing but an exercise in reducing your own military prowess, and gifting the rest of the world massive insight into your ineffectiveness.
I know a lot of people need to assume Russia are doing well because Russia are this massive powerhouse, but they're getting nowhere. What does future occupation of the Donbas look like? More car bombs murdering Russian occupiers; more assassinations; more guerrilla warfare.
Is that victory? No, it's a catastrophic failure.
And what of beyond Kyiv? NATO has expanded to include two more wealthy, well established nations, Finland and Sweden. That's a catastrophic failure.
European countries are committed to spending much more on their military, whereas when Trump called on them to do that, they refused. That's a catastrophic failure.
So tell me; what exactly does it look like when you try to suggest he hasn't failed extensively? Simply the extremely myopic view of a couple of active maps?
But that's now. If Ukraine accedes in any way to Russia on this occasion, it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the country goes the way of Crimea and the Donbas. To put it another way, do Russians stop at half a glass of vodka?
Edit: I didn't realize until after I replied how far behind I am ITT.
Last edited: