famschopman wrote:My 2 cents, you need to stop bullying each other and find common ground on wanting Russia to succeed and be a bit more forgiving to other people's thoughts and concerns.
Some people are concerned on the current development and the loss of Russia lives in both communities and on the battleground. It's fair to say that those guys putting their lives on the line deserve - at least - proper support from the leadership and it's natural to be agitated when you see your people under fire while the opponent is seemingly allowed to make terrain or cross rivers relatively easily.
On the other hand, I also understand the sentiment that losing territory, or a battle doesn't immediately should cause significant concern. This is not a sprint but a marathon. And I think there is a really big chessboard and territory, and people are being quantified as pons to safely completed that marathon.
One interesting thing I did notice was a comment from someone here who pointed out - imho quite rightly - something along the line as "Russian leadership is anticipating a collapse of Europe and is carefully keeping their cards for further escalation". It's true. With NS1 and NS2 out, the playing field changed, significantly. So, it would be wise to be cautious sending in all your resources right now.
Today's European industry is extremely reliant on gas and will have to deal with the impact of this for the next ten years. Nuclear energy was abandoned under pressure by climate progressives, coal mines were closed and in France 50% of the reactors are actually offline due to corrosion issues and a general lack in maintenance. Rebuilding and transitioning this infrastructure will take at least a decade immediately impacting the competitive balance of these industries as well as impacting the general quality of life for all EU citizens. Things will start to turn for the worse very fast; and historically we know how economic circumstances can drive greater conflict.
The interesting thing here is that in terms of 'real war' none of the countries have (in comparison to WW1 and WW2) real trained armies or weaponry anymore. The majority was already sent into Ukraine, and they are all struggling to secure the funds; let alone built the stuff in time and with sufficient skilled engineers. So not sure in what form or context a conflict will end up. Maybe it will just end up as a French Revolution with citizens getting fed up with leadership.
Anyways, try to be a bit more kind to each other. I think everyone reacts in the best interest of Russia but with different perception.
Its not about losing territory. Its about not using superior firepower, tactical acumen, and air power to counterattack successfully and makeimportant advances too. If ukraine took izyum and kupyansk, but russia already captured artemovsk, soledar and maryinka, I would be completely ok with it. But russia is doing "positional battle" for 3 months already on the entire donbass and zaporozhye sector.
Im pissed that the resident "Never criticize MoD, trust the plan, youre not an expert, actually this was a 4D chess feint" types here were assuring us that ukraine cant muster enough troops to defend the donbass fortifications, let alone create successful large bridgheads against an enemy with supposedly excellent recon and artillery capabilities, because kalibr strikes, according to konashenkov were destroying troops behind the frontline by the tens of thousands.
The whole "positional battle" reporting sounds more and more like an excuse that russia simply sucks at offensives and is a total failure at achieving its own goals of liberating DNR.
Also Im mostly dooming because russia cant oblitarate ukrainian bridgeheads in a spectacular fashion like how the ukrainians did against the russians in belogorovka.
Last edited by limb on Wed Sep 28, 2022 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total