"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It's a good and apt reference. But how does Ukraine retake the north coast of the Sea of Azov, Mariupol and the Donbas if the Russians are dug in and now well supplied?

I'm not sure. If they are dug in, those shiny new howitzers could come in handy. It also depends on how many men Ukraine has available for field operations.

I wouldn't assume that they're well-supplied, though. I've read several intel estimates which report that Russian forces are having logistical issues even on the Russian side of the border.
 
On next two videos аrsenty рavlov call sign мotorola.
A citizen Russian Federation who came to defend Donbass and died soon after.
Putin awarded him a "hero Russian Federation" posthumously.
For fun, he shoots at his positions.


Sekond video with this heroes
The operator asks him
-what will happen now, and he answers
-something like an alarm clock, because many sleep and war does not touch them
- Then they ask him a question, is there really no one there?
his answer is - I don't care,
-Shoot there, our enemies there
- no we have motherfuckers here

The propaganda Russian Federation says that the Ukrainians killed him, but many separatists say that they are their own, since the bodyguards were removed two before that, and the Ukrainians would not have been able to mine elevator.
 
Is destroying a single forty year old Pion self propelled howitzer significant?
Fully agree, and that is what is giving this whole war a strange taste. Whilst the Russians promote more or less no information (but simply rely onto media war-maps showing the respective gains or losses of territory to the general public), the Ukraine states every single account right down to e.g. a Ural truck destroyed today by an ATGM at....(an information which rather worries me then boosts confidence).
I guess in order to get the $ coming in from NATO, and to keep their own peoples spirits up, the UAF needs to highlight every sort of success, since territory wise there are no successes
to show for - so far.
 
I have a rather different view on that particular Kiev scenario.
As I stated in another post, both the Ukraine and Russia were aware that a million men are required to grind down the Ukraine. (which Russia doesn't have)
IMO plan A (taking control of Kiev) was developed.
Initially a total success by Russia, having deployed parts of their elite forces at Hostomel airport and heavy equipment coming in from the North and from the Sumy direction.
Then for an unknown reason the Russian forces 8-10km away from Kiev did not advance or show any activity for almost 2 weeks!!
According to NATO analysis due to incompetent leadership, communication and logistic issues.

To me it rather looks like Putin and his staff had actually worked out an attempt to overthrow the Ukraine government - upon this happening the Northern group was to move into
Kiev. Something obviously spoiled/delayed that attempt by 2 weeks. (there are no reports of any significance showing the UAF attacking the Northern group within the first 2 weeks)
The UAF started their actual concentrated counterattack from week 4 onward - onto the already retreating Russians, them (realizing that plan A had failed) and that they did not have
the necessary manpower to hold the North and in parallel to continue their offensive in the East and South.

Just my 5 cents
 
…the Ukraine.
Let's stop calling it "the Ukraine". It's a country, not a region.


 
Last edited:
If they're hungry, low on ammunition and fuel…. What's holding up the UAFs?

I didn't say anything like your conditional clause implies. I don't know what they're low on, if anything. But to answer your question with my own hypothetical -- what if they're low on fuel but have plenty of food and ammunition? That might keep the UAF at bay, right? What if they have plenty of fuel and ammunition, but are working on short rations for the time being? Both those scenarios could explain why these intel estimates might be true but UAF is still on the defensive. What if the UAF don't have the manpower to take advantage of those logistics issues?

There's a lot of ways it could pan out even if those estimates are true.
 
Recreation center "Svitanok", Belogorovka. Crossing the Seversky Donets. May 2022
Secure the area then call-in the tractor brigade. Some BMPs and APC seem recoverable

EDIT:
Regarding Kiev the russsians lost hundreds of Paras when their aircraft were shot down. Their supply lines were under constant attack by partisan-like warfare. Their secure comms failed as they relied on working mobile phone net
 
Last edited:
Is "the" USA or "the" Philippines, "the" UK or "the Netherlands, a country or a region? well it's both
Ukraine in it's Slavic origin Ukraina means actually Borderlands. So to say "the" Borderlands or "the Ukraine" is absolutely correct.
The issue is that Ukraine associates "the" with the Russian usage of "na"- meaning an unbounded territory and using "v" to describe a bordered/bounded territory. (which has actually nothing to do with using the article "the"in English or "die" in German).
As such the Russian Federation instead of saying "na" Ukraine is correctly referring to the Ukraine now as "v" Ukraine, (the "Bounded" Borderlands) making use of an article just as in German with the article "die" Ukraine.

I find this just silly - if they take nationalism for so important then maybe they should look for a new name, if they can't handle the historical origins of their countries own chosen name, instead of degrading other peoples languages respectively it's grammer.

I shall henceforth "in order to avoid issues" and to honor their history refer to them as "the Borderlands"
 
Is "the" USA or "the" Philippines….
It's not for me to teach you the nuances of English grammar. I only bring it up because the Russians use the term post-USSR to suggest that Ukraine is geographic region, as you suggest, and not an independent nation. But when in doubt, look to how a nation refers to itself. With Ukraine, the Ukrainians tell us clearly.

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says the Embassy of Ukraine in London.

I find this just silly - it's grammer.
Actually, it's grammar.
 
Last edited:
And we don't refer to "the Germany" or "the France."

We use the positive article for the Netherlands, US and UK because the full titles include the modifier "of": the Kingdom of the Netherlands (i.e. kingdom of low-lying lands); the United States of America; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thus we use the positive article to distinguish the American United States from any other united states that might be out there. Same-same for the kingdoms, explicitly distinguishing them from other kingdoms (e.g. the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
 
We don't get to choose what someone else's country is called, just because we like it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread