- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 2/1/23 at 9:59 am to LSUPilot07
Posted on 2/1/23 at 9:59 am to LSUPilot07
So I decided to try and look through some of the Russian reasoning on why this war is happening just from a curiosity standpoint and how those points actually stand up against a little research. I’m going to write the word “Panda Bear” just so I can find this post later on.
I’ll start off with saying I personally believe Russia is fighting this war for four main reasons; Putin’s Ego, Putin’s Soviet Nostalgia, Oil/Natural Resources, and (most importantly) Ukraine was supposed to cave within 2 weeks. For me, any other reasoning is being made for the domestic Russian audience, but those are the reasons I want to take a look at:
There are 2 reasons that don’t really involve the US; Ukraine is full of Nazis and Ukraine is literal Satan. I’m just going to go ahead and ignore the 2nd one for obvious reasons.
So let’s start with Ukraine is full of Nazis:
This actually stems back to 2014: Russia Condemns Ukraine With Comparisons To Nazis May 2014
Russia calls Ukraine fire that killed 42 ‘new Auschwitz’ May 2014
I can’t find any source prior to 2014 talking about Nazis than when Ukraine attempted to hold a gay pride parade in 2012 and a BBC report about when Ukraine hosted a soccer tournament in 2012. In my attempt to look into this I did find some additional Putin commentary from 2009
With all that said, the main Nazi things we see about post 2014 deal mainly the Azov Battalion. But even then it’s not much. We are talking somewhere between 1,500 and 2,500 members. Yet somehow, Russia never seems to bad-mouth Wagner which sports much of the same Nazi ideology (hell the founder of Wagner has Nazi tattoos). And that, to me, is the nail in the coffin on the “We did it because of Nazis” rhetoric. Who Are The Neo-Nazis Fighting For Russia In Ukraine?
I’ll start off with saying I personally believe Russia is fighting this war for four main reasons; Putin’s Ego, Putin’s Soviet Nostalgia, Oil/Natural Resources, and (most importantly) Ukraine was supposed to cave within 2 weeks. For me, any other reasoning is being made for the domestic Russian audience, but those are the reasons I want to take a look at:
There are 2 reasons that don’t really involve the US; Ukraine is full of Nazis and Ukraine is literal Satan. I’m just going to go ahead and ignore the 2nd one for obvious reasons.
So let’s start with Ukraine is full of Nazis:
This actually stems back to 2014: Russia Condemns Ukraine With Comparisons To Nazis May 2014
quote:
Throughout the ongoing crisis, Russian officials have frequently made comparisons to the Nazis when speaking about the interim Ukrainian government and far-right groups that are hostile to Russia.
Russian officials say the Kiev government is made up of "fascists" and "neo-Nazis," conflating the Ukrainian authorities with the ultra-nationalist groups that took part in the protests that overthrew Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych.
While there clearly are far-right groups active in Ukraine, analysts usually describe them as playing a limited role in the overall conflict.
Russia calls Ukraine fire that killed 42 ‘new Auschwitz’ May 2014
quote:
The fire in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa that claimed at least 42 lives on Friday has been swiftly dubbed a new “reprisal raid” and even the “new Khatyn,” a reference to the Belarussian village where 149 residents were burned alive by the Nazis in 1943.
The entire village was punished for the death of a Nazi officer and the Nazi battalion behind the massacre consisted of collaborators including nationalists from western Ukraine.
I can’t find any source prior to 2014 talking about Nazis than when Ukraine attempted to hold a gay pride parade in 2012 and a BBC report about when Ukraine hosted a soccer tournament in 2012. In my attempt to look into this I did find some additional Putin commentary from 2009
quote:
"The Russian leadership is very apprehensive about what it sees as Western moves designed to tear Ukraine away from Russia," says Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, an independent think tank in Moscow. "Their central foreign policy goal is to create a power center around Russia. Any move by the West towards the former Soviet republics is seen as damaging Russia's interests."
Moscow has reacted angrily to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's attempts in recent years to gain NATO membership and to a recent agreement in March under which the European Union would help modernize Ukraine's aging gas-transport system. "This agreement is Exhibit A in Moscow's collection [of complaints]," says Trenin. "It's evidence that Europe is concluding bilateral deals with Ukraine that undermine Russia's interests."
And the Kremlin certainly has plenty of levers to pull in Ukraine to make its views felt, with its control over gas supplies, alongside the popularity of Russian state-controlled TV in the east and south of the country, where pro-Russian sentiment is strongest. "In certain sections of the Ukrainian political and business élite, there are links with Russia stretching back to Soviet times," says Paliy from the Institute of Foreign Policy. "There are also a large number of Russian-sponsored think tanks in Ukraine, which function freely and push the Kremlin's views."
These levers are likely to play a significant role in Ukraine's upcoming presidential elections, set for next January. Last time around, in 2004, Russia and Putin threw their weight behind then Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, whose initial victory was overturned after massive protests in Kiev against vote-rigging, which turned into the so-called Orange Revolution. This time, analysts say the Kremlin will probably diversify its approach, with support for both Yanukovych and previously hostile Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, President Yushchenko's former Orange ally.
"The Russian leadership learnt one important lesson from 2004 — not to put all their eggs in one basket," says Trenin. Meanwhile, Russians and Ukrainians alike will be watching for Putin's next trenchant explanation from literary history.
With all that said, the main Nazi things we see about post 2014 deal mainly the Azov Battalion. But even then it’s not much. We are talking somewhere between 1,500 and 2,500 members. Yet somehow, Russia never seems to bad-mouth Wagner which sports much of the same Nazi ideology (hell the founder of Wagner has Nazi tattoos). And that, to me, is the nail in the coffin on the “We did it because of Nazis” rhetoric. Who Are The Neo-Nazis Fighting For Russia In Ukraine?
1
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:01 am to StormyMcMan
Ok so now onto NATO expansion; As from above you can see that Russia didn’t want Ukraine in NATO as early as 2009. However, NATO basically said Ukraine and Georgia could join NATO in 2008 So why didn’t Russia invade then (they did invade Georgia)? And what changed between then and now? Hell as recently as 2010, 51% of Ukrainians didn’t want to join NATO and viewed it negatively. 52% of Germans didn’t want them in and 72% of Russians. LINK
I can’t find anything cut and dry, but I found this article from But 2004 (written with an anti-USA lean) which I think summarizes the issues. Fundamentally, Russia has always viewed Ukraine as Russian, requires Ukraine for most of it’s O&G, and doesn’t want them aligned with the West.
After Maiden (which caused Crimea and the DPR and LPR to revolt with Russian backing) and a successive Western aligned president being elected, I think Russia just saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get it’s influence back. Just a few select quotes from the article
When I have time I'll try to dig into Biolabs too
I can’t find anything cut and dry, but I found this article from But 2004 (written with an anti-USA lean) which I think summarizes the issues. Fundamentally, Russia has always viewed Ukraine as Russian, requires Ukraine for most of it’s O&G, and doesn’t want them aligned with the West.
After Maiden (which caused Crimea and the DPR and LPR to revolt with Russian backing) and a successive Western aligned president being elected, I think Russia just saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get it’s influence back. Just a few select quotes from the article
quote:
In January 2003, the US Ambassador in Kiev, Carlos Pascual, gave a lecture to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on American-Ukrainian relations. He posed the question: “ Should Ukraine belong in the Euro-Atlantic community?” and answered without reservation in the affirmative.
In his book of seven years ago, Brzezinski had already referred in this respect to the relevance of Ukraine. Its secession, he wrote, would drastically curtail Russia’s geopolitical options. “Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire.... But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in protracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non-Slavs, the war with Chechnya perhaps simply being the first example.”
Kuchma, who replaced Leonid Kravchuk in 1994 as president, was quite prepared to work closely with the US and the European Union. He cooperated fully with the International Monetary Fund, expressed himself in favour of European Union membership and even lodged a formal request in May 2002 for NATO membership. Ukraine also sent its own troops to Iraq, to support the American occupation of the country.
Kuchma was always forced, however, to maintain a difficult balancing act. On the one hand, he worked against the break-up of Ukraine into an eastern region oriented to Russia and a western half of the country that looked to the West—a threat that hung in the air continuously after Ukraine established its independence. On the other hand, he had to take into account the country’s strong economic dependence on Russia. In particular, the Ukrainian power supply depends nearly completely on Russian oil and gas.
Kuchma dismissed Yushchenko in April 2001. His policy of opening the country up to international capital through reform of the energy sector encountered resistance from the clans of oligarchs in the east of the country. After a temporary solution, Kuchma finally appointed the scion of the Donetsk clan, Viktor Yanukovich, as prime minister.
Nevertheless, the US still refused to exclude any and all cooperation with Kuchma and Yanukovich. In the autumn of 2003, both men visited the US. Kuchma met with President George W. Bush, while Yanukovich was received by Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials. A year before, a meeting of ministers in Prague had agreed upon a timetable for Ukraine’s admission into NATO.
European—and above all, German—interests are also directly affected by the change of power in Ukraine, and, in the longer term, the two rising Asiatic great powers, China and India, are also involved. In addition to purely geostrategic criteria, another issue just as important for the world economy of the twenty-first century lies at the heart of this conflict—control of the worldwide power supply of oil and gas. In this respect, the significance of the issues fought out in Ukraine recall the conflicts that erupted in Europe at the start of the twentieth century over control of mineral resources.
When I have time I'll try to dig into Biolabs too
This post was edited on 2/1/23 at 10:04 am
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:05 am to LSUPilot07
quote:
It’s now time to start pulling out of Bakhmut.
Yes. Or if not, that time is coming very soon.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:28 am to LSUPilot07
quote:
If they can get these a month or so before when they plan an offensive so you could use them long enough to force Russia to move it’s ammo and fuel stocks 90 miles from their front lines can be just as important as the 100+ western tanks that are coming. As soon as they come they should do just as they did when they got the HIMARS and launch a massive strike at targets they know about but until then couldn’t touch. The faster you get Russia pushing their supply lines back the better chance that planned offensive has. This is where the Ukrainian civilians can make a huge impact by keeping tabs on what is happening in the far rear that the Ukrainian intelligence might not know about. They need to have a large target package ready to go the second they can use those weapons.
Yep. Timing will be critical, but GLSDB could disrupt Russian logistics, CC, etc. in the South right at the start of the big offensive. The key railway junction at Dzhankoy in Crimea, the port at Berdyansk, every key bridge in the South, the airports at Berdyansk and Mariupol, etc. There will be absolutely no way for Russia to safely resupply its troops in those areas.
And Russia doesn't have enough trucks as it is. When you push ammo and fuel depots back another 37 miles, it gets a lot harder.
I've done a little more digging, and I think that GLSDB may be available sooner than I thought. On October 28, Saab's CEO told investors about GLSDB: “We are imminently, shortly expecting contracts on that." In November, they brought in two Norwegian companies as partners. I think that production will scale up rapidly.
We're supposed to be spending $1.75 billion on these. That's a lot. According to this article, one of the advantages of GLSDB is that each rocket will only cost about $40,000, as opposed to $100,000 for each GMLRS rocket that Ukraine is firing now. That should mean that we can give Ukraine a lot more rockets for less money.
In fact, $1.75 billion divided by $40,000 would suggest that the initial contract would be for 40,000 rockets, though, of course, there is certainly some money needed to set up the assembly line, etc., so the real number will be lower.
But Boeing and Saab have every incentive to jumpstart production at a high level. What other HIMARS-using countries aren't going to want a rocket that can hit targets 37 miles further than GMLRS? There's going to be lots of demand beyond the current war.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 10:56 am to GOP_Tiger
Very interesting CNN article from last night that I just came across:
The article hints that Ukraine has suddenly shifted to talking about F-16s not so much because they are the weapon desperately needed, but rather that Western aircraft is simply the next taboo that needs to be broken.
It's as though Ukraine has recognized that it's not going to get ATACMS anytime soon (and GLSDB is not a bad consolation prize), so fighter jets is simply the next thing, even though artillery and armored vehicles are probably really more important.
quote:
Top Ukrainian officials have in recent days escalated their public lobbying campaign for US-made F-16 fighter jets, arguing they need them urgently to defend against Russian missile and drone attacks.
But that push is being met with skepticism by US and allied officials who say the jets would be impractical, both because they require considerable training and because Russia has extensive anti-aircraft systems that could easily shoot them down.
More puzzling to US officials is why Ukraine has made such a public show of asking for F-16s, when in private the jets are rarely mentioned atop Ukraine’s wish list of weapons.
In private conversations US officials at the Pentagon and the White House have had with Ukrainians over the last several months, fighter jets have not ranked highly on the country’s list of priorities, officials said. Instead, Ukraine has been much more focused on long-range missiles – which the US is reluctant to hand over – as well as more ammunition, air defenses and tanks, which are now on their way after a dramatic public debate among NATO allies.
The Europeans have had a similar experience. French President Emmanuel Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said Monday that while “nothing is off-limits in principle,” neither the Netherlands nor France had received any official requests from Ukraine to send the fighter jets.
quote:
Ukraine’s renewed public push for the planes, which Ukraine’s foreign minister publicly described as a “priority” on Tuesday, appears driven in large part by a belief in Kyiv that with enough public pressure, the Ukrainians can eventually secure weapons systems that were once deemed a red line by the west.
“What is impossible today is absolutely possible tomorrow,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov told NPR on Tuesday.
A Ukrainian military official echoed that sentiment in comments to CNN, saying, “It’s going to come sooner or later.”
“One year ago everyone rejected HIMARS and no one could imagine Abrams tanks,” the official said, referring to US missile systems provided to Ukraine last year, and the Biden administration’s decision last week to give Ukraine the flagship American battle tank.
quote:
“I don’t think fighter jets are easier than ATACMS, but I believe we need to try to push,” the Ukrainian military official told CNN, referring to the long-range missiles they still want.
“I’m optimistic but I’m not sure it will happen tomorrow. At least people have started talking about it.”
A year of debate over F-16s
US and European officials have similarly told CNN and said publicly that the F-16 fighter jets are impractical, and note that Ukraine has not been conducting many air missions with the fighter planes it already has because of the danger posed by Russia’s anti-aircraft systems, officials told CNN.
Early on in the war, the US believed that supplying Ukraine with new fighter jets would risk an escalation between NATO and Russia. Last March, Poland was prepared to transfer its MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine as long as the US agreed to backfill Warsaw with F-16s. The US ultimately decided against that plan, however, deeming it too provocative.
The US position has since changed, officials said, and the concerns with the F-16s now are less about escalation and more about logistical challenges, officials said. Though the Pentagon has not explicitly ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine, officials view it as a long term proposition, one likely measured on a timeline of years instead of months.
The article hints that Ukraine has suddenly shifted to talking about F-16s not so much because they are the weapon desperately needed, but rather that Western aircraft is simply the next taboo that needs to be broken.
It's as though Ukraine has recognized that it's not going to get ATACMS anytime soon (and GLSDB is not a bad consolation prize), so fighter jets is simply the next thing, even though artillery and armored vehicles are probably really more important.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:02 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
The article hints that Ukraine has suddenly shifted to talking about F-16s not so much because they are the weapon desperately needed, but rather that Western aircraft is simply the next taboo that needs to be broken.
It's as though Ukraine has recognized that it's not going to get ATACMS anytime soon (and GLSDB is not a bad consolation prize), so fighter jets is simply the next thing, even though artillery and armored vehicles are probably really more important.
i mean im for giving them what they need but f-16 isnt it. they need to stop with that shite. its not even possible at the moment and if they really need aircraft f-16 isnt it
we need to be giving them longer range missles though. and why in the frick is it ok for russia to hit Kyiv but ukraine not be able to strike back at moscow?
i personally do not beleive that russia has the frickign balls to use a nuke of any sort. do what you have to do to destroy them
hell not even sure they truely have the ability to use a nuke.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:13 am to lsu777
quote:
i personally do not beleive that russia has the frickign balls to use a nuke of any sort. do what you have to do to destroy them
11 redlines have been drawn by Putin as to when he might use nukes. That's more crawfishing than Obama.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:16 am to lsu777
quote:
i mean im for giving them what they need but f-16 isnt it. they need to stop with that shite. its not even possible at the moment and if they really need aircraft f-16 isnt it
"ask for more, but settle for what you actually need"
if you ask for f-16s knowing they wont give them, they may meet you "half way" and give you the ATACMS you actually want/need......
thats how i read the article
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:23 am to lsu777
quote:
i personally do not beleive that russia has the frickign balls to use a nuke of any sort. do what you have to do to destroy them
Russia has its hands full fighting just Ukraine. The last thing they want to do is give NATO a reason to join the fray. That would add thousands of kilometers of front to defend, not to mention put the already overstretched Russian Army in a position of having to fight a far better trained and equipped foe on this now vastly larger front.
I’m guess is Russia is staking all its chips on this upcoming February offensive they’ve been building up for. If this offensive fails, what comes next is anyone’s guess.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:26 am to Darth_Vader
NATO would destroy Russia's military in very short order. Based on what we've seen in Ukraine, Russia's military is in no shape to deal with NATO.
It might not even require boots on the ground.
That said, I hope we never find out.
It might not even require boots on the ground.
That said, I hope we never find out.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:30 am to Chromdome35
Interesting Graphic showing the Russian offensive on Bahkmut.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1620520657615462401/photo/1
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1620520657615462401/photo/1
quote:
Battle of Bakhmut - Russian advance during 8 month.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:33 am to Darth_Vader
There is a definite uptick in the number of weapon donation announcements to Ukraine by various countries.
Russia has to make an impact quickly before all of these systems get delivered and integrated into Ukraine's military. Ukraine just has to hold out in the near term. (next 3 months)
Russia has to make an impact quickly before all of these systems get delivered and integrated into Ukraine's military. Ukraine just has to hold out in the near term. (next 3 months)
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:38 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
The article hints that Ukraine has suddenly shifted to talking about F-16s not so much because they are the weapon desperately needed, but rather that Western aircraft is simply the next taboo that needs to be broken.
I mean, that's good geopolitical posturing. Always position yourself with maximalist demands so that the compromise is exactly what you wanted in the first place.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 11:55 am to Chromdome35
Finally some good updated maps. Right click on the map and open in new tab to be able to zoom into the details.
https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1620626767366209537
https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1620626767366209537
quote:
1/ Ukraine TVD, 1-31 JAN 23. The first month of 2023 saw a determined effort by the VSRF to finally seize control of Bakhmut in central Donetsk, blunt ZSU advances in Luhansk, and expand territorial control in Zaporizhzhia.
quote:
3/ Luhansk OD. This OD remains an important disruption zone for Russian & Ukrainian forces. For the ZSU, the Luhansk OD still presents the best opportunity for victory in the Donbas. Expect continued Ukrainian efforts to liberate Svatove
quote:
4/ Donetsk OD. The reintroduction of VDV forces into offensive operations in the Bakhmut area has allowed the SVRF in the Donetsk OD to finally make the marginal tactical progress it should have exploited after the breakthrough at Popasna in early May 2022.
quote:
5/ Bakhmut AO. Bakhmut remains the most critical Objective Point of Maneuver in the Ukrainian TVD. Seizure of this point opens the possibility for the OGORFV to pivot on multiple axes in central Donetsk, most important of which is an advance NW on the M-03 Highway.
quote:
6/ Zaporizhzhia OD. This OD remains the most vulnerable for the SVRF. The SVRF will continue its efforts to capture Orkhiv & Vuhledar at whatever cost is required. Expect an increased reliance on VMF Naval Infantry, Wagner PMC, and the VDV to achieve objectives.
quote:
7/ Kherson OD. Russian forces will continue an active defense in along the Dnipro River with a focus on retaking Velykyi Potemkin Island while deploying reinforcements into fortified defensive positions along the M-17 and P-47 Highways.
quote:
8/ Ukraine OTMO. Despite an increase in localized naval activity the Black Seas Fleet remains focused on force protection of vessels, facilities, & personnel rather than offensive operations or active patrolling of sea lanes & the northern Black Sea coast / littoral.
quote:
9/ Ukraine SVKO. Russian aerospace forces will priorities targeting Ukrainian critical infrastructure and troop concentrations over the suppression of Ukrainian air defenses. Ukrainian HIMARS & UCAVs will continue targeting Russian supply & command nodes.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:04 pm to Chromdome35
Great maps. Thanks for posting.
In my uniformed opinion, I expect the Ruskies to continue grinding away at the front, yard by yard, body by body. Then once the Ukrainians get enough firepower, they'll making a lightning strike, break through the lines and exploit the defect.
In my uniformed opinion, I expect the Ruskies to continue grinding away at the front, yard by yard, body by body. Then once the Ukrainians get enough firepower, they'll making a lightning strike, break through the lines and exploit the defect.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:20 pm to Chromdome35
Yeah, I was pumped to see Jomini back online. I think he had some personal problems that have kept him away for a while. His maps and analysis are the very best.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 12:26 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia has its hands full fighting just Ukraine. The last thing they want to do is give NATO a reason to join the fray. That would add thousands of kilometers of front to defend, not to mention put the already overstretched Russian Army in a position of having to fight a far better trained and equipped foe on this now vastly larger front.
I’m guess is Russia is staking all its chips on this upcoming February offensive they’ve been building up for. If this offensive fails, what comes next is anyone’s guess.
i agree 100%, the whole redline thing is stupid with putin, he isnt going to do anything to incite NATO, especially the US, so give Ukraine what they need to win.
and i get what Ukraine is doing, still dont like political posturing, but im also of the beleive they shouldnt have to be begging or negotiating for anything. Should be accessing what they need and what they can actually use to win and giving them those things even before they ask.
the whole point of our military is to make sure A) we are not attacked and B) protect economic issues
well both of those things are on the line with this whole war and we are getting to kick russias arse without losing american lives.....give Ukraine what they need,
but yes as others have pointed out, i think ukraine just has to hold on until around may, then they can strike quick and break the lines with the new eequipment.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 2:22 pm to lsu777
quote:
Ukraine's deputy defence minister says that Russian forces are making powerful attempts to break through defences near the town of Lyman - Reuters
LINK
quote:
Kreminna-Siversk
The AFU repulsed attacks in the area of Yampolivka and Spirne.
@Tatarigami_UA
Expected larger scale attacks in the Kreminna area but today there were mostly smaller attacks. It's something to keep an eye on..
Bakhmut
RuAF are still making incremental gains. I'm looking for if RuAF manages to establish positions on the high ground west of the road, north of Bakhmut and if they manage to establish control over the Road between Ivanivske and Chasiv Yar
Vuhledar
Ru forces keep attacking, but are not having much success. There has been no official reports, but it just wanted to highlight that fighting is still going on there.
Additionally to the units in the Vuhledar area, RuAF have gathered 3-5000 troops in the Mariupol area. These are most likely indented to support the offensive in the Vuhledar are.
Serhiy Hayday stated that the RU mobiks training has ended and they are being deployed to the front lines. This goes in line with my own observations.
LINK
Posted on 2/1/23 at 2:41 pm to StormyMcMan
I stumbled across this CBC interview of a Canadian volunteering in Ukraine. He is very well spoken and gives a great glimpse into the mind of someone who joined the Ukrainian foreign legion and is on the front lines. Unsurprisingly, it seems like the fact it gave him a sense of purpose is a primary motivator. I must admit that if this happened at another period in my life, I could easily have ended up there myself.
YouTube
YouTube
Page 2374 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News