Agreed, he is trying to buy time with the lives of his troops while fortifying his positions, the problem I can see him having is in transport, armour and tanks, while trying to assemble a credible force for the spring.
That is why it is more important to give Ukraine the weapons to destroy the bridges and rail infrastructure now, giving shorter range weaponary fine as it is, but is simply kicking the can down the road at the expense of Ukrainian lives, they need the ability to strike now and take advantage in driving them out from their country before those defences become insurmountable, they then need the ability to hold it against any future agression. I would imagine Ukraine taking Crimea back would be Putins swan song.

The less the ability to transport into Ukraine the less cold weather kit they have..

As he says, just return the favour..

For Ukraine, assuming that Crimea comes after all other territories have been recovered, its recapture would effectively end the current 'hot' phase of the war, and what follows will largely depend on how Russia reacts. As Zelensky noted at the outset, Ukraine will unlikely become a 'normal' state in the foreseeable future, and may well have to adopt an 'Israeli' mentality when it comes to its security.

If and when Ukraine recovers its territories, I would hope and expect that the West extends membership of NATO and the EU to give it the security guarantees we were supposed to give it under the Budapest Memorandum at the end of the Cold War, and also to send Russia the message that Ukraine is lost to them forever.

Your point about the comparison between Afghanistan and Ukraine is valid which means this conflict has aspects of a civil war. But no matter how many victories the Ukrainians manage I don't believe that they will ever have the military strength to drive the Russians back behind their borders. To put it crudely the Ukrainians need to inflict 4 casualities for every 1 of their own.

???
With which troops and which equipment? The 60's gear we saw lately as a replacement for the lost more contemporary stuff will be gone by then. What do you think they will dig aout as a replacement fior that. Heck, they didn't even have enough Kalashnikovs or general Personal Equipment for the Mobiks.

They keep their good material in reserve. By spring they will be busy defending their backs. This is what they will need it for.

Those who summon up the mythical "Blitz Spirit" need to read the actual historical investigations as opposed to propaganda. Irrespective of the country or the conflict the reality is not the propaganda. Here are a few links re the British experience.

"Sixty-thousand people were conscientious objectors; a quarter of London's population fled to the country; Churchill and the royal family were booed while touring the aftermath of air-raids; "

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/3613.../9780712698207
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...el-coronavirus
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryU.../Blitz-Spirit/
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/honorstheses/397/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/britis...%20the%20Nazis.

However in respect of Ukraine the above are not necessarily that relevant, but nevertheless it is wise to know the truth of the past before attempting to understand the present.

Hmmmm. Depends on The quality of the troops and equipment.




he keeps quoting him but who is he?

https://twitter.com/search?q=Maj.(Rtd)Hauser%20&src=typed_query


​​​​​​​..

I’ll wait for a more formal analysis than that from Maj (Retd) Hauser. Who is he?

No. Because Hitler did not pursue the Blitz to any form of conclusion.
RAF Bomber command however did start to break the resolve of the German people by systematically destroying each German city.
They did have to drop 2500 tons a day to do it however.

It did however allow the RAF to recover by taking the attack away from key military targets ;)

We have to consider that while Russia may still have some reserves to send into the fight like aircraft, tanks and men so does the west.
If Russia did stage a winter offensive and start to push the Ukrainians back (I think unlikely but never underestimate your enemy) the West would have no option (and I think America would be the main supplier here) to send better equipment.
Russia risks losing it's reserves very quickly if it finds itself embroiled in a more high tech war than it's seen so far.
Russia will be bringing up more modern equipment it's been holding in reserve. The West is still giving Ukraine it's outdated equipment.
That's an interesting war of attrition when you think about it.

I agree. There are too many examples of using warfare as an ineffective means of "sending a message" and mostly because we fail to grasp the mind of the audience. Strikes against targets in Russia, if there are any, should be to impact Russia's ability to make strikes against Ukraine and to reduce its material capacity to wage war. In spite of Russia's attack on Ukrainian civilians, having little practical military effect, Ukraine should not do the same. As stated by several, Ukraine is smaller than Russia by every measure except morality and grit. Focus limited military resources on Russian military resources to make them all the more limited and keep the world on your side.

I am of the opinion that if Russia attempted and looked like winning a counter offensive, it would inevitably drag NATO into the conflict. The simple reason being that under absolutely no circumstances can we now allow Russia to take Ukraine!

That’s proved it’s worth, I better the crew were bricking it. Minor damage lol. Tyres?

Trip wires left in Kherson attached to grenades

​​​​​​​

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....77e61611f2.png

I beg to differ.

Worst case scenario is NATO is indeed dragged in, and the nukes start flying. In my view unlikely, neither NATO nor Russia wish it, and Ukraine doesn't have much say. Doomsday if it happens.

Second worst case scenario is indeed Russia "takes" Ukraine, with Ukr armed forces defeated, the citizens exposed to appalling revenge and the country a wasteland. In my view possible, and we now have two losers because: .........
................ NATO is strengthened in resolve, and Russia is weakened militarily and morally, the customers for gas and oil having long decided to wean themselves. The very possible weakness of this solution is Western resolve in the face of a harsh winter [or two], shortages of all sorts, and weariness.

The media are bored with the war unless a big spectacular forces its way up the agenda ......... were it not for Forums such as this, most of us would know little of the war and care less. It is not the subject of pub conversation, and the Churches just ask for the occasional prayer for "peace". They and we should be praying for Victory, the victory of good over evil.

There seems tobe a lot of people saying give them more modern equipment, tanks and aircraft.
What those voices forget is that the Ukrainians will need training on this equipment.
It will also need different logistics vehicles and methods, as well as different repair and maintenance facilities.
It would be like building a whole new second army, with new tactics and command and control.
Plus you would have to take large units out of the battle and train them.
All this between December and March.

The Russians want to negotiate, the Ukrainians understandably do not.
Hitting Russian infrastructure although morally correct would be counter productive.

A better start would be giving the Ukes the long range MLRS / Himars and allowing them to close the Kerch Bridge and crater all the runways in Crimea, after all it is Ukrainian territory.
A couple of F16s and a handful of Abrams on the Polish border sends a strong rearmament message without them having to be fully deployed.
Then they can start making noises for negotiations.

Russia’s is bringing up their latest scrap iron.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....fb2345d96.jpeg

You forgot "and I.Q." . "Ukraine is smaller than Russia by every measure except morality and grit, and I.Q."

Ukraine has fought a war that has been aided by the weapons, but they have outthought, and outperformed Russia on every level of management of the war to date. They have applied flexibility and rapid decision making, good communications and initiative, while Russia fights set piece 1812 reenactments, and the longer this goes on, the closer Russia gets to applying 1812 technology, they have proceeded from 1980's through 1940's to 1891... a bit more and they will be looking for sling shots.

How Vlad intends to suppress the states of the federation having shown them that the emperor has no clothes, and is rather uninspiring in what is exposed by that fact, well, I think Vlad is going to be in the books long after his spill from the 6th floor window is carried out for him.

Ukraine has managed to unmask Russia, at considerable cost to itself, and a little bit of help seems to go a long way. parking some F-16s in Poland might be helpful in sending a message, but Ukraine needs range within its own borders, the F-16 doesn't significantly alter the ability to do what they have been doing best, fighting Russia in the field, and exposing the incompetence and impotence of the second most powerful army in Ukraine.

Vlad has managed to lead Russia to the point that they are able to kill a 1 day old child in a hospital, yet their mercenaries, criminals and draftees are being slaughtered in the field by those that they deride. 97% of all long range weapons employed by Russia to date have been used to commit war crimes. Yup, Vlad will definitely make history, but presumably, not the way he intended.

Absolutely agree. Last Sunday our vicar uttered a prayer for peace and laying down of weapons. I had unChristian thoughts about how misguided he was.

Just finished Overreach by Owen Matthews - he is quite pessimistic about any satisfactory possible outcome.

You seem to be making the assumption that such training is not already taking place, and that the support infrastructure is not already being put in place.

With respect I found it difficult to understand your post langleybaston. Are you suggesting that Europe is fed up with the war and will not react to a counter offensive and the re-taking of (maybe all) Ukrainian territory by Russia? Or are you saying that Russia do not have the means to do it?

Out of curiosity, what "more modern equipment" is Russia still holding back? There is nothing more modern in any significant quantity that could be provided to the Russian troops.

As an example,

• the Su 57's are already in theatre but with 16 made really doesn't make much of a difference either as most are reserved for Kaliningrad.
• The T90M's are already proven to be rather easy targets and the latest MS model has already been destroyed in fights as well.
• Surely they have the Armata, but 20 of those doesn't change anything and there is no real evidence of an Armata successfully doing anything other than moving around slowly.
• The hypersonic missiles are already in use in Ukraine.

See also Falklands, GW1 etc. The only way this will end is either a total withdrawal or the removal of Putin.

Theft of humanitarian aid! ;)

Neither. Sorry to be unclear, I do try!

Another victim. Poor thing is probably starving

I'm making the assumption here that Russia was intelligent enough to have reserves. On reflection I'm probably giving them more credit than they deserve.

I also made the assumption the West would supply more modern equipment. They may not be willing in case it falls into Russian hands. We can probably be of more use to Russia than their intel will be to us. That's definitely something to avoid if possible.

They're getting worried

I beg to differ... Ukraine is on UK news every day, BBC, ITV, SKY, CH4 etc.

Agreed, it's literally all over the MSM.

BBC News online as I write .................. very little on the war

Ditto D Tel online

Plenty of football ...................

You seem to be looking in the wrong place - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350

Define "very little", they have a continuously updated "live" page on the Ukraine....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-63785132

Putin using winter as weapon of war in Ukraine - Nato chief

Europe has to prepare for more refugees - Stoltenberg

Russia low on ammunition and failing on the battlefield - Stoltenberg

There appears to be 2 versions of the BBC news, depending on where you are viewing it from.
Outside the UK, coverage of the war and problems in China and Iran are prominent.
the cynic in me may think there is a UK government agenda there, while , if viewed in the UK, local news and sport is more prominent .
I view their website in several countries during my travels and the tailoring of news is quite obvious, however, i am still a fan.

I wouldn't say there's any conspiracy. Outside the UK there is greater emphasis on World news, while inside the UK there is greater emphasis on UK news though the World news is all still there if you want it.

I do try to keep it topical on here as I firmly believe it is the most important event in the last 30 years that has the potential to effect all our lives, the lives of those in the poorer countries and destroy our planet.. It also appears the rest of the world, Iran, Turkey, China, North Korea, the Balkan States etc are using it as and excuse to sabre rattle in the background while a lot of the world attention is on Russia.
The world and its security is teetering on an edge, something a year ago was unthinkable.

The Russian bear needs it's teeth pulling so peace can resume and famines in Africa can be averted.

Which is exactly what you'd expect to see. The presentation is tailored to the expected recipients, but nothing is hidden.