4 ms·
> It's because Ukraine has no military infrastructure to speak of, anymore That seems unlikely. We know that the Ukrainians are launching hundreds of HIMARS ro
by dragontamer 4y ago
> It's because Ukraine has no military infrastructure to speak of, anymore
That seems unlikely. We know that the Ukrainians are launching hundreds of HIMARS rockets, drones, M777 artillery strikes, and more. Those weapons are stored _somewhere_, and its intelligence's job to find them.
When an ammo-dump blows up, we know what it looks like. The Russians are incapable of hitting ammo dumps (or unwilling). Either way, it just means that the Ukrainian military will continue to use HIMARS / M777 artillery to push the front line further.
At a minimum, if these attacks were truly "successful", then the HIMARS / M777 attacks would stop. But... they won't. Its blatantly obvious that Ukraine wasn't hiding their HIMARS in an open playground in Kyiv.
---------
So while Russia continues to attack dog-parks and universities, Ukraine continues to attack training centers, command posts, ammo dumps, and supply routes.
The difference is palpable. Its clear who is winning the war.
I'm not sure if there's a real response to these Russian terror attacks unfortunately. But Ukraine seems like they'll inevitably be able to recapture the land at this rate, if the Russians really have such crappy intelligence that they wasted these missiles on such unimportant targets.
- deworms 4y agoI don't think Ukraine acts like it's winning the war. Do winners desperately beg for support from NATO in a war they're winning? Do winners lose 20% of their territory to annexation?
- dragontamer 4y agoYes. USA won the Revolutionary War vs the British in 1776, while desperately asking / begging for aid from France. When the Soviets beat the Nazis on the Eastern front, they were also receiving gross amounts of aid / US Liberty ships to rebuild their stockpiles (from USA / Lend Lease program). The question of winning vs losing can be determined by roughly the strength, and determination, of the armies involved. Indeed, weapon-shipments are an advantage in a war, not a disadvantage. Its pretty silly to suggest otherwise. ---------- The real measure of the strength of the armies can be seen in the front lines. Russia has a complete inability to do anything about HIMARS, and instead sends cruise missiles to Kyiv cause they're too stupid to find the HIMARS. Around 100 cruise missiles, none of them hitting any of the 12 HIMARS that have caused them so much grief over the last 3 months. ------ This annexation of Ukrainian territory will be remembered just as the Reichskommissariat Ukraine was remembered. A temporary setback that ultimately cost the German Army everything. The war doesn't end because some leader somewhere makes a declaration. The war ends when the armies both decide to stop fighting. There's nothing that Russia has done here that encourages the Ukrainian Army to give up.
- jonwithoutanh 4y agoStop simping for putin so hard, it's a bad look bud.
- deworms 4y agoLol, social shaming, does it really work on anyone on the internet? How do you think this is going to age in 6 months?
- dragontamer 4y agoDo you think Russia will find a response to HIMARS in the next six months? I mean, aside from the masses realizing that the only sane response is to get out of Ukraine and go back into Russia. Russia has the capability to end this by simply ending the war. Ukraine on the other hand, has no response but to defend itself from the bully next door. It is obvious that only Ukraine's military is holding Russia back, and the illegal annexation only proves Russia's colonial aims here. We just gotta wait until the Russians realize how pathetic their army is, and that there is no military solutions available to the Russians here. That will take time unfortunately, but that's what we have to wait for.
- deworms 4y agoAs opposed to "legal annexation"? What does it matter what is "legal" in a war?