Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Well, IMO not using NATO airpower to deliver a quick and decisive defeat to Russia in Ukraine was a mistake. A quick shock would have been less risky than the slow descent into madness that we're witnessing.
And now that Russia has fully committed to the war, NATO airstrikes would feel very different to Russia, while increased Russian engagement also means that the risk of something forcing NATO to step in also goes up.
So each day we're more and more dependent on an internal Russian uprising to save us all, which doesn't look like it's ever going to happen. Not unless Russian children start to starve at least, or just a total Russian economic collapse, which also doesn't seem to be happening. Just in general I feel like the West isn't pushing hard enough towards any goal that would actually end the war.
Now, MAYBE Ukraine can deliver a decisive battlefield victory, but those are rare, and possibly impossible without crossing the Russian border.
|
The advantage of the geography of southern Ukraine is that it does offer the opportunity for a decisive win, my guess is Ukraine slowly clears out the northern Donbass area that Russia captured in the spring and the North bank of the Dniper and Kherson over the next 3 or 4 weeks, they are moving that quickly, then we will see a lull, at some point though the Ukraine Army will force a wide corridor through Maripol to the sea, cutting off the Crimea and forcing the Russians to withdraw from almost everything they have captured, the terrain is perfect for a decisive blow