Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why has Russia chosen to direct so many destructive air attacks at Mariupol and not Kyiv? If they have the ability and complete disregard for civilian casualties, why not focus a barrage of bombs down on Kyiv if they want to take it so badly?
 
norm said:
Why has Russia chosen to direct so many destructive air attacks at Mariupol and not Kyiv? If they have the ability and complete disregard for civilian casualties, why not focus a barrage of bombs down on Kyiv if they want to take it so badly?
Click to expand...

Kyiv still has a lot of air defence, it's much harder to bomb it to the ground when the bombers can't get close to it, likewise with moving artillery close enough they will get counter struck.
 
Hook said:

They need to regroup with the reserves before attacking again, with Belarus joining the war?
Click to expand...
Lying ********. They realise they have an ice cubes chance in hell of taking Kyiv and they can't even hold onto the territory they have taken and want to retreat without losing face before their army loses all it's discipline and fall back in chaos.
 
I am currious what "security guarantees" will look like. It crtainly cannot be Russia just promising not to invade again.

Maybe anex a large swath of Russia's territory to use as a DMZ between Russia and Ukraine.

I know it's unlikely Russia would accept that, but I would use it (or something similar) as a starting point for negotiations.
 
arknor said:
why would Ukraine be allowed to join the EU if the EU wants it's own army
Click to expand...

It doesn't make much sense because the EU has similar guarantees to NATO's article 5 which makes you think it's all a lie from Russia and they just want some time to regroup and rearm and probably actually plan an attack for phase 2
 
Twinz said:
I am currious what "security guarantees" will look like. It crtainly cannot be Russia just promising not to invade again.

Maybe anex a large swath of Russia's territory to use as a DMZ between Russia and Ukraine.

I know it's unlikely Russia would accept that, but I would use it (or something similar) as a starting point for negotiations.
Click to expand...

For me a security guarantee would include a treaty signed by Russia promising no future aggression but also strong regional powers agreeing to military defend Ukraine should Russia commit further aggression.

I think if Russia backs off to the 24th Feb borders, keeps Crimea for now, and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO then that could be a good start.

Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO. Once all this is over Ukraine will likely be very pally with the west and able to by current generation western military hardware. That and keeping a large active military should be enough to deter Russia from trying again.
 
If there is an agreement with other countries to militarily defend Ukraine, then "not joining NATO" becomes a difference without distinction. (Depending on which contries sign on)

This would be a win for Ukraine in my view. Hopefully Putin will see it as a good-enough face-saving maneuver to go allong with it.
 
norm said:
Why has Russia chosen to direct so many destructive air attacks at Mariupol and not Kyiv? If they have the ability and complete disregard for civilian casualties, why not focus a barrage of bombs down on Kyiv if they want to take it so badly?
Click to expand...
Because their airforce will be shot down if they tried to fly over Kyiv. They can only fire stand off guided rockets from inside Russia more or less. They wouldn’t have enough for what you’re suggesting.
Mariupol doesn’t have that air cover. Besides it’s the artillery doing most of the damage there.
 
bingham67 said:
Sounds like a dirty trick is at play here by Russia.
Click to expand...

Not so much a dirty trick as a tail between their legs withdrawal. They ares struggling to even defend their positions in this area of country. This is effectively an out but also will likely see these troops move east to action areas there.
 
Their forces seem to have been thinned-out and their supply lines vulnerable. Concentrating on taking/holding less territory, could mitigate both of these problems for Russia.

It still seems like the underlying problem is just a general lack of force rediness. These changes may just serve as a temporary bandaid.
 
you can't trust russians at this stage. They'll be back for more, they're simply asking for time to re-group and replan. I'd be very surprised if they walk away.
 
englishpremier said:
For me a security guarantee would include a treaty signed by Russia promising no future aggression but also strong regional powers agreeing to military defend Ukraine should Russia commit further aggression.

I think if Russia backs off to the 24th Feb borders, keeps Crimea for now, and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO then that could be a good start.

Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO. Once all this is over Ukraine will likely be very pally with the west and able to by current generation western military hardware. That and keeping a large active military should be enough to deter Russia from trying again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a default clause - Ukraine will remain neutral except if Russia invades Ukraine or expands control (geographically or politically) then Ukraine defaults to NATO membership.

That way if Russia doesn't invade it gets what it wants. If they do invade then Ukraine is NATO and Putin gets the mother load.
 
NickK said:
Perhaps a default clause - Ukraine will remain neutral except if Russia invades Ukraine or expands control (geographically or politically) then Ukraine defaults to NATO membership.

That way if Russia doesn't invade it gets what it wants. If they do invade then Ukraine is NATO and Putin gets the mother load.
Click to expand...

They cannot "default" into membership of anything. EU or NATO have to actually believe they are a good partner and Russia attacking is a large negative. The entire idea is to allow in and support stable countries not to actually have a war. The door is not wide open for them to fall into.
 
norm said:
Why has Russia chosen to direct so many destructive air attacks at Mariupol and not Kyiv? If they have the ability and complete disregard for civilian casualties, why not focus a barrage of bombs down on Kyiv if they want to take it so badly?
Click to expand...

Russia has to take Mariupol as it is a strategic target. When they control the Azov shore, it gives them options.

The Azov shore has probably been the number one target from the start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom