[whyilovetexas111]

Bottom line: Russia is winning. One drone strike that took 18 months to plan is not a victory. Yes, bad damage was done, but it won't change the facts on ground.

[MinorityRepublican]

Bottom line: Russia is winning.

Capturing 20% of Ukraine while having their navy and air force destroyed.

No one expected Ukraine to hold off the Russians.

If you call this winning...

[Jan_Sobieski]

Great article!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes, Russia was always going to win. If there is no peace agreement because the EU entices Zelensky to keep fighting then they will duke it out to a predictable end.

[Petrosius]

Russia is advancing at a snail’s pace while paying an unsustainable price. Ukraine has been resisting Russia for 3 1/2 years and there are no signs that it is about to buckle. This is not winning.

[butlerweave]

A few more would put a dent in it

[AndyJackson]

The damage, in terms of bombers attrited was somewhere between the annoying and the disturbing. It fell far short of the advertised goals, thankfully because we could be looking at radioactive smoking craters if it had been as successful as originally claimed.

In the videos we keep seeing the words "fail safe." Now I don't pretend to know the video editors' intent, but I hope everyone reviews the outcome of the movie "failsafe." To atone for an inability to recall a nuclear strike against Moscow, the US President nuked NY city appealing to the example of the Sacrifice of Abraham.

[Flag_This]

There’s a name for Russia’s victory. It’s called “Pyrrhic.”

[MrRelevant]

It wont even slow them down.

[blitz128]

Sure they are, a strike deep inside your territory looks like winning 21-30% interest rates(if you can get one and afford it), 11-20% inflation…

Winning

[Carl Vehse]

"Ukraine’s Drone Attack on Russia’s Bomber Fleet Won’t Win the War"

But it may move us to DEFCON 2.

[nathanbedford]

One can breeze through this opinion piece and easily turn every sweeping assertion against the author's position:

It looked, for a moment, like a bold stroke

It was a bold stroke. It occurred north of the Arctic Circle, deep in Siberia, thousands of kilometers away from Ukraine and in the suburbs of Moscow.

strategically meaningless

It destroyed one-third of Russia's nuclear bomber capacity

They aren’t frontline assets.

The point is Russia does not have the capacity to replace the lost planes.

They aren’t shaping the tempo or direction of Russia’s offensive.

They are used to bomb Ukraine by launching missiles from standoff bombers. They clearly have been used on more than a limited basis.

Analysts who should know better gushed about Kyiv’s “strategic reach.”

Of course they did, the strikes penetrated thousands of kilometers into Russia, as far as Siberia, north of the Arctic Circle, and in Moscow's suburbs.

But turning points don’t come from symbolism. They come from control – of ground, of resources, of tempo. And on that front,

Really? Tell that to the Vietnamese after the Tet Offensive of 1968, in which they were defeated, held no territory, yet that offensive proved one of the most decisive turning points of the war.

Russia continues to gain the upper hand.

At a price in blood and treasure that might very well be unsustainable.

What makes this even clearer is the absence of any meaningful Russian reaction. If these bombers were critical assets – if this were a serious blow – Moscow would have responded with force and fury.

Rubbish. Precisely the opposite is likely the case.

This war was never about speed.

This is true but not by Russian design, or perhaps we forget their blitzkrieg initial assault that left columns stranded and Russia humiliated.

it plays into the illusion that these kinds of attacks can change the course of the war.

Putin has gone silent, perhaps because the course of the war is even now being changed by intrigue in the Kremlin. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that these kinds of attacks, like the mutiny of the Wagner forces, renders Putin's internal position more untenable.

I think enough has been demonstrated to show the vacuousness of this article.

[Salman]

There is a question of war aims.

Putin's aim is to win. Which means gaining some specifically defined territory, maybe
plus some more depending on where the lines are when Ukraine surrenders.

The aim of Zelenskyy's masters is to keep the profitable war going as long as possible.

We saw this before in Afghanistan and maybe Vietnam.

Also see my tagline.

[dforest]

Our new President is speaking out an e is advocating even larger war.

https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1929822509991350326

[Robert DeLong]

Yes, bad damage was done, but it won't change the facts on ground.

That point was driven home with Russia's advance in the region of Sumy.

For its part, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed Tuesday that its forces had captured the village of Andriivka as they broadened the front, according to the official TASS news agency.

If fighting is what you want, Russia is willing to accommodate that desire. Ukraine apparently believes that this gives them greater bargaining power. The Russian message to Ukraine is, no, you only continue to lose more with the continuation.

Sadly, those who support Ukraine in this conflict fail to see the reality, which is why they wildly celebrated this minor success, that was countered immediately by Russia to take control of even more of Ukraine's landmass.

Furthermore, it only escalates the possibility of igniting WWIII, which will be vastly different than WWI & WWII with the number of nations that are capable of having it go nuclear.

[Coronal]

I doubt that anyone thinks that it will. But it’s a hard slap in the face, I would compare its psychological impact to that of the Doolittle Raid.

[Thud]

Well, duh! Wars aren’t won by single attacks. The Ukraine war in particular is a war of attrition.

[Biblebelter]

BREAKING NEWS Leavitt CONFIRMS Trump was NOT informed of drone strike on Russian bombers.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Geez, did ya’ll swallow moron pills?

Nobody claimed the attack was going to ‘win the war’.