Russians on the run: Putin's men are seeing fleeing burning tanks and dodging Ukrainian missiles during doomed assault on town 'that saw 300 Kremlin troops killed'

Daily Mail ^ | 11/7/2022 | Rachel Bunyan

[DesertRhino]

Your English is really improving!

[Organic Panic]

I think this ends with massive defections and desertion. There is no way the Russians have any morale left. The Ukrainians can at least say they are defending Ukraine. What can the Russians say when it is 40 below? Without morale, the army will crumble. It’s like 1917. And look how that worked out for the world.

[mac_truck]

Your English is really improving!

😂😂😂

[lump in the melting pot]

Since you like infographics so much, could you helpfully circle which of these apply to you so that we know what we are dealing with?

[Vaden]

Sure you did! 🤣

We TOTALLY believe you know people with this much knowledge in the Dept. of Defense! 🤣

🤣

[vladimir998]

“I’m paid in gratification at annoying morons.”

You get gratification at annoying yourself?

Couldn’t you find a less self-defeating hobby?

[Paul R.]

Most of the weapons are paid for and in inventory. Quite a few types were designed and manufactured primarily for a large war in Europe (as they are not what we would likely need in big numbers in a dustup with China, for example.) So if our weapons are destroying Russian weapons now, the idea is for Russia to be seriously weakened to the point of being unable to rebuild it’s own huge inventories, and then we won’t need those weapons of ours in, say, 2028, whether it be for use or deterrence vs. Russia. A minor point is that it’s probably cheaper to send the weapons to Ukraine than the costs of eventual removal from service or inventory.

Side note: Your info. on the Russian-Finnish conflicts is seriously incomplete. For starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

And go from there...

- - - -

The economic support to Ukraine is another matter and I believe that at most it should come in the form of long term payback loans to the EU or Euro countries we judge should be in a position to repay in 5-10 years: Those Euro countries can then decide in what way to loan or give the money to Ukraine. (Personally, I’d go for mineral rights concessions.)

- - - -

As for why back Ukraine? Like the present global (Western plus some allies like Japan, Korea, etc.) security order or not, without it, our problems are going to be a hell of a lot bigger if it breaks up. For starters, major nuclear proliferation amongst MANY countries is a given if Russia is not beaten back. If you don’t understand that, you just don’t understand how this world works, and doesn’t work. A thorough restudy of history might help.

[Paul R.]

That's a reasonable assessment (hard to find around here.)

Not really directly related, but should be posted "somewhere", I stumbled across this:

Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov campaigned to claim the city of Sevastopol which housed the fleet, and in December 1996 the Russian Federation Council officially endorsed the claim.[6] Spurred by these territorial claims, Ukraine proposed a "special partnership" with NATO in January 1997.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

[Hiddigeigei]

'A thorough restudy of history might help."
Thank you for your comment and Wikipedia references. The Finns fought hard enough to stay an independent country, true even after WWII. Funny, I'm old enough to remember a cartoon in the Washington Post of a cannon labeled Finland firing at a hammer-and-sickle and turning it into a question mark.

[kiryandil]

"doomed assault"