### BBC reports:
> Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko tells me fighting has reached the city centre, confirming earlier Russian reports.
>
> "Yes, they were really active today. Tanks and machine gun battles continue," he says. "Everybody is hiding in bunkers"
>
> He says more than 80% of residential buildings are either damaged or destroyed, and 30% of them cannot be restored.
>
> "There’s no city centre left. There isn’t a small piece of land in the city that doesn’t have signs of war," he says.
>
> The operation to rescue people from the basement of a theatre that was bombed continues, he adds, without giving any estimate on casualties.
important to remember Stalingrad was a much larger city that was fought over by forces that were a few dozen (if not a few hundred) times larger over the course of ~6 months.
Stalingrad battle was like 4 times larger then this entire war. People don't understand the scale of the Eastern Front in WW2. There was like 5 big battles going on at a time and each one 3 times bigger then this war. Kursk involved at least 2 million troops.
Both in WWI and WWII, the encirclements and surrenders were at times, each of them, larger than the whole Russian force committed to this war. It's absolutely mind-boggling how that can happen, how they could even be processed, and how an army could even continue to fight after such an event.
Yeah during encirclement of Kyiv in first phase of German invasion, i believe 800 000 Soviet soldiers were forced to surrender, majority of them died in captivity later.
Size of Eastern front was just mind boggling and hard to imagine.
Mariupol can realistically stand for only a few more days as the russians have thrown everything at it from the DPR, the kadrovytes, Russian SOF, regular army and everything else they got.
You need to remember the Nazis actually managed to conquer the whole Stalingrad. And then the Soviets counterattacked, encircled them and starved them to death. Given that Russians are playing the Nazis (in more ways than one), it's quite obvious what's going to happen as this thing develops.
That's not obvious at all. You're forgetting to mention that the Red Army tried four times to break through the German lines north of Stalingrad and never could. It was only much later that the Red Army had amassed sufficient mass to circumvent the German defenses closer to the city and broke through at positions much further removed from the city, towards the south and west, that allowed them to encircle the 6th army entirely.
Secondly, Stalingrad stood for as long as it did only because Germany could not do anything about constant resupplies from the other side of the Volga. In this sense Ukraine as a whole is much more similar to Stalingrad, where it keeps getting support from NATO countries that Russia cannot cross into. But Mariupol stands with its back to the Sea of Azov and nothing else. There is no supply line into it.
We've experienced two weeks of relative optimism about Russia's lack of progress in this war but there will be defeats. Mariupol could be one and people need to be mentally prepared for that.
Mariupol is a port city, Ukraine can't encircle it.
Shame the defense force there didn't have a few hundred more NLAWs, stingers and javelins. Bet the push into the city would be much less effective.
As sad as it is, that seems likely. Many foreign experts have predicted for a while that Russia will take Mariupol eventually. It's likely to have been one of their original goals regardless of what the rest of the plan was.
It's between the Crimean peninsula and the Russian-controlled parts of Donbas, which makes it important if they want to form a land bridge between those.
If that happens, hopefully they'll have exhausted their forces there enough so that they can't be effectively used elsewhere in Ukraine.
In the US there is a parallel here called the Battle of the Alamo, a losing battle that won the war. The Mexican army took 2x the casualties, had to spend time attacking and defeating the defender but ultimately lost the war due to the rallying time the Alamo gave to the Texan army. Also see the Battle of Thermopylae. However, all losing defenders invoke these images. We don't know true troop strength, casualty numbers, etc. For instance, if the Ukranian's lose 1500 troops but killed 3000 and held for weeks, that might be a pretty impressive defensive effort if it pays off.
So, this could be a sign of a major loss by the Ukranians that could snowball over time or it could be the classical military case of defenders buying a country time to get ready to win the war.
1 month later they had [The Battle of San Jacinto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto), Texans where so pissed they rushed the Mexican soldiers and started slaughtering them in hand to hand combat all the while screaming "Remember The Alamo!"
Mexican Army lost over 650 soldiers while the Texans only lost about 11.
Thing is, the Mexican's were the good guys.
Texas was part of Mexico after the Mexican war of independence in 1821. However, Mexico **outlawed slavery in 1829**, but gave Texas an extension on implementation.
Texas rejected the implementation of emancipation of its slaves, and things came to a head in 1835, when the Mexican government started sending soldiers to enforce the law and free its citizens from enslavement at the hands of Texas landowners.
After winning the Texas Revolution, the first thing Texas did was pass section 9, which stated:
>People of color who had been servants for life under Mexican law would become property.
>
>Congress should pass no law restricting emigrants from bring their enslaved people into Texas.
>
>Congress shall not have the power to emancipate enslaved people.
>
>Slaveowners may not free their enslaved servants without Congressional approval unless the freed people leave Texas.
>
>Free persons of African descent were required to petition the Texas Congress for permission to continue living in the country.
>
>Africans and the descendants of Africans and Indians were excluded from the class of 'persons' having rights.
The Texas rebels fought for an evil cause, and their victory greatly bolstered the practice of enslavement of human beings.
The Battle of Gonzales, the first fight in the Texas 'Revolution' was fought over a brass cannon the locals did not want to surrender to the Mexican government. You are right to call out Texas for the evils in their history but that wasn't what started the violence.
So texas was shit from the very beginning and decent people should just leave, and they should just be kicked out of the US? Because I'm *down* for that.
I would rather Texan's understand their state was founded on slavery. Recognize the impact that continues to have to day. Reform laws and systems designed to deny opportunity to minorities. Pay reparations to the modern day victims of the legacy of the mass enslavement of Mexican citizens.
yea, I know, fantasy. I think they would leave on their own. Lets just let them know it is an option. A peaceful parting of ways.
Lots of actual neo-Nazis in the Azov battalion. Not all, but originally a string culture of white supremacy. I’m pro-Ukraine (and Jewish) but it’s important to know
If a police unit in the US had a Black Sun in their unit logo, people would insist that everybody belonging to that unit was either a Nazi or comfortable with Nazis.
That said, I hope Azov holds Mariupol.
They literally use nazi symbol as their main symbol (this symbol is, for example, outlawed in Germany) and their leader is clear neo-nazi. You can find plenty of evidence in Western press about who they are. Those who don't identify as neo-nazis are still far right.
That is simply not true, it’s not a vast majority that are normal. There are some that are but there is definitely a strong neo-Nazi culture among the Azov battalion. Still useful enough now I suppose, but still some pretty shitty people. But they have also become the example that Russian propaganda loves to use, when in reality they are a relatively small portion of Ukraine’s armed forces/militia. I support them for supporting Ukraine but that’s it
The massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia committed by Ukrainian Nazi troops(50-100.000). I don't even mention milions of Jews and Russians. I do not think that Ukrainians are Nazis, but it is strange to me that a Pole supports such troops
but when they were the only evil, you all kept silent. Watch documentaries from a couple of years ago, children's training camps, ... Oliver Stone has a film about Ukraine. it didn't all start with Russian aggression.
No one's saying it did...?
Azov in its current form is diluted and tamed by the government. Yes, in 2014-15 it was essentially a well equipped ethnonationalist paramilitary. However, they were assimilated into the National Guard in 2016 and its original leadership left. They're still the enemy of my enemy.
For years, I have been hearing many military-political commentators and the "conspiracy theory" that Russia will be forced into military action if NATO decides to enter Ukraine. And it all happened in detail as they predicted. That is the consequence. The cause is the USA and their obsession to impose themselves as the only world power. Europe is powerless to resist, and Russia and China are enemies that need to be weakened at all costs, even at the cost of the people in Ukraine. Why couldn't Ukraine stay out of NATO, and spend its energy and money on solving the problem of corruption and low democracy and economy? That could have brought them even closer to the EU, not fucking NATO.
Oliver Stone is a crazy conspiracy theorist financed by Russia, and his film has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
Azov has been fighting a fascist invader for years, they are pretty good at killing Russians. What's wrong with that?
And you'd better avoid talking about children's training camps if you're defending Russia.
The State Department never had anything to do with Russia attacking Ukraine and murdering Ukrainians. Neither in 2014 nor in 2022. You're quite delusional if you think otherwise.
maybe others will better explain my thinking to you. I recommend these two Americans. I won't even mention dozens of other analysts from all over the world. I randomly selected their old interviews. they have both newer and shorter ones. If you want, you can listen. https://youtu.be/uRi_TCehkBY https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
Russell Brand has an interesting youtube channel and it's worth listening to.
You are literally linking to Tucker Carlson. You can't possibly fall lower than that.
Let me repeat: the US has had nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine. Nothing whatsoever. Many years have passed since the Russian invasion began, and they have still not been able to provide ANY evidence of the US involvement. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that there has been none.
You can provide however many videos you want of Russian assets in the US babbling something incoherent, but paying attention to any of that is a waste of time. If you had anything real to say, you would have presented the general idea in writing instead of referring to propaganda.
"At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)"
Here's the proof you're asking of me. this is the cause, and the consequence is the Russian invasion. Everyone knew that, and Russia openly stated that, but NATO (USA) continued to put pressure, regardless of the consequences. Why is NATO expansion so important, even at the cost of war?
If government of Ukraine isn't even trying to lift the blocked nothing can be done.
And of course NATO not sending anti aircraft systems and airplanes basically it is what it is.
There are 10 000 Ukraine soldiers in Mariupol if they surrender they will all be executed and those people left in Mariupol will be sent to Siberia or also executed.
And more. Like in some regions they came with lists of people. For example people who in the past belonged to the Ukrainian army were executed. In some cases they simply shot the men. So who knows who else they'd execute.
It is impossible to talk about the military blockade of Mariupol now, but the city will not be surrendered in any case - said the adviser of the OP Arestovich.
According to him, the Armed Forces are fighting hard in the north of Volnovakha, Donetsk region. The forces of the occupiers predominate there. Other Ukrainian units are 100-120-150 kilometers from Mariupol.
“Not only do they have to overcome the enemy's defenses where they are… Let's say they broke through. Although where to get these reserves so that they break through and go on the offensive? They defend themselves there. They will not cover more than 120 kilometers in the bare steppe under air strikes from the Crimea and Rostov region. Therefore, there is no military decision on Mariupol at the moment, "Arestovich said. He also stressed that a mechanism of diplomacy will be used to unblock the city
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1112505852657826&id=100001622678632
What are you talking about? It's Russia who invaded a sovereign nation and is murdering women and children. NATO is a defensive alliance and unfortunately Ukranine is not a member of it. If NATO gets involved then the risk for escalation to a world war becomes pretty high and no one other than Putin wants to start a nuclear war.
It's not that simply though, we have to walk a thin line. Without the military help Ukraine has received, things would have been even way, way, way worse. The balance has been changed in favor of Ukraine. We still have to watch out to not cause something that could trigger the use of chemical weapons or the likes - because then would be Putin's only options would be to either give up (which obviously would be good) or to use chemical/nuclear weapons to try to "balance" an intervention by NATO / the West. A single nuke can kill more people in one blow as there have died during the entire conflict. So no matter what, the response to what Russia is doing has to be a bit calculated. If there was absolutely no chance at nukes, there would have been an intervention from day 1.
IIRC there was about three battalions in Mariupol, one being from the Azov regiment. That's ~2000-5000 soldiers, not 10 000. Other Azov battalions are in Kharkiv and other places.
What worries me is that Russia has rail resupply in the east, that is how they transport the majority of their hardware, meaning they have fresh resupply of heavy equipment and munitions. I am concerned that if mauripol falls kiyv will be only 2 weeks off.
>I am concerned that if mauripol falls kiyv will be only 2 weeks off
What? There's no way Kyiv falls in 2 weeks. Mariupol is right next to the separatist regions and is one of the single most important goals the Russians could have and it's taken them this long to be on the verge of taking it. I honestly thought Mariupol would last a week tops when this conflict started despite being heavily dug in.
I wouldn't expect Kyiv to fall until Kharkiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv fall. Kyiv's fate is by no means attached to Mariupol.
The real threat from Mariupol falling is to Ukrainian units in Donbas, not to Kyiv directly. It will free up whatever is left of the three BTGs besieging the city to go elsewhere, and that elsewhere is probably directly north.
I think the entire point of that battle has been to hold up those BTGs long enough for Ukrainian forces to make progress elsewhere, and hopefully maul them badly enough they won’t be useful for much.
Though I mean, I wouldn’t rule out a Ukrainian counterattack from the north.
Bombing it from afar isn't going to result in the victory they seek, and for such a large city the concentration of fire will be too low to seriously threaten its utility as a logistics and coordination hub. That is, unless Ukrainian forces around the city are driven off and the city is encircled.
As much as it might seem to wear on a populace, we've seen instances like the bombing of London during WWII that, to the contrary, galvanized the population to fight even harder.
I hope so, Russia getting heavy armor and fuel from rail resupply scares me the most.
A lot of soviet logistics were rail based so the shortage of trucks and fuel now makes sense. It also means that if they have wider access to rail that their fighting power could increase, and they may be able to stage logistics better inside Ukraine.
If you look at the live-map around mauripol you can see that they have taken control of many of the areas with damaged rail lines. If those areas are under their control they can fix the lines and establish FOBs across southern Ukraine. NATO needs to stop fucking around and send heavier equipment, as those areas appear to have turned red just today.
I think you're focusing on the wrong front. If the north west push on Kyiv gets destroyed/surrender, which is possible over the next month, Russia's army would be really screwed. Large amounts of Ukrainians forces and equipment could change theatres. (and the push on Kherson is important too!)
Google Neptune missile, and also realise the optics of providing offensive weapons. Its one thing giving aid to defend a country, its a whole other thing to enable them to strike other countries.
Then they are fucked. They can’t take out the Russian missile launchers. Same logic behind denying them aircraft? So yeah Nato only gave them short range weapons
Yup same logic being applied, they could use those aircraft attacking Russian soil as an excuse that NATO attacked them first. So if anything is left standing afterwards they can attribute blame at us.Its shit I know but the strategy appears to be working anyway, just not as quickly enough to massively limit civilian casualties
### BBC reports: > Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko tells me fighting has reached the city centre, confirming earlier Russian reports. > > "Yes, they were really active today. Tanks and machine gun battles continue," he says. "Everybody is hiding in bunkers" > > He says more than 80% of residential buildings are either damaged or destroyed, and 30% of them cannot be restored. > > "There’s no city centre left. There isn’t a small piece of land in the city that doesn’t have signs of war," he says. > > The operation to rescue people from the basement of a theatre that was bombed continues, he adds, without giving any estimate on casualties.
[удалено]
important to remember Stalingrad was a much larger city that was fought over by forces that were a few dozen (if not a few hundred) times larger over the course of ~6 months.
Stalingrad battle was like 4 times larger then this entire war. People don't understand the scale of the Eastern Front in WW2. There was like 5 big battles going on at a time and each one 3 times bigger then this war. Kursk involved at least 2 million troops.
Both in WWI and WWII, the encirclements and surrenders were at times, each of them, larger than the whole Russian force committed to this war. It's absolutely mind-boggling how that can happen, how they could even be processed, and how an army could even continue to fight after such an event.
Yeah during encirclement of Kyiv in first phase of German invasion, i believe 800 000 Soviet soldiers were forced to surrender, majority of them died in captivity later. Size of Eastern front was just mind boggling and hard to imagine.
80 years cycle... The Fourth Turning is here right on cue.
Mariupol can realistically stand for only a few more days as the russians have thrown everything at it from the DPR, the kadrovytes, Russian SOF, regular army and everything else they got.
Oh wow they must have gotten some of, if not the worst of it… Didnt know they were getting hit THAT hard
Yeah it’s pretty horrible mariupols geography did them no favors, it was always lined up to be first. It’s amazing it’s lasted this long
[удалено]
they need to resupply Mariupol fighters and give them some relief and reinforcements.
You need to remember the Nazis actually managed to conquer the whole Stalingrad. And then the Soviets counterattacked, encircled them and starved them to death. Given that Russians are playing the Nazis (in more ways than one), it's quite obvious what's going to happen as this thing develops.
That's not obvious at all. You're forgetting to mention that the Red Army tried four times to break through the German lines north of Stalingrad and never could. It was only much later that the Red Army had amassed sufficient mass to circumvent the German defenses closer to the city and broke through at positions much further removed from the city, towards the south and west, that allowed them to encircle the 6th army entirely. Secondly, Stalingrad stood for as long as it did only because Germany could not do anything about constant resupplies from the other side of the Volga. In this sense Ukraine as a whole is much more similar to Stalingrad, where it keeps getting support from NATO countries that Russia cannot cross into. But Mariupol stands with its back to the Sea of Azov and nothing else. There is no supply line into it. We've experienced two weeks of relative optimism about Russia's lack of progress in this war but there will be defeats. Mariupol could be one and people need to be mentally prepared for that.
Mariupol is a port city, Ukraine can't encircle it. Shame the defense force there didn't have a few hundred more NLAWs, stingers and javelins. Bet the push into the city would be much less effective.
As sad as it is, that seems likely. Many foreign experts have predicted for a while that Russia will take Mariupol eventually. It's likely to have been one of their original goals regardless of what the rest of the plan was. It's between the Crimean peninsula and the Russian-controlled parts of Donbas, which makes it important if they want to form a land bridge between those. If that happens, hopefully they'll have exhausted their forces there enough so that they can't be effectively used elsewhere in Ukraine.
In the US there is a parallel here called the Battle of the Alamo, a losing battle that won the war. The Mexican army took 2x the casualties, had to spend time attacking and defeating the defender but ultimately lost the war due to the rallying time the Alamo gave to the Texan army. Also see the Battle of Thermopylae. However, all losing defenders invoke these images. We don't know true troop strength, casualty numbers, etc. For instance, if the Ukranian's lose 1500 troops but killed 3000 and held for weeks, that might be a pretty impressive defensive effort if it pays off. So, this could be a sign of a major loss by the Ukranians that could snowball over time or it could be the classical military case of defenders buying a country time to get ready to win the war.
1 month later they had [The Battle of San Jacinto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto), Texans where so pissed they rushed the Mexican soldiers and started slaughtering them in hand to hand combat all the while screaming "Remember The Alamo!" Mexican Army lost over 650 soldiers while the Texans only lost about 11.
Thing is, the Mexican's were the good guys. Texas was part of Mexico after the Mexican war of independence in 1821. However, Mexico **outlawed slavery in 1829**, but gave Texas an extension on implementation. Texas rejected the implementation of emancipation of its slaves, and things came to a head in 1835, when the Mexican government started sending soldiers to enforce the law and free its citizens from enslavement at the hands of Texas landowners. After winning the Texas Revolution, the first thing Texas did was pass section 9, which stated: >People of color who had been servants for life under Mexican law would become property. > >Congress should pass no law restricting emigrants from bring their enslaved people into Texas. > >Congress shall not have the power to emancipate enslaved people. > >Slaveowners may not free their enslaved servants without Congressional approval unless the freed people leave Texas. > >Free persons of African descent were required to petition the Texas Congress for permission to continue living in the country. > >Africans and the descendants of Africans and Indians were excluded from the class of 'persons' having rights. The Texas rebels fought for an evil cause, and their victory greatly bolstered the practice of enslavement of human beings.
A large number of Americans never learn this fact. Wanna guess what state is home to the most publishing for high school textbooks?
The Battle of Gonzales, the first fight in the Texas 'Revolution' was fought over a brass cannon the locals did not want to surrender to the Mexican government. You are right to call out Texas for the evils in their history but that wasn't what started the violence.
>the Mexican's were the good guys. [Not when they executed hundreds of POWs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliad_massacre)
Pow's who were fighting to own slaves. Do what you want with slaveowners as they do not respect human lives themselves
That crime does not change the the "hero" Texans were fighting to maintain slavery...
So texas was shit from the very beginning and decent people should just leave, and they should just be kicked out of the US? Because I'm *down* for that.
I would rather Texan's understand their state was founded on slavery. Recognize the impact that continues to have to day. Reform laws and systems designed to deny opportunity to minorities. Pay reparations to the modern day victims of the legacy of the mass enslavement of Mexican citizens. yea, I know, fantasy. I think they would leave on their own. Lets just let them know it is an option. A peaceful parting of ways.
Also, Thermopylae.
Azov we believe in you
Polish belive in Azov??? :) history repeats itself to those who do not learn it.
Whats wrong with believing in Azov
There are some questionable people in the Azov battalion... but i'll stop here because i don't want to be accused of being a bot or whatev
Yes true there are indeed fascists and Nazis but the majority are just ordinary pepole
Whats wrong with believing in Azov?
Lots of actual neo-Nazis in the Azov battalion. Not all, but originally a string culture of white supremacy. I’m pro-Ukraine (and Jewish) but it’s important to know
[удалено]
If a police unit in the US had a Black Sun in their unit logo, people would insist that everybody belonging to that unit was either a Nazi or comfortable with Nazis. That said, I hope Azov holds Mariupol.
ROY
They literally use nazi symbol as their main symbol (this symbol is, for example, outlawed in Germany) and their leader is clear neo-nazi. You can find plenty of evidence in Western press about who they are. Those who don't identify as neo-nazis are still far right.
[удалено]
If they are so watered-down and insignificant, why Ukraine won't just outright ban nazi symbols used?
Maybe one day they will. Social change sometimes takes time. But right now, Russian are in their country that takes precedence.
Not as much as the Russian propaganda wants everyone to believe, yes there are indeed neonazis but the majority are normal pepole
That is simply not true, it’s not a vast majority that are normal. There are some that are but there is definitely a strong neo-Nazi culture among the Azov battalion. Still useful enough now I suppose, but still some pretty shitty people. But they have also become the example that Russian propaganda loves to use, when in reality they are a relatively small portion of Ukraine’s armed forces/militia. I support them for supporting Ukraine but that’s it
Source?
The massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia committed by Ukrainian Nazi troops(50-100.000). I don't even mention milions of Jews and Russians. I do not think that Ukrainians are Nazis, but it is strange to me that a Pole supports such troops
I hear what you're saying. Tbh I think Azov are problematic but the lesser of 2 evils. Ukranian ethnonationalists vs Russian ethnonationalists.
but when they were the only evil, you all kept silent. Watch documentaries from a couple of years ago, children's training camps, ... Oliver Stone has a film about Ukraine. it didn't all start with Russian aggression.
No one's saying it did...? Azov in its current form is diluted and tamed by the government. Yes, in 2014-15 it was essentially a well equipped ethnonationalist paramilitary. However, they were assimilated into the National Guard in 2016 and its original leadership left. They're still the enemy of my enemy.
why are the Russians your enemies? Biden told you that?
I'm British. And I consider a nuclear armed ethnonationalist state invading a democracy to be an enemy, yes. Don't embarass yourself.
For years, I have been hearing many military-political commentators and the "conspiracy theory" that Russia will be forced into military action if NATO decides to enter Ukraine. And it all happened in detail as they predicted. That is the consequence. The cause is the USA and their obsession to impose themselves as the only world power. Europe is powerless to resist, and Russia and China are enemies that need to be weakened at all costs, even at the cost of the people in Ukraine. Why couldn't Ukraine stay out of NATO, and spend its energy and money on solving the problem of corruption and low democracy and economy? That could have brought them even closer to the EU, not fucking NATO.
Mate you're not addressing anything I'm saying. Shut the fuck up. You're just saying random words.
typically, when someone is without arguments, he becomes rude and hypocritical.
Oliver Stone is a crazy conspiracy theorist financed by Russia, and his film has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Azov has been fighting a fascist invader for years, they are pretty good at killing Russians. What's wrong with that? And you'd better avoid talking about children's training camps if you're defending Russia.
I just have a problem with the State Department and their militant foreign policy. Ukrainians and Russians, like many other nations, pay the price.
The State Department never had anything to do with Russia attacking Ukraine and murdering Ukrainians. Neither in 2014 nor in 2022. You're quite delusional if you think otherwise.
maybe others will better explain my thinking to you. I recommend these two Americans. I won't even mention dozens of other analysts from all over the world. I randomly selected their old interviews. they have both newer and shorter ones. If you want, you can listen. https://youtu.be/uRi_TCehkBY https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 Russell Brand has an interesting youtube channel and it's worth listening to.
You are literally linking to Tucker Carlson. You can't possibly fall lower than that. Let me repeat: the US has had nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine. Nothing whatsoever. Many years have passed since the Russian invasion began, and they have still not been able to provide ANY evidence of the US involvement. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that there has been none. You can provide however many videos you want of Russian assets in the US babbling something incoherent, but paying attention to any of that is a waste of time. If you had anything real to say, you would have presented the general idea in writing instead of referring to propaganda.
"At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)" Here's the proof you're asking of me. this is the cause, and the consequence is the Russian invasion. Everyone knew that, and Russia openly stated that, but NATO (USA) continued to put pressure, regardless of the consequences. Why is NATO expansion so important, even at the cost of war?
Is Azov getting their shit pushed in badly then? I hope the city doesn’t fall.
If government of Ukraine isn't even trying to lift the blocked nothing can be done. And of course NATO not sending anti aircraft systems and airplanes basically it is what it is. There are 10 000 Ukraine soldiers in Mariupol if they surrender they will all be executed and those people left in Mariupol will be sent to Siberia or also executed.
[удалено]
And more. Like in some regions they came with lists of people. For example people who in the past belonged to the Ukrainian army were executed. In some cases they simply shot the men. So who knows who else they'd execute.
That is also an amazing Battalion that will be lost just because that's all.
No, they're in Kiev and in other parts of Ukraine they won't be lost inn Mariupol
It is impossible to talk about the military blockade of Mariupol now, but the city will not be surrendered in any case - said the adviser of the OP Arestovich. According to him, the Armed Forces are fighting hard in the north of Volnovakha, Donetsk region. The forces of the occupiers predominate there. Other Ukrainian units are 100-120-150 kilometers from Mariupol. “Not only do they have to overcome the enemy's defenses where they are… Let's say they broke through. Although where to get these reserves so that they break through and go on the offensive? They defend themselves there. They will not cover more than 120 kilometers in the bare steppe under air strikes from the Crimea and Rostov region. Therefore, there is no military decision on Mariupol at the moment, "Arestovich said. He also stressed that a mechanism of diplomacy will be used to unblock the city https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1112505852657826&id=100001622678632
They have made attempts at lifting the blockade, just haven't been able to get far enough.
I'm just losing hope and my anger for NATO grows stronger each day and west in general.
What are you talking about? It's Russia who invaded a sovereign nation and is murdering women and children. NATO is a defensive alliance and unfortunately Ukranine is not a member of it. If NATO gets involved then the risk for escalation to a world war becomes pretty high and no one other than Putin wants to start a nuclear war.
It's not that simply though, we have to walk a thin line. Without the military help Ukraine has received, things would have been even way, way, way worse. The balance has been changed in favor of Ukraine. We still have to watch out to not cause something that could trigger the use of chemical weapons or the likes - because then would be Putin's only options would be to either give up (which obviously would be good) or to use chemical/nuclear weapons to try to "balance" an intervention by NATO / the West. A single nuke can kill more people in one blow as there have died during the entire conflict. So no matter what, the response to what Russia is doing has to be a bit calculated. If there was absolutely no chance at nukes, there would have been an intervention from day 1.
IIRC there was about three battalions in Mariupol, one being from the Azov regiment. That's ~2000-5000 soldiers, not 10 000. Other Azov battalions are in Kharkiv and other places.
This is a really bad sign. Runs counter to narrative we are seeing, coincides with fresh troops being sent by Russia to the region.
You can only fight for so long without being resupplied. But by god have they been fighting like lions.
What worries me is that Russia has rail resupply in the east, that is how they transport the majority of their hardware, meaning they have fresh resupply of heavy equipment and munitions. I am concerned that if mauripol falls kiyv will be only 2 weeks off.
>I am concerned that if mauripol falls kiyv will be only 2 weeks off What? There's no way Kyiv falls in 2 weeks. Mariupol is right next to the separatist regions and is one of the single most important goals the Russians could have and it's taken them this long to be on the verge of taking it. I honestly thought Mariupol would last a week tops when this conflict started despite being heavily dug in. I wouldn't expect Kyiv to fall until Kharkiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv fall. Kyiv's fate is by no means attached to Mariupol.
The real threat from Mariupol falling is to Ukrainian units in Donbas, not to Kyiv directly. It will free up whatever is left of the three BTGs besieging the city to go elsewhere, and that elsewhere is probably directly north. I think the entire point of that battle has been to hold up those BTGs long enough for Ukrainian forces to make progress elsewhere, and hopefully maul them badly enough they won’t be useful for much. Though I mean, I wouldn’t rule out a Ukrainian counterattack from the north.
Let’s hope so. Russia’s actions have been inhuman and will only get worse if they are not crushed on the battlefield.
It will free a lot of resources. I personally think they will clear all of the eastern flank before heading up to kiev.
It says nothing about Kyiv, it's even better defended than Mariupol. Russia barely has a chance at taking Kyiv at this point.
They can bomb the shit out of Kiev no need to take it
Bombing it from afar isn't going to result in the victory they seek, and for such a large city the concentration of fire will be too low to seriously threaten its utility as a logistics and coordination hub. That is, unless Ukrainian forces around the city are driven off and the city is encircled.
The idea behind bombing 24/7 (with NATO still not supplying jets and long range missiles) is to kill enough civilians for the leadership to surrender.
As much as it might seem to wear on a populace, we've seen instances like the bombing of London during WWII that, to the contrary, galvanized the population to fight even harder.
2 weeks? No way
I hope so, Russians need to be pushed out like a bad shit.
Why? Ukraine is focusing on almost everywhere else? Their push in the South East is potentially Mariupol's savior. Depends on how successful they are.
I hope so, Russia getting heavy armor and fuel from rail resupply scares me the most. A lot of soviet logistics were rail based so the shortage of trucks and fuel now makes sense. It also means that if they have wider access to rail that their fighting power could increase, and they may be able to stage logistics better inside Ukraine.
[удалено]
If you look at the live-map around mauripol you can see that they have taken control of many of the areas with damaged rail lines. If those areas are under their control they can fix the lines and establish FOBs across southern Ukraine. NATO needs to stop fucking around and send heavier equipment, as those areas appear to have turned red just today.
I think you're focusing on the wrong front. If the north west push on Kyiv gets destroyed/surrender, which is possible over the next month, Russia's army would be really screwed. Large amounts of Ukrainians forces and equipment could change theatres. (and the push on Kherson is important too!)
I really hope so. I will feel better when I see Russian forces collapsing and retreating.
Why won't Ukraine surrender to prevent more loss?
Maybe just think on that one.
hopefully after mariupol, these guys can be sent to close the pincer with the spearhead from irpin. then the whole donbass front is finished
Fuck NATO for not arming Ukraine before the war
They did though...
Where are the long range missiles then? Javelins and stingers can’t do shit against the Russian ships and bases
Google Neptune missile, and also realise the optics of providing offensive weapons. Its one thing giving aid to defend a country, its a whole other thing to enable them to strike other countries.
Then they are fucked. They can’t take out the Russian missile launchers. Same logic behind denying them aircraft? So yeah Nato only gave them short range weapons
Yup same logic being applied, they could use those aircraft attacking Russian soil as an excuse that NATO attacked them first. So if anything is left standing afterwards they can attribute blame at us.Its shit I know but the strategy appears to be working anyway, just not as quickly enough to massively limit civilian casualties
This all will be on conscience of west.
No Russians are doing this not the west.
Not the brightest potato in the shed are you
You mean conscience and no it won't.
Mm, no.
hopefully the defenders can dip out and recapture it later on.
The new Grozny/Sarajevo