Didn't Milley lose a war already?
Ukrainian forces are killing nearly 1,000 Russian troops every day, and they eliminated 5,000 troops in a single battle in late January, according to U.K. officials.
www.foxnews.com
Supposedly 824 Russians die every day. Why do we need to keep sending Ukraine more stuff if they're that good, the Russians are that stupid and incompetent?
I know, it'll be a "surge" in F16s & tanks to finish off Russia!
Umm... I wonder how many more "soldiers" they have to throw at Russian artillery given how few fighting aged males are left in the country. If they didn't die in combat already, flee the country, how many fighting aged males are left in Ukraine at this point? Forget even training them, how many warm bodies are left to turn into cold ones? Logistically speaking, it takes longer to make fighting age males than it does to make Javelins and Abrams. It's a resource that Ukraine is running out of. How many of those males left are WANTING to go to the front lines and fighting at this point? Aren't they already scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of soldier quality?
Western media trumpets Ukrainian wins in battle and how many Russians are killed, how R is incompetent, and how badly the Rs are losing armor and troops.
So why are R troops still moving forward? Enveloping and surrounding Bakhmut? Cutting off 12,000 Ukrainian soldiers?
Can both be true? That R is incompetent and losing tons of armor, aircraft, and troops, but are overwhelming by sheer quantity?
Some speculate that this will be over in a matter of months due to Ukraine running out of warm bodies, much less trained combat forces.
Some speculate that NATO has run out of stuff to give Ukraine. That we've burned through our excess supply, and are already dipping into our geographically positioned supplies. EU certainly is in bad shape to defend itself should Russia decide to do a fast run across Europe just for fun to prove a point, then turn around and go home(I'm kidding).
I believe we're trying to grind Russia down so that we can focus solely on China for the war 2 with them 2 years from now.
I still think China should wait for NATO to commit to fighting a full on war with Russia, then blockade Taiwan and take their island and superconductor factories and use them to bolster their own advanced weaponry.
If the US commits to defending Taiwan against a Chinese naval blockade, our resources will be split in 2 parts of the globe simultaneously.
1.5 million us troops and less than a million reservists... how long can the US sustain a war footing across the globe while China and Russia can do it indefinitely on their doorstep? We have bases all over the world to maintain (new ones surrounding china like we did russia) as well.
We had the doctrine decades ago that we would be able to fight 2 wars simultaneously at different parts of the globe. That's not happening today. Well... maybe it is. Our President B will lead us to a stronger safer more prosperous and democratic world like he has our country.
See how well President B has already turned our energy surplus into deficit as an example of his leadership; selling 26 million barrel from the SPR to keep summer oil prices from going over $4 because that would be politically not beneficial to his administration.
btw, are we send up our own balloons only to shoot them down ourselves?
New York Times writes that the order to ban everyone except the military from visiting Bakhmut speaks of the imminent withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from there. Kyiv says that they control the city, but in fact it is clear that the Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot provide security even in areas that they precisely control. In addition, one road remained for supply, and the rest were under Russian troops.
Russian ships for the first time in 30 years go to sea with nuclear weapons
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/QSSBM6QIHZJI3IGHPHQVPPXZ3Y.jpg)
