What exactly? The whole article looks like a load of stupid propaganda and schizophrenic contradictions. Starting from "cities with hundreds years architecture". Most of those cities were almost totally destroyed during the previous war (which was ended in 1945) and rebuild in 1960s-70s. There is a contradiction between tactics of artillery support and meat waves. The basic tactic is "Artillery destroy, infantry take". And, as I said earlier, the goal is not in taking territory or cities just for itself. The goal is elimination of Kievan regime and pushing NATO's military infrastructure back to the 1997 borders. What strategical and operative decisions will be necessary to achieve it - I dunno, it's above my payment level.Really? So this is part of the plan?
Ukraine Update: Putin claims he doesn’t want to capture Kharkiv anyway
Severodonetsk . Bakhmut . ...www.dailykos.com
May be it will be necessary to keep a war of attrition with few offensive operations to coerce NATO countries to sign the peace on acceptable for us terms. May be, it will be necessary to demonstratively nuke London, Paris and Berlin. May be, it will demand not just European, but World War.
I don't know exact plans of both sides.
Are you ready to sign the peace treaty (on Russian terms) after destruction of Kharkov, destruction of Berlin or after destruction of Washington?
We prefer to achieve peace (on our terms) with the minimal level of destruction possible, but, of course, we are ready to play at the highest possible stakes.
Last edited:
