Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 1102968" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>Taking a city without complete encirclement will be a military necessity unless Russian forces lose all discipline and throw themselves into the Black Sea. Kherson being on a riverbank means complete encircelment is actually a geographic impossibility. Complete encirclement of Lysychansk would entail the capture of neighbouring Seveirodonetsk first (a city further from the front lines and on lower ground and therefore unlikely to fall first).</p><p></p><p>In terms of total manpower I again disagree. Russia has already added over 200k to their army in the past fortnight or so. This is almost half of the entire Ukrainian contingent of 500k. Russia has also been pressganging menfolk in their occupied territories (including from day 1) resulting in very large but unquantified numbers of 'troops' in these militias. </p><p></p><p>Of course Ukraine has superior numbers concentrated in areas they focus an attack on, but that is irrelevant in calculating total overall military numbers. Of course not every troop in either army is on the frontline and we don't know what the casualties are for either side but overall I see no evidence that Ukraine has superior numbers of troops and the suggestion that 3 months ago Ukraine was not an underdog against the entire Russian military is fanciful at best. They didnt even launch their counterattack until 2 months ago. </p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 1102968, member: 74121"] Taking a city without complete encirclement will be a military necessity unless Russian forces lose all discipline and throw themselves into the Black Sea. Kherson being on a riverbank means complete encircelment is actually a geographic impossibility. Complete encirclement of Lysychansk would entail the capture of neighbouring Seveirodonetsk first (a city further from the front lines and on lower ground and therefore unlikely to fall first). In terms of total manpower I again disagree. Russia has already added over 200k to their army in the past fortnight or so. This is almost half of the entire Ukrainian contingent of 500k. Russia has also been pressganging menfolk in their occupied territories (including from day 1) resulting in very large but unquantified numbers of 'troops' in these militias. Of course Ukraine has superior numbers concentrated in areas they focus an attack on, but that is irrelevant in calculating total overall military numbers. Of course not every troop in either army is on the frontline and we don't know what the casualties are for either side but overall I see no evidence that Ukraine has superior numbers of troops and the suggestion that 3 months ago Ukraine was not an underdog against the entire Russian military is fanciful at best. They didnt even launch their counterattack until 2 months ago. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top