The preparations - which consist of blasting depots and command centres in Crimea - is ongoing. The RF is corresponding with equivalent missile strikes, although the effect is somehow limited from both sides. I believe Ukraine is being marginally more effective, because the setup in Crimea was based on Ukraine not having medium range cruise missiles, which they now do, so it is not as prepared as it should have for this. One exception, it seems that the RF managed to damage 4 planes in an attack, which are important to keep sending Stormshadows their way.
All signs seem to point to an Ukrainian offensive in the south direction, but I would not hurry it as they will not get 5 chances to do this. Zelensky said "it has been decided", which does not offer much information on dates - as it should not for obvious reasons.
I think both sides are exchanging harassing blows to force each other into active offensive action. The situation is similar to a chess zugzwang, when any move significantly worsens the situation, but it seems that the pressure of external circumstances on Zelensky is stronger than on Putin. He promised to take the Crimea in May, but instead, daily strikes on Kyiv and every night an air raid. Let's see who has stronger nerves.
Nah, RF is using all it's got in the frontline and getting 50 meters a day more, 200 soldiers less a day less. BTW it seems that Putin cannot keep the mosquitos out of home? Seriously, this is they guy that will "protect the Russians" (from what I am not sure).
Regarding nerves... well, It think that you think this is about nerves. I think it is more about using mechanised brigades to break the frontlines. Matters little if you shoot missiles to nowhere in particular with zero strategic value and think that somehow this is going to win you the war.
BTW, according to your leader, that is just an "operation" if it happens in Kyiv, but is "terrorism" if it happens in Moscow. This guy should really make up his mind: either is all right to drone the capital of the opponent or is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvWRiaXe78MI will avoid the smiley, this is not funny.
It seems that much more rockets and drones arrive in Kyiv than in Moscow, satellite images and photos of eyewitnesses show traces of arrivals at the headquarters of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine. And where is the Patriot, who should protect Kyiv? Shares of Raytheon Technologies Corporation fell 12% in a month.
Raytheon down? Thanks for the tip! !2% is not much though, they "skyrocketed" (note the pun) before in April. I would not take that as an indicator.
Sure, more missiles are being sent and intercepted over Kyiv, which will not win the war and anyway there is not much that Ukraine can do to avoid it, as the alternative seems to accept being ruled from Moscow which does not look likely. I am sure some psycho out there thinks sending missiles is some short of "strategy" but I fail to see any "return on investment" of launching them into cities with no particular military value. I do not see that resulting in Ukraine being weaker in combat.
Now, the question is not how many missiles can Ukraine deal with, it is how much of a support may Putin get if he cannot even guarantee that his own capital and particularly the richest areas are safe and that even in Russia (Belgorod and other nearby cities) the situation is anything but under control when there is actually no existential threat to the RF other than the very remote possibility (but a possibility still) of loosing hold on Crimea.
To sum up, if Putin is trying to reach a tipping point, it seems closer that the tipping point may reach him.
...
By the way, about that 'greatest counter-offensive' thing: was that spring 2023, or 2024? I may have gotten a little confused.
I nearly missed this. The Ukrainian offensive has started. If you ask me, I would not do anything other than what they are doing: degrading the infrastructure that supports the RF front armies, agitating and widening the front, so that the RF has to defend thousands of Km of frontline, instead of being able to concentrate, blasting fuel depots as much as possible to make re-deployment more difficult, testing their weapons and the enemies defences ... The basics, modern war 101. And yes, this costs money and casualties, but it is required.
Just before you say something silly (again), remember what the US did in Iraq before committing ground troops. All levels: morale, logistics, politics, international support,... all needs to be degraded before anything can be done and Iraq did not have many of the capabilities that the RF has (even if these are not half of what they claim).
Also, the F-16 or the Gripen fighters would be a really nice to have, but that will not be possible this early in the year.
But,... nah.. nothing is going to happen, sleep well, drink vodka and go to Belgorod on vacation, I heard is a beautiful place.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
The General Aggression Model (GAM) – Anderson and Bushman - looks to explain all types of violence, and not just that which is criminal, such as when a law-enforcement officer legitimately uses force, or a country goes to war etc. It recognizes both the characterological factors that are at play, such as a person’s individual propensity to use violence, and the situational inputs that exist in violent incidents, such as a triggering event, like somebody having a drink accidentally spilt over them, and the presence of others who may affect social status etc. The GAM also recognizes that there is often a “Violence Escalation Cycle”, which comprises of sets of interactions between the parties involved, based on the various perspectives that each hold e.g., party A spills a drink over party B, party B shouts at Party A to be more careful and watch themselves etc. Party A believes this is an overreaction and tells Party B that they are being unreasonable and need to calm down etc., Party B, now decides to push Party A, believing this is a justified and reasonable response to being told/ordered to calm down. Party A sees this as a complete overreaction and, unjustified so they push Party B back. In response Party B throws a punch at Party A etc. Somewhere in this escalation, the Vantasner Danger Meridian (that completely fictional “line”) gets crossed. This is somewhere around the point where the Sunk Cost Effect/Fallacy, kicks in for one of the parties. The sunk cost fallacy involves pursuing an inferior alternative because significant but non recoverable resources have been invested. In the case of the aggressive interaction and escalation described above, the inferior alternative is the physical fight; unless one party is clearly physically superior to the other both are likely to get hurt in the exchange, and with society as a whole eschewing violence as a means of demonstrating social superiority the rewards for most people are going to be slim. However, the more emotional and psychological resources each party invests, the likelihood of either walking away is significantly reduced. Most forms of social violence have a tipping point, a point at which someone is unable to back down, and this point can be reached very quickly, which is why aggressive spontaneous/social interactions need to be shutdown quickly.
I think Putin is investing in sunken costs. 101 mistake.
