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.
There is a lot of debate about whether Ukraine should have defended Bakhmut which according to most military analysts is strategically unimportant, but it seems to me that the decision was still correct because it enabled Ukraine to secure the necessary time to additionally arm and train tens of thousands of soldiers who will participate in a counterattack.
It is true that Ukraine lost a lot of soldiers and equipment in that area, but Russia still lost a lot more because of the strategic positions of the Ukrainian army, which was and still is in elevated positions around the city, from which it prevents the further advance of the Russian army. In addition, advancing forward, the Russian army weakened its flanks all the time, and now this is becoming more and more apparent because the Ukrainian forces have all the prerequisites to surround the city and destroy everyone in it.
Bakhmut played a very important role in fully focusing the Russian forces to conquer it, but I have no doubt that the regular Russian troops will face a real challenge to hold it, because the "bloody musicians" who actually conquered the city are leaving the front, and considering the losses, it will take them months to recover.
I consider the decision to keep Bakhmut a strategic mistake by Zelensky and a personal fiasco by Syrsky. Ukraine suffered a crushing defeat in Bakhmut, doubly humiliating, which was not even from the regular army of Russia, but from the private military company Wagner with former convicts as the main assault force. Bakhmut is a broken symbol of Ukrainian resistance, the second after Mariupol, and Zelensky made him a symbol of resistance.
Of course, you can look more broadly and consider Bakhmut a gambit sacrifice in order to gain time to prepare for a counteroffensive, this will depend on the success of the counteroffensive. But for now Bakhmut is a crushing fiasco for Ukraine.
That is funny to say the least,it took the Russian side 1 year exactly and it is not completely taken,just a town of 17.000 persons the "second greatest army in the world" it took them 1 year to take about 80% of this town.Why don't you tell us the number of Russians soldier dead in Ukraine,they are well over 200.000 and this is the biggest number of personnel lost in a war from Russia.This number will grow while Russia is just doing what a terrorist state does best,hitting with ballistic missiles civilian infrastructure in the Kyiv capital.That my friend will not make Russia win anything and it will just prolong this war which in the end will have bad consequences for Russia,they are almost completely isolated as a country now and if they keep going this way,it is a lost war whatever happens next.
You're just parroting western propaganda, there is not a single true fact in your whole post
The following facts are correct according to some sources, not particularly western apologist:
- More than 200k KIA or equivalent in the RF army.
- Bakhmut was a city of around 17000 inhabitants.
- It took around 1 year to take it, with advances of 50 m ... 100 m a day.
- Russia is shelling Kyiv with missiles.
- Bakhmut was the place were most losses have happened for the RF for now.
- Bakhmut is hardly a "win".
So, no he is not parroting western propaganda.
