comment: >
  
  As much as we'd all love to see Russia brought low there are several issues:
  
  Direct attack on Russia (while fully deserved at this point) would not go down well internationally. Ukraine would no longer be merely defending their country.
  What little anti-war sentiment and support for peaceful resolution there is within Russia would instantly evaporate.
  Russia would very likely use this as justification to use Nuclear Weapons against Ukraine.
context: while at the same time demanding peace talk. The world is standing with heroic Ukraine at these difficult times. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 >
  
  Serious question about military tactics: why do they spread out their attacks like that? like, why not 1000 at once? is this an issue of logistics, or do they hope with every barrage that this will be enough already? or are they simply inept? >
  
  Logistics; the days of the Soviet Union cranking out hundreds of tanks a day is long gone. It takes a long time to build enough of their newer cruise missiles for another concentrated wave.
  The old Soviet era stuff likewise needs to be taken out of storage and repaired/refurbished before being sent to a launch site >
  
  Each wave of attacks is more like the yearly production of these missiles. Sure there are some new-builts mixed in there, but they are mostly still from stocks of them. >
  
  It’s no longer just fuck Putin.  Fuck Russia. >
  
  Ya...this. >
  
  Russia will be hated  for generations, and attacked. >
  
  Im getting tired about people saying there are problems about tanks logistics, repair etc. Europe must send tanks jointly Now. I dont want to listen to any excuses. Every european country a part of what it has I dont care about the tanks names >
  
  Ukraine is getting just enough to slowly push back against the Russians while we in the west can deliver weapons that would win the war in a month today. It's sickening but that's politics, trying to boil Russia like the proverbial frog. >
  
  Makes me wonder if the long-term objective of the west is to, as you say, deplete Russia and weaken them further. But they trade Ukrainian lives to make this happen, and Ukraine can do little to actually get the volume of military material that can end the war through the battlefield in the shorter term.
  The EU also in all likelihood don't want to end up having Ukraine as a militarized neighbour that could be a long-term threat. Because the EU and Ukraine still hasn't formalized their relationship, to the EU I think they still see Ukraine as a Troubled ex soviet satellite with baggage.
  Maybe the EU wants to keep up arming their own militaries while supplying Ukraine with a matching volume of weapons, as balance and deterrent.
  Depleting Russia of weapons and soldiers over time might also open up for the Russian federation to fracture in the future, if local powers feel the central government is weak enough >
  
  Depleting Russia might be part of the reason but a bigger one probably are internal politics of various NATO countries. Militarized Ukraine is no threat to EU, where did you get that idea? After the war or after they kick the Russians out they will need substantial forces and high-tech weapons to prevent any further conflicts and loss of life. >
  
  Any country that is more militarized than their neighbours is a potential to threat to those neighbours unless there is a balance. Nothing against Ukraine per se. 
  Ukraine only needs to reclaim their territory and join NATO. They don't need to have the 3rd largest military in the world after that >
  
  Because surely Russia won't attack a third time >
  
  Right, but with NATO involved in Ukraines defense as a de factor member, what Ukraine has in military material matters not as much.
  Safe to say it will still be the largest in Europe. >
  
  To join NATO you have to have a percentage of gdp to war funds and all their equipment has to match nato the all nato countries have to agree which means even  politics matter as if you angered another country in the past the can deny you so there is a lot to it >
  
  Where are those people saying Russia was about to run out of missiles every month since March? >
  
  Russia is burning way more missiles than they are producing, so that’s still “running out”. They have run out of the majority of their stock of things like Iskander where they are at 1/6 their pre-war stocks, and are at levels of sea and air launched cruse missiles that would make NATO forces quite nervous. 
  But that’s still hundreds if not low thousands remaining, and not even counting the 6000+ S300’s that can also be used in a ground attack mode. 
  What we’re seeing is Russia being willing to deplete it’s stockpiles far further than we though they would. This cripples their ability to project force or have credible deterrence in the future. >
  
  Irrelevant, until they do run out. >
  
  Something is going on for sure, this is unusual. >
  
  Sorry but this is nothing new for us. This is the 10th attack on our critical infrastructure:
  10.10 - 80 missiles,
  11.10 - 28,
  22.10 - 33,
  31.10 - 50,
  15.11 - 96,
  17.11 - 20,
  23.11 - 67,
  05.12 - 70,
  16.12 - 76,
  29.12 - 69.
  So for russians all according to plan. >
  
  russia sucks >
  
  Ukraine should start doing thr same to moscow.