Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

And yet................................. Russia just, humiliatingly, lost it's biggest and most notable Ukrainian gain in the past 9 months.

Odd, that you invasion supporters seem to be in denial.

It was lost in part because Ukrainian HIMARS rockets, which can take out a target the size of a dinner table at 50 miles, were used to effectively cut the place off from its logistics and reinforcement chain.

More to come I think, with things like Avenger on their way.

Converting aircraft to being "nuclear capable" doesn't really amount to anything.

I simply don't believe that a man as savvy as Vladimir Putin would be so stupid as to give somebody like Lukashenko nuclear weapons, and with the freedom to use them. Moreover, I suspect, given how things are going for the Russians in Ukraine it's the last thing the man would want.

You should - again - calm down. What an excitable person you are.

People with differing views aren't "illiterate" and you're not educating anybody. The bully boy stuff just falls on stony ground.

It doesn't matter how many zillion shells Russia's using. The undeniable fact is they just lost what was so far, after 9 months of hard fighting, their most significant Ukrainian conquest.

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed it counts LR.

Given that the "Russian" forces are much larger, Ukrainian numbers indicate a tactical use of these weapons, unlike the "Russians" who use them strategically, for terror, against the civil population.

...War we see is good business in both Russia and the USA, for "Americans" and "Russians".

[Pyrpolizer]

And yet................................. Russia just, humiliatingly, lost it's biggest and most notable Ukrainian gain in the past 9 months.

Odd, that you invasion supporters seem to be in denial.

It was lost in part because Ukrainian HIMARS rockets, which can take out a target the size of a dinner table at 50 miles, were used to effectively cut the place off from its logistics and reinforcement chain.

More to come I think, with things like Avenger on their way.

Converting aircraft to being "nuclear capable" doesn't really amount to anything.

I simply don't believe that a man as savvy as Vladimir Putin would be so stupid as to give somebody like Lukashenko nuclear weapons, and with the freedom to use them. Moreover, I suspect, given how things are going for the Russians in Ukraine it's the last thing the man would want.

You should - again - calm down. What an excitable person you are.

People with differing views aren't "illiterate" and you're not educating anybody. The bully boy stuff just falls on stony ground.

It doesn't matter how many zillion shells Russia's using. The undeniable fact is they just lost what was so far, after 9 months of hard fighting, their most significant Ukrainian conquest.

You are illiterate if you form your "views" on nothing other than groundless assumptions and rumors. May I remind you that the discussion with Paphitis in which you intruded as .... usual, concerned his hypothesis that Nato would confront Russia directly in Ukraine. Therefore the matter of ammunition needed does matter, because the data proves that Nato already depleted their stockpiles whereas their production rate is low. In that scenario they would obviously run out of ammunition within 15 days!

As for the Himars, what an effective weapon! 1000+ shells fired for more than a month on a fixed target to just destroy a small part of a bridge!

It doesn't matter what you believe about Belarus' nukes... What matters is your groundless statement that Russia stripped Belarus of it's weapons. There's absolutely no evidence for that. The only one who presented this "as a possibility " is Ukraine's Pravda! The links I provided point to the exact opposite. And they are not even from Russian affiliated sites.

[Londonrake]

You are illiterate if you form your "views" on nothing other than groundless assumptions and rumors. May I remind you that the discussion with Paphitis in which you intruded as .... usual, concerned his hypothesis that Nato would confront Russia directly in Ukraine. Therefore the matter of ammunition needed does matter, because the data proves that Nato already depleted their stockpiles whereas their production rate is low. In that scenario they would obviously run out of ammunition within 15 days!

As for the Himars, what an effective weapon! 1000+ shells fired for more than a month on a fixed target to just destroy a small part of a bridge!

It doesn't matter what you believe about Belarus' nukes... What matters is your groundless statement that Russia stripped Belarus of it's weapons. There's absolutely no evidence for that. The only one who presented this "as a possibility " is Ukraine's Pravda! The links I provided point to the exact opposite. And they are not even from Russian affiliated sites.

Again. Do calm down. You seem stuck in one mode. Hissy fit, bully boy outrage.

No, it's not a case of being "illiterate". A person might be wrong, misinformed or even deluded but it has nothing to do with literacy.

This is a public forum - albeit now with closed membership. People post their views and others are free to agree/challenge/disagree, or of course ignore, at their will. That's the nature of the beast. The idea you can have a private conversation with another member on an important issue and others mustn't "intrude" with their opinions is risible. If you want a private conversation then use the PM facility.

HIMARS has been a (one of anyway) game changer element in recent events. It's been fundamental in denying Russian troops resupply and reinforcement. If you have any reasonable proof that 1000 missiles were fired for more than a month to destroy a small bridge then I'm all ears but won't be holding my breath.

It does matter what I believe about Belarus' nukes. In an earlier post you said that Putin had given them to Lukashenko. That's utter nonsense and there's no credible proof of it. Such a thing would be a banner headline front page event, totally changing the war's dynamics, with the potential for huge escalation. Frankly, it's absolute bollocks and I suspect you actually know that - full well. You could even go so far as to call it "groundless assumptions and rumors". No?

Lukashenko is between a rock and hard place. He's not a popular leader and was kept in power by crushing his opposition with Russian help. The people of Belarus want nothing to do with the war but have no choice other than allow Russia to use their country. Most current reports suggest Belarus is being used as a training ground for new Russian conscripts and a means of tying down Ukrainian troops across the border. Given how bad things are going for the Russians you could even feel sympathy for Lukashenko. He must have one eye perpetually focused on how he's going to come out of all this.

Now, you can discuss/debate these important events in a civilised manner, or, be self-confined to posting responses to Paphitis' weekly "In DA house" contributions, whilst in the gaps just broadcasting your views. Well, like GR. It's your call.

Apparently though: "SO STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS.THIS IS THE LAST TIME I AM WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU." Doesn't mean what it used to.

No comment on Russia's Kherson disaster then? Can't say I blame you.