I'm going to zoom the blue circle on the map, that I've put. The blue circle line include the area of Zaporozhye east of Dniper river up to south of Luhansk. This is the area base on report, that seems where Ukraine masses their troops and reserve.
So including in that blue circle is part of Zaporozhye west of Donetsk. As Ukraine's mostly can only relies on infantry and armored columns doing this counter offensive, I just don't see how they can cross Dniper in large way to overwhelming Russian defense in Dniper banks.
has been launching probing attacks across the Dnepr and doing raids on the islands in the middle
Question is, if they have enough assets to cross Dniper in force. Perhaps small raid to create diversion, but unless there's enough amphibious and cross river assets that NATO has covertly manage to send to them, is there enough for Ukraine to make large counter offensive across Dniper ?
not sure how in your mind you can compare this attack, which would not have happened without the invasion, with the massive number of civilian deaths in Ukraine.
Where do I compare this attack with War in Ukraine? I say again and again, this attack if happen in Western soils, already raise much voices in Western media and politicians as Terrorism attack. However when happening in Russian soil, then there's enough voices in West try to avoid calling this as terrorism attack, tone it down, or even try to find justification on the target. If this not a double standard, and I don't know what else to call it.
you are far from neutral, every post you make shows that,
If neutral on this attack, then in my post I already I'm not neutral on this attack. I'm condemn this attack as terrorism act. I don't care whose the target, but if the attack is done disregarding the civilian collateral damage, then it is terrorism act. For that I'm not neutral.
Doesn't mean I'm supporting attack on Civilians anywhere including in Ukraine. However if you compare this terrorism attack with war, then will you also agree US civilian 'collateral damage' (as Pentagon like to call) on Iraq and Afghanistan also as Terrorism?
There's different between Collateral damage in war and blatant purposely collateral casualties on terrorism attack.
If you talk on Neutral in this war, then I'm like most Asian Nations and Asian Publics (especially outside US close allies nations) as on the 'fence' in this War. We are acknowledge Russian fault on this War, but many Asian public and even politicians don't buy 'West' politicians and public opinion on this war as simple 'unprovoked' attack by Russia.
If that possition considered as non neutral on some using 'western' standard, so be it. Perhaps why most Asian and other in Africa and South America still engaging Russia, still doing business with Russia, also going to be considered by some as not neutral, well so be it also.
