Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Ukraine makes biggest breakthrough in south since war with Russia began" video.

  1. Russia taking Odessa is about as likely as anyone taking the fiction that these occupied areas are part of Russia seriously.
    1
  2.  @KeitelDOG  And what if NATO and Ukraine ignores (along with the rest of the world) these Russian boundaries? This sounds like it'll be somewhat less effective than the PRC's attempt to claim the entire South China Sea and stop random other countries from using it without permission.
    1
  3.  @KeitelDOG  so how's this respect for the Russian gunpoint referendum going? Is Ukraine saying "well, that's Russian territory now, I guess I should back off"? Have they stopped operations to reclaim that territory? If they're not, and if NATO is still backing them, your post is starting to look a bit delusional. The sort of delusion that says they'd respect Russian claims to territory that Russia doesn't even control.
    1
  4.  @KeitelDOG  So is it your belief that NATO was previously delivering weapons through Russian held territory? How does that work? If that's not your belief, your post makes no sense.
    1
  5.  @KeitelDOG  Anyway, you might like to look at a map and apply some common sense. This post is about as ridiculous as a recent fellow I spoke to who tried to claim that he was Moldovan and that Moldova bordered Russia. For instance, there's this small country called Poland, which is: 1. Right next to Ukraine 2. A NATO member 3. Absolutely nowhere near any place that Russia has any realistic chance of threatening. 4. Has ports in a safe ocean 5. Has airports. 6. Hates Russia and will do everything it can to oppose it. On top of this, NO Russian claimed territory is remotely near anywhere that the US, etc would find useful for delivering supplies (If you disagree, please feel free to give the area and why they'd use it) After this, as useless as the black sea fleet might be, there's nothing to be gained from sending ships to Uraine via that. Even without what's left of the Russian navy, there's mines and things like that. Why take the risk to save a slightly longer train journey? Sure, ships are better at carrying massive amounts of stuff, but unlike Russia, the EU has no problems getting large amounts of stuff from point A to point B via land. Again, if you disagree, please detail exactly what paths you think they'd be using and why. And why you think the Russians wouldn't have stopped NATO supplied weapons from crossing territory they control. I'm genuinely interested in your thought processes here.
    1
  6.  @KeitelDOG  ..... I think you need to look at a map. You really need to look at a map. This is a very strange post. I can't begin to imagine how you think any of this makes sense. Anyway, if Russia gets all the Ukrainian borders with NATO, then it's won. Because it controls all of Ukraine. At the moment, Russia only controls parts of Ukraine that border it, and call me crazy, but I somehow doubt NATO is shipping arms to Ukraine via Russia. This is why I'm asking you exactly what path you think NATO is using to send supplies to Ukraine, because unless there's some path I've been completely unable to see.... I can't even call this post fantasy. It's just weird. So when you reply, please actually look at a map when you let me know the routes you think they'll be taking. I really want to know how you think this will happen. Because to me, for things done by ship, they send it to Gdansk in Poland, by rail to the Ukrainian border, then into Ukraine from the West, which is the opposite side of the country to anything Russia controls. Or they fly it into Poland, which still goes into Ukraine via the opposite side to anything Russia controls. Even if Russia would (for some strange reason) let NATO ship weapons via territory it controls, I can't imagine why they would use any of those routes.
    1