Laura Scott7 said:I mean, who else is going to flee into the middle of major cities and put civilians right in the crosshairs? That’s basically Military 101—you don't let the fighting get anywhere near urban centers, you definitely don't go running into them to use them as human shields. But sure, the second a shell hits a residential building, suddenly it's all the Russians' fault, right? Just do me a favor and actually check out some actual news sources like RT instead of just blathering on about what you *think* is happening. You can't just make stuff up and call it reality. It doesn't work that way.
Did you pick up that rule during a post-grad seminar at West Point? 😳
When you're facing superior tech, the best move is to use difficult terrain—mountains and cities. Out in the open, they wouldn't know what to do against Russian armor and air power. Asymmetric warfare just isn't sustainable on flat, open ground where classic conventional battles thrive; that much favors the side with better gear rather than fighting on uneven terrain.
I wasn't looking for objective info on RT, not even back when relations were at their peak, let alone during a war. Honestly, even before I knew what television was, the first time I stumbled upon a satellite feed years ago, I found the propaganda there to be laughably obvious and poor quality. 😁
If you're really searching for a single definitive source—which is never a smart move—the Associated Press is decent, as is the Financial Times. I occasionally check Reuters too. Even Al Jazeera is fine, aside from their Middle East coverage.
RT is garbage, even worse than American propaganda networks.
