Beginning with The Telegraph, which published an article entitled "Ukraine will take back Crimea - if we allow it", signed by Ben Hodges.
With the right weapons, Ukraine can prevent a major Russian penetration almost anywhere on the battlefield.
"More than that, Ukraine can take back Crimea this year," he added.
He noted that at the moment "it appears that Kiev is building an armored force, the size of a division or larger, ready to serve as a penetration formation for the next major offensive phase of the campaign."
How did Rossi hide in the woods to avoid being called up by the army?
And the writer considered that “without the restoration of Crimea, it is almost impossible for Ukraine to win this war,” and explained that “as long as Putin has a foothold in Ukrainian lands, he will always be able to manipulate Ukrainian society and economy. Ukraine or not?
He recounted how "Russia's most famous land line of communications in Crimea, which runs over the Kerch Bridge, has been badly damaged for months and will not be fully repaired before spring."
He expected the Ukrainians to try to ensure it was not completely reformed. Another major land line of control - the so-called land bridge between Crimea and Rostov - is also targeted by Ukrainian forces.
"These are the only two bridges connecting Crimea with Russia. Both are obviously weak. Ukraine could easily destroy them in a matter of weeks, but only if we send in our most advanced long-range missiles."
We could easily provide the army with a tactical missile system, for example, which would greatly improve the ability of Ukrainian forces to strike the Russian land bridge, hit river crossings, logistics centers, rail links, troop concentrations and ammunition storage sites.”
"These missiles can be supplemented by armed Gray Eagle drones and small-diameter bombs launched from the ground," he added.
He pointed out that "there is the ability to strike weak targets in Crimea, including the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, the main logistics center in Dzankoy and the air base in Saki."
He pointed out that some people questioned the feasibility of sending the tactical missile system. "This is the same pessimistic approach that delayed the dispatch of other major equipment, such as the Patriot systems, several months ago," the author commented.
"It's also the approach originally taken to send Abrams tanks, which was fortunately reversed yesterday. Time and time again, the Pentagon's pessimism has been wrong, and yet it persists."
He concluded by saying, "It is our duty now to set the record straight, because despite all the nice rhetoric on the part of Western leaders, there is no victory for Kiev or NATO without the liberation of Crimea."
Failure of moral courage
"Justin Welby has influence on Anglicans in the UK and around the world, so what he says and does matters," the writer explained.
McGrath recalled that he and his partner were "the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the UK", which is why "I have an interest in the debate within the Church of England about blessing same-sex marriage".
The writer considered the clergyman's position "an anomaly, as the majority of the population is not Anglican, and society's attitudes towards the rights of homosexuals and transgender people have greatly evolved."
He said he believes "the Archbishop of Canterbury's apology for the Church's treatment of LGBT people is genuine, so it follows from this that I view his personal decision not to bless same-sex marriage as a failure of moral courage on his part, intended to appease the anger of those parts of the Anglican community who find Same-sex relations are abhorrent, unChristian or fundamentally immoral.”
He noted that “Even Theresa May who for many years has been an active opponent of the rights of the LGBT community, has declared that marriage equality embodies the best British values. If Justin Welby were a civil servant, he would not have the option of opting out in this matter. He would be required to perform a same-sex marriage.” Just as he will be asked to contract marriages for people of other sexual orientations.”
The writer believed that "the Archbishop must act on his sincere apology and lead the way towards a Church of England that holds same-sex marriage."
