Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Cheimoon]

Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.

It's not a done deal yet though. If NATO and the EU (or rather: just the US) decide that they don't want Russia to get a full hold on the Donbas, then they will have to ramp up their support for Ukraine - which may be why the US are now moving forward with providing even better equipment to Ukraine (if that's confirmed now).

More generally, I do think the US are happy with Russia getting into a prolonged war over the Donbas, as it would keep chipping away at Russia's military, economy, and internal public support. Russia conquering all of the Donbas and calling it quits (for now) would undo all three of those aspects, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they keep propping up Ukraine with additional materials. (But not necessarily to the point where it would actually defeat Russia, as that might actually also be less desirable than an ongoing war from a US viewpoint - even if these equipment transfers are costly to the US as well.)

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

That is what I meant by bit by bit.
And there would be one way of stopping that. NATO membership.

Isn't that impossible as long as Ukraine is involved in a war?

 

[Buster15]

It's not a done deal yet though. If NATO and the EU (or rather: just the US) decide that they don't want Russia to get a full hold on the Donbas, then they will have to ramp up their support for Ukraine - which may be why the US are now moving forward with providing even better equipment to Ukraine (if that's confirmed now).

More generally, I do think the US are happy with Russia getting into a prolonged war over the Donbas, as it would keep chipping away at Russia's military, economy, and internal public support. Russia conquering all of the Donbas and calling it quits (for now) would undo all three of those aspects, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they keep propping up Ukraine with additional materials. (But not necessarily to the point where it would actually defeat Russia, as that might actually also be less desirable than an ongoing war from a US viewpoint - even if these equipment transfers are costly to the US as well.)

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

Isn't that impossible as long as Ukraine is involved in a war?

Yes. But if Putin took part of Ukraine and then stopped for a period of time, that was the opportunity I was thinking of.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?

From the moment when Putin said that he does not recognize Ukraine as a country, all bets have been off since. The man and all of his followers have to be crushed at all costs.

Anyway, Kissinger is a clueless fool.

 

[Rajma]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

We’re totally doing this, keep going lads:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

(Minister of Defense).

 

[GlastonSpur]

I think Russia is winning. Both sides are taking massive losses but from what I've seen, from both Western and Ukrainian and Russian and non-aligned sources, Russia is slowly taking the Donbas and encircling a large number of Ukrainian troops. They also seem to be consolidating the south. It might be that Ukraine counters but I doubt it. It's not popular but I've noticed a change in Western reporting lately to manage expectations. The best case scenario now is a prolonged Afghan conflict and I think both sides would want to avoid that but who knows. You have to question the narrative that's been spun by certain sources because it isn't holding up relative to the picture given by others. In particular, open source intelligence has been particularly crap so far.


Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea. ...

I think your assessment is flawed. Where the Ukrainians are retreating, they do so in an orderly fashion, falling back to the next pre-prepared line of defence, having meanwhile inflicted further big losses on the Russians: defence vs attacks favours the defenders in terms of losses.

My prediction is that Russians will fail to encircle any substantial Ukrainian forces, fail to take the whole Donbas and then, during the summer leading into Autumn, will be driven back from what they do have via (a) use of the heavy weapons that are in the pipeline, especially long-range artillery and rockets; and (b) bringing their substantial reserves of troops to bear.

There will be no agreement to a ceasefire by Ukraine. They will keep on keeping on.

Russian TV pundits keep threatening nukes, almost on a daily basis. My guess is they've been told that it's essential to try and scare the West into stopping with arms supplies and forcing Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia .... because otherwise Russia will lose this war.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Krakenzero]

I think everyone is trying to call this a win or a loss for Ukraine/Russia too early in the game. Esentially we have seen three (or four) war fronts:

-Northern front: Ukraine secured Kyiv, thereby winning.
-Southern front: Russia occupied most of the coast and finally Mariupol. Odessa is left but it's difficult not to see it as a Russia win, however not definitive.
East (and maybe Northeast) front: Kind of a stalemate situation, where Ukraine is on its way to secure Kharkiv and Russia is slowly advancing through the Donbas. Evidently both are not definitive and a long attrition war is the likeliest outcome on this front, unless someone collapses abruptly.

However, so far geopolitically speaking this war has been a nightmare for Russia (getting increasingly sanctioned, isolated and less feared as a big power) and great PR for Ukraine (although at the cost of too many lives). Let's hope it ends soon, hopefully with a decisive Ukraine victory.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DT12]

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get the Donbas back.

The messaging here (Russia), albeit not stated so directly, is that Putin has to take all of Ukraine at this point. First Donbas (which will likely fall by the end of June), then the north, then Lviv, with the aim to have the entire country 'taken' by October. Putin (via Peskov) keeps saying that the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" given by Putin prior to the invasion (destruction of the Azov Batallion, demilitarisation of Ukraine, and Ukrainian neutrality) have not changed, and – this part matters most – he has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” (he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion). The Azov Batallion have already surrendered, neutrality is basically assured at this point, which leaves only the trickiest one: demilitarisation. Since the US are at least saying they're committed for the long term, that means Putin needs Kiev (although literally an hour ago John Kirby at the Pentagon gave a press conference in which he said they need to be realistic about sending heavy weapons to Ukraine because "time is not on our side" - in other words, this looks like being over sooner rather than later, but I'm going to write more on that when I reply to an earlier post that was addressed to me about why I believe Ukraine can't win this war from here).

I've already stated my belief that there isn't going to be a meaningful counter-offensive (there is a massive disconnect between what Zelenskiy and Kuleba say in their rallying calls when addressing the likes of Davos or the American Senate, and what the actual generals on the ground like Zaluzhnyi are saying). Nowhere was this disconnect more pronounced than with the Azovstal fiasco. For months the powers that be in Ukraine and the West were building the Azov Batallion up as the bravest warriors who ever fought in battle (this despite their English Wikipedia page still to this day describing them as “a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine”), issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

There were some glaring problems with that narrative though, at least they were glaring to those of us who were closely observing the situation. While Zelenskiy and Kuleba were reassuring the Western democracies that their billions of dollars and euros were not being sent in vain, the "warriors" themselves and their families were criticising their own government...

https://censor.net/en/news/3339810/...t_watching_save_military_from_azovstal_marine

And begging (actually begging) everyone from Turkey's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/families-azov-fighters-ask-turkish-201138446.html

...to China's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/relatives-azovstal-works-defenders-ask-102818811.html

...to the Pope...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...appeal-pope-help-get-husbands-out-2022-05-11/

...to Elon frigging Musk...

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-trapped-azovstal-begs-elon-musk-help-if-not-you-who-1705851

...to help "evacuate" them to safety.


That last plea, to Musk, was especially interesting because it was issued from the bowels of Azovstal by none other than Serhiy Volyna, commander of the much-feared 36th Marine Brigade, and he asked a very pertinent question to Elon Musk: "If not you, then who else can do it?" Excellent question Serhiy, and one that led us to a question that nobody in the Western media dared ask: why were these guys not begging the US government to help save them? Or the UK government? Or Zelenskiy himself? You know, people who claim to be ready to do whatever their "brave warriors" ask, and who actually COULD have saved them. These "heroes" (as Zelenskiy is keen to keep calling them) were reduced to begging the likes of Turkey, China and the Pope to save their lives and help them get to a 3rd country (instead, they've all been shipped off to Russian territory, which is exactly what they all - less than 3 weeks ago - vowed they'd never allow to happen).

That’s just one example from many I could give. Late last night Serhiy Haidai (governor of Luhansk) said the situation in the east is “dire” for Ukraine and said that they were outnumbered by 1 to 8 in terms of men and twice that in terms of equipment. Ukrainian commanders have also said that what they’ve been sent by the West is nowhere close to the kind of equipment they need to stand a chance of victory (this has been obvious from the beginning, the US and Europe is just sending them all the old crap they don't need anymore). Indeed earlier this month Zelenskiy issued an order that forbade the Ukrainian military from complaining on social media about the equipment they’re being given. And 2 days ago the BBC started noting that some people in Ukraine are starting to turn on Zelenskiy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61570444

President Zelensky says that only diplomacy can end the war, but he has said that Russia must return to the positions it held before the invasion.

His allies, led by the US and UK, want to weaken Putin's Russia permanently. They have said Russia must not win.

Their critics say they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.



And then of course you have the ludicrous spectacle of the EU bickering among themselves over how to legally circumvent their own sanctions so they can continue paying Russia for its oil and gas; the result of Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel being in the unfortunate habit of announcing grand plans without first taking 15 minutes to figure out how in the hell to make it all happen without crippling their own economies.

Long story short, there’s a growing sense in this part of the world that the war has reached a turning point (it happened around May 7th when the Russian army won the Battle of Popasna; things shifted after that and we started to hear desperation creeping into the words of the Ukrainian generals). I know there are still some folk here on this forum who believe the “40 billion to Ukraine” will be a game-changer, but it won’t be. Firstly, has anyone who thinks this money will make a significant difference actually read up on where exactly that 40 billion is being spent? Less than half of that sum (19 billion) is being spent on "military support for Ukraine" (the other 21 billion is for humanitarian relief, support for US forces in Europe, DOD modernization programmes, help for refugees, and so on). And even then the remaining 19 billion is carved up into smaller packages, such that ‘only’ 6 billion is for (I quote) “training, equipment, weapons, logistic support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine”. That’s it. The rest is for stuff like US weapons manufacturers to replenish their stocks. As John Kirby just said – time is not on Ukraine’s side here, and there’s a feeling that by the time what’s left of the Ukrainian army has been sent the weapons and trained to use them, it’ll effectively be 6 billion dollars down the drain.

My general point is, what I wrote earlier this week is still, to my mind, the most balanced interpretation of events. Unless all the people of the US, the UK and Europe are prepared to start bankrolling Ukraine to the tune of at least 7 billion euros a month (Zelenskiy’s figure) in the (ridiculous) belief that Russia is going to run out of artillery before the “40 billion” kicks in, then Ukraine can’t win this war. 3 months ago people in this thread were posting that “by June there will be nothing left of the Russian economy”. Well guess what, it’s now almost June and there is almost nothing left of the Ukrainian economy, because Russia has taken over 80% of it. People (well, one person, but I made sure to note it) said that by the summer Russians would be starving to death. Here we now are and the West is pretending to panic because they think Russia is about to starve the developing world to death. They said back in March that the Russian army would fall “in 3 weeks”. Here we now are and not a day goes by without Zelenskiy saying Ukraine will fall imminently unless America finally sends it proper weapons (never going to happen). Yet despite all of this there are still people here who seriously believe Ukraine is "winning" this war.

That’s my take. And again, I am intending to reply to those who replied to my earlier post (thank you to those who did) but it’s been a busy week for me and trying to write properly sourced opinions - as opposed to indiscriminately spamming tweets from Twitter nobodies - takes time. Full disclosure for what it’s worth, I live in the town of Pushkin, near St Petersburg, which is a military town, and is part of the reason why what I see with my own eyes does not in any way correlate to the Western narrative that was given in March and April about this war, I mean for example about how Russia’s “only tank factory” (I still laugh my arse off at that) can’t supply any more parts and so the army will collapse by the start of April, or that Putin is gravely ill with a coсktail of blood, bone, bowel, brain and bollock cancer. Yes, Russia made enormous mistakes at the start of this war, and Putin went into it with very bad intel, but he’s nothing if not extremely adaptable, he’s adapted, and he’s almost certainly going to win. A fiercely unpopular viewpoint, I know, but nevertheless one that is based in reality rather than emotion. Emotion improves many things but decision making and critical thinking aren't among them.

 

[Balljy]

I think everyone is trying to call this a win or a loss for Ukraine/Russia too early in the game. Esentially we have seen three (or four) war fronts:

-Northern front: Ukraine secured Kyiv, thereby winning.
-Southern front: Russia occupied most of the coast and finally Mariupol. Odessa is left but it's difficult not to see it as a Russia win, however not definitive.
East (and maybe Northeast) front: Kind of a stalemate situation, where Ukraine is on its way to secure Kharkiv and Russia is slowly advancing through the Donbas. Evidently both are not definitive and a long attrition war is the likeliest outcome on this front, unless someone collapses abruptly.

However, so far geopolitically speaking this war has been a nightmare for Russia (getting increasingly sanctioned, isolated and less feared as a big power) and great PR for Ukraine (although at the cost of too many lives). Let's hope it ends soon, hopefully with a decisive Ukraine victory.

If Odessa falls that gives Russia the entire coastline. Ukraine would do everything to stop that as it makes their economy unsustainable as they wouldn't be able to export grain.

 

[DT12]

If Odessa falls that gives Russia the entire coastline. Ukraine would do everything to stop that as it makes their economy unsustainable as they wouldn't be able to export grain.

This is correct, if Odessa falls (along with Kharkiv, the other crucial city) then Ukraine no longer has an economy. Kiev, like most capitals, is an administrative centre, not an industrial one. They spend the country's money rather than make it. This is Putin's aim, to slowly squeeze the life out of the Ukrainian economy so that the country can't function anymore.

 

[TMDaines]

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

That’s been his modus operandi for three months: armchair geopoliticking.

 

[Simbo]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

 

[DT12]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

You're very welcome but out of interest which of my conclusions and opinions do you find "a bit warped", and why?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Manchie]

The messaging here (Russia), albeit not stated so directly, is that Putin has to take all of Ukraine at this point. First Donbas (which will likely fall by the end of June), then the north, then Lviv, with the aim to have the entire country 'taken' by October. Putin (via Peskov) keeps saying that the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" given by Putin prior to the invasion (destruction of the Azov Batallion, demilitarisation of Ukraine, and Ukrainian neutrality) have not changed, and – this part matters most – he has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” (he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion). The Azov Batallion have already surrendered, neutrality is basically assured at this point, which leaves only the trickiest one: demilitarisation. Since the US are at least saying they're committed for the long term, that means Putin needs Kiev (although literally an hour ago John Kirby at the Pentagon gave a press conference in which he said they need to be realistic about sending heavy weapons to Ukraine because "time is not on our side" - in other words, this looks like being over sooner rather than later, but I'm going to write more on that when I reply to an earlier post that was addressed to me about why I believe Ukraine can't win this war from here).

I've already stated my belief that there isn't going to be a meaningful counter-offensive (there is a massive disconnect between what Zelenskiy and Kuleba say in their rallying calls when addressing the likes of Davos or the American Senate, and what the actual generals on the ground like Zaluzhnyi are saying). Nowhere was this disconnect more pronounced than with the Azovstal fiasco. For months the powers that be in Ukraine and the West were building the Azov Batallion up as the bravest warriors who ever fought in battle (this despite their English Wikipedia page still to this day describing them as “a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine”), issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

There were some glaring problems with that narrative though, at least they were glaring to those of us who were closely observing the situation. While Zelenskiy and Kuleba were reassuring the Western democracies that their billions of dollars and euros were not being sent in vain, the "warriors" themselves and their families were criticising their own government...

https://censor.net/en/news/3339810/...t_watching_save_military_from_azovstal_marine

And begging (actually begging) everyone from Turkey's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/families-azov-fighters-ask-turkish-201138446.html

...to China's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/relatives-azovstal-works-defenders-ask-102818811.html

...to the Pope...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...appeal-pope-help-get-husbands-out-2022-05-11/

...to Elon frigging Musk...

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-trapped-azovstal-begs-elon-musk-help-if-not-you-who-1705851

...to help "evacuate" them to safety.


That last plea, to Musk, was especially interesting because it was issued from the bowels of Azovstal by none other than Serhiy Volyna, commander of the much-feared 36th Marine Brigade, and he asked a very pertinent question to Elon Musk: "If not you, then who else can do it?" Excellent question Serhiy, and one that led us to a question that nobody in the Western media dared ask: why were these guys not begging the US government to help save them? Or the UK government? Or Zelenskiy himself? You know, people who claim to be ready to do whatever their "brave warriors" ask, and who actually COULD have saved them. These "heroes" (as Zelenskiy is keen to keep calling them) were reduced to begging the likes of Turkey, China and the Pope to save their lives and help them get to a 3rd country (instead, they've all been shipped off to Russian territory, which is exactly what they all - less than 3 weeks ago - vowed they'd never allow to happen).

That’s just one example from many I could give. Late last night Serhiy Haidai (governor of Luhansk) said the situation in the east is “dire” for Ukraine and said that they were outnumbered by 1 to 8 in terms of men and twice that in terms of equipment. Ukrainian commanders have also said that what they’ve been sent by the West is nowhere close to the kind of equipment they need to stand a chance of victory (this has been obvious from the beginning, the US and Europe is just sending them all the old crap they don't need anymore). Indeed earlier this month Zelenskiy issued an order that forbade the Ukrainian military from complaining on social media about the equipment they’re being given. And 2 days ago the BBC started noting that some people in Ukraine are starting to turn on Zelenskiy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61570444

President Zelensky says that only diplomacy can end the war, but he has said that Russia must return to the positions it held before the invasion.

His allies, led by the US and UK, want to weaken Putin's Russia permanently. They have said Russia must not win.

Their critics say they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.



And then of course you have the ludicrous spectacle of the EU bickering among themselves over how to legally circumvent their own sanctions so they can continue paying Russia for its oil and gas; the result of Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel being in the unfortunate habit of announcing grand plans without first taking 15 minutes to figure out how in the hell to make it all happen without crippling their own economies.

Long story short, there’s a growing sense in this part of the world that the war has reached a turning point (it happened around May 7th when the Russian army won the Battle of Popasna; things shifted after that and we started to hear desperation creeping into the words of the Ukrainian generals). I know there are still some folk here on this forum who believe the “40 billion to Ukraine” will be a game-changer, but it won’t be. Firstly, has anyone who thinks this money will make a significant difference actually read up on where exactly that 40 billion is being spent? Less than half of that sum (19 billion) is being spent on military support for Ukraine (the other 21 billion is for humanitarian relief, support for US forces in Europe, DOD modernization programmes, help for refugees, and so on). And even then the remaining 19 billion is carved up into smaller packages, such that ‘only’ 6 billion is for (I quote) “training, equipment, weapons, logistic support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine”. That’s it. The rest is for stuff like US weapons manufacturers to replenish their stocks. As John Kirby just said – time is not on Ukraine’s side here, and there’s a feeling that by the time what’s left of the Ukrainian army has been sent the weapons and trained to use them, it’ll effectively be 6 billion dollars down the drain.

My general point is, what I wrote earlier this week is still, to my mind, the most balanced interpretation of events. Unless all the people of the US, the UK and Europe are prepared to start bankrolling Ukraine to the tune of at least 7 billion euros a month (Zelenskiy’s figure) in the (ridiculous) belief that Russia is going to run out of artillery before the “40 billion” kicks in, then Ukraine can’t win this war. 3 months ago people in this thread were posting that “by June there will be nothing left of the Russian economy”. Well guess what, it’s now almost June and there is almost nothing left of the Ukrainian economy, because Russia has taken over 80% of it. People (well, one person, but I made sure to note it) said that by the summer Russians would be starving to death. Here we now are and the West is pretending to panic because they think Russia is about to starve the developing world to death. They said back in March that the Russia army would fall “in 3 weeks”. Here we now are and not a day goes by without Zelenskiy saying Ukraine will fall imminently unless America finally sends it proper weapons (never going to happen). Yet despite all of this there are still people here who seriously believe Ukraine is "winning" this war.

That’s my take. And again, I am intending to reply to those who replied to my earlier post (thank you to those who did) but it’s been a busy week for me and trying to write properly sourced opinions - as opposed to indiscriminately spamming tweets from Twitter nobodies - takes time. Full disclosure for what it’s worth, I live in the town of Pushkin, near St Petersburg, which is a military town, and is part of the reason why what I see with my own eyes does not in any way correlate to the Western narrative that was given in March and April about this war, I mean for example about how Russia’s “only tank factory” (I still laugh my arse off at that) can’t supply any more parts and so the army will collapse by the start of April, or that Putin is gravely ill with a coсktail of blood, bone, bowel and brain cancer. Yes, Russia made enormous mistakes at the start of this war, and Putin went into it with very bad intel, but he’s nothing if not extremely adaptable, he’s adapted, and he’s almost certainly going to win. A fiercely unpopular viewpoint, I know, but nevertheless one that is based in reality rather than emotion. Emotion improves many things but decision making and critical thinking are not among them.

I follow Alexander Mercurius on Telegram and he was dead sure that the war would go in favor of Russia since the April.

 

[TMDaines]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

Understatement of the thread right here.

 

[DT12]

Understatement of the thread right here.

So then I'll ask you too, which of my conclusions and opinions do you find a bit warped, and why?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I don't know what the casualty ratio will be for the Russian Air Force by the end of the war, but accounts like this are similar to how the US Air Force and the US Navy encountered all kinds of trouble against the North Vietnamese Air Force during the Vietnam War.

 

[Simbo]

You're very welcome but out of interest which of my conclusions and opinions do you find "a bit warped", and why?

I've not the time to go through all that right now but I'll touch on the Azov point since you talked about that a fair bit.

Firstly the Azov batallion operates in more areas that Mariupol, it is not wiped out. It is still barely a fraction of Ukraine's armed forces even at full strength so largely irrelevent to this war but since Russia seems to have made it their #1 propaganda tool to justify their Nazi nonsense, we need to keep talking about them.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article:
https://medium.com/the-ukrainian-vi...ism-answers-the-common-questions-7a48547b592b

With note to the author - A Russian (lives/work in Ukraine) that studies and works against far-right extremist groups, seems credible.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Simbo]

@DT12 and if I was in that Azovstal situation I'd be begging everyone possible too, even if there was no hope anyone could help them out.

I don't find the Elon Musk plea interesting at all. They would see him as some sort of saviour because the only reason they could tweet at all is because of the Starlink system, so understandable. They probably wouldn't be aware those were purchased off Musk's company and delivered by the US government.

 

[DT12]

I've not the time to go through all that right now but I'll touch on the Azov point since you talked about that a fair bit.

Firstly the Azov batallion operates in more areas that Mariupol, it is not wiped out. It is still barely a fraction of Ukraine's armed forces even at full strength so largely irrelevent to this war but since Russia seems to have made it their #1 propaganda tool to justify their Nazi nonsense, we need to keep talking about them.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article:
https://medium.com/the-ukrainian-vi...ism-answers-the-common-questions-7a48547b592b

With note to the author - A Russian (lives/work in Ukraine) that studies and works against far-right extremist groups, seems credible.

To be clear my mention of the Azovstal situation was to illustrate the disconnect between narrative and reality. The Russian army is depicted as exhausted, confused and low on morale whereas according to Zelenskiy's speeches to Western governments the Ukrainian army is ready to shed every last drop of blood for Western freedom so long as they get weapons. This is simply nowhere close to reality, and I offered the example of some of Ukraine's mostly fiercely nationalistic soldiers begging to be allowed to give up by way of example (it actually took several days before the Western media could bring themselves to use the 'S' word - surrender - rather than Zelenskiy's euphemism of "a heroic rescue operation").

I'll look at the article you've posted but right off the bat let me say I agree with you that it is ludicrous for Putin to claim Ukraine is being run by Nazis, or that the Ukrainian army consists of Nazis. I will never argue to the contrary, it's by far Putin's dumbest talking point in this war. However, it is a fact that the Azov Batallion (yes, a tiny faction of the whole) ARE neo-Nazi, and it is also a fact that they are an official part of the Ukrainian army. If tomorrow Joe Biden decided to make the KKK an official battalion of the American armed forces they would be an infinitesimal part of the American army. Nevertheless, it would be extremely weird if there were a KKK Batallion within the American army.

 

[Simbo]

Nevertheless, it would be extremely weird if there were a KKK Batallion within the American army.

It would, but i'd wager the US army has a much bigger problem with neo-nazi's than the Ukrianian. Anyway, read that article.

 

[DT12]

@DT12 and if I was in that Azovstal situation I'd be begging everyone possible too, even if there was no hope anyone could help them out.

"Everyone possible". Exactly. So why do you suppose they never thought to ask the US or UK governments to help negotiate the terms of their surrender? The governments who were lauding them as brave warriors who would never surrender or agree to be transported to Russia under any circumstance...even as they were literally begging to surrender and agreeing to be transported to Russia. Instead they were left to plead with parties who were very obviously powerless (the Pope, Musk, Erdogan) or else clearly unwilling (Xi Jinping) to do anything about them. Don't forget here - these same Azovstal defenders were fiercely criticising their own government long before they took to having to beg Russia's 'allies' to help them.

 

[Simbo]

"Everyone possible". Exactly. So why do you suppose they never thought to ask the US or UK governments to help negotiate the terms of their surrender? The governments who were lauding them as brave warriors who would never surrender or agree to be transported to Russia under any circumstance...even as they were literally begging to surrender and agreeing to be transported to Russia. Instead they were left to plead with parties who were very obviously powerless (the Pope, Musk, Erdogan) or else clearly unwilling (Xi Jinping) to do anything about them. Don't forget here - these same Azovstal defenders were fiercely criticising their own government long before they took to having to beg Russia's 'allies' to help them.

I dunno, I'm not sure that they didn't and I'm not entirely sure why it is relevant? Just glancing at the links you posted those seem to be about reletives pleading to China, the pope, etc. Not the men and women in Azovstal themselves. Would a plea to the US/UK government by their wives be worthy of a news story? They are Ukrainian armed forces and the surrender was negotiated when their commander in chief made the call, as one would expect.

 

[DT12]

I dunno, I'm not sure that they didn't and I'm not entirely sure why it is relevant? Just glancing at the links you posted those seem to be about reletives pleading to China, the pope, etc. Not the men and women in Azovstal themselves. Would a plea to the US/UK government by their wives be worthy of a news story? They are Ukrainian armed forces and the surrender was negotiated when their commander in chief made the call, as one would expect.

They didn't, and that is what makes it relevant. Anyway I'll read your link and get back to you, but it's 2am over here and I'm off to bed now. Thanks for the respectful engagement.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The messaging here (Russia), albeit not stated so directly, is that Putin has to take all of Ukraine at this point. First Donbas (which will likely fall by the end of June), then the north, then Lviv, with the aim to have the entire country 'taken' by October. Putin (via Peskov) keeps saying that the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" given by Putin prior to the invasion (destruction of the Azov Batallion, demilitarisation of Ukraine, and Ukrainian neutrality) have not changed, and – this part matters most – he has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” (he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion). The Azov Batallion have already surrendered, neutrality is basically assured at this point, which leaves only the trickiest one: demilitarisation. Since the US are at least saying they're committed for the long term, that means Putin needs Kiev (although literally an hour ago John Kirby at the Pentagon gave a press conference in which he said they need to be realistic about sending heavy weapons to Ukraine because "time is not on our side" - in other words, this looks like being over sooner rather than later, but I'm going to write more on that when I reply to an earlier post that was addressed to me about why I believe Ukraine can't win this war from here).

I've already stated my belief that there isn't going to be a meaningful counter-offensive (there is a massive disconnect between what Zelenskiy and Kuleba say in their rallying calls when addressing the likes of Davos or the American Senate, and what the actual generals on the ground like Zaluzhnyi are saying). Nowhere was this disconnect more pronounced than with the Azovstal fiasco. For months the powers that be in Ukraine and the West were building the Azov Batallion up as the bravest warriors who ever fought in battle (this despite their English Wikipedia page still to this day describing them as “a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine”), issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

There were some glaring problems with that narrative though, at least they were glaring to those of us who were closely observing the situation. While Zelenskiy and Kuleba were reassuring the Western democracies that their billions of dollars and euros were not being sent in vain, the "warriors" themselves and their families were criticising their own government...

https://censor.net/en/news/3339810/...t_watching_save_military_from_azovstal_marine

And begging (actually begging) everyone from Turkey's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/families-azov-fighters-ask-turkish-201138446.html

...to China's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/relatives-azovstal-works-defenders-ask-102818811.html

...to the Pope...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...appeal-pope-help-get-husbands-out-2022-05-11/

...to Elon frigging Musk...

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-trapped-azovstal-begs-elon-musk-help-if-not-you-who-1705851

...to help "evacuate" them to safety.


That last plea, to Musk, was especially interesting because it was issued from the bowels of Azovstal by none other than Serhiy Volyna, commander of the much-feared 36th Marine Brigade, and he asked a very pertinent question to Elon Musk: "If not you, then who else can do it?" Excellent question Serhiy, and one that led us to a question that nobody in the Western media dared ask: why were these guys not begging the US government to help save them? Or the UK government? Or Zelenskiy himself? You know, people who claim to be ready to do whatever their "brave warriors" ask, and who actually COULD have saved them. These "heroes" (as Zelenskiy is keen to keep calling them) were reduced to begging the likes of Turkey, China and the Pope to save their lives and help them get to a 3rd country (instead, they've all been shipped off to Russian territory, which is exactly what they all - less than 3 weeks ago - vowed they'd never allow to happen).

That’s just one example from many I could give. Late last night Serhiy Haidai (governor of Luhansk) said the situation in the east is “dire” for Ukraine and said that they were outnumbered by 1 to 8 in terms of men and twice that in terms of equipment. Ukrainian commanders have also said that what they’ve been sent by the West is nowhere close to the kind of equipment they need to stand a chance of victory (this has been obvious from the beginning, the US and Europe is just sending them all the old crap they don't need anymore). Indeed earlier this month Zelenskiy issued an order that forbade the Ukrainian military from complaining on social media about the equipment they’re being given. And 2 days ago the BBC started noting that some people in Ukraine are starting to turn on Zelenskiy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61570444

President Zelensky says that only diplomacy can end the war, but he has said that Russia must return to the positions it held before the invasion.

His allies, led by the US and UK, want to weaken Putin's Russia permanently. They have said Russia must not win.

Their critics say they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.



And then of course you have the ludicrous spectacle of the EU bickering among themselves over how to legally circumvent their own sanctions so they can continue paying Russia for its oil and gas; the result of Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel being in the unfortunate habit of announcing grand plans without first taking 15 minutes to figure out how in the hell to make it all happen without crippling their own economies.

Long story short, there’s a growing sense in this part of the world that the war has reached a turning point (it happened around May 7th when the Russian army won the Battle of Popasna; things shifted after that and we started to hear desperation creeping into the words of the Ukrainian generals). I know there are still some folk here on this forum who believe the “40 billion to Ukraine” will be a game-changer, but it won’t be. Firstly, has anyone who thinks this money will make a significant difference actually read up on where exactly that 40 billion is being spent? Less than half of that sum (19 billion) is being spent on "military support for Ukraine" (the other 21 billion is for humanitarian relief, support for US forces in Europe, DOD modernization programmes, help for refugees, and so on). And even then the remaining 19 billion is carved up into smaller packages, such that ‘only’ 6 billion is for (I quote) “training, equipment, weapons, logistic support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine”. That’s it. The rest is for stuff like US weapons manufacturers to replenish their stocks. As John Kirby just said – time is not on Ukraine’s side here, and there’s a feeling that by the time what’s left of the Ukrainian army has been sent the weapons and trained to use them, it’ll effectively be 6 billion dollars down the drain.

My general point is, what I wrote earlier this week is still, to my mind, the most balanced interpretation of events. Unless all the people of the US, the UK and Europe are prepared to start bankrolling Ukraine to the tune of at least 7 billion euros a month (Zelenskiy’s figure) in the (ridiculous) belief that Russia is going to run out of artillery before the “40 billion” kicks in, then Ukraine can’t win this war. 3 months ago people in this thread were posting that “by June there will be nothing left of the Russian economy”. Well guess what, it’s now almost June and there is almost nothing left of the Ukrainian economy, because Russia has taken over 80% of it. People (well, one person, but I made sure to note it) said that by the summer Russians would be starving to death. Here we now are and the West is pretending to panic because they think Russia is about to starve the developing world to death. They said back in March that the Russia army would fall “in 3 weeks”. Here we now are and not a day goes by without Zelenskiy saying Ukraine will fall imminently unless America finally sends it proper weapons (never going to happen). Yet despite all of this there are still people here who seriously believe Ukraine is "winning" this war.

That’s my take. And again, I am intending to reply to those who replied to my earlier post (thank you to those who did) but it’s been a busy week for me and trying to write properly sourced opinions - as opposed to indiscriminately spamming tweets from Twitter nobodies - takes time. Full disclosure for what it’s worth, I live in the town of Pushkin, near St Petersburg, which is a military town, and is part of the reason why what I see with my own eyes does not in any way correlate to the Western narrative that was given in March and April about this war, I mean for example about how Russia’s “only tank factory” (I still laugh my arse off at that) can’t supply any more parts and so the army will collapse by the start of April, or that Putin is gravely ill with a coсktail of blood, bone, bowel and brain cancer. Yes, Russia made enormous mistakes at the start of this war, and Putin went into it with very bad intel, but he’s nothing if not extremely adaptable, he’s adapted, and he’s almost certainly going to win. A fiercely unpopular viewpoint, I know, but nevertheless one that is based in reality rather than emotion. Emotion improves many things but decision making and critical thinking are not among them.

Re. the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" you say that Putin (via Peskov) has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” and that "he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion." But what else do you expect him to say? He's hardly going to say that he expects failure, so his statement is no proof of anything.

You also claim that the Azov battalion's surrender was some great victory for Russia. But in reality what happened in Mariupol was that the Russians lost a ton of men and equipment, and were delayed by several months in being able to redeploy troops from there northward - time that helped Ukraine and hindered Russia.

Your claim that Ukrainian neutrality is "assured at this point" is laughable. Putin has turned Ukraine into Russia's most implacable enemy. It will never agree to to be de-militarised and sooner or later will join the EU and probably NATO also, however many years down the road this happens.

Your claim that the US and Europe is just sending Ukraine "the old crap they don't need anymore" is false. Stingers, Javelins, NLAWS, howitzers, Switchblades etc etc are clearly not "old crap".

You claim that living in a military town near St. Petersburg helps you "see with my own eyes" the falsity of the Western narrative. What I actually expect it helps you see is the wall-to-wall propaganda of Russian state TV, which you appear to have swallowed in large measure.

The reality is that Russia now has at least 80,000 men out of action, and probably well over 100,000. The reality is that Putin is going to great lengths to hide these casualties from the Russian people - even refusing to take back the many thousands of dead Russian now stored in chilled morgues inside Ukraine. The reality is that Russian economy is in steep decline, decline that will accelerate month by month as this war continues.

The notion that Russia will conquer Ukraine is a total fantasy.

 

[DT12]

Re. the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" you say that Putin (via Peskov) has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” and that "he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion." But what else do you expect him to say? He's hardly going to say that he expects failure, so his statement is no proof of anything.

You also claim that the Azov battalion's surrender was some great victory for Russia. But in reality what happened in Mariupol was that the Russians lost a ton of men and equipment, and were delayed by several months in being able to redeploy troops from there northward - time that helped Ukraine and hindered Russia.

Your claim that Ukrainian neutrality is "assured at this point" is laughable. Putin has turned Ukraine into Russia's most implacable enemy. It will never agree to to be de-militarised and sooner or later will join the EU and probably NATO also, however many years down the road this happens.

Your claim that the US and Europe is just sending Ukraine "the old crap they don't need anymore" is false. Stingers, Javelins, NLAWS, howitzers, Switchblades etc etc are clearly not "old crap".

You claim that living in a military town near St. Petersburg helps you "see with my own eyes" the falsity of the Western narrative. What I actually expect it helps you see is the wall-to-wall propaganda of Russian state TV, which you appear to have swallowed in large measure.

The reality is that Russia now has at least 80,000 men out of action, and probably well over 100,000. The reality is that Putin is going to great lengths to hide these casualties from the Russian people - even refusing to take back the many thousands of dead Russian now stored in chilled morgues inside Ukraine. The reality is that Russian economy is in steep decline, decline that will accelerate month by month as this war continues.

The notion that Russia will conquer Ukraine is a total fantasy.

Is this what your "psychic friend" told you? This one who assured you Putin was mortally ill?

Glaston my pal, you have posted nothing but absolute nonsense in this thread for the last 3 months (would you like me to pull up some of your greatest hits from mid to late March?) and you've given no indication you intend to slow down with the indiscriminate Twitter spam. All I'll say is that all these garbage tweets you have been dumping in this thread are the main reason it has become nigh-on useless as a place to actually discuss the realities of this war. Do however let me know when your "psychic friend" thinks Putin's check-out date is. Spokoinoiy nochi.

 

[Lemoor]

issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

Can you link to examples of those? It's such a weird prognosis to make for obvious reasons and maybe I just missed that, but I don't really remember any governments hammering those assurances in.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Is this what your "psychic friend" told you? This one who assured you Putin was mortally ill?

Glaston my pal, you have posted nothing but absolute nonsense in this thread for the last 3 months (would you like me to pull up some of your greatest hits from mid to late March?) and you've given no indication you intend to slow down with the indiscriminate Twitter spam. All I'll say is that all these garbage tweets you have been dumping in this thread are the main reason it has become nigh-on useless as a place to actually discuss the realities of this war. Do however let me know when your "psychic friend" thinks Putin's check-out date is. Spokoinoiy nochi.

I note that you did not answer any of the points I made - I wonder why. However ...

Reports of Putin being ill have come from many, many sources. Whether or not his illness is mortal remains to be seen. But no doubt your location in a Russian military town gives you the inside dope - possibly from a friend of a friend of a friend - on Putin's health.

None of my Twitter citations have been indiscriminate - they have all been relevant. So quit trying to attack the messenger because you don't like the messages.

Tell me this, my Russian propaganda-swallowing "friend", if the war in Ukraine is going so well for Russia, then why is it resorting to pulling 60 year-old tanks out of storage? And why have Russian lawmakers adopted a bill raising the upper age limit to 50 years for joining the military? And why won't Russia take back the many thousands of its dead soldiers being stored in morgues inside Ukraine? And why is Russia still not admit the sinking of its Black Sea flagship by Ukrainian missiles?

There are many more questions where those came from - none will be answered by your consumption of Russian State TV.

 

[sport2793]

Is this what your "psychic friend" told you? This one who assured you Putin was mortally ill?

Glaston my pal, you have posted nothing but absolute nonsense in this thread for the last 3 months (would you like me to pull up some of your greatest hits from mid to late March?) and you've given no indication you intend to slow down with the indiscriminate Twitter spam. All I'll say is that all these garbage tweets you have been dumping in this thread are the main reason it has become nigh-on useless as a place to actually discuss the realities of this war. Do however let me know when your "psychic friend" thinks Putin's check-out date is. Spokoinoiy nochi.

I agree that Glaston has gone a bit far at times in some of the sources and info he has posted but a lot of the views he stated in his post are backed up by credible data. It's hard to have to go through each article or tweet from an official government source or think tank analyst to add credence to each claim that Glaston brought up. But credible Western military analysts, who predicted prior to the invasion that Russia would likely be successful in Ukraine and that they had mobilized enough troops to take all important objectives including Kyiv and Odesa (Michael Kofman comes to mind), have been pretty clear that Russia has not sufficiently regenerated its forces to achieve the only outcome for Russia that could be considered a strategic victory (demilitarisation of Ukraine).

You have brought up no facts or evidence to support that a demilitarized Ukraine is already assured, the only way this could be assured is if the government in Kyiv is replaced at this point, which there is no guarantee of in the short term at least. Have you considered that another explanation for the alarmist statements from Ukrainian officials in recent weeks might be to ensure that the war stays front and center in the minds of Western countries and to increase the credibility for their significant military asks? I think the one valid point you bring up is with regards to the $40 billion not all going to be devoted to military spending but as you state, much of this funding actually addresses the economic issues Ukraine are facing, which you have been quick to state is not being addressed and is already beyond repair for Ukraine + a key factor for their assured defeat. Plus, $40 billion only represents what the US are contributing but other countries are continuing to provide fresh weapons and aid to Ukraine also. When you add it up, there may not be as much of a gap between what is needed vs. what they are receiving.

 

[Frosty]

I agree that Glaston has gone a bit far at times in some of the sources and info he has posted but a lot of the views he stated in his post are backed up by credible data. It's hard to have to go through each article or tweet from an official government source or think tank analyst to add credence to each claim that Glaston brought up. But credible Western military analysts, who predicted prior to the invasion that Russia would likely be successful in Ukraine and that they had mobilized enough troops to take all important objectives including Kyiv and Odesa (Michael Kofman comes to mind), have been pretty clear that Russia has not sufficiently regenerated its forces to achieve the only outcome for Russia that could be considered a strategic victory (demilitarisation of Ukraine).

You have brought up no facts or evidence to support that a demilitarized Ukraine is already assured, the only way this could be assured is if the government in Kyiv is replaced at this point, which there is no guarantee of in the short term at least. Have you considered that another explanation for the alarmist statements from Ukrainian officials in recent weeks might be to ensure that the war stays front and center in the minds of Western countries and to increase the credibility for their significant military asks? I think the one valid point you bring up is with regards to the $40 billion not all going to be devoted to military spending but as you state, much of this funding actually addresses the economic issues Ukraine are facing, which you have been quick to state is not being addressed and is already beyond repair for Ukraine + a key factor for their assured defeat. Plus, $40 billion only represents what the US are contributing but other countries are continuing to provide fresh weapons and aid to Ukraine also. When you add it up, there may not be as much of a gap between what is needed vs. what they are receiving.

I will respond to your post here rather than go through DT12's. I think his viewpoint is a very useful one to have, and many analysts have made incorrect predictions. I think your response is very sound.

There is a bigger point here for Western Europe and the US for me, which is the long game - if Putin wins, then he has more importantly shown that Europe and North America, and NATO, can be beaten. This is even more the case than if everyone had thrown up their hands in February and done nothing to help Ukraine.

This has grown into an almost existential fight, just like when the USSR and China were busy underwriting North Vietnam against the Americans, and when the Americans funded the Afghanis against the Soviets. There may well be a point at which Ukraine itself says "enough is enough" and seeks a negotiated settlement, as is their right. I just think that now 'the West' has so much invested there is no going back. This isn't like Afghanistan where you simply abandon a country and walk away.

Putin has shown he will use Russian forces to impose his own sphere of influence over Eastern Europe. If NATO et al walks away from Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will be calculating that they are next. This will be a long war, and the worse Ukraine does (and here is my prediction which may well be proved wrong), the more NATO countries will feel they have to give more and more support.

 

[Carolina Red]

Kiev

I’m sorry, who?

 

[The Firestarter]

Must be dark in Putin's arse.

 

[sport2793]

I will respond to your post here rather than go through DT12's. I think his viewpoint is a very useful one to have, and many analysts have made incorrect predictions. I think your response is very sound.

There is a bigger point here for Western Europe and the US for me, which is the long game - if Putin wins, then he has more importantly shown that Europe and North America, and NATO, can be beaten. This is even more the case than if everyone had thrown up their hands in February and done nothing to help Ukraine.

This has grown into an almost existential fight, just like when the USSR and China were busy underwriting North Vietnam against the Americans, and when the Americans funded the Afghanis against the Soviets. There may well be a point at which Ukraine itself says "enough is enough" and seeks a negotiated settlement, as is their right. I just think that now 'the West' has so much invested there is no going back. This isn't like Afghanistan where you simply abandon a country and walk away.

Putin has shown he will use Russian forces to impose his own sphere of influence over Eastern Europe. If NATO et al walks away from Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will be calculating that they are next. This will be a long war, and the worse Ukraine does (and here is my prediction which may well be proved wrong), the more NATO countries will feel they have to give more and more support.

Ya I agree with the points you bring up. I also think another important factor is that the inept Russian military performance means that NATO has stopped fearing Russia from a conventional perspective. The prior fears are pretty well illustrated here: Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics | RAND . The concern that senior officials now bring up isn't so much that they are worried of a costly war with Russia, but that NATO is so superior to Russia militarily that any engagement between the two will force Putin to use nuclear weapons once his conventional forces are wiped out. This viewpoint isn't going to be changed by Russia capturing several towns in the Donbas.

 

[frostbite]

It would, but i'd wager the US army has a much bigger problem with neo-nazi's than the Ukrianian. Anyway, read that article.

And what about the Russian army? Isn't it neo-nazi as a whole? They claim the country they invaded does not have the right to exist! They moved Ukrainian populations to Russia like the Nazis did to Jews. If this isn't neo-nazi, what is?

The Russian army did this:

Russia is guilty of inciting genocide in Ukraine, expert report concludes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/russia-guilty-inciting-genocide-ukraine-expert-report

Russia is guilty of inciting genocide and having the intent to commit genocide in Ukraine, legally obliging other countries to stop it, according to a new report by more than 30 internationally recognised legal scholars and experts.

 

[Simbo]

And what about the Russian army? Isn't it neo-nazi as a whole? They claim the country they invaded does not have the right to exist! They moved Ukrainian populations to Russia like the Nazis did to Jews. If this isn't neo-nazi, what is?

The Russian army did this:

Russia is guilty of inciting genocide in Ukraine, expert report concludes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/russia-guilty-inciting-genocide-ukraine-expert-report

Russia is guilty of inciting genocide and having the intent to commit genocide in Ukraine, legally obliging other countries to stop it, according to a new report by more than 30 internationally recognised legal scholars and experts.

Yeh that should go without saying at this point. The Russian state is the very embodiment of a modern Nazi Germany.

They don't wear German WW2 inspired badge on their arms though, that seems to be the defining factor to some people.

 

[Oly Francis]

@DT12 and if I was in that Azovstal situation I'd be begging everyone possible too, even if there was no hope anyone could help them out.

I don't find the Elon Musk plea interesting at all. They would see him as some sort of saviour because the only reason they could tweet at all is because of the Starlink system, so understandable. They probably wouldn't be aware those were purchased off Musk's company and delivered by the US government.

There's no better way to play to you Musk audience than telling him he's the only one in the world with the power to do something. That's actually really smart, he must have loved it.

 

[Carolina Red]

Russia is guilty of inciting genocide and having the intent to commit genocide in Ukraine

Yeh that should go without saying at this point

Lads lads, you’re just swallowing the western propaganda. Clearly.