She's probably on the Russian payroll.I wouldn't mind a few caftards leaving a few comments on this tweet.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She's probably on the Russian payroll.I wouldn't mind a few caftards leaving a few comments on this tweet.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Having looked at a few of her tweets just now, I was going to suggest she’s just a nutter but maybe you’re right.She's probably on the Russian payroll.
Thanks for thatSomebody asked for a summary, I'll do my best:
February: Putin's plan A to take Kyiv failed, as they didn't get to control the air bases.
March: Putin's plan B to take Kyiv was stalled indefinitely by Ukraine's resistance attacking their supply line. They weren't even able to occupy the border city of Kharkiv. They got better luck securing the southeast from Kherson to (not including) Mariupol.
April: Putin's plan B to take Kyiv failed, as their forces moved back to Russia to regroup. They somehow managed to also lose their biggest ship in the southeast front despite Ukraine not having a navy. Kharkiv and Mariupol still haven't fallen.
May: Mariupol finally fell. Though, Russia's plans to take Kharkiv were abandoned. The goalposts were moved to securing the Donbas.
June: After a whole month, Russian forces were able to take Severodonetsk. The rest of the fronts remain mainly stalled.
July: After occupying Lisichansk (the first big city west of the Donbas) the first week of the month, the eastern front got stalled. Ukraine starts a counter offensive in Kherson.
August: Ukraine's offensive in Kherson slowly advances. The port of Odessa exports grain for the first time since the beggining of the invasion. The russian occupation of Crimea is hit by Ukranian resistance for the first time as well. There's almost 40 days since the last significant russian gain.
Looking at the big picture, almost everyone (me included) overestimated the RA's power and underestimated Ukraine's resistance and the West's ressolve to intervene in the conflict.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s going to get hit, isn’t it.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A positive spin.
If the objective is to both hit the separatists' psyche and create a logistical nightmare for the Russian army at the same time, the bridge definitely is the juiciest target to do so (for as long as civilians aren't on it).It’s going to get hit, isn’t it.
Not with all the civilians on it.It’s going to get hit, isn’t it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Russia made a lot of effort to bring Russians there, the question is if they would stay in case of a Ukrainian invasion on CrimeaDo we know what's the current population makeup in crimea? If ukraine decides to retake it, will they be welcomed by the population or has russia managed to change it in the last few years to a point where people will see ukranians as invaders?
It's a very legit question I don't know the answer. I'm not sure anyone could answer that but for someone living there.Do we know what's the current population makeup in crimea? If ukraine decides to retake it, will they be welcomed by the population or has russia managed to change it in the last few years to a point where people will see ukranians as invaders?
Israel or TurkeyHypothetically, if there was to be a 3rd country to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, who would be the likely candidates? Can't think of a single country who both parties might think as a good neutral candidate while also being a powerful country capable of dealing with such negotiations. Would probably have to be at least 2 broker countries on the table to balance off the bias each might have towards one of the nation's.
Sorry if it's really off topic for the thread, but seemed like an interesting idea to me.
Turkey has been involved in quite a bit of mediation between Moscow and Kiev.Hypothetically, if there was to be a 3rd country to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, who would be the likely candidates? Can't think of a single country who both parties might think as a good neutral candidate while also being a powerful country capable of dealing with such negotiations. Would probably have to be at least 2 broker countries on the table to balance off the bias each might have towards one of the nation's.
Sorry if it's really off topic for the thread, but seemed like an interesting idea to me.
Israel or Turkey
Yea, Turkey is a good shout. Forgot they were already mediating.Turkey has been involved in quite a bit of mediation between Moscow and Kiev.
Putin has no option but to play nice with Erdongan - he can't lose access to Med.Turkey has been involved in quite a bit of mediation between Moscow and Kiev.
Heartwarming stuff.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Hopefully breaking point comes soon for their servicemen. Makes you hope, that if commanders really have fled Kherson and left soldiers to defend on their own, that it won't take much to make them surrender quickly without supervision and low morale.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Zelensky's actions were pretty remarkable and hard to predict. He was an actor, who had been elected because he played a president on TV, facing a seemingly overwhelming force. Very few could have predicted he'd dig down, fight and make excellent decisions, when faced with a huge Russian convoy and active saboteurs making daily attempts on his life.Heartwarming stuff.
It kinda makes it seem actually plausible that Ukrainian elite units are actually sabotaging stuff in Crimea if this is what they're facing.
It also makes me think that the whole invasion would have floundered from the start if the west had properly supported Ukraine from the start rather than assuming they'd be overrun
I note that it completely avoids Russia, which might explain their very relaxed attitude, but it might lead to worsening of the relationship with Belarus.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This all depends on the winds , that's why it has a time frame. Obviously how the winds change is only vaguely predictable.I note that it completely avoids Russia, which might explain their very relaxed attitude, but it might lead to worsening of the relationship with Belarus.
Would this be reason enough for Poland or the Baltic countries to invoke article 5?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
With willing leaders, it can be viewed that way for sure. Not with these clowns though.Would this be reason enough for Poland or Germany to invoke article 5?
Not under Scholz and Macron watch.Would this be reason enough for Poland or the Baltic countries to invoke article 5?