"Analysis of the situation in the Russian-Ukrainian war" Topic

McKinstry+1

Russia will not conquer Ukraine, nor will Ukraine defeat Russia. So the question is how to end this stupid war that Putin started for stupid reasons.

So I looked at the stories, mostly from what can be said to be from anti-Trump sources. But then, that is what the biased search engine of Google gives you.

The Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper (or rather printing-stories-to-scare-old-people-paper these days). Though I'd still consider the Telegraph a million times more reliable than say Fox. For benefit of anyone who doesn't know in the UK newspapers are the one with political biases. TV is regulated.

Nice to see to someone agree words matter. Looking at Putin's comments on Trump's return to the presidency suggests at least to me that he thinks Trump might be willing, if only inadvertently, buy into his ideas of a multipolar world (read tear up the rules-based international order) and spheres of influence.

My personal WAG is that actually a deal will be complicated and Putin will not be as pliable as Trump may think (and possibly vice versa). Ending in Trump being bored and frustrated and then ignoring the whole mess…

"The Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper"

That's why I included it. But I was listening to Winston Marshall last night. He said the right in the UK, is now just to the right of the American left. So I am taking right in the UK with some skepticism.

Obviously I take Fox over The Telegraph.

As far as regulation. Regulation is dubious at best. Who regulates them? What are their political views? What orientation? Who appoints them?

For instance:

"Ofcom has wide-ranging powers across the television, streaming, radio, telecoms and postal sectors. It has a statutory duty to represent the interests of citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting the public from harmful or offensive material."

Who determines what is offensive? Who is it offensive to?

We went through this in the US when all social media was dominated by liberals. You could only say certain things. You could be banned or censored. You could not say the Covid vaccine did not prevent you from catching or spreading the virus. You could not say masks didn't work. You could not say the Hunter Biden laptop was real. You could not say the President of the United States had either dementia or Alzheimer's. Covid did not come from a wet market and its origin was China.

I could give you a litany of things that would have got you banned or censored on Twitter, Facebook and other social media prior to Musk buying Twitter (thank god).

Sort of like the sites that determine media bias. Most are stocked with liberals with like minded beliefs.

Another thing listening to Winston last night. He said his lawyer told him to be careful, as 2 things he had posted could get him imprisoned under UK law.

"Yes, you can be arrested in the United Kingdom for saying certain things on the web, particularly if the content is threatening, abusive, or incites violence or hatred:

Hate speech
The UK has laws against threatening or abusive communication that is intended to alarm, distress, or harass someone. Penalties for hate speech can include fines, imprisonment, or both.

Online violence
The UK government takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. For example, the government has cracked down on people who shared social media posts about riots that it judged were likely to start racial hatred.

Online Safety Act
This act created new communications offenses that give the police direct powers to take action against speech online. "

Again who determines what constitutes hate speech? Why was posting information about riots deemed online violence? If those rioting were from one ethnic group or religion and you state that, it's not a lie. The whole thing is nebulous at best and biased by the political views, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation of those, deciding what constitutes these violations.

Sorry, I get this way when my sources get challanged.., and it's always Fox. I really trust no specific source and actually go to a spectrum. I also have issues with sources and governmental agencies that determine bias and "hate speech".

I know I sort of started this with my comment about Google. But I was frustrated with them returning majority liberal sources every time I do a search. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, AP.. etc. 🙂

That's a whole squirrelly mess of things which I'm not going to get into save to say I don't disagree with the intent of the law – generally. But execution recently is terrible and the police seem to be left trying to interpret legislation… needless to say that is not their job. Footnote a lot of our MPs are lawyers so you might think they'd actually better at drafting legislation! Broadcast media has to abide by rules of impartiality (interweb's are a bit of fuzzy grey area I think) ie you can't let someone claim 1+1=3 without making it clear that the other side says its 1. Print media doesn't and in theory is self-regulated but look how that turned out link – yeah. They literally hacked a murdered girls phone.
The following link will give you a little insight into how free speech and media-claims can interact in the UK and were the lines are regarding free speech. Though the term media is used very loosely here. Basically if you make an insane claim without substance that affects someone negatively and they can afford it you may well find yourself having to substantiate that claim in court.
link
Culturally the UK is different. We have free speech but there are distinct limits and things like super injunctions – some argue that libel laws and things like in injunctions are actually too restrictive making it too easy for the rich to squash negative stories. But for all his love of lawyers these still got released (eventually) without anyone being sued for deformation… (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You've_Been_Trumped). The Overton window is in a different place to the US despite the best efforts of the certain parts of the partisan media and certain politicians.

I guess, having been a victim of some of the censorship about some of the items I mentioned above, (specifically Covid, Chinese bio lab origination, presidential dementia and the laptop), I'm still a bit upset about the censorship.

Cheers

In reality, yes probably the sad truth.

Yes, it seems that may be the only way to stop the conflict. At least in the short run.

Inari7, I don't think so. All this has happened before (after WWII), and most recently – the war in Chechnya. In fact, there are many in Ukraine who want reconciliation with Russia and even to join it. After 2014, they were suppressed by the nationalist government and showed little activity. With the arrival of Russia, they themselves will clean out the remnants of nationalists who will prevent them from living normally. Rather, Ukrainians will be angry that the West pushed them into war with Russia and abandoned them in this fight.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, what is the burden? The territory of the Baltics has changed hands many times among various countries (the Teutonic Order, Prussia, Poland, the Principality of Lithuania (what is now Belarus, today's Lithuania was part of them), then the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation, Russia, Sweden.
There should be no NATO troops in Ukraine. If a buffer is needed, then these can be neutral troops – for example, India, Brazil, etc.
By the way, where can I read "the rules on which the world is based"?

35thOVI, I don't think Putin will go along with Trump's proposals. Ukraine will never be a member of NATO; Ukraine must be demilitarized (the size of its armed forces must be legally limited); of course, no one will return the territory it lost during military actions (maybe in the future, if it becomes an ally of Russia); Russia will not pay for the restoration of Ukraine, with the exception of the territories under its control – but it can provide orders for industry and cheap resources.
Show me, finally, the Koreans at the front)))
Putin will not sign any agreements with Zelensky for the future – Zelensky is not legitimate. And in general, this will not be a bilateral agreement – the US and Europe will have to participate and take on obligations.
Oh, have you noticed that expressing your opinion publicly in the West can be dangerous? I realized this after the stories of Snowden and Assange.

SBminisguy, the goals of the war are set out in the "Putin Ultimatum" published on the eve of the war. Conquering Ukraine was not listed there. That was not the goal. But a lost war always has its price.

Conquering Ukraine was not listed there. That was not the goal. But a lost war always has its price.

Meh -- Putin's goal was a decapitation blitzkrieg to topple the Zelensky regime, install a puppet and defacto annex Ukraine. It failed and has become a painful, pointless and bloody meatgrinder…while your pals in China cast covetous eyes at Far Eastern Russia and all that sweet oil! So now what?

Everything is correct, except for the desire to annex something, with the exception of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which fought for their independence for ten years (the troops formed in these republics are still some of the most combat-ready in the Russian army).
The United States is looking lustfully at Southeast Asia, whose market it wants to take away from China. And China wants to get Taiwan back. China doesn't care about Russian Siberia, at least for now. If it needs resources, it will get them easily and cheaply in exchange for its products. The Chinese are far from idiots. So Russia can be sure that China will not make territorial claims for a long time.
And it is quite possible that China will gladly take on the restoration of Ukraine. This would be a good solution for everyone. Except the West of course)))

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, what is the burden?

Never, mind it was a slightly iffy paraphrase anyway.

The international order….
link

Really wouldn't talk about censorship in other countries when my own literally outlaws calling a war a war.

That is, this is some kind of amorphous concept that everyone can interpret in the way that is convenient for them at the moment? And given that until recently the world was dominated by the so-called "West", then it was precisely they who interpreted these rules?
"Where the rules of the game do not allow you to win, gentlemen change the rules." Convenient)))

Earlier, we considered freedom of speech in the West as an example. And now we see that if we have not acquired it, then you have lost yours. It's forgivable for us, we still don't know how to do it – but can it be forgivable for you?

Inari7, this is what I'm talking about:

link

Earlier, we considered freedom of speech in the West as an example. And now we see that if we have not acquired it, then you have lost yours. It's forgivable for us, we still don't know how to do it – but can it be forgivable for you?

Interesting argument. But anyway fundamentally misunderstands what Snowden and Assange got into trouble for… the former is a whistle-blower and the later a journalist (of sorts). A certain former Prime Minster of the UK is routinely still referred to as a war criminal in the public square. Are any of the people doing so in jail, dead or even sued? No.

As to Russia somehow being deliberately dealt down in the global system perhaps you ought to consider the alternate hypothesis that Russian is dealing itself down? Deliberately, because the head of state is a dictator, who seems to think its acceptable for a country to behave like its 1824 rather 2024, because Russia has some weird-divine right to a near abroad because 'invasions'? And will basically murder any number of Russians to achieve his aims.
YouTube link
For the record I don't entirely agree with the analysis but its basically a reasonable median for a number of assessments out there by more credible commentators than History Legends.

Caprum

I said Ukraine in NATO would not be acceptable to Russia. I also said territory would be ceded. But if concessions by Russia are non-negotiable, then war will continue. Russians, Ukrainians and others will continue to die. Large term casualties wear on the populace of countries as does the spending and sacrifices necessary to feed that war.

Putin takes too hard a line with Trump and Trump is just as likely to throw full military power to the Ukraine to use up. They won't win, but those casualties will increase proportionally.

Then of course the longer this draws out… OPPs WW3. You tell me, is not being negotiable really worth frying in a nuclear explosion?

I think helping to pay for rebuilding, is a small price to avoid that. Also, if you expect your adversaries to negotiate, you have to as well. The Ukraine is going to want to be stronger if you retain their territory.

It's not always: "what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable"

But we are not the leaders.

It's not just the people I've named – there are actually a huge number of people in the West who have suffered in one way or another for their publicly expressed beliefs. These people have been fired, ostracized, and otherwise persecuted. And I think you know this better than I do. If not, then I still don't see the point in developing this topic further. Let everyone stick to their own opinion.

If the West has the right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states, which are sometimes located hundreds and even thousands of kilometers from your borders, then why doesn't Russia have the right to do the same?

In my opinion, Russia is not weakening itself, quite the opposite. Now, in my opinion, Russia has even "pushed aside" China in the "global South" in many ways. All the key BRICS institutions are located in Russia, and it can also perfectly well play the role of coordinator in this organization.

I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but the West stubbornly refuses to see that the war in Ukraine is just a small episode in a big game… I think competent people can't help but see this. It's more convenient for everyone else to wear blinders on their eyes.

35thOVI, Putin would be an idiot if he negotiated without achieving the minimum goals set by Russia. It would be a lost war, since the annexed territories are just a side effect. The fighting cannot be stopped until specific agreements are reached – otherwise it will be another "Minsk 3", when the time will simply be used to regroup and rearm Ukraine. All the sacrifices made will be meaningless.
In Russia, no one associates any special hopes for a quick stop to the war with the arrival of Trump. Trump is the president of his country and will act in its interests. And what you consider your interests is up to you to decide.
The risk of a nuclear war? Of course, no one wants to die in a nuclear fire. But the issue in Ukraine, which is not finally resolved now, is just a delay until the next war, which will bring even more victims and problems in the future. This war must end with the surrender of one of the parties.

"This war must end with the surrender of one of the parties."

I hope this not the real view of the leaders.

But let me think outside the box, if that is indeed true.

Trump wants to have a solution to the roughly 15 to 30 million illegals in the US. All very complicated. But what if you offered citizenship(including their immediate families here already)to illegals here that would be willing to go to the Ukraine and join the Ukrainian Armed forces and fight for 3 years. If they are killed, their families still become citizens. Otherwise deportation of all. Also we and allies increase equipment to supply them. Europe also has the same issue with illegals. 🤔 Russia set the Precedent with the Koreans and a few other countries.

Also speaking of precedence, the West could also offer freedom to those filling our prisons if they to would go and fight 3 years.

Might not make good troops, but cannon fodder is cannon fodder.., right?

And the war prolongs….. more Russian blood and money drained. (Easier to just give it to rebuild what's left of the Ukraine?).

Would that work? Who knows. But there are lots of other outside the box thoughts by smarter people than me out there. 😉

Caprum, I feel I'm pretty reasonable compared to a lot out here on this war. I'm not a hard liner. I've tried to understand both sides. But there is a time when both sides have to make concessions.

You get land. You have a new buffer (Crimea and Donbas and possibly a land bridge). The Ukraine does not become part of NATO. Oil and other exports and imports open up, bringing in more money. Russian soldiers come home. Putin can claim a victory over the west.

Hey, we helped to rebuild our enemies after WW2.

Well, you and I really don't decide anything – we just think.

Your idea is interesting, but it cuts both ways. Will you be able to keep this contingent in obedience? Will this result in Ukraine turning into a "Wild Field" where dozens of ethnic and criminal gangs will fight among themselves? How happy will the Ukrainians themselves be with such "help"? Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

Putin doesn't need a victory over the West. He needs an equal place for Russia among the great powers. Any significant decisions in the world should be made taking into account Russia's interests. That's what really interests him. So, in a sense, he really wants to return the USSR, or more precisely, the political weight of Russia in the world.

After the war, there are no more enemies. There are culprits – but they are not the same thing.

Cuprum. I really believe peace is possible. Neither side is going to be totally happy with it, including many in Europe and the US. No matter what it is, the leaders will face criticism from those who hate them.

I don't disagree with Russia needing a place, but attacking neighbors is not going to make that easy.

I've said on multiple occasions, I do not, and did not agree with NATO expansion next to Russia. But I don't agree with peace time alliances at all. I learned my lessons from previous conflicts. Peace time alliances only stop maneuverability of political options.

I do understand central Europes historical fear of Russia, if you are being truthful, so do you. I also understand Russias historical paranoia of Western Europe.

Everyone wants recognition from others. It amazed me the change in North Korea, when Trump acknowledged Kim. Things became quiet.

I'm hoping Trump and Putin can get back to some normalcy. The expense of this war is high in money, lives and destruction.

The problem in the US, is that policy changes every 4 or 8 years. But that is also a strength, in that no one is able to become permanently entrenched.

Trump is here for 4 years. No reelection chance, so I believe he is going to move and not care too much what some may think of what he does.

Putin doesn't need a victory over the West. He needs an equal place for Russia among the great powers. Any significant decisions in the world should be made taking into account Russia's interests.

Insightful.

I also understand Russias historical paranoia of Western Europe.

But this 2024, there hadn't been a major European WAR of aggression for decades until someone started one. Russia has indigenous space based ISR, a big nuclear deterrent with second strike capability, and a potentially huge field army by typical European standards. This isn't the 13thC were an invading army can turn up from beyond the borders of the known world, let alone 1812 or even 1941. I don't really buy the whole Russia needs invasion buffers. I think what Putin wants is client powers he can have oligarchs bilk for money and resources to prop up the tottering pyramid that is the Russian economy and that he can order about – I don't think 'interfering' really cuts it for Putin.

ROU, I understand what you are saying, but I also have read enough history to understand that there is a paranoia that Russia has historically had. We can discount it and say it is no longer justified, but that does not stop it from existing.

I will say also say, that the US would have had a cow, if Mexico, Cuba and Central America had joined the Warsaw Pact in the 60's. Look how close it came to WW3 when Russia was going to place missiles in Cuba. I still remember under our desk drills in the first grade because of it. Useless as it would have been.

I LIVE IN EUROPE, The weak US (who are not paying anything like as much as Europe is for the war) but who think that we will bow to a Dictator lover, has no right to dictate or claim he can solve the war without consulting the MAJOR players like Europe and many others. We have tried to help Russia in the past and look what it got us!

Russcum invading with no credible reason save imperialism and a desire to overtake Europe again (not just Ukraine but Poland and many others) and threatening Nukes on Europe. Do they deserve a place at the high table, NO!

The US persuaded Ukraine to give up its Atomic arsenal and look what it got them!

Europe will end this war when Russia gives back all the land. It would be regrettable if the US threatened Europe as part of it's support for its new Russian friend.

" has no right to dictate or claim he can solve the war without consulting the MAJOR players like Europe and many others."-Ush Cha

Since you live there maybe you can tend to your own back yard and stop caterwauling about the USA contribution. Perhaps UshCha can persuade his European friends to write all the checks so the USA can see how "MAJOR" you really are… The USA could watch and marvel at your greatness…

" It wo0uld be regrettable if the US threatened Europe as part of it's support for its new Russian friend."- Ushcha

Fantasy or tantrum?

dragon gunner +1

Ushcha that kind of attitude at the end of WW1, gave us WW2. 😉

The US as a country, has donated more than any single country. As of June below. Now Biden is trying to push through another 6 billion.

Fyi Europe is a "group of Countries" not a single country.

Now you have me confused. I read in European news that if the U.S. stops contributing to the Ukraine, Europe will be unable to go it alone. But you are telling me you can and the "weak" US is unnecessary. So which is it?🤔

I doubt seriously Russia is capable of both conquering Europe and holding it if they could. They couldn't hold onto Central Europe when they were much stronger after WW2 and with the support of many communists in those countries.

But maybe you have better information.

I've expressed some things that I believe might lead to an end to this war.

Now please, you tell us how you would end it, Short of WW3.
Thanks

Subject: Total bilateral aid to Ukraine by donor & type 2024 | Statista


link

According to the "CSIS":

"In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

According to the results of a series of CSIS war games, the United States would likely run out of some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided munitions.

This would occur in less than one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict."

I've heard elsewhere, as much as 2 weeks.

We are currently exhausting what we have available in both Europe and the Middle East.

IMO as far as we in the US; Iran, radical Islam and Iran's terrorist surrogates, are a bigger threat to us, especially if we allow Iran to finish their nukes.

35thOVI, naturally no one in their right mind wants to die and kill. War is a nasty thing. In order to avoid wars, there is politics. But wars have happened before and, it seems, will happen in the future. If two opposing sides incorrectly assess each other's potential, there is always a temptation to resolve the issue by force. Alas.
Europe's concerns are understandable. But aren't Russia's concerns understandable? They are just as obvious.
Alliances… Look at the alliance of Russia, Iran, North Korea… Everything that unites these completely different countries is a common problem – the West. No internal reasons.
I would be glad if all the problems could be resolved peacefully. Let's hope for the common sense of our politicians.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, Russia's military potential is significantly inferior to NATO's military potential. Isn't this a cause for concern?
A buffer is always needed, especially in a modern war, where missiles and aircraft have enormous speeds. You must have time to react to a threat, at least to realize that the threat is false, before you strike back.

UshCha – I hope there is therapeutic value to the insults directed at the US. The delusion that the Ukraine war will only end when Russia returns all Ukrainian land (to include, I imagine, Crimea) is absurd and will only result in countless thousands of additional dead and wounded in addition to ongoing infrastructure destruction and tremendous financial cost. I hope the incoming US president solves this conflict quickly but, if he can't, I hope he cuts all further material and financial aid from the US. At that point, let's see the "MAJOR" European players put on their "big boy pants" and provide the money, materials, and support to Ukraine they demand of others.

Yes and you should have not interfired with Russia in the cubam missile crisis.

Go look at U-tube even credible sources show Trump and Putin as big friends.

Putin will never stop so giving him crimea is like you giving Russia missiles in cuba.

"Fyi Europe is a "group of Countries" not a single country."35thOVI

Yet UshCha speaks like they are all unified, if that was the case this would not be so difficult. Instead the USA has to deal with 44 countries taking into account each of their egos, personalities and their own agendas. Some of these countries still have not come to grips with the fact they are no longer great powers… If the USA had to treat them all like they are "MAJOR" players we would accomplish nothing diplomatically…

A buffer is always needed

Fine Russia can bake that in, it not like its a small country. You do not get to build that buffer out of other people's countries anymore. France and Germany now seem to manage…… Interesting admission on the military… still nuclear deterrent. And that doesn't get into the 'why the heck would any European country or indeed group of countries invade Russia'?

I do like the fact the best "alliance" Putin's Russia can manage is a feudal crypto-theocracy cosplaying as communists that frankly treats it citizens worse than most absolutist monarchs ever did, and an actual Theocracy, that screams blue murder about Western interference while running an effective shadow state in another sovereign state, that only retains power by suppressing a significant chunk of its population. I notice that Belorussia and China don't get a name check.

Well apparently the suggestions for the US President elects peace plan have been repudiated. So I guess we'll just have to see.

And I think you'll find Europe is wearing its big boy pants
already.
link
link

"Interfired?"

Rou thanks for reposting my link. 🙂 Your first one.

I would also say, the US is supplying and posting ships, air and troops in the Middle East, weapons to Taiwan as well as Naval and Air forces in the area and elsewhere. How much of the EU can say the same? We are draining at many other Spickets.

Ushcha

"Go look at U-tube even credible sources show Trump and Putin as big friends.

Putin will never stop so giving him crimea is like you giving Russia missiles in cuba."

Again, for about the 30th time on multiple TMP threads. If Trump and Putin are such bosom buddies, why didn't Putin go into the Ukraine during his administration? Cake walk, right? Just does not make logical sense.

Crimea 🤔 Well I think that was occupied during the Obama administration. Not a thing to do with Trump.

The media you speak of, had over 80% positive stories on Harris prior to the election and just as many negative on Trump. So can you trust much of what they say? So " credibility" is nebulous at best. 🙄

Again…. No one will be happy with how this war ends, now or in the future.

35thOVI +1

We provide a lot, more than our share!

Europe has a comparable COMBINED population and GDP comparable to the USA. Now they have to write a few checks and we get all kinds of vitriol. Perhaps it is time to renegotiate our relationship with them…

If European countries actually maintained a military with equipment, munition stockpiles and logistics they could have given more to Ukraine at the start of the war. Now because of Europe's neglect they expect the USA to bail them out!

Interesting fact. From January 2022 to end August 2024, Europe has contributed 118 Billion Euro to Ukraine (with another 74 Billion allocated) and the US has contributed 85 Billion Euro.

Rou thanks for reposting my link. 🙂 Your first one.

Second one is probably more important.

I's also make the point that US military aid value includes money that is given back to the Pentagon (and which no doubt goes to the US MIC) for the second-hand kit it sends to Ukraine.

I'll bite my tongue on the issue of European electorates and what they value when it comes to government spending.

We will see if he listens

Subject: Trump talked to Putin, told Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine – The Washington Post


link

This is the most complete breakdown I've found

A few highlights :

"Every year, the United States sends billions of dollars in aid—much more than any other country—to beneficiaries around the world in pursuit of its security, economic, and humanitarian interests.

Since Russia's invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has become far and away the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. This marks the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry S. Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II."

"Since the war began, the U.S. Congress has voted through five bills that have provided Ukraine with ongoing aid, doing so most recently in April 2024. The total budget authority under these bills—the "headline" figure often cited by news media—is $175 USD billion. The historic sums are helping a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine."

"It's important to note that of the $175 USD billion total, only $106 USD billion directly aids the government of Ukraine. Most of the remainder is funding various U.S. activities associated with the war in Ukraine, and a small portion supports other affected countries in the region."

"A large share of the money in the aid bills is spent in the United States, paying for American factories and workers to produce the various weapons that are either shipped to Ukraine or that replenish the U.S. weapons stocks the Pentagon has drawn on during the war. One analysis, by the American Enterprise Institute, found that Ukraine aid is funding defense manufacturing in more than seventy U.S. cities."

"Ukraine Towers Over Other Recipients of U.S. Aid
Aid committed to the government of Ukraine (military, financial, and humanitarian) for fiscal year 2022–24 compared with aid to top recipients for fiscal year 2020–22 (the most recent three years available)"

Subject: How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine? | Council on Foreign Relations


link

Putin's regime is denying the call happened and a Kremlin backed channel is broadcasting naked pics of Melenia Trump! I'd bet a pint the phone call happened but didn't go well…

Sounds like all sides are playing the media. Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the U.S.

Just have to wait.

I still would like to hear the war methodology, from someone who believes the Ukrainians should keep fighting until they get all their country back, works.

If indeed Russia will not negotiate, then you have to believe that something has changed to make them believe a quick win is in the offing. Based on all the stuff others post out here, that does not sound feasible. But maybe you all see or hear something I don't.

To me, as long as the Ukrainians are kept supplied and are willing to take the casualties, this could go on for another 2 years. A western front style bloodbath. With improving AI and drone weapons to be built and tested by both sides and the methodologies for killing improving. Who knows what the casualties really are on both sides.

Well, that's a classy move. But then, nobody does vulgarity like the Russians, their self-congratulatory nonsense about culture notwithstanding.

I don't read Russian, but I remember reading a Masha Gessen commentary on Putin's language, which she claimed the Russian Foreign Ministry generally cleans up for foreign consumption. He had made some reference in one of his speeches to US policy, generally translated as "they *d us;" Gessen's contribution was to point out in Slate (and I quote) that "he actually used the street term for nonconsensual anal sex." The sort of thing you'd get pretty often in the places a secret policeman is probably used to, but hardly diplomatic language.

I suspect Trump's reaction will be to let the Ukrainians have a lot more ammunition.

Interesting, I thought the Russian's were genuinely a bit funny about swearing. At least among the populace at large.

While listening to the news tonight one of the experts they had talking about Ukraine quoted George Kennan on Russia's relationship with its neighbours (while also describing Russia as still behaving as an Imperial power). While I was poking around the internet chasing the quote I came across the following, bit old and not sure if its been shared previously, but interesting none the less.

link

Well we now know how to bring the North Korean Army to its knees. Flood them with free cell phones and unlimited internet. 🤣

Subject: Viral Video Claims To Show North Korean Soldier In Russia Watching Risqué Videos


link

Yeah that's been circulating for awhile now.

Assuming they survive the Ukraine War they're going home via a reeducation camp. Worst case they may be considered irredeemably contaminated…..

Assuming they survive the Ukraine War they're going home via a reeducation camp. Worst case they may be considered irredeemably contaminated…..

As Stalin did after WWII … the NORKs learned from the best … or worst …

Viral Video Claims To Show North Korean Soldier In Russia Watching Risqué Videos



Who doesn't ?!?!? 😍 Hubba, Hubba ! 😁😏😉

YouTube link

Yes Europe is finally meeting it's two percent NATO pledge but after decades of neglect it needs to be boosted probably well beyond 2%. Production lines and equipment ordered today might not appear for years. Once you have the items then you need to train people, this could take years for highly skilled positions.

I would use an analogy. You choose not to weed your back yard for 30 years. One day you decide to grab your rusting shears, dust off your moldy work gloves and clean up your back yard. When you survey your yard it has full blown oak trees with deep roots and 30 years of built up leaves plus fallen branches. What was easily fixed when those oak trees were saplings has now become a botanical nightmare from years of neglect.

Russia is in a war time economy…