I'm not here to debate, but a few interesting lectures I wanted to share:
Both include people that have actually met Putin and both include people that were on the front lines of diplomatic front as Russia became more aggressive towards the west and the west.
Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari has warned that "weapons used in the war in Ukraine are beginning to leak into the region" and called for reinforced border security deployment in the Lake Chad Basin, where terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State operate.
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.
Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?
NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.
What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?
What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.
Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?
NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.
What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?
What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The Minsk Agreements was the peace treaty that was supposed to hold the country together and stave off war. It called for Donbass autonomy, along a federal system and political structure similar to those of Spain or Canada, with full cultural/linguistic autonomy for the Donbass.
The Minsk Agreements failed because Ukraine failed to uphold them, a point which is no longer up for debate since both former Ukraine president Poroshenko and Angela Merkel (under which the accords were concluded) recently came out and stated that they had no intention of abiding by the agreements and wanted just to gain time in order to rebuild Ukrainian armed forces with the intention of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea.
Quote:
Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The territories that would be mostly hostile to Russia are in orange here:
The areas in blue could be integrated into Russia, that would be politically feasible. I think this is where this conflict is headed, and this outcome was predicted back in 2014:
Quote:
The case for partition
Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, argues that separation is beginning to look "inevitable". That separation may come about in two possible ways: either through "paramilitary groups establishing local supremacy" or as a result of Russian intervention.
In the light of Ukraine's election result, Ethan S. Burger offers a proposal for the creation of a new Ukrainian state. Partition would do more than better reflect the country's national/ethnic composition, he suggests. It could also make the country economically viable, while enhancing European stability.
Russia is slowly destroying Ukraine`s army, once they reach its breaking point (somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 Ukrainian military casualties), they will be able to move across the blue regions with much greater ease.
The current ratio of military losses in the Donbass has been around 8 to 1 in favor of Russia, according to analysts like Col. McGregor.
Putin is now so unpopular in Russia that his propaganda team is pretending he's Santa Claus. Would have been more accurate if he threw their parents out of windows and forced children to the front lines in Ukraine with no training other than Wikipedia printouts about their weapons.
The good news for the world is that this is creating a massive brain drain from Russia (which was already struggling with a massive demographic problem) and numerous countries will benefit from the influx of talent. Of course this further entrenches Russia as a sh(thole petro-state, but with Putin in charge there really is no alternative. The transition to green energy will eventually take care of regressive state like Russia and KSA et al. but it's going to be a bumpy ride as they struggle to hold on to what's left of their economies.
Quote:
Over 3.8 million Russians left from January to March this year, according to the Federal Security Services' own estimates. Some left for work or travel reasons, but many also left because of Russia's war on Ukraine. Other estimates put the number of people who left because of the war at 300,000 to 3.8 million. The exact number is still unknown. A recent survey from non-governmental organization OK Russians says that the average age of Russians who left the country after Feb. 24 is 32 years old, while 80% of them have a higher education degree.
And as the war approaches its six month anniversary, the country is experiencing a second wave of outward migration, as individuals and families who needed more time to wrap up their lives are now leaving. And although the estimates vary widely, this year's mass exodus from the country is comparable to the initial emigration out of Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and 1.2 million Russians left in 1992 and 1993. Russia's current, large-scale brain drain of young, skilled and educated citizens, could decimate sectors from journalism, to academia, and technology, experts say.
Meanwhile, the mass purveyors of disinformation will continue to pretend like Russia is the greatest country in the world and well positioned to dominate for decades lol. Sure.
Is there a source for semi-realistic casualties? I've watched clips on YouTube, and everything seems to be heavily slanted.
I am not "pro Russia". But given its size, resources, and leader, he had to be planning for this day. I just watched part of a clip which says Russia gets key electronic components through Turkey, which is NATO affiliated.
I'm surprised Russia hasn't developed some of their own OEM capabilities for critical components. I'd think they'd ramp up resource exportation to CCP China.
Given their low birth rate, have they ever considered opening up immigration from Central and South America? Or heavy subsidies / bonuses for having 3 or more children? Given their vast empire, couldn't they give land / homesteads?
Putin is now so unpopular in Russia that his propaganda team is pretending he's Santa Claus. Would have been more accurate if he threw their parents out of windows and forced children to the front lines in Ukraine with no training other than Wikipedia printouts about their weapons.
The good news for the world is that this is creating a massive brain drain from Russia (which was already struggling with a massive demographic problem) and numerous countries will benefit from the influx of talent. Of course this further entrenches Russia as a sh(thole petro-state, but with Putin in charge there really is no alternative. The transition to green energy will eventually take care of regressive state like Russia and KSA et al. but it's going to be a bumpy ride as they struggle to hold on to what's left of their economies.
Quote:
Over 3.8 million Russians left from January to March this year, according to the Federal Security Services' own estimates. Some left for work or travel reasons, but many also left because of Russia's war on Ukraine. Other estimates put the number of people who left because of the war at 300,000 to 3.8 million. The exact number is still unknown. A recent survey from non-governmental organization OK Russians says that the average age of Russians who left the country after Feb. 24 is 32 years old, while 80% of them have a higher education degree.
And as the war approaches its six month anniversary, the country is experiencing a second wave of outward migration, as individuals and families who needed more time to wrap up their lives are now leaving. And although the estimates vary widely, this year's mass exodus from the country is comparable to the initial emigration out of Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and 1.2 million Russians left in 1992 and 1993. Russia's current, large-scale brain drain of young, skilled and educated citizens, could decimate sectors from journalism, to academia, and technology, experts say.
Meanwhile, the mass purveyors of disinformation will continue to pretend like Russia is the greatest country in the world and well positioned to dominate for decades lol. Sure.
Intermittent, unreliable energy is costly, and countries like India, China, Russia and Mexico haven't abandoned reliable, cheap oil-based fuels. If the "Great Reset" continues, heavy industries may relocate to these lower-cost countries with reliable energy sources. Western Europe shutting down numerous nuclear power plants as the green religion dictates only made things worse.
Germany will be a key player on several fronts - on the war continuing, and on the green dream - as they confront losing sections of their industrial power base. Restarting NP plants would help soften the losses.
Is there a source for semi-realistic casualties? I've watched clips on YouTube, and everything seems to be heavily slanted.
I am not "pro Russia". But given its size, resources, and leader, he had to be planning for this day. I just watched part of a clip which says Russia gets key electronic components through Turkey, which is NATO affiliated.
I'm surprised Russia hasn't developed some of their own OEM capabilities for critical components. I'd think they'd ramp up resource exportation to CCP China.
McGregor is a very reliable source, because he has inside NATO intel, the type of accurate information that is available for NATO brass but is too negative to make public.
Russia didn't go into the Donbass war in 2014 because they weren't ready to face NATO forces,, they had only started modernizing their decrepit Soviet military apparatus in the mid-00s. As well Putin is very risk-averse. But since the 00s they've been modernizing and overhauling their military and MIC. This effort was kicked up several notches after 2014, when it looked like they would be on a collision course with NATO. They've developed and finalized since 2014 a generation of modern weapons like hypersonic missiles that they could use in an escalatory non-nuclear confrontation with NATO, with the capacity ofr instance to sink any aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean or the North Sea.
They've also modernized their civilian sector and worked towards firming up their EOM capabilities in sectors like civil aviation and the auto industry, developing for instance a modern high-bypass passenger jet engine, without which their domestic passenger jet program wouldn't have been viable:
Look for the domestic Irkut MC-21 passenger jet program to carve out a share of the global passenger jet market by the late 20s. Russia will probably structure energy and/or grain export programs as part of aircraft sales to countries like India, Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, Thailand etc., who will make up a majority of the growth in demand for passenger jets in the next decade.
They still have many gaps in their capacity to cutoff all imports for their components, but China has been filling these gaps, the recent Antonov convoys between Siberia to China are probably loaded with a Russian shopping list of electronic components.
Quote:
Given their low birth rate, have they ever considered opening up immigration from Central and South America? Or heavy subsidies / bonuses for having 3 or more children? Given their vast empire, couldn't they give land / homesteads?
They were able to reverse the trend based on not just economic incentives for families but also modern PR campaigns geared towards young women that portrayed families, child-rearing and kids as cool, using soap operas and local celebrites, the opposite of what we see in many western countries. campaigns vilifying childbirth and devalorizing motherhood, or scaring young people into not having children out of mass hysteria, consider Climate Strike Canada's 'No Future, No Children' campaign:
Intermittent, unreliable energy is costly, and countries like India, China, Russia and Mexico haven't abandoned reliable, cheap oil-based fuels. If the "Great Reset" continues, heavy industries may relocate to these lower-cost countries with reliable energy sources. Western Europe shutting down numerous nuclear power plants as the green religion dictates only made things worse.
Germany will be a key player on several fronts - on the war continuing, and on the green dream - as they confront losing sections of their industrial power base. Restarting NP plants would help soften the losses.
Ummmmm...... France produces 70% of its electricity from a nuclear fleet of 56 reactors. Last time I checked, they were in western Europe.
1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death) 2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.) 3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed. 4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left. 5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd. 6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military. 7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.
Intermittent, unreliable energy is costly, and countries like India, China, Russia and Mexico haven't abandoned reliable, cheap oil-based fuels. If the "Great Reset" continues, heavy industries may relocate to these lower-cost countries with reliable energy sources. Western Europe shutting down numerous nuclear power plants as the green religion dictates only made things worse.
Germany will be a key player on several fronts - on the war continuing, and on the green dream - as they confront losing sections of their industrial power base. Restarting NP plants would help soften the losses.
Ummmmm...... France produces 70% of its electricity from a nuclear fleet of 56 reactors. Last time I checked, they were in western Europe.
AFAIK it's really only Germany that made this mistake.
Intermittent, unreliable energy is costly, and countries like India, China, Russia and Mexico haven't abandoned reliable, cheap oil-based fuels. If the "Great Reset" continues, heavy industries may relocate to these lower-cost countries with reliable energy sources. Western Europe shutting down numerous nuclear power plants as the green religion dictates only made things worse.
Germany will be a key player on several fronts - on the war continuing, and on the green dream - as they confront losing sections of their industrial power base. Restarting NP plants would help soften the losses.
Ummmmm...... France produces 70% of its electricity from a nuclear fleet of 56 reactors. Last time I checked, they were in western Europe.
Over a third of these 56 powerplants are offline today, the result of poor maintenance and neglect. France used to be the world leader in the field, and in others like high-speed rail, gas and submarine turbines, but that's no longer the case as this domestic tech know-how has been dismantled and sold off to globalist concerns. State-owned crown jewels like Elecricite de France (EDF) or SNCF, the national railway company, have been dismantled and sold off to private multinationals with close contacts to the last three French presidents, starting with Sarkozy, whose brother was a Carlyle Group partner. Nuclear power, once set up, has abysmally low production costs, which is bad for business.
This winter may cause Europeans to reconsider their choices.
Dr. Jordan Peterson, who a year ago was saying we had effectively wiped out starvation, now says we've made over 100 Million food insecure with these radical green energy policies. Totalitarianism?
Putin is now so unpopular in Russia that his propaganda team is pretending he's Santa Claus. Would have been more accurate if he threw their parents out of windows and forced children to the front lines in Ukraine with no training other than Wikipedia printouts about their weapons.
The good news for the world is that this is creating a massive brain drain from Russia (which was already struggling with a massive demographic problem) and numerous countries will benefit from the influx of talent. Of course this further entrenches Russia as a sh(thole petro-state, but with Putin in charge there really is no alternative. The transition to green energy will eventually take care of regressive state like Russia and KSA et al. but it's going to be a bumpy ride as they struggle to hold on to what's left of their economies.
Quote:
Over 3.8 million Russians left from January to March this year, according to the Federal Security Services' own estimates. Some left for work or travel reasons, but many also left because of Russia's war on Ukraine. Other estimates put the number of people who left because of the war at 300,000 to 3.8 million. The exact number is still unknown. A recent survey from non-governmental organization OK Russians says that the average age of Russians who left the country after Feb. 24 is 32 years old, while 80% of them have a higher education degree.
And as the war approaches its six month anniversary, the country is experiencing a second wave of outward migration, as individuals and families who needed more time to wrap up their lives are now leaving. And although the estimates vary widely, this year's mass exodus from the country is comparable to the initial emigration out of Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and 1.2 million Russians left in 1992 and 1993. Russia's current, large-scale brain drain of young, skilled and educated citizens, could decimate sectors from journalism, to academia, and technology, experts say.
Meanwhile, the mass purveyors of disinformation will continue to pretend like Russia is the greatest country in the world and well positioned to dominate for decades lol. Sure.
Intermittent, unreliable energy is costly, and countries like India, China, Russia and Mexico haven't abandoned reliable, cheap oil-based fuels. If the "Great Reset" continues, heavy industries may relocate to these lower-cost countries with reliable energy sources. Western Europe shutting down numerous nuclear power plants as the green religion dictates only made things worse.
Germany will be a key player on several fronts - on the war continuing, and on the green dream - as they confront losing sections of their industrial power base. Restarting NP plants would help soften the losses.
As an fyi, I know plenty of green energy advocates (as in around half) that support nuclear energy, the issue is usually the NIMBYs.
1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death) 2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.) 3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed. 4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left. 5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd. 6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military. 7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.
As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:
1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.
2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.
3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?
This video is from October and is from a Danish military analyst. His subject of the video is on the Russian narrative of the war, how it has been changing and its implications in domestic russian politics.
You can see the trends he mentions sneaking into the conversations on this board.
1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death) 2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.) 3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed. 4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left. 5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd. 6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military. 7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.
As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:
1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.
2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.
3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?
The world is a lot more connected now than it was in WW1. I am sure there is a lot of intelligence being gathered about what is going on, especially by the United States, whose military assets have been deployed against the former USSR for decades and are probably well positioned to assist Ukraine. I have no doubt that information is being fed to Ukraine and is a force multiplier. I don't think Russia was counting on this being an issue (although they were certainly aware of the possibility) because they figured the war would be over so quickly it would not matter. This is turning into a proxy war against the West and that's not to Russia's advantage. Anyway, I digress. Modern warfare and intelligence gathering cannot be compared to WW1.
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.
Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?
NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.
What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?
What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The Minsk Agreements was the peace treaty that was supposed to hold the country together and stave off war. It called for Donbass autonomy, along a federal system and political structure similar to those of Spain or Canada, with full cultural/linguistic autonomy for the Donbass.
The Minsk Agreements failed because Ukraine failed to uphold them, a point which is no longer up for debate since both former Ukraine president Poroshenko and Angela Merkel (under which the accords were concluded) recently came out and stated that they had no intention of abiding by the agreements and wanted just to gain time in order to rebuild Ukrainian armed forces with the intention of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea.
Quote:
Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The territories that would be mostly hostile to Russia are in orange here:
The areas in blue could be integrated into Russia, that would be politically feasible. I think this is where this conflict is headed, and this outcome was predicted back in 2014:
Quote:
The case for partition
Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, argues that separation is beginning to look "inevitable". That separation may come about in two possible ways: either through "paramilitary groups establishing local supremacy" or as a result of Russian intervention.
In the light of Ukraine's election result, Ethan S. Burger offers a proposal for the creation of a new Ukrainian state. Partition would do more than better reflect the country's national/ethnic composition, he suggests. It could also make the country economically viable, while enhancing European stability.
Russia is slowly destroying Ukraine`s army, once they reach its breaking point (somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 Ukrainian military casualties), they will be able to move across the blue regions with much greater ease.
The current ratio of military losses in the Donbass has been around 8 to 1 in favor of Russia, according to analysts like Col. McGregor.
Please explain why you want Russia to win this war.
1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death) 2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.) 3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed. 4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left. 5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd. 6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military. 7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.
As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:
1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.
2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.
3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?
We might not know some intricacies like the real reasons for WW1, how much of it was a Thucydides impulse by the British to stave off a rising power, or a battle for global resources by European powers, or an escalation of commitments set off by interlocking alliances and so on, but we do know how many soldiers died in WW1, as there are accurate, comprehensive full lists of casualties that were even published during the war.
That information about the war in Ukraine is known as well, and has been largely hidden, for political reasons.
The most relevant and important information about this war is the number of military casualties. This number is fairly well known by both military authorities. Until recently, Ukrainian officials tried to sell the world that the number of Ukrainian KIAs was little over 10,000, a figure they have stuck with for months on end. The recent public statements made by officials like Ursula von er Leyen and Mark Milley where they both said that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war caused the Ukrainian officials to ratchet up their official KIA number tenfold...
In fact the 100,000 KIA is likely an undercount. I think if people understood how deep Ukrainian losses have been, they would view this war as the one-sided massacre that it really is and would sue for a negotiated settlement, instead of pouring tens of billions every few weeks into a hopeless cause that is already wrecking the world economy and might spiral into something even worse, like world war 3.
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.
Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?
NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.
What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?
What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The Minsk Agreements was the peace treaty that was supposed to hold the country together and stave off war. It called for Donbass autonomy, along a federal system and political structure similar to those of Spain or Canada, with full cultural/linguistic autonomy for the Donbass.
The Minsk Agreements failed because Ukraine failed to uphold them, a point which is no longer up for debate since both former Ukraine president Poroshenko and Angela Merkel (under which the accords were concluded) recently came out and stated that they had no intention of abiding by the agreements and wanted just to gain time in order to rebuild Ukrainian armed forces with the intention of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea.
Quote:
Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The territories that would be mostly hostile to Russia are in orange here:
The areas in blue could be integrated into Russia, that would be politically feasible. I think this is where this conflict is headed, and this outcome was predicted back in 2014:
Quote:
The case for partition
Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, argues that separation is beginning to look "inevitable". That separation may come about in two possible ways: either through "paramilitary groups establishing local supremacy" or as a result of Russian intervention.
In the light of Ukraine's election result, Ethan S. Burger offers a proposal for the creation of a new Ukrainian state. Partition would do more than better reflect the country's national/ethnic composition, he suggests. It could also make the country economically viable, while enhancing European stability.
Russia is slowly destroying Ukraine`s army, once they reach its breaking point (somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 Ukrainian military casualties), they will be able to move across the blue regions with much greater ease.
The current ratio of military losses in the Donbass has been around 8 to 1 in favor of Russia, according to analysts like Col. McGregor.
Please explain why you want Russia to win this war.
Russia is going to win the war, and what you or I think or want has no impact on this outcome.
Most of the war coverage in the West amounts to gaslighting. This war is a one-sided massacre, it should have been stopped when the window of opportunity for a truce or a settlement presented itself, but that moment seems to have lapsed.
Ukraine's best course of action, if its current government actually cared about their country and its citizens, is to sue for a peace on realistic terms, rather than keep throwing its men into the meat grinder. If you're against this, you're really rooting for the death of another 100,000 Ukrainian men, or more. This suits policymakers like Lindsay Graham or Chuck Shumer just fine, as they are more than happy to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian...
1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death) 2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.) 3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed. 4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left. 5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd. 6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military. 7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.
As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:
1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.
2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.
3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?
We might not know some intricacies like the real reasons for WW1, how much of it was a Thucydides impulse by the British to stave off a rising power, or a battle for global resources by European powers, or an escalation of commitments set off by interlocking alliances and so on, but we do know how many soldiers died in WW1, as there are accurate, comprehensive full lists of casualties that were even published during the war.
That information about the war in Ukraine is known as well, and has been largely hidden, for political reasons.
The most relevant and important information about this war is the number of military casualties. This number is fairly well known by both military authorities. Until recently, Ukrainian officials tried to sell the world that the number of Ukrainian KIAs was little over 10,000, a figure they have stuck with for months on end. The recent public statements made by officials like Ursula von er Leyen and Mark Milley where they both said that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war caused the Ukrainian officials to ratchet up their official KIA number tenfold...
In fact the 100,000 KIA is likely an undercount. I think if people understood how deep Ukrainian losses have been, they would view this war as the one-sided massacre that it really is and would sue for a negotiated settlement, instead of pouring tens of billions every few weeks into a hopeless cause that is already wrecking the world economy and might spiral into something even worse, like world war 3.
People do view it as a one-sided massacre which is why there is so much sentiment in favor of Ukraine and a desire to inflict maximum pain upon Russia for all of this senseless death and destruction.
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.
Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?
NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.
What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?
What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The Minsk Agreements was the peace treaty that was supposed to hold the country together and stave off war. It called for Donbass autonomy, along a federal system and political structure similar to those of Spain or Canada, with full cultural/linguistic autonomy for the Donbass.
The Minsk Agreements failed because Ukraine failed to uphold them, a point which is no longer up for debate since both former Ukraine president Poroshenko and Angela Merkel (under which the accords were concluded) recently came out and stated that they had no intention of abiding by the agreements and wanted just to gain time in order to rebuild Ukrainian armed forces with the intention of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea.
Quote:
Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.
The territories that would be mostly hostile to Russia are in orange here:
The areas in blue could be integrated into Russia, that would be politically feasible. I think this is where this conflict is headed, and this outcome was predicted back in 2014:
Quote:
The case for partition
Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, argues that separation is beginning to look "inevitable". That separation may come about in two possible ways: either through "paramilitary groups establishing local supremacy" or as a result of Russian intervention.
In the light of Ukraine's election result, Ethan S. Burger offers a proposal for the creation of a new Ukrainian state. Partition would do more than better reflect the country's national/ethnic composition, he suggests. It could also make the country economically viable, while enhancing European stability.
Russia is slowly destroying Ukraine`s army, once they reach its breaking point (somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 Ukrainian military casualties), they will be able to move across the blue regions with much greater ease.
The current ratio of military losses in the Donbass has been around 8 to 1 in favor of Russia, according to analysts like Col. McGregor.
Please explain why you want Russia to win this war.
Russia is going to win the war, and what you or I think or want has no impact on this outcome.
Most of the war coverage in the West amounts to gaslighting. This war is a one-sided massacre, it should have been stopped when the window of opportunity for a truce or a settlement presented itself, but that moment seems to have lapsed.
Ukraine's best course of action, if its current government actually cared about their country and its citizens, is to sue for a peace on realistic terms, rather than keep throwing its men into the meat grinder. If you're against this, you're really rooting for the death of another 100,000 Ukrainian men, or more. This suits policymakers like Lindsay Graham or Chuck Shumer just fine, as they are more than happy to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian...
.jpg)
