sycasey said:

---

HINT: Russia never abided by the Minsk agreement terms either.

---

False, nearly all violations were by the Ukrainian army.

Russia viewed the Donbass as a headache and were very weary of intervening militarily. They finally crossed the Rubicon and went in after Ukraine crossed several red lines, including the stated desire for Zelensky's government to acquire nuclear weapons, which they have the technology, know-how and material to build with one of the largest stockpiles of Uranium in Europe.

Ukraine also built up a large army in early '22 and were about to overrun the rebels in the Donbass, with the stated desire to roll into Crimea, which is very difficult for Russia to defend without a land bridge over the northern Azov Sea shore. At that point Russia had to go in.

This being said, they were preparing for this war, at one point well before 2022 they saw this confrontation as inevitable. especially with the governments of Johnson, Macron and Scholz/Grune not providing the kind of sane oversight that their predecessor had more of.

I would think a country like Russia would have large industrial capacity. Am I wrong?

Also, with oil sales, plenty of funding?

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

HINT: Russia never abided by the Minsk agreement terms either.

---

False, nearly all violations were by the Ukrainian army.

---

You can only say this because the Russian government claimed it was not a party to the terms at all.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now

Quote:

---

A major blockage has been Russia's insistence that it is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not bound by its terms.

---

And if you believe the Russian government had nothing to do with supporting the separatist militia groups that were causing all the problems in the Donbas, then I've also got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Is Hunter Biden brokering the deal, or Blackrock?

Cal88 said:

---

There is actually a lot of bitterness from the military leadership of the LPR and DRR, who feel let down by Russia and complain that Russian support had been grossly inadequate. Up to very recently, their units were not very well-equipped and the average age of soldiers older than that of the Russian forces.

---

Sounds like the separatist groups are in the same boat with the actual Russian soldiers.

Meanwhile, the corrupt MICC - Military Industrial Congressional Complex - refused an Amendment to add an Inspector General to all of these military outlays.

This is the most ridiculous disingenuous discussion and as usual it's caused by the usual suspects. Any discussion of corruption in Ukraine that doesn't acknowledge Russia's role in that corruption is pointless. No one outside the Kremlin's sphere of influence could possibly pretend that the Yanukovych government was in any way legitimate or not corrupt.

Here are just a few articles I've posted that discuss Paul Manafort's role in that corrupt morass: here and here.

Needless to say, Putin's interest in Ukraine has never been for the benefit of Ukraine and it's idiotic to get sidetracked into any conversation which normalizes the point of view that the Maidan Revolution wasn't what people in Ukraine wanted. That revolution was a direct result of Yanukovych (who was corruptly bought and paid for by Russian oligarch's at Putin's behest - with Manafort as the weapon of choice) choosing not to politically associate and sign a free trade agreement with the EU in favor of closer ties to Russia, which the people of Ukraine overwhelmingly did not want.

I suggest rather than pretending that the few whackos here are engaging in good faith conversation that everyone ignore them entirely in order to foster a conversation about what is actually happening in Ukraine and what Russia is really up to there. Just like talking to flat earthers about their genuinely held beliefs, all you will do is waste your time and get bogged down in a conversation which has no grounding in reality.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is the most ridiculous disingenuous discussion and as usual it's caused by the usual suspects. Any discussion of corruption in Ukraine that doesn't acknowledge Russia's role in that corruption is pointless. No one outside the Kremlin's sphere of influence could possibly pretend that the Yanukovych government was in any way legitimate or not corrupt.

Here are just a few articles I've posted that discuss Paul Manafort's role in that corrupt morass: here and here.

Needless to say, Putin's interest in Ukraine has never been for the benefit of Ukraine and it's idiotic to get sidetracked into any conversation which normalizes the point of view that the Maidan Revolution wasn't what people in Ukraine wanted. That revolution was a direct result of Yanukovych (who was corruptly bought and paid for by Russian oligarch's at Putin's behest - with Manafort as the weapon of choice) choosing not to politically associate and sign a free trade agreement with the EU in favor of closer ties to Russia, which the people of Ukraine overwhelmingly did not want.

I suggest rather than pretending that the few whackos here are engaging in good faith conversation that everyone ignore them entirely in order to foster a conversation about what is actually happening in Ukraine and what Russia is really up to there. Just like talking to flat earthers about their genuinely held beliefs, all you will do is waste your time and get bogged down in a conversation which has no grounding in reality.

---

I've stepped back from a few long running threads lately for just that reason. It's clear there are a small handful of people here just to push their weird conspiracy theories and are not interested in any evidence that doesn't back their views. It is hard to watch them post the latest dispatches from dubious and discredited sources and then circle jerk and pat each other on the back about how smart they are. I've been mostly steering clear of the Post button though. Best not to give them the attention they crave or make others think something meaningful might be happening in that topic.

So Minsk II was a fantasy? Along with Nazi batallions?

Another interesting discussion on how high our ROI has been on Ukraine military aid. We've nominally spent $22B but it's largely old equipment that was going to be scrapped.

Dollar-for-dollar, the best return on a security assistance investment since Ike was president. https://t.co/KHv0oU4GkJ

— Doctrine Man (@Doctrine_Man) December 29, 2022

Quote:

---

The list of American security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia's "unprovoked and brutal invasion" is impressive. What is more impressive is that $21.9 billion in U.S. military aid has been dominated by largely second-string gear, comprised of unpopular or lower-tech systems that were, in many cases, on the way to the scrapyard.

As Congress gears up to constrain the Biden Administration's relative largesse, it is worth emphasizing that the aid, to date, is neither excessive nor threatening to U.S. national security.

In fact, U.S. military support to Ukraine has cost less than what Congress is paying to procure two Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. In total, taxpayers will put some $26 billion into the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). In comparison to these troubled flattops, the $21.9 billion for Ukraine appears to be a far more effective return on investment.

Aid to Ukraine has, in effect, shattered the Russian military, exposing it as little more than a paper tiger. The war has helped destroy Russia's once-burgeoning arms bazaar, ruining Russian efforts to destabilize strategic regions. Enabling the fight has bolstered Ukraine's commitment to their nation, critical for advancing society-building and anti-corruption efforts there. Facilitating Ukraine's resistance may even end the kleptocratic reign of Vladimir Putin, paving the way for a more justif not more democraticsociety in Russia itself.

---

That is an informative article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Does the article cover the 150,000 dead or missing Ukrainian soldiers that are being used in this Grand Chessboard geopolitical enterprise?

Ukraine is on its 10th mobilization round, now sending high school kids to the meat grinder.

‼️⚠️Ukrainians are sending children to war.

⚠️🚸These guys are calling from their "location" in Zhytomyr. pic.twitter.com/EYgNTOTL9S

— Irena Glatter (@IrenaLenard) December 29, 2022

Ukraine's regime is now also executing fellow citizens who don't show enough enthusiasm towards this war:

A known hacker intercepted a private Telegram conversation between AFU soldiers - in the messages they are discussing killing their own, very interesting. pic.twitter.com/fETSNZU7y8

— Donbass Revolution 💤 (@DrvnkUncleZ) December 29, 2022

Apparently Unit2Sucks doesn't care. I made this point recently, among others.

Now this over educated doctor of immunology / military 'expert' - Mr. Hooper - openly called Russia a "paper tiger".

Not considering, apparently, that Russia went in with a smaller footprint and with a minimalist strategy. And Russia also started out using its antiquated military fleet.

Another blogger is excited that we've apparently successfully tested the first few naval drones.

If Russia unleashes an offensive with 500,000 men, will this be the largest military operation since Vietnam or Korea?

movielover said:

---

Apparently Unit2Sucks doesn't care. I made this point recently, among others.

Now this over educated doctor of immunology / military 'expert' - Mr. Hooper - openly called Russia a "paper tiger".

Not considering, apparently, that Russia went in with a smaller footprint and with a minimalist strategy.

Another blogger is excited that we've apparently successfully tested the first few naval drones.

If Russia unleashes an offensive with 500,000 men, will this be the largest military operation since Vietnam or Korea?

---

I think they might just keep the slow grind going till Ukraine reaches its breaking point, at some point the losses are going to be unsustainable. They have been losing between 500-1,000 KIA/injured every day this month, at a ratio of 8-9 to 1 vs the Russians.

The Russians might just sit back and keep shelling, extending the war of attrition, figuring that once the Ukrainian army is thinned out, they will be able to move into Ukraine with a lot less resistance. They're also depleting Ukraine's stock of AA missiles, which would allow them to step up air support.

Even if you ignore the huge toll on Ukrainian lives, the gambit of using the Ukraine war to weaken Russia is failing. Their economy is solid, they've upped their foreign reserves to half a trillion, nowhere near the anticipated collapse. Putin and the war are popular, scenes like the sadistic execution of Russian POWs being shot in the legs and left to bleed to death have galvanized their people.

Furthermore, the Russian military has gotten a lot stronger, they started out this campaign with a 20th century army but have since become the world leader in drone use and production, having integrated and used the best in that technology from Iran and Israel, along with homegrown tech:

Shahed-136 drone still manages to destroy its target despite a hole in its left wing.

Quite resilient for a drone that’s only meant to fly once pic.twitter.com/MSKfMCu2DM

— LogKa (@LogKa11) December 29, 2022

The drones are being used to assist artillery strikes and to thin out Ukrainian armor deep behind the front.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Since Russia is the aggressor and since Russia criminally attacks civilian targets and infrastructure, at some point the west needs to take the gloves off and allow Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia used to launch these attacks and support their war effort (ie bases, supply chains, storage depots). The nominal reason for not doing this was to avoid escalation but Russia has escalated anyways with their civilian / infrastructure attacks. To use somewhat dated language / philosophy, we are forcing the military mistakes of Vietnam on Ukraine.

---

Escalation in this case, at some point, could mean Russia sinking a USN carrier, 4,000 sailors at risk. They can do it with the touch of a button with their conventional weapons, which includes an arsenal of hypersonic missiles that could bear down on a target at a speed of 5 miles per second (Mach 20).

The reason NATO has not already piled on and jumped more openly in the fray, very carefully ratcheting up its military support for Ukraine, is that Russia would probably win an all-out war at its borders, or at the very least, they can inflict incredibly high costs on the US, it would be the first time in history that a foreign power could bomb the continental US with conventional weapons. They would likely stick to local US military targets like large ships and US bases in Europe or the Mideast. Of course in an open conflict between modern powers, the risk of nuclear escalation and mutual annihilation/world destruction also becomes a distinct possibility.

Putin, unaccustomed to losing, is increasingly isolated as war falters


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/30/putin-isolated-russia-ukraine-war/

bearister said:

---

Putin, unaccustomed to losing, is increasingly isolated as war falters


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/30/putin-isolated-russia-ukraine-war/

---

He was in isolation for most of COVID. Whether it was to protect himself from infection or to hide his deteriorating health is unclear. Hopefully the reports of his terminal illness are true but I fear that the world isn't that lucky.

So isolated, he's growing closer to Chairman Xi.

Probably doubling up time with his secret (not secret) young Olympian wife - Alina Kabaeva, 39 - and his Viagra script. He reportedly has four young children with her, and she us paid $10M per year to lead their MSM.

#DragonBear

Russiagate did this. Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Baker, etc vilified Russia and criminalized diplomacy with Putin. They and their accomplices in the media are responsible for this very dangerous new alliance. It didn't have to be this way. And yet, no one has been held to account. https://t.co/OGYxZZo3PT

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) December 30, 2022

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Since Russia is the aggressor and since Russia criminally attacks civilian targets and infrastructure, at some point the west needs to take the gloves off and allow Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia used to launch these attacks and support their war effort (ie bases, supply chains, storage depots). The nominal reason for not doing this was to avoid escalation but Russia has escalated anyways with their civilian / infrastructure attacks. To use somewhat dated language / philosophy, we are forcing the military mistakes of Vietnam on Ukraine.

---

Escalation in this case, at some point, could mean Russia sinking a USN carrier, 4,000 sailors at risk. They can do it with the touch of a button with their conventional weapons, which includes an arsenal of hypersonic missiles that could bear down on a target at a speed of 5 miles per second (Mach 20).

The reason NATO has not already piled on and jumped more openly in the fray, very carefully ratcheting up its military support for Ukraine, is that Russia would probably win an all-out war at its borders, or at the very least, they can inflict incredibly high costs on the US, it would be the first time in history that a foreign power could bomb the continental US with conventional weapons. They would likely stick to local US military targets like large ships and US bases in Europe or the Mideast. Of course in an open conflict between modern powers, the risk of nuclear escalation and mutual annihilation/world destruction also becomes a distinct possibility.

---

Just so we are clear, you are saying Russia's response to NATO hypothetically providing weapons that allow Ukraine to reach inside Russian territory would be to sink a USN ship or attack the US proper with hypersonic missiles? I would like to think even Putin isn't that crazy.

This is the problem with the new warhawk Liberals, and the "let's weaken Russia" State Department hacks - the risk of this escalating.

When the ground freezes solid in Southern Ukraine, and the new Russian General starting cleaning out the remaining Ukrainian troops in the southern regions, how does Ukraine counter?

What happens if a Polish battalion in Ukraine is wiped out?

What happens if supplies coming in from Poland are eviscerated. Will NATO or Poland respond?

If Ukraine gets aggressive, and Russia wants to respond... what if Russia hits a weapons cache in Poland? Or they take Odessa.

All bc the State Department is fighting a 1980s war when Russia is at best our number 3 concern.

It's ironic how hunky dory the Libs are here about actual Nazi's running around southern Ukraine. I think a few wouldn't mind friending them on FB.

Col McGregor - comparing tanks.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Since Russia is the aggressor and since Russia criminally attacks civilian targets and infrastructure, at some point the west needs to take the gloves off and allow Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia used to launch these attacks and support their war effort (ie bases, supply chains, storage depots). The nominal reason for not doing this was to avoid escalation but Russia has escalated anyways with their civilian / infrastructure attacks. To use somewhat dated language / philosophy, we are forcing the military mistakes of Vietnam on Ukraine.

---

Escalation in this case, at some point, could mean Russia sinking a USN carrier, 4,000 sailors at risk. They can do it with the touch of a button with their conventional weapons, which includes an arsenal of hypersonic missiles that could bear down on a target at a speed of 5 miles per second (Mach 20).

The reason NATO has not already piled on and jumped more openly in the fray, very carefully ratcheting up its military support for Ukraine, is that Russia would probably win an all-out war at its borders, or at the very least, they can inflict incredibly high costs on the US, it would be the first time in history that a foreign power could bomb the continental US with conventional weapons. They would likely stick to local US military targets like large ships and US bases in Europe or the Mideast. Of course in an open conflict between modern powers, the risk of nuclear escalation and mutual annihilation/world destruction also becomes a distinct possibility.

---

Just so we are clear, you are saying Russia's response to NATO hypothetically providing weapons that allow Ukraine to reach inside Russian territory would be to sink a USN ship or attack the US proper with hypersonic missiles? I would like to think even Putin isn't that crazy.

---

Not exactly, Russia sinking US ships would be a response a few rungs up the escalation scale, in an open war with NATO, which both sides are trying to avoid, for reasons obvious to military brass. The problem is that neocon hawks politicians are too dumb to understand where escalation might lead, and of course Ukrainian authorities have been actively trying to escalate the conflict, for instance with the false flag attack on Poland with Soviet-made Ukrainian missiles that they tried to blame on Russia earlier this month.

The first response for Russia now to repeated attacks on its territories could be a limited bombing of targets in or over NATO countries that are actively involved in the war, for instance taking down an AWACS plane over Roumania or Poland, or more likely hitting Ukrainians training there.

movielover said:

---

Col McGregor - comparing tanks.

---

Russian tanks are designed to fight Russian wars. The M1 or the German Leopard weigh 60-70 tons vs ~40T for the Russian T-72, T-80 or T90s, which means that the Russian tanks are better adapted for moving and fighting in the often muddy terrain of the Russian steppes, as well being lighter means lower fuel consumption and longer range. They're also lower maintenance in general vs western tanks, especially the M1 whose gas turbine engines hove shorter lives and require a lot of maintenance vs a diesel engine.

The other feature of Russian tanks is that they have an automatic shell loading system while western tanks have a 4th crew member who does the loading manually (except for the French Leclerc which also has an automatic loader and a crew of 3). The advantage of autoloader being shorter firing intervals and the ability to take on a larger tank force.

The disadvantage is that if the turret is hit with the shell inside it would be a fatal blow, demolishing the tank and crew. This is the picture we saw with early on with Russian turrets flying off spectacularly. Since then, Russian tankers have learned to not load up their first shells into the turret unless they are actively engaged in a combat situation.

The Russians have recently injected 200 new T-90s into their front, their production facilities have been running at full capacity.

McGregor also claims Russia purposefully started out using old tanks (700) vs Ukraine, just like we reportedly give Ukrainian our old equipment.

movielover said:

---

McGregor also claims Russia purposefully started out using old tanks (700) vs Ukraine, just like we reportedly give Ukrainian our old equipment.

---

When the US invaded Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, or anywhere else we did not use our old equipment. That would be a stupid strategy. However, Russia has displayed a lot of stupid strategies so maybe it is true.

I did read that Russia did not want to use their latest aircraft for fear of losing them or - alternately to hold them in reserve to defend the homeland for when NATO attacked. LOL at that one. That doesn't sow a lot of fear in Russia's enemies nor provide warm fuzzy feelings to the countries that buy their weapons.

When the US develops a new weapons system we are eager to try it out. This goes all the way back to the A-bomb.

I think McGregor is a Russian mouthpiece.

dimitrig said:

---

movielover said:

---

McGregor also claims Russia purposefully started out using old tanks (700) vs Ukraine, just like we reportedly give Ukrainian our old equipment.

---

When the US invaded Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, or anywhere else we did not use our old equipment. That would be a stupid strategy. However, Russia has displayed a lot of stupid strategies so maybe it is true.

I did read that Russia did not want to use their latest aircraft for fear of losing them or - alternately to hold them in reserve to defend the homeland for when NATO attacked. LOL at that one. That doesn't sow a lot of fear in Russia's enemies nor provide warm fuzzy feelings to the countries that buy their weapons.

When the US develops a new weapons system we are eager to try it out. This goes all the way back to the A-bomb.

I think McGregor is a Russian mouthpiece.

---

Hey, don't diss movielover's man crush of the week!

Some in the West claim Putin is in ill health. He looks in fine shape here. (Fawning Russia comments & bots?)