Cal88 said:

---

The main point here, in this entire thread, which needs to be stated once again as it has been brought up once again from the wrong perspective is:

Being pro-Ukraine means being for bringing an end to this war.

Anyone who disagrees with this lacks basic realism. And unfortunately, most people have been rendered clueless by the emotionally-driven MSM narrative that ignores this basic reality:

There is no military solution for Ukraine.

The only question is, how long, and how many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more Ukrainian bodies it is going to take for that to sink in. Russia is going to win the land war at its border, even if NATO escalates.

This is exactly the point that was driven by retired German Brigadier General Erich Vad earlier today, here is his interview translated from German:

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/01/16/erich-vad-what-are-the-war-aims/



excerpts:

Quote:

---

And what could be the consequences [of the delivery of German weapons to Ukraine]?

Is it the intention to achieve a willingness to negotiate with the delivery of the tanks? Do they want to reconquer the Donbass or the Crimea? Or does one want to defeat Russia altogether? There is no realistic end-state definition. And without an overall political and strategic concept, arms deliveries are pure militarism.

What does that mean?

We have a military stalemate that we cannot resolve militarily. That, by the way, is also the opinion of U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He has said that a military victory for Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way. Anything else means the senseless wear and tear of human lives.

General Milley's statement caused much anger in Washington and was also heavily criticized publicly.

He spoke an uncomfortable truth. A truth, by the way, that was almost not published in the German media. The interview with Milley by CNN did not appear anywhere bigger, while he is the Chief of Staff of our Western leading power.

What is being conducted in Ukraine is a war of attrition. And one with now close to 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded on both sides, with 50,000 civilian dead, and with millions of refugees. Milley has thus drawn a parallel with World War I that could not be more apt. In World War I, the so-called 'Blood Mill of Verdun' alone, designed as a battle of attrition, resulted in the deaths of nearly a million young French and Germans. They fell for nothing at that time. So the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate led to millions of additional deaths. This strategy did not work militarily then and will not do so now.

---

---

Being pro-Ukraine means being in favor of Russia pulling its troops and military support back to Ukraine's original border. Anything else rewards Russia for bad behavior.

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The main point here, in this entire thread, which needs to be stated once again as it has been brought up once again from the wrong perspective is:

Being pro-Ukraine means being for bringing an end to this war.

Anyone who disagrees with this lacks basic realism. And unfortunately, most people have been rendered clueless by the emotionally-driven MSM narrative that ignores this basic reality:

There is no military solution for Ukraine.

The only question is, how long, and how many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more Ukrainian bodies it is going to take for that to sink in. Russia is going to win the land war at its border, even if NATO escalates.

This is exactly the point that was driven by retired German Brigadier General Erich Vad earlier today, here is his interview translated from German:

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/01/16/erich-vad-what-are-the-war-aims/



excerpts:

Quote:

---

And what could be the consequences [of the delivery of German weapons to Ukraine]?

Is it the intention to achieve a willingness to negotiate with the delivery of the tanks? Do they want to reconquer the Donbass or the Crimea? Or does one want to defeat Russia altogether? There is no realistic end-state definition. And without an overall political and strategic concept, arms deliveries are pure militarism.

What does that mean?

We have a military stalemate that we cannot resolve militarily. That, by the way, is also the opinion of U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He has said that a military victory for Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way. Anything else means the senseless wear and tear of human lives.

General Milley's statement caused much anger in Washington and was also heavily criticized publicly.

He spoke an uncomfortable truth. A truth, by the way, that was almost not published in the German media. The interview with Milley by CNN did not appear anywhere bigger, while he is the Chief of Staff of our Western leading power.

What is being conducted in Ukraine is a war of attrition. And one with now close to 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded on both sides, with 50,000 civilian dead, and with millions of refugees. Milley has thus drawn a parallel with World War I that could not be more apt. In World War I, the so-called 'Blood Mill of Verdun' alone, designed as a battle of attrition, resulted in the deaths of nearly a million young French and Germans. They fell for nothing at that time. So the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate led to millions of additional deaths. This strategy did not work militarily then and will not do so now.

---

---

Being pro-Ukraine means being in favor of Russia pulling its troops and military support back to Ukraine's original border. Anything else rewards Russia for bad behavior.

---

To take it to a certain extreme (though given Putin's words and actions, not that extreme): if "an end to the war" means "Russia annexes Ukraine as its own territory," then that would NOT be a pro-Ukraine position. There are a lot of different ways the war could end, some of them good for Ukraine and some not.

dimit said:

---

Dimitrig said:

Being pro-Ukraine means being in favor of Russia pulling its troops and military support back to Ukraine's original border. Anything else rewards Russia for bad behavior.

---

That is never going to happen, Russia is not going to pull back, period!

A couple hundred more tanks for Ukraine, which started out with 1,000 tanks, is not going to make a damn difference. Russia has thousands, and literally millions of shells.

We had a chance to solve the conflict before it started, with the Minsk Agreements. Turns out it was a sham attempt at peace, as NATO was hell bent on solving the situation militarily, using Ukrainian soldiers, in order to weaken Russia.

There was a chance after Russia's early show of force to settle the conflict one month after it started in the Istanbul negotiations, but instead Boris Johnson and others pressed Ukraine on, and emboldened the radicals in Kyiv, who executed mob-style one of the more moderate negotiators from their own team.

If you're keeping the conflict going, you're just going to reward Russia with more Ukrainian territory, with hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian soldiers killed. If Russia starts faltering like they did last Fall, they will just ratchet up their war dial, as they have done with the last round, now again winning on the battleground, having improved their military apparatus.

You're not "standing with Ukraine" by wanting the war to go on, you're instead watching it get wrecked, in the words of John Mearsheimer.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The main point here, in this entire thread, which needs to be stated once again as it has been brought up once again from the wrong perspective is:

Being pro-Ukraine means being for bringing an end to this war.

Anyone who disagrees with this lacks basic realism. And unfortunately, most people have been rendered clueless by the emotionally-driven MSM narrative that ignores this basic reality:

There is no military solution for Ukraine.

The only question is, how long, and how many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more Ukrainian bodies it is going to take for that to sink in. Russia is going to win the land war at its border, even if NATO escalates.

This is exactly the point that was driven by retired German Brigadier General Erich Vad earlier today, here is his interview translated from German:

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/01/16/erich-vad-what-are-the-war-aims/



excerpts:

Quote:

---

And what could be the consequences [of the delivery of German weapons to Ukraine]?

Is it the intention to achieve a willingness to negotiate with the delivery of the tanks? Do they want to reconquer the Donbass or the Crimea? Or does one want to defeat Russia altogether? There is no realistic end-state definition. And without an overall political and strategic concept, arms deliveries are pure militarism.

What does that mean?

We have a military stalemate that we cannot resolve militarily. That, by the way, is also the opinion of U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He has said that a military victory for Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way. Anything else means the senseless wear and tear of human lives.

General Milley's statement caused much anger in Washington and was also heavily criticized publicly.

He spoke an uncomfortable truth. A truth, by the way, that was almost not published in the German media. The interview with Milley by CNN did not appear anywhere bigger, while he is the Chief of Staff of our Western leading power.

What is being conducted in Ukraine is a war of attrition. And one with now close to 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded on both sides, with 50,000 civilian dead, and with millions of refugees. Milley has thus drawn a parallel with World War I that could not be more apt. In World War I, the so-called 'Blood Mill of Verdun' alone, designed as a battle of attrition, resulted in the deaths of nearly a million young French and Germans. They fell for nothing at that time. So the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate led to millions of additional deaths. This strategy did not work militarily then and will not do so now.

---

---

Being pro-Ukraine means being in favor of Russia pulling its troops and military support back to Ukraine's original border. Anything else rewards Russia for bad behavior.

---

To take it to a certain extreme (though given Putin's words and actions, not that extreme): if "an end to the war" means "Russia annexes Ukraine as its own territory," then that would NOT be a pro-Ukraine position. There are a lot of different ways the war could end, some of them good for Ukraine and some not.

---

From where you stand, there are no good outcomes for Ukraine in this war, realistically speaking.

I think ultimately this is our main disagreement here, you're under the illusion that Ukraine is only a few hundred tanks and F16 squads from rolling into Crimea.

There's a bad outcome, where Russia annexes the Donbass and the land bridge to Crimea (current borders/front) and calls it a day, and then there is a worse outcome, where Russia annexes almost half of Ukraine and rolls over the rest, killing a quarter million Ukrainians (or more) on their way back to Kiev.

The worst-case scenario for Russia is a WW1-style bloody stalemate somewhere on the left bank of the Dniepr (with a larger casualty toll for Ukraine, along the lines of the first year of the war). They'll take it, and call it a win.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The main point here, in this entire thread, which needs to be stated once again as it has been brought up once again from the wrong perspective is:

Being pro-Ukraine means being for bringing an end to this war.

Anyone who disagrees with this lacks basic realism. And unfortunately, most people have been rendered clueless by the emotionally-driven MSM narrative that ignores this basic reality:

There is no military solution for Ukraine.

The only question is, how long, and how many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more Ukrainian bodies it is going to take for that to sink in. Russia is going to win the land war at its border, even if NATO escalates.

This is exactly the point that was driven by retired German Brigadier General Erich Vad earlier today, here is his interview translated from German:

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/01/16/erich-vad-what-are-the-war-aims/



excerpts:

Quote:

---

And what could be the consequences [of the delivery of German weapons to Ukraine]?

Is it the intention to achieve a willingness to negotiate with the delivery of the tanks? Do they want to reconquer the Donbass or the Crimea? Or does one want to defeat Russia altogether? There is no realistic end-state definition. And without an overall political and strategic concept, arms deliveries are pure militarism.

What does that mean?

We have a military stalemate that we cannot resolve militarily. That, by the way, is also the opinion of U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He has said that a military victory for Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way. Anything else means the senseless wear and tear of human lives.

General Milley's statement caused much anger in Washington and was also heavily criticized publicly.

He spoke an uncomfortable truth. A truth, by the way, that was almost not published in the German media. The interview with Milley by CNN did not appear anywhere bigger, while he is the Chief of Staff of our Western leading power.

What is being conducted in Ukraine is a war of attrition. And one with now close to 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded on both sides, with 50,000 civilian dead, and with millions of refugees. Milley has thus drawn a parallel with World War I that could not be more apt. In World War I, the so-called 'Blood Mill of Verdun' alone, designed as a battle of attrition, resulted in the deaths of nearly a million young French and Germans. They fell for nothing at that time. So the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate led to millions of additional deaths. This strategy did not work militarily then and will not do so now.

---

---

Being pro-Ukraine means being in favor of Russia pulling its troops and military support back to Ukraine's original border. Anything else rewards Russia for bad behavior.

---

To take it to a certain extreme (though given Putin's words and actions, not that extreme): if "an end to the war" means "Russia annexes Ukraine as its own territory," then that would NOT be a pro-Ukraine position. There are a lot of different ways the war could end, some of them good for Ukraine and some not.

---

From where you stand, there are no good outcomes for Ukraine in this war, realistically speaking.

I think ultimately this is our main disagreement here, you're under the illusion that Ukraine is only a few hundred tanks and F16 squads from rolling into Crimea.

---

What are you talking about? When did I say that?

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

Cal88 logic:

Countries are justified in invading other countries if you can identify some distasteful politics in that country.

Once a war is started by an invading country, they are no longer the invading country if they say they had a reason.

If you were pro-allie, the allies should have surrendered to axis because the axis had a reason for invading and felt slighted and threatened and to keep fighting in defense would just cost more allied lives.

If you are pro-American, the colonists should have surrendered to the British.

Russian corruption is exaggerated and irrelevant.

Ukraine deciding their own economic and political future
Is an act of aggression, but Russia's arming, interfering in Ukraine's governance, and sending infiltrators and armies over the borders is not aggressive and totally justifiable.

His videos and charts are spot on truth, but anyone else's data or information or opinion is worthless.

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

How do we know the CIA spent the last 75 years exploiting Ukraine to undermine the USSR/Russia? Because the CIA released thousands of declassified documents detailing these operations. The US has been nurturing nazionalism in Ukraine to use as a weapon against Russia since WWII. pic.twitter.com/5s4IQZEHsp

— Chebureki Man (@CheburekiMan) January 13, 2023

And this continued through the scuttling of the Minsk Agreements, a settlement with which all parties should have been very much able to live with without going to war.

Many of the Ukrainians who wanted to fight Russia at all costs are already dead. Many are still on the front, but most of the ones who haven't been drafted yet don't want to die for Zelensky's regime in this war, including my nephew Stanislav, who is going to get drafted even if he has been living in Poland since his late teens. Zaluzhny's army is running out of bodies, they are now going to draft more women in Ukraine, and expat men in Poland (with the full collaboration of the Polish government).

Well before this war, the majority of Ukrainians wanted a settlement with Russia, that's how both Yanukovitch and Zelensky got elected president. Even the more hardcore nationalist Ukrainians would never have gone to war if it wasn't for the promises of American wonderweapons and unlimited military support. It's a pattern we've seen many times before in many proxy wars, from the Hmong in Vietnam, to the Kurds in the Middle East...

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

---

The main point of many observers like Mearsheimer, and the point I've also tried to make here, is that we've consciously set up the conditions that precipitated Russia's invasion, to use his phraseology, we've led them down the primrose path.



"We must condemn those who wage war, but even more so, those that make it inevitable"
Montesquieu

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

Imagine how hard you'd have to lie to yourself every day to believe the bolded pablum above

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

---

The main point of many observers like Mearsheimer, and the point I've also tried to make here, is that we've consciously set up the conditions that precipitated Russia's invasion, to use his phraseology, we've led them down the primrose path.

---

So what? Ukraine still could have chosen to remain with pro-Russia leadership if that's what they wanted. Putin could have decided not to attack. Other countries besides the US have agency here, something your analysis consistently fails to address.

I guarantee that if Ukraine had not asked for aid, we would not be sending it. If they had stuck with their pro-Russia President we would not be leading an invasion right now. Those choices were still up to them, as it should be. It's Russia that consistently ignores what other countries want.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

---

The main point of many observers like Mearsheimer, and the point I've also tried to make here, is that we've consciously set up the conditions that precipitated Russia's invasion, to use his phraseology, we've led them down the primrose path.

---

So what? Ukraine still could have chosen to remain with pro-Russia leadership if that's what they wanted. Putin could have decided not to attack. Other countries besides the US have agency here, something your analysis consistently fails to address.

I guarantee that if Ukraine had not asked for aid, we would not be sending it. If they had stuck with their pro-Russia President we would not be leading an invasion right now. Those choices were still up to them, as it should be. It's Russia that consistently ignores what other countries want.

---

This is like a fight between a heavyweight and middleweight and we, NATO, are the promoter of the fight and also the trainer of the middleweight getting pummelled who keeps telling him to go back into the ring, magic sponge in hand.

---

Except in this case no one was required to fight at all, until the heavyweight landed a couple of sucker punches.

Who benefits from war? The Military Industrial Congressional Complex, the war machine.

We've lost every war since Korea?

Why do we have 400 military bases across the world?

Scott Ritter claims we've broken every arms agreement with Russia for decades, Minsk Accords being the latest.

Interesting insight into the Wagner mercs that seem to be the only functional unit in the Russian invasion. Russia has so few willing participants for their criminal invasion that they have to use tactics like this in order to continuie to feed human meat to their unlawful effort. At what point will they realize that they can't win this war long-term (eg hold a country against their will) and that continuing this war effort will only lead to disaster? Their cheerleaders will continue to believe their propaganda, but on some level the Kremlin has to see there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Quote:

---

A former commander in Russia's Wagner private military company has fled to Norway and is seeking asylum after crossing that country's arctic border, according to Norwegian police and a Russian activist.
Andrei Medvedev, in an interview with a Russian activist who helps people seek asylum abroad, said that he feared for his life after refusing to renew his service with Wagner.

Medvedev said that after completing his contract, and refusing to serve another, he was afraid of being executed in the same manner of Yevgeny Nuzhin a defector from Wagner who was killed on camera with a sledgehammer.

"We were just thrown to fight like cannon fodder," he told Vladimir Osechkin, head of Gulagu.net, a human rights advocacy group, in a conversation published on YouTube.

...
The group is often described as Russian President Vladimir Putin's off-the-books troops. It has expanded its footprint globally since its creation in 2014, and has been accused of war crimes in Africa, Syria and Ukraine.
...
"I signed a contract with the group on the 6th of July 2022. I had been appointed commander of the first squad of the 4th platoon of the 7th assault detachment," he recalled. "When the prisoners started arriving, the situation in Wagner really changed. They stopped treating us like humans. We were just thrown to fight like cannon fodder."

"Every week they sent more prisoners to us. We lost a lot of men. Casualties were high. We would lose 15 to 20 men just in our platoon. As far as I know, a majority of them were buried in LPR [Luhansk People's Republic] and declared missing. If you are declared missing, there is no insurance pay-out to the relatives."

He claimed that prisoners were "shot dead for refusing to fight, or betrayal."

"I am afraid for my life," he said in December. "I did not commit any crime. I have refused to participate in maneuvers of Yevgeny Prigozhin."

---

An adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has proposed his resignation, after he suggested the rocket that hit an apartment block in Dnipro was downed by Ukraine.

"I wrote a letter of resignation. I want to set an example of civilized behaviour. A fundamental mistake means resignation," Oleksiy Arestovych, posted on Facebook alongside a photo of his resignation letter.

Arestovych initially suggested that the rocket that hit the apartment block had been downed by Ukrainian air defense systems, rather than a direct hit. The rocket was a Kh-22.

However, the Ukrainian Air Force said Sunday that they did not have the capability to shoot down that type of rocket. Therefore, the attack was a direct hit.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-1-17-23/h_61468902ae4b58fc34c465453b794a6c

DiabloWags said:

---

Russians still targeting civilians.

They destroy a 9 story residential apartment building killing 12, including a 15 year old girl.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/14/world/russia-ukraine-news

---

Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych was forced to resign after stating that the deadly strike on this apt building in Dnirpo was caused by a Ukrainian SAM missile, not a targeted Russian attack. Another casualty of Kiev’s information war. pic.twitter.com/NqN1VdoNgc https://t.co/ZqynPAKQ3o

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 17, 2023

Unit2Sucks said:

---

If this is true, will exact a major loss of civilian life on Ukraine and will be a devastating attack on the country that Putin pretends to be liberating. Hope that this is wrong for the sake of humanity.

3) If Russia is able to take Lviv, then #Ukraine will be cut off from Western military supplies through #Poland, resulting in a catastrophic blow.
4) Gerasimov was the mastermind behind the original Feb 24 offensive, including the specific plan to take #Hostomel & #Kyiv quickly.

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) January 17, 2023

Of course preparations will be obvious to Western & Ukrainian intelligence for such a large-scale attack if it were to happen. If this is real, Poland & the whole #NATO will need to consider what to do when Russia brings war & slaughter right to their border.

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) January 17, 2023

---

It's funny how on one hand you have NATO analysts who are wondering about what Russia is going to do with its newly formed 700k-900k invasion force on one hand, and on the other you have had people saying throughout 2022 that Russia can't clothe or feed its 200k soldiers in Ukraine, it's like the propaganda works both ways...

War is horrible. The west and NATO have openly said the Minsk Accords were a sham. Russia needed to be weakened (why?). Blame NATO and the west.

Meanwhile, a family of six was just brutally executed in Visalia, CA, Mexican Cartel style. And China conducts a modern opium war through our ports and open southern border, leading to a homeless explosion.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

---

The main point of many observers like Mearsheimer, and the point I've also tried to make here, is that we've consciously set up the conditions that precipitated Russia's invasion, to use his phraseology, we've led them down the primrose path.

---

So what? Ukraine still could have chosen to remain with pro-Russia leadership if that's what they wanted. Putin could have decided not to attack. Other countries besides the US have agency here, something your analysis consistently fails to address.

I guarantee that if Ukraine had not asked for aid, we would not be sending it. If they had stuck with their pro-Russia President we would not be leading an invasion right now. Those choices were still up to them, as it should be. It's Russia that consistently ignores what other countries want.

---

The Maidan Coup, which overthrew Ukraine's democratically-elected government, was a run of the mill color revolution/CIA regime change project not much different from the ones that overthrew Mossadegh in the 1950s. They both featured armed thugs taking over the public square and government.

The majority of Ukrainians wanted a settlement with Russia along the Minsk Agreements line. NATO, driven by neocons like Victoria Nuland, didn't like that, they wanted to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. Since then, the new government set up by the Maidan Coup has banned all opposition and pushed a blind banderite nationalism that has taken over their army and institutions, and Ukraine is being wrecked as a result.

NATO got their wish of using Ukraine to bleed Russia, except Ukraine has been doing almost all of the bleeding.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Why would you continue to arm Ukraine if you didn't think they could win this war? Otherwise you're of the mindset of the cynical Washington neocons who are wilfully using Ukrainian fodder in an attempt to weaken Russia.

So what do you think are the military options (and outcomes) for Ukraine?

---

I don't really know yet. I do know that it's not our place to dictate terms to the Ukrainians from the outside. We are providing aid because they asked for it, and it's up to them when they will ask us to stop.

---

That is exactly what we have done though, in actively promoting the most radical form of nationalism in Ukraine, and that started well before the Maidan Coup. We've had a big finger in this pie for a long time:

---

And I think you know that I consider your narrative on this to be utter bulls**t. Did we attempt to influence events in Ukraine? Yes, just as we do in pretty much every country around the world. Have we been making decisions for them? No. They had plenty of space to turn Russia's way if they wanted and they didn't.

The #1 reason Ukrainians don't want an easy settlement with Russia anymore is because Russia invaded. The other reasons are far below that. Once again, they asked for aid. We didn't just send it over unprompted.

---

The main point of many observers like Mearsheimer, and the point I've also tried to make here, is that we've consciously set up the conditions that precipitated Russia's invasion, to use his phraseology, we've led them down the primrose path.

---

So what? Ukraine still could have chosen to remain with pro-Russia leadership if that's what they wanted. Putin could have decided not to attack. Other countries besides the US have agency here, something your analysis consistently fails to address.

I guarantee that if Ukraine had not asked for aid, we would not be sending it. If they had stuck with their pro-Russia President we would not be leading an invasion right now. Those choices were still up to them, as it should be. It's Russia that consistently ignores what other countries want.

---

The Maidan Coup, which overthrew Ukraine's democratically-elected government, was a run of the mill color revolution/CIA regime change project not much different from the ones that overthrew Mossadegh in the 1950s. They both featured armed thugs taking over the public square and government.

The majority of Ukrainians wanted a settlement with Russia along the Minsk Agreements line. NATO, driven by neocons like Victoria Nuland, didn't like that, they wanted to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. Since then, the new government set up by the Maidan Coup has banned all opposition and pushed a blind banderite nationalism that has taken over their army and institutions, and Ukraine is being wrecked as a result.

NATO got their wish of using Ukraine to bleed Russia, except Ukraine has been doing almost all of the bleeding.

---

Putin could have chosen not to attack. Seems like he is the one causing the bleeding.

movielover said:

---

War is horrible. The west and NATO have openly said the Minsk Accords were a sham. Russia needed to be weakened (why?). Blame NATO and the west.

Meanwhile, a family of six was just brutally executed in Visalia, CA, Mexican Cartel style. And China conducts a modern opium war through our ports and open southern border, leading to a homeless explosion.

---

I know none of this will land with you, but Russia never had any intention of abiding by Minsk, claimed not to have been a party, and ignored it as well. Putin couldn't care less about international norms - for f()cks sake he invaded a sovereign nation who had not attacked him - and anyone playing into the Kremlin propaganda about the west's view of Minsk I/II is just a useful idiot for him.

Here's a good article on this point.

Quote:

---

There are several key points:
1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first "Minsk Protocol" was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.

2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal's terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called "separatists," who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples' Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.

3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples' Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.

4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked "little green men" woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition "illegal armed groups," that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.

5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. Because Russia is a member of the OSCE, and the SMM wants to preserve what little access it has to the occupied territories, the mission is guarded in what it says about ceasefire violations and restrictions on its freedom of movement. Privately, however, they acknowledge that some 80% of such violations and restrictions come from the Russian-controlled side of the border, and those that occur on the Ukrainian side are largely for safety reasons (e.g., avoiding mined approaches to bridges.)

---

As for the rest of your repetitive drivel that you like to sprinkle in every thread, yawn. You think you're connecting the dots but you are just flinging poo against a wall.

Foreign Affairs on the impact of sanctions on Russia. Of particular note for readers of this thread, Putin's focus on misinformation/propaganda is core to pretending that the sanctions aren't working. They clearly are working, as everyone knew that they would, and they will continue to punish Russia for waging this criminal war against Ukraine. Unfortunately for the people of Russia, Putin couldn't care less about their lives, so long as he continues to maintain power in his kleptocracy, but they very much will continue to see their lives deteriorate so long as he remains in power.

Quote:

---

Putin has invested significant resources in a disinformation campaign aimed at misleading Western policymakers about the real effects of sanctions. But make no mistake: they are, in fact, hobbling the Russian economy. And propagating the myth that they are not effective could nudge policymakers to drop them, giving Putin a lifeline.

BAD DATA

The assertion that the Russian economy has shown remarkable resilience to sanctions hinges on misleading macroeconomic indicators. Specifically, critics of sanctions point to the strengthened ruble, the modest contraction of Russian GDP, and low unemployment. But these figures do not in fact reflect the situation on the ground.

Take unemployment. Official unemployment currently stands at 3.7 percent, with only 2.7 million Russians unemployed. That's a record low. The reality, however, is that at the end of the third quarter of 2022, almost five million Russian workers were subject to various forms of hidden unemployment. Most notably, 70 percent of them were on unpaid leave. If the difference between being on unpaid leave and being unemployed seems semantic, that's because it is. In fact, 10 percent of the Russian workforce is without work. This is comparable with the worst levels in the 1990s, during the second half of which 10 to 13 percent of Russians were unemployed.

Another misleading statistic is the ruble exchange rate. True, the ruble has strengthened, but only because the government has made it difficult for Russian businesses and individuals to withdraw money and convert it to foreign currency. The so-called strong ruble is propped up by draconian currency controls and a plunge in imports. This policy has badly hurt industries like the steelmaking sector: finished steel output contracted by over seven percent in 2022.

Policymakers criticizing sanctions point to the Russian Finance Ministry's projection that the country's GDP will contract by 2.7 percent, which would seem to undermine the contention that the economy is tanking. Note, however, that this GDP figure includes surging military-related production. A newly produced battle tank immediately sent to the front and shot by a Ukrainian Javelin missile still counts as a nominal contribution to Russian GDP.

In any case, other indicators show a far more serious economic contraction than the official GDP figures suggest. Arguably the most revealing indicator of Russian economic activity is revenue from sources other than oil and gas exports, and that figure was down by 20 percent in October 2022 from a year earlier. Manufacturing industries, the part of the Russian economy most dependent on Western technologies and component parts, were hit the hardest by sanctions. The output of the Russian automotive industry, which directly or indirectly provides jobs to 3.5 million people, plummeted by two-thirds in 2022.

Russian figures showing manageable levels of inflation are also misleading. Even the Russian central bank currently reports that observed inflationthat is, how the public views the increase in prices, as reported in surveysto be 16 percent, or over four percentage points higher than the official statistic, which is a little less than 12 percent. The gap between the official figures and people's lived experience is understandable because Russians' living standards are sharply deteriorating. According to a poll released by the private Russian research company Romir in October 2022, 68 percent of Russians had noticed a reduction in the supply of goods offered in stores over the past three months. According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 35 percent of Russians were forced to cut their spending on food in 2022. The Public Opinion Foundation, a Russian polling organization, reported in December 2022 that only 23 percent of Russians considered their personal financial situation to be "good."

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Foreign Affairs on the impact of sanctions on Russia. Of particular note for readers of this thread, Putin's focus on misinformation/propaganda is core to pretending that the sanctions aren't working. They clearly are working, as everyone knew that they would, and they will continue to punish Russia for waging this criminal war against Ukraine. Unfortunately for the people of Russia, Putin couldn't care less about their lives, so long as he continues to maintain power in his kleptocracy, but they very much will continue to see their lives deteriorate so long as he remains in power.

Quote:

---

Putin has invested significant resources in a disinformation campaign aimed at misleading Western policymakers about the real effects of sanctions. But make no mistake: they are, in fact, hobbling the Russian economy. And propagating the myth that they are not effective could nudge policymakers to drop them, giving Putin a lifeline.

BAD DATA
...

---

---

The author is a longtime Russian opposition political figure, he's providing a false picture of the current economic and political situation in Russia.

He writes:

Quote:

---

All of this is not to say that Putin's government is on the verge of collapse...But public opinion is trending against Putin.

---

That's a pretty bad lie, one that's easy to expose. Putin's latest approval rating is 81.3%, and that was a few weeks ago before the major Russian military wins in the Donbass front.

Putin's popularity has been above 80% since March, except for a small dip down to 77% in September after the Ukrainian military win in Kharkov. In went back up above 80% soon afterwards.

Any western leader would kill for those kinds of approval numbers. If the economy were really bad in Russia, you would have seen Putin's approval numbers drop substantially.

The fact that this author can so boldly lie about Putin's popularity tells you about the level of spin in the rest of his article, I don't even need to address his other arguments, which also rely on bad spin.

Pre-invasion article but still interesting. I was unaware that the Ukrainian militias and neo Naxis helped defend Ukraine when Crimea was taken. Hence some of their support within Ukraine, and some subsequently merged into various govt roles (police, security).

Azov runs a children's summer camp; and there is C14 (aka S14) - another infamous extremist group. Apparently anyone against the war (for peace) puts themselves in danger. Linked article includes a short documentary on the children's camp.

Reuters: MARCH 19, 2018

Commentary: Ukraine's neo-Nazi problem

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY