sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Putin is not going to stop the war

---

Why not? What's wrong with him?

---

Well, Putin reads.

CNN, April 2022:

"[Lloyd] Austin's assertion that US wants to 'weaken' Russia underlines Biden strategy shift"

And Angela Merkel told the world the Minsk Accords were a sham.

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

They've been planning for this! Pay close attention to what he says. https://t.co/p4pouBnA8y

— Sabby Sabs (@SabbySabs2) January 21, 2023

movielover said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

Ukrainian soldiers not happy (aka propoganda)

Redacted: Poland-centric Update w Mike Krupa

10-13 Million refugees; Ruthanians (new to me); and deeper Ukraine / Poland history. Massacres in Volyn - genocide of 100k Poles by Ukrainians in WWII.

For anyone still in doubt about how poorly things are going in Russia, this isn't what success looks like for a nation.

Putin’s failing state tells miserable men that they can make money and find love only if they sign-up for his criminal war.
My Substack piece on what Russian army recruitment ads unwittingly tell us about the empire’s decadence and decay. https://t.co/oYZ5KGD4Wc

— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) January 21, 2023

Unit2Sucks said:

---

For anyone still in doubt about how poorly things are going in Russia, this isn't what success looks like for a nation.

Putin’s failing state tells miserable men that they can make money and find love only if they sign-up for his criminal war.
My Substack piece on what Russian army recruitment ads unwittingly tell us about the empire’s decadence and decay. https://t.co/oYZ5KGD4Wc

— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) January 21, 2023

---

This is some solid pro Nato propaganda.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

For anyone still in doubt about how poorly things are going in Russia, this isn't what success looks like for a nation.

Putin’s failing state tells miserable men that they can make money and find love only if they sign-up for his criminal war.
My Substack piece on what Russian army recruitment ads unwittingly tell us about the empire’s decadence and decay. https://t.co/oYZ5KGD4Wc

— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) January 21, 2023

---

This is some solid pro Nato propaganda.

---

It's an examination of Kremlin propaganda. I mention that because it's likely you didn't read the article although given that you never have anything of substance to add to any conversation, aside from antivax ones of course, it's really impossible to speculate as to your knowledge base.

I'm happy to give you a mulligan though. Feel free to read the article and enlighten us as to how this is pro-NATO propaganda. What lies or misleading statements can you point us to? Where has the author mischaracterized the situation in Russia? We are all waiting on pins and needles for you to finally bring some content to a discussion.

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

Yeah, while I can't say that Ukraine hasn't been in an absolutely miserable spot the past eleven months, there's no way anybody could convince me that this has gone well -- or even "semi-okay" -- for Russia. No way Putin ever imagined that it would be this hard. And no way their crap economy hasn't gone even further into the toilet. I bet if they opened the borders, there would be a mass exodus out of Russia. Educated parents of teenage boys must be frantically trying to figure out a way to leave.

Bottom line, we should put women in charge of international relations and just give us guys more football and MMA stuff to keep us occupied. These wars are freaking stupid.

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

That is the thing: Cal88 copies and pastes his pro-Putin propaganda from material that has already been prepared. Like the other pro-Putin tools posting in this thread (not all conservatives here are such tools, of course), he doesn't have to vet his sources. As a result, it does not take him nearly as long to put together his messages.

EDIT: But, yes, I appreciate posters like you who put honest thought into your takes/messages.

chazzed said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

That is the thing: Cal88 copies and pastes his pro-Putin propaganda from material that has already been prepared. Like the other pro-Putin tools posting in this thread (not all conservatives here are such tools, of course), he doesn't have to vet his sources. As a result, it does not take him nearly as long to put together his messages.

EDIT: But, yes, I appreciate posters like you who put honest thought into your takes/messages.

---

Anything that doesn`t fit a narrower mindset of the Ukraine war is bound to be labelled as 'Putin propaganda`'.

Hardly any of my posts qualify as 'cut and paste of material that was already prepared', other than tweets that are obviously not my own. The analyses are mine, your statement is complete BS.

Alexander Mercouris: Russia Fighting West of Bahkmut, Closing Trap, Push towards Zaporozhye, Ukraine Military Crisis

Zaporizhia is a city of 750,000 on the Dnieper River in southeastern Ukraine.

- Russia grinding away (how), Julius Cesar style
- Russia approaching an industrial city
- two villages north of Bahkmut stormed by the Wagner group
- fighting in a village West of Bahkmut
- **reports that Russia possibly using medium-range artillery West of Bahkmut**
- allegation Ukraine prioritizing land and PR; whereas Russia is prioritizing troop survival

Two outside analysis reviewed:
- indications that Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses
- Our Himar missiles allegedly now being reverse engineered by Russia and likely shared w China
- No signs of Diplomacy; signs of escalation.

movielover said:

---

Alexander Mercouris: Russia Fighting West of Bahkmut, Closing Trap, Push towards Zaporozhye, Ukraine Military Crisis

Zaporizhia is a city of 750,000 on the Dnieper River in southeastern Ukraine.

- Russia grinding away (how), Julius Cesar style
- Russia approaching an industrial city
- two villages north of Bahkmut stormed by the Wagner group
- fighting in a village West of Bahkmut
- **reports that Russia possibly using medium-range artillery West of Bahkmut**
- allegation Ukraine prioritizing land and PR; whereas Russia is prioritizing troop survival

Two outside analysis reviewed:
- indications that Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses
- Our Himar missiles allegedly now being reverse engineered by Russia and likely shared w China
- No signs of Diplomacy; signs of escalation.

---

HistoryLegends has the best capsules when it comes to describing the movements on the front, this just came out:



The Russians are exploiting the fact that Ukraine has been reinforcing the Bakhmut front in a desperate bid to hold on to this hub, which is sort of like the belt buckle of the Donbass layered reinforced lines, with Ukrainian troops being moved there from the southern front. As a result the Russians are now making a push northwards towards Zaporizhie in areas that aren't well manned.

Also, there is a big round of resignations in Ukraine, with several officials being replaced:

⚡️#BREAKING Ukrainian media claim that the deputy head of Zelensky's office, Kyrylo Tymoshenko, wrote a letter of resignation.

Also, the heads of the Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Sumy regions of Ukraine resigned.

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) January 23, 2023

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

You're wrong on several key points here, I'll address some of them:

-The great majority of new Russian troops are reservists who have already served in the military. A small amount are volunteers who will be completing training cycles before being injected into the front.

-Bakhmut is not "of little strategic importance", it is the hub of the Ukrainian "Maginot Line" layered Donbass defence that they have spent several years building up, a network of heavily fortified bunkers and tunnels.

Bakhmut has also taken on a high propaganda value, Zelensky allegedly went there in a highly publicized visit. The flag he brought with him to his Congress gig was the "Bakhmut defenders' flag", signed by his Bakhmut troops.


The fortified town had taken on a Stalingrad-like aura of Ukrainian resistance against the invaders. Ukraine has lost up to 25,000 troops in the battles around that city to date, and they have flooded the region with reinforcements, pulling troops from the southern front along with thousands of fresh conscripts. Its impending loss is going to be a big blow for Ukraine, and a boost for Russia.

-It is Ukraine that looks for symbolic PR wins, because they are good at PR, many in their government being from a mass media background (Zelensky's TV production team). Russia sucks at PR, and have nearly always avoided military confrontations in situations where they were at a disadvantage regardless of the PR consequences, hence the quick pullouts from Kherson and Kharkov.

There has been a lot of tension between Zelensky and Zaluzhny because the former favors PR wins at the expense of Ukrainian troops and equipment. Zaluzhny wanted early withdrawals from Mariupol, and now Bakhmut, in order to spare his troops in situations where their outlook is not good.

The whole Ukraine war effort depends on good PR, it's their lifeline to further military and economy support from the West. They have a small army of dedicated storyboarders who come out with myths like the Ghost of Kiev, the Snake Island 13, hit on the Kerch Bridge (repaired in 24h), invincibility of the Javelin, alleged Russian war crimes including rape of babies etc.

Quote:

---

Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

---

Russia has a wider and deeper range of drones, from cheap "flying dorito" Shahed drones to higher end cruise missiles to ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Ukraine's hits on remote Russian bases were once again PR wins, their impact is marginal in terms of actual damage.

Quote:

---

All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

---

The numbers I have seen, with Ukraine having around 450,000 total casualties vs about 50,000-60,000 for Russia, come from sources like Col. MacGregor, Swiss Col. Baud, as well as German intelligence and German generals Erich Vab (pictured below) and Gen. Kajut. These are not "Russian bots", they're professional military experts who aren't neck deep in the MIC/NATO MSM gravy train.

The new History Legends video is chock full of information, the main thrust seems to be - Russia advancing in multiple locations.

But I guess you should expect me to say this since I am a Putin propagandist. /s

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

It saddens me that this thread has turned into Cal88's personal Russian propaganda thread. I get why it happened, because people have better things to do than argue with someone so entrenched in inaccurate russian propaganda that an actual conversation is futile. But, it still saddens me.

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

Yeah, while I can't say that Ukraine hasn't been in an absolutely miserable spot the past eleven months, there's no way anybody could convince me that this has gone well -- or even "semi-okay" -- for Russia. No way Putin ever imagined that it would be this hard. And no way their crap economy hasn't gone even further into the toilet. I bet if they opened the borders, there would be a mass exodus out of Russia. Educated parents of teenage boys must be frantically trying to figure out a way to leave.

Bottom line, we should put women in charge of international relations and just give us guys more football and MMA stuff to keep us occupied. These wars are freaking stupid.

---

Russian women who oppose the war, even in the slightest, face the prospect of 10 years or more of jail time and classification as terrorists. Well, the lucky ones. The unlucky ones probably end up accidentally falling out of an open window. Needless to say, it will take more than pipe dreams at this point to hope for Putin's lawless fascist state to stop destroying lives.

This is Olesya Krivtsova, she is 19 years old. She posted on Instagram about the war, she criticized Russia for its warmongering. Two fellow students reported her to the authorities. She is now charged with terrorism. She may get 10 years in jail. pic.twitter.com/QViGZuf5sD

— Robert van der Noordaa (@g900ap) January 22, 2023

---

The going rate for supporting the enemy in Germany, Czechia, Poland etc is only 3 years in jail, so kudos to them, I suppose.



...although in Germany they will also go after family members, as did Germany in freezing the bank account of journalist Alina Lipp's parents, who were also harrassed by the Polizei:


Germans Could Be Jailed For Showing Pro-Russian 'Z' Symbol
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgakx/german-ban-russian-z-symbol

Quote:

---

People who display the "Z" symbol in Germany to demonstrate their support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine could be prosecuted for it, the country's Interior Ministry said Monday, as three German states moved to ban the symbol.

The Interior Ministry's statement that displaying the symbol could be an offence came after the states of Lower Saxony, Bavaria and Berlin announced they were banning the display of the symbol, with offenders facing up to three years in jail or a fine.

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

movielover said:

---

Few here counter with any facts:

- Russia has trained 200k new soldiers + 80,000 volunteers
- they took Soledar and a small village
- they've acquired drone technology
- Ukranian General asked for 300 tanks in The Economist- not a good sign
- Ukraine appears to be running low on men, equipment, tanks and ammo
- Etc.

---

Because I have better things to do with my life than spend the time and energy disproving and correcting bad information on the internet.

- Yes, Russia has large quantities of new soldiers starting to enter the front lines. But numbers aren't everything. With the Russia retreat from Kherson the effective front line was drastically reduced as the Dnieper River is wide enough to be a physical barrier for either side if they wanted to attack. There is an optimal number of troops you can place on the front line before they start to get in each other's way when they begin to maneuver. The primary issues of Russia in this war have always been leadership and logistics. An extra 280k soldiers don't solve either. There is very reasonable concerns about the level of training and morale of these new soldiers. Note, it was a private military company, not the Russian military that advanced on Soledar. Bakhmut is a prime example of why there should still be questions Russian leadership. The town has little strategic significance. Russia wants it for PR, reasons because they have not had a sellable victory in this war, and we are 11 months into the conflict. When Public Relations dictates strategy, you have questionable leadership. Finally, when Russia first invaded, in the battle for Kyiv, the Russian forces drastically outnumbered the Ukrainian forces, yet Ukraine was able to repel the attack.

- Don't get caught up on the details of small scale battles and look at the context of the greater war. Soledar is insignificant other than it helps take Bakhmut, but Bakhmut has little strategic importance.

- Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

- Ukraine is always going to be asking for more equipment. Russia asked Iran and China for help, does that mean anything ominous?

- Only Russian propaganda is saying Ukraine is running low on men. There is a big fog of war element here, where we should take both Ukraine and Russia's claims on the total number of losses with a grain of salt. All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

And this post took me roughly 25 minutes to put together. This is why responding to every incorrect statement is not worth my time.

---

You're wrong on several key points here, I'll address some of them:

-The great majority of new Russian troops are reservists who have already served in the military. A small amount are volunteers who will be completing training cycles before being injected into the front.

No, you are wrong.

Based on what we have seen from the Russian military, most Russian troops are poorly trained. So whether they are reservists or conscripts carrying a gun for the first time, they are ill-prepared for battle.

-Bakhmut is not "of little strategic importance", it is the hub of the Ukrainian "Maginot Line" layered Donbass defence that they have spent several years building up, a network of heavily fortified bunkers and tunnels.

Bakhmut has also taken on a high propaganda value, Zelensky allegedly went there in a highly publicized visit. The flag he brought with him to his Congress gig was the "Bakhmut defenders' flag", signed by his Bakhmut troops.


The fortified town had taken on a Stalingrad-like aura of Ukrainian resistance against the invaders. Ukraine has lost up to 25,000 troops in the battles around that city to date, and they have flooded the region with reinforcements, pulling troops from the southern front along with thousands of fresh conscripts. Its impending loss is going to be a big blow for Ukraine, and a boost for Russia.

No, you are wrong.

Bakhmut is of little strategic importance. It is not a hub or lynchpin, or the key to the Ukrainian defenses. The Ukrainians have already built up their defense lines, which they will retreat to when the time calls for it. The reason why you think it is important is because Russian propaganda keeps telling all of their drones that it is important, so when they finally take Bakhmut, they can declare victory.

Here is an excerpt from the Institute for the Study of War which I'm sure you will claim is a Western MSM stooge, because that is what you do with every source that says something counter to Russian Propaganda.

Quote:

---

The Ukrainian defense of Bakhmut is likely a strategically sound effort despite its costs for Ukraine. While the costs associated with Ukraine's continued defense of Bakhmut are significant and likely include opportunity costs related to potential Ukrainian counter-offensive operations elsewhere, Ukraine would also have paid a significant price for allowing Russian troops to take Bakhmut easily. Bakhmut itself is not operationally or strategically significant but had Russian troops taken it relatively rapidly and cheaply they could have hoped to expand operations in ways that could have forced Ukraine to construct hasty defensive positions in less favorable terrain. One must also not dismiss the seemingly "political" calculus of committing to the defense of Bakhmut lightlyRussian forces occupy more than 100,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory including multiple Ukrainian cities and are inflicting atrocities on Ukrainian civilians in occupied areas. It is not unreasonable for political and military leaders to weigh these factors in determining whether to hold or cede particular population concentrations. Americans have not had to make such choices since 1865 and should not be quick to scorn considerations that would be very real to them were American cities facing such threats.

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/

-It is Ukraine that looks for symbolic PR wins, because they are good at PR, many in their government being from a mass media background (Zelensky's TV production team). Russia sucks at PR, and have nearly always avoided military confrontations in situations where they were at a disadvantage regardless of the PR consequences, hence the quick pullouts from Kherson and Kharkov.

There has been a lot of tension between Zelensky and Zaluzhny because the former favors PR wins at the expense of Ukrainian troops and equipment. Zaluzhny wanted early withdrawals from Mariupol, and now Bakhmut, in order to spare his troops in situations where their outlook is not good.

The whole Ukraine war effort depends on good PR, it's their lifeline to further military and economy support from the West. They have a small army of dedicated storyboarders who come out with myths like the Ghost of Kiev, the Snake Island 13, hit on the Kerch Bridge (repaired in 24h), invincibility of the Javelin, alleged Russian war crimes including rape of babies etc.

No, you are wrong.

Both sides need PR, but Ukraine has actual victories to point to in their PR campaign. They decisively won the Battle of Kyiv, which the Russians had an overwhelming firepower and manpower advantage on. Though the Ukrainians really got lucky that the Russians were incredibly incompetent in their execution because even a halfway organized army would have won and this would now be a war of occupation rather than conquest. Ukraine also defended and liberated the Kharkiv region, and liberated Kherson, they sank the Moskva, and forced the Russians to abandon Snake Island. To this point, Russia has not had one victory that they were either able to hold or use to sell to the Russian public (the main audience for their propaganda).

Furthermore, Yevgeny Prigozhin is definitely into PR, as he believes convincing Putin that he is superior to the Russian military by taking Bakhmut is his gateway to millions in Russian defense money.

Side note, the Kerch Bridge was not repaired in 24 hours. You are wrong. Regarding the Kerch Bridge:
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63872209

Quote:

---

Everyone has drones, they deploy them for different purposes depending on the situation and the goal. I think it is more impressive that Ukraine was able to develop drone technology that let them hit Russian airbases within 500 miles of Moscow.

---

Russia has a wider and deeper range of drones, from cheap "flying dorito" Shahed drones to higher end cruise missiles to ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Ukraine's hits on remote Russian bases were once again PR wins, their impact is marginal in terms of actual damage.

Honestly, the drone comment from Movielover seemed like filler when he tossed it in. Drones are apart of every modern military, but the implication was that Russian Drone technology was a gamechanger, which it is not. I admit Russia has drones, I just don't see how that is going to change the battlefield dynamic.

Quote:

---

All the experts I follow concur with this idea, and they note that both sides have had significant losses.

---

The numbers I have seen, with Ukraine having around 450,000 total casualties vs about 50,000-60,000 for Russia, come from sources like Col. MacGregor, Swiss Col. Baud, as well as German intelligence and German generals Erich Vab (pictured below) and Gen. Kajut. These are not "Russian bots", they're professional military experts who aren't neck deep in the MIC/NATO MSM gravy train.

---

In this case, they are wrong. Most estimates have Ukraine nowhere near 450k casualties. The only truth in that stat is that it corroborates your claim that Russia is bad at propaganda. Also laughable is the number of Russian casualties. Most experts I follow believe both sides are in the 125k - 150k range.

"The Russian casualties last time I reported out on it publicly, I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it's significantly well over 100,000 now," Milley said at a news conference alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in Germany, providing a slight update on a figure the top US general offered in November.

Milley said that the "tremendous amount of casualties" suffered by Russia included "regular military, and also their mercenaries in the Wagner Group and other type forces that are fighting with the Russians."

https://www.businessinsider.com/milley-russia-has-significantly-well-over-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-2023-1

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372

Of coarse Russia started out slow, what was their active military, 80,000? Whereas Ukraine has had 400,000 - 500,000 troops trained the past few years by NATO.

According to Colonel McGregor, the Russian army of today is vastly different than the army of a year ago, including the recent training and outfitting of 200,000 fresh troops and 80,000 volunteers. While Wagner has been important, Russia is reportedly rotating in some of these new troops for real-life experience. In addition to Wagner, they reportedly include excellent Chechen fighters.

Ukraine has reportedly been drained at the officer level, and another Podcaster claimed that when they listen in on Ukraine transmissions, they hear a lot of Polish.

Our experts apparently didn't expect or plan for an artillery war and a war of attrition. Judge Navarro has on his podcast a man who leads some kind of foreign service of men who fight for Ukraine. His hope was that Ukraine would go on the offense this winter, before Russia was set with 280,000 new troops. That has yet to transpire.

If Bahkmut is so unimportant, why has Ukraine lost 25,000 men there? There obviously is some import, but once Russia won Solidar, the spin kicked in.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that Russia started woefully behind on the 'drone game', but reversed direction with the aid of Iran (?). So they corrected a deficit. (Not a 'game changer'.)

The recent video from HistoryLegends appears to show Russia advancing on multiple fronts.

From the horses mouth, no teleprompter.

Russian FM Lavrov Held a Master Class on International Law for Sky News

To your points above Sloth, summarized (and not requoting the quote for better legibility):

-Milley is lying about Russian casualties. He can't go out and flat out state that Ukrainian casualties are much higher, so he'll publicly say that both sides had 100k KIAs. But deep down, you know that he is overcounting Russian losses and undercounting Ukrainians'.

The sources I trust, Col. MacGregor, Col. Baud and the Germans, are/were longtime NATO operatives and are very well-connected with current brass, and have access to unfiltered intelligence. Your sources, the Kagans, Oryx, Petraeus etc are either hardcore ideologues or MIC millionaires, or a combination of both.

-Bakhmut was strategically very important in the media, until it wasn't. Or until Ukraine's position was starting to fray. It's the anchor of the next-to-last defensive line in the Donbass, before the Sloviansk-Kramatorsk line. It's important because (1) it is the main hub in a very elaborate defensive apparatus that took years for Ukraine to build, (2) because of terrain/relief and (3) because of the road network.

- The Russians did not have "overwhelming firepower and manpower in the battle for Kiev", they sent a light force that included a core of airborne troops dropped around the Hostomel airstrip in a decapitation operation that ultimately failed, but they were never going to capture and hold a city of 3.5 million with what, 20k-30k troops? This operation was basically a high-risk, high-reward roll of the dice that could have led to a quick decapitation and potentially spared the larger war which has ensued. It was not meant as a conquest of Kiev, the way the southern incursion into the Crimea land bridge was.

The Russians were badly overstretched with a force of 180k strewn over a front nearly 2000km long, they had to pull back, and now the frontline is nearly half what it was. The numbers now favor Russia, who started the war attacking with less than 200k vs 650k Ukrainians defending.

As well, Zaluzhny himself, the leader of Ukrainian armed forces, stated that Russia's conscription has gone well and that their troops were well armed and trained.

Quote:

---

To this point, Russia has not had one victory that they were either able to hold or use to sell to the Russian public

---

Mariupol, and the land bridge from the Donbass to Kherson. The whole Sea of Azov is now a Russian lake.

Russia's main objective is not so much to take territory, but to destroy the Ukrainian army amd impose their political will (along the lines of von Clausewitz' military doctrine, which is a backbone of Russian military philosophy). They are probably more than halfway there, going by MacGregor's NATO inside sources estimate of 450,000 casualties. Once they degrade Ukrainian forces, they will be able to move around the country with a lot less resistance.

-On the Kerch Bridge: it was made open for traffic after one week the bombing, and not one day after, my bad. July is the final date of repair, but the bridge was open to traffic in both directions over the side of the span that only got minor damage, as shown in the slide show on the BBC article you've linked above.

Quote:

---

Drones are apart of every modern military, but the implication was that Russian Drone technology was a gamechanger, which it is not.

---

Russia's edge in drones is both in terms of quantity of drones, types of drones and range. Russia can cover the entire territory of Ukraine in its drone attack, can inflict very high levels of damage to their infrastructure, while Ukraine's drone attacks into Russia have been largely symbolic. Ukraine's main battle drones, the Bayraktars, have been very easy for Russia to shoot down, the bigger slow drones stand no chance vs Russian AA.

The Shahed's have been game changers, due to their long range, low cost, shear quantities and limited ability to intercept them. in the best scenario, Ukraine is loking at knocking off $20,000 drones with a limited and dwindling stock of AA missiles that cost 10-25 times as much as a "flying dorito".

Russia as well has high-end long distance weapons in large quantities, including hypersonic missiles that they've used to take out an entire foreign troop training campus in western Ukraine in one shot. These missiles can't even be tracked by radar and are unstoppable.

I had a huge interest in military aviation in particular since I was 7 or 8, I remember my older siblings making fun of me because I was subscribed to several aviation magazines at that age...

Ukraine rocked by high-level corruption scandals, though nobody is really shocked to find out that there is gambling going on in Casablanca. Top officials in the government and ministry of defense have been siphoning off money from the sale of aid items like food and generators, but also weapons, especially smaller high-end very expensive weapons like Javelins, which are ending up in places like Libya, Nigeria or Syria. Earlier last year a CBS report found out that only 30% of weapons delivered to Ukraine actually made it to the frontlines.

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/ukraine-defence-ministry-denies-corruption-claims-over-inflated-food-prices

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-deputy-defense-minister-vyacheslav-shapovalov-resign-corruption-war-zelenskyy/

Quote:

---

Ukraine's defense ministry Sunday denied reports it had grossly inflated food prices for a recent contract, in the worst corruption scandal to engulf the armed forces since the war broke out.

On Saturday national media reports accused the ministry of having signed a deal at prices "two to three times higher" than current rates for basic foodstuffs.

Eggs, which cost around 19 US cents in a shop, were contracted for 46 cents, while the ministry also signed for potatoes at more than double the retail price, according to the news website ZN.UA.

It said the signed contract for 2023 would be worth 13 billion hryvnia, more than $350 million at the current rate.

The defense ministry called the reports "false" and said it "purchases the relevant products in accordance with the procedure established by the law".

---