For a guy who claims to be independently minded, you seem to be doing a good job of "carrying the water" for the RU MOD.
We don't know exactly what he said. It's not a direct quote,I read that in (paywall) The Times...
"Tusk stated that Ukraine has the right to attack Russian-linked targets anywhere in Europe"
So, Tusk is saying that Russia has the right (legal right?) to carry out terrorist attacks in Europe, right?
Zelenskyy hopes the war won't last ten years, but Ukraine is ready to fight for another 2-3 years - Tusk
УНН War in Ukraine ✎ President Zelenskyy hopes the war will not last ten years, but Ukraine is ready to fight for another two or three years, according to Polish Prime Min…unn.ua
Well, he also mentioned that the European Convention on Human Rights is a bit "inconvenient" for some other issue...
Putin started this war expecting a quick, easy & cheap victory - & you call Zelensky delusional! Ditto "destiny and hubris", where Putin is pushing the idea of sacred Mother Russia engaging in a divinely blessed (the Russian Orthodox church backs it) crusade against the corrupt & rotten west. And Russian media call Ukrainian attacks on anything & everything "terrorism", including on Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.
Did I claim "to be independently minded"? I did claim, at least to a friend of mine, to be "on the side of reality".
Maybe I misunderstood your humor, but I am quite horriefied about you dusgusting behavior.
It is lost when the UA supporters stop the support. Currently the Ukrane is far far away from recapture the unrightful occopied teritory, but Russia is also far away of winning the war in terms of the Russian goals of the war.
"Tusk said Ukraine had the right to attack Russian-linked targets anywhere in Europe after a Warsaw court blocked a German request earlier this month to extradite a Ukrainian diver accused by Russia of involvement in the bombing of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in 2022."
No one is calling Putin a military genius, a great leader or anything like that. Zelenski is happily loosing this war, I think he is a bloody idiot, I point that out.
I haven't extensively studied the issue so it's hard to say confidently what exactly it was. A little bit of all 3 I suspect.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. Ukraine's political space was heavily "cleaned up" by Poroshenko and then again by Zelenski, including banning political parties with... inconvenient viewpoints. Ukraine has a long list of banned books and banned films, and heavily censors many viewpoints. In a country where a president widely perceived to be pro-Russian won the last elections before Poroshenko, any part that can be remotely regarded as pro-Russian (even if they really aren't) is banned. This is clearly a substantive attack on democracy, an attempt to deny a large chunk of Ukraine's population their preferred policy choices. At best Ukraine can be regarded as a "managed democracy" not dissimilar to Russia in the '00s. At worst is steadily heading towards authoritarianism. Even pro-western liberal parties can get shut down if they take a stance or talk about things that the people in power don't like.
This is a really interesting one. The version of this I usually encounter is less about someone "forcing" Ukraine and more about that this is in the best interests of the west and NATO. What makes it so interesting is that the actual views of Ukrainians on this subject appear to be almost schizophrenic. They're generally against ceding territory to Russia, and certainly the overwhelming majority don't want to live under Putin. But at the same time Ukrainians don't want the mobilization, and aren't willing to go and fight. Ukraine's desertion rates are off the charts and recruitment seems to be done primarily by press gangs roaming the streets. Ukraine as an institutional actor and certainly Ukrainian leadership wants to fight. Ukraine's population doesn't want to give up territory or live under Putin. But do ordinary Ukrainians want to fight? I think the answer is a definite no.
Ok... so you're saying he's correct? Zelensky is telling NATO to fight for him? Personally I'm not sure I agree with that statement myself. While I'm sure Zelensky would be very happy if Ukraine could sit out the war while NATO recaptures territory for them, this isn't a realistic scenario even among the most pro-Ukrainian circles. What I think Zelensky is asking for is NATO forces to act as allies with Ukrainian forces doing much of the heavy lifting. This is a scenario that seems more credible, but I don't think there is wide support for this in EU/NATO countries. The debate about inserting a "peacekeeping" and now a "stabilization" force into western Ukraine highlights this. Many countries are openly opting out, and the rest are apparently only willing to come in after the fighting ends. I have also read some things that suggest they might have been willing to come in as is if the US could guarantee Article 5 protection for those forces were Russia to target them, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. I think it's fairly unlikely NATO will fight this war directly.
Zelensky's exact state of mind is unclear. What we do know is that he's consistently and in many cases obviously dishonest. It's very hard to know if he really believes, for example, that Ukraine has the tiny KIA numbers he's quoted in the past, or if he's intentionally repeating propaganda. Some have speculated that he's being insulated from the reality of the situation on the front lines. It's hard to be clear on this. He might be delusional if he genuinely believes the bulk of Ukraine's propaganda, but personally I find this unlikely. He's a politician.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Russian propaganda is sillier and often more biased. But the common western narratives about the war in Ukraine have been garbage since the start. Personally I would regard most Russian official and semi-official media sources are worthless in their entirety. But large media outlets in the west are similarly useless. They can usually get most of the basic facts correct, in so far as they engage in factual reporting at all. But the omissions mean if your primary information diet comes from there, you will end up with a thoroughly fictional version of this war in your mind. And that's assuming you disregard the analysis which is often just a narrative being presented under the guise of analysis.
You can read whatever you want in what I post (or in my style), but you are mistaken.
Most likely a combination of them all I would even toss in basic government negligence as I'm sure some locations are basically forgotten about unless there is a good reason to remember them. Kinda like a don't ask don't tell policy for government scrutiny
Putin likely exists in an information bubble. I think it's fair to say that Putin was delusional about the situation on the ground in Ukraine in '22 and remained that way for quite some time. Russia didn't give this war the consideration is required until the fall of '22 with General Surovikin and the painful decisions that had to be made after defeat in Kharkov region, and the withdrawal from right shore Kherson region. This war in many ways has exposed the problems of Russian government apparatus, especially the force-wielding portions of it. Some of them are being addressed, and some aren't. But in general criticizing Putin in the western information space is less meaningful. Few people generally have a positive opinion of him. Criticizing Zelensky matters because many do have a positive opinion of him, often based on narratives that aren't exactly trustworthy.
To be fair Russian propaganda often present an implied picture of competence of the Russian government. This competence is sometimes true, but often not. Some living in Russia might argue usually not. And we do have the strange contradiction where Russia handled their involvement in Syria fairly well, but handled their involvement in Ukraine very poorly.
Sorry, I meant in this forum.