The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

GermanHerman

Active Member
Two different things:

1. Did it do any economic damage at the time?
2. Might it have done economic damage later?

You're arguing about 2. I said it didn't do 1. What I wrote is true.
Well in that case it is still wrong as the Nord Stream AG had german co ownership and the explosions caused the loss of infrastructure worth around 12,5 billion euro, around half of it owned by german companies.

Just accept the fact that you are wrong on this.
 

Hoover

Member
Well in that case it is still wrong as the Nord Stream AG had german co ownership and the explosions caused the loss of infrastructure worth around 12,5 billion euro, around half of it owned by german companies.

Just accept the fact that you are wrong on this.
Not really. NorthStream was already cut off by the Russians (not by the Germans). The pipelines are part of the Russian infrastructure and were in Swiss ownership, with German companies as shareholders. Nord Stream 2 was completey in Russian ownership since 2016.
The attack was in international waters on a Russian infrastructure, so it is still not clear if a German court is responsible or not.
We will see how the court in Hamburg will react.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Well in that case it is still wrong as the Nord Stream AG had german co ownership and the explosions caused the loss of infrastructure worth around 12,5 billion euro, around half of it owned by german companies.

Just accept the fact that you are wrong on this.
The explosions didn't destroy the entire pipeline. I don't know how much is still repairable, but it could have been restored to use for a lot less than the cost of building it - if Russia hadn't continued with the war.

The western companies had already suffered financial losses from the shutdown & the uncertainty caused by the war, & would have suffered the same loss if it hadn't been blown up, but just kept out of use long-term - as it has been so far by Russia continuing with the war.

The Russian state owned just over 50%, BTW. It had a controlling interest.

The damage to European economies as a whole has been caused not by the blowing up of parts of one pipeline, but by the war. It forced recognition that dependence on Putin's whim for supplies of critical resources is not safe: reliance on him to act in accordance with the interests of the Russian economy & people was a mistake. The painful switch to other energy suppliers was the right thing to do in the long-term. Merkel's attempt to align Russia's interests with ours seemed rational, but it failed to take account of Putin's willingness to cause huge damage to his own economy, & kill many of his own people, for more personal power.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
That's very funny.
An interesting illustration of this continuing pattern. The Orion factory in Ternopol' that Russia just hit in an ugly strike (details in the upcoming update) was revealed to be producing military radio-electronics by a Ukrainian politician during a visit to an exposition (not even a visit to the factory itself). The importance of OPSEC is drastically increasing with the growing long range strike capabilities. Hiding some facilities might be hard, but even against a long range strike campaign like Russia's, and even in a country like Ukraine, hitting literally every industrial target conceivably involved in defense production is apparently not possible. But something as simple as revealing the manufacturer of a piece of equipment makes them a target.


The explosions didn't destroy the entire pipeline. I don't know how much is still repairable, but it could have been restored to use for a lot less than the cost of building it - if Russia hadn't continued with the war.

The western companies had already suffered financial losses from the shutdown & the uncertainty caused by the war, & would have suffered the same loss if it hadn't been blown up, but just kept out of use long-term - as it has been so far by Russia continuing with the war.

The Russian state owned just over 50%, BTW. It had a controlling interest.

The damage to European economies as a whole has been caused not by the blowing up of parts of one pipeline, but by the war. It forced recognition that dependence on Putin's whim for supplies of critical resources is not safe: reliance on him to act in accordance with the interests of the Russian economy & people was a mistake. The painful switch to other energy suppliers was the right thing to do in the long-term. Merkel's attempt to align Russia's interests with ours seemed rational, but it failed to take account of Putin's willingness to cause huge damage to his own economy, & kill many of his own people, for more personal power.
Presumably a Europe willing to protect Russia-Germany natural gas pipelines from Ukraine is a Europe still interested in purchasing Russian gas. I'm not sure we can separate out the two. And this war has shown that the global energy market is fairly connected, meaning Europe stopping purchases tends to lead to Russian resources being sold elsewhere. It doesn't seem to prevent sales. It cuts into Russian profits somewhat and hurts the EU economy somewhat.

Russia got a good chunk of Siversk.

Or Ukraine starts with those local counterattacks, in one more place, or Siversk is gone, soon.
(Soonish, in this war.)
Russia took Platonovka, threatening the last good route into Seversk. There's a bad route through local roads and within easy Russian drone range, but supplying it will be much harder that way. On the flip side Russia can enter areas, especially when they have the high ground overlooking the town. Taking and securing the town is a different story. This penetration actually threatens supplies to the fortifications on the high grounds west of Seversk, which in my opinion are the real prize. If they fall, Seversk is taken. You can see the trenchworks here;


EDIT: There are steady rumors about a new peace plan negotiated by Trump with Russia, that Ukraine will now be pressured to accept. The plan is a variation of the previous agreement, and will reportedly involve Ukraine giving up the rest of Donetsk and Lugansk region, and diplomatic recognition from presumably the US for Russian control over the Donbas and Crimea, with occupied areas of Zaporozhye and Kherson being recognized as "de-facto Russian". If this peace deal can get pushed through quickly it might come in time to save Gulyaypole. There's also vague talk about a buffer zone in other areas. Which might mean that Russia gets to keep occupied areas of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnepropetrovsk region without any de-jure recognition, and any claim of annexation by Russia. The plan also reportedly involves some frozen Russian assets being used for Ukrainian reconstruction and others being used for joint US-Russia projects and IAEA control over the ZNPP with electricity split 50-50 between Russia and Ukraine. All in all this plan gives Russia the rest of the Donbas without a fight, but probably saves Ukraine a large chunk of Zaporozhye region that they're currently set to lose over the next 6-12 months.

I have serious doubts that Ukraine will accept this plan, and I think the EU won't back this either, at least most of the nations. It's also not clear how Trump intends to pressure Ukraine to accept this. This is all assuming the leaks are accurate and refer to something real.
 
Last edited:

crest

Member
An interesting illustration of this continuing pattern. The Orion factory in Ternopol' that Russia just hit in an ugly strike (details in the upcoming update) was revealed to be producing military radio-electronics by a Ukrainian politician during a visit to an exposition (not even a visit to the factory itself). The importance of OPSEC is drastically increasing with the growing long range strike capabilities. Hiding some facilities might be hard, but even against a long range strike campaign like Russia's, and even in a country like Ukraine, hitting literally every industrial target conceivably involved in defense production is apparently not possible. But something as simple as revealing the manufacturer of a piece of equipment makes them a target.




Presumably a Europe willing to protect Russia-Germany natural gas pipelines from Ukraine is a Europe still interested in purchasing Russian gas. I'm not sure we can separate out the two. And this war has shown that the global energy market is fairly connected, meaning Europe stopping purchases tends to lead to Russian resources being sold elsewhere. It doesn't seem to prevent sales. It cuts into Russian profits somewhat and hurts the EU economy somewhat.



Russia took Platonovka, threatening the last good route into Seversk. There's a bad route through local roads and within easy Russian drone range, but supplying it will be much harder that way. On the flip side Russia can enter areas, especially when they have the high ground overlooking the town. Taking and securing the town is a different story. This penetration actually threatens supplies to the fortifications on the high grounds west of Seversk, which in my opinion are the real prize. If they fall, Seversk is taken. You can see the trenchworks here;


EDIT: There are steady rumors about a new peace plan negotiated by Trump with Russia, that Ukraine will now be pressured to accept. The plan is a variation of the previous agreement, and will reportedly involve Ukraine giving up the rest of Donetsk and Lugansk region, and diplomatic recognition from presumably the US for Russian control over the Donbas and Crimea, with occupied areas of Zaporozhye and Kherson being recognized as "de-facto Russian". If this peace deal can get pushed through quickly it might come in time to save Gulyaypole. There's also vague talk about a buffer zone in other areas. Which might mean that Russia gets to keep occupied areas of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnepropetrovsk region without any de-jure recognition, and any claim of annexation by Russia. The plan also reportedly involves some frozen Russian assets being used for Ukrainian reconstruction and others being used for joint US-Russia projects and IAEA control over the ZNPP with electricity split 50-50 between Russia and Ukraine. All in all this plan gives Russia the rest of the Donbas without a fight, but probably saves Ukraine a large chunk of Zaporozhye region that they're currently set to lose over the next 6-12 months.

I have serious doubts that Ukraine will accept this plan, and I think the EU won't back this either, at least most of the nations. It's also not clear how Trump intends to pressure Ukraine to accept this. This is all assuming the leaks are accurate and refer to something real.

The 28 point peace plane? Twice as many points as there twice as serious?
In all Likelihood Ukraine will refer t it. Russia may also not live ke some parts of 8t from what I can gather it's part of Donetsk on offer not all of it and they Ukraine army would still be at 200k from what I read. I doubt they will go for that, tho it could just be a high starting number for negotiations. Altho i thank going into negotiations with unserious proposals as a tactic is probably not helpful at this point.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
The allegedly proposed plan, for those that haven’t seen it yet. I know I have to comment, but the only thing I will say for now is that this is what happens when you are impotent and want to have the ball in someone else’s court instead of either taking charge or being a serious contributor.

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to (6)00,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that it will not accept Ukraine in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to deploy troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.

10. U.S. Guarantees: The United States will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine without cause launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the security guarantee will be considered invalid.

11. Ukraine retains the right to EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while the issue is under consideration.

12. A powerful global package of measures for the reconstruction of Ukraine, including but not limited to:
a. Creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth sectors, including technology, data-processing centres, and artificial intelligence.
b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine on the joint reconstruction, development, modernisation, and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
c. Joint efforts to restore war-affected territories, including the reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.
d. Infrastructure development.
e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis.
b. The United States will conclude a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centres, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
c. Russia will be invited to return to the G8.

14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: US$100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another US$100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to facilitate and ensure the fulfilment of all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control, including START-1.

18. Ukraine agrees to remain a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under IAEA supervision, and the generated electricity will be split equally between Russia and Ukraine (50:50).

20. Both countries undertake to introduce educational programmes in schools and society that promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures and the elimination of racism and prejudice:
a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and protection of linguistic minorities.
b. Both countries agree to lift all discriminatory measures and to guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
c. All Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:
a. Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be recognised de facto as Russian, including by the United States.
b. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
c. Russia renounces other annexed territories (probably referring to Russian-occupied parts of Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts – Ed.) that it controls outside the five regions. d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast they currently control; this withdrawal zone will be regarded as a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.

22. After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of violation of this commitment.

23. Russia will not obstruct Ukraine’s commercial use of the Dnipro River, and agreements will be reached on the free transportation of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be created to resolve outstanding issues:
a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the “all-for-all” principle.
b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
c. A family reunification programme will be implemented. d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims.

25. Ukraine will hold elections 100 days after the agreement is signed.

26. All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for actions committed during the war and will undertake not to file claims or pursue complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump. Predetermined sanctions will apply in the event of violations.

28. Once all parties have agreed to and signed this memorandum, the ceasefire will enter into force immediately after both sides withdraw to the agreed positions so that implementation of the agreement can begin.


An interesting tidbit from the New York Post (the outlet I do not trust, for the record):

One of the most politically explosive provisions calls for full amnesty for all parties involved in wartime actions, eliminating any future legal claims over battlefield conduct.

That item, one of the senior White House officials said, was proposed by Kyiv.

It had previously stated that “Ukraine will conduct a full audit of all aid received and create a legal mechanism to recover any errors found and punish those who illegally profiteered from the war,” the person said.


According to the same article, Umerov, who is under a lot of heat currently (the huge corruption case) had reviewed the proposal and added some changes. It would be reasonable to assume that the aforementioned clause was his doing as well (snd not on his own initiative either). If any of it is true at all, of course.


Overall, I think, it isn’t that bad of a deal for Ukraine in the circumstances. Doubt both parties (plus Europe) would agree to it and it is likely a starting point rather than an end.

The 100-day after elections clause means the end of Zelensky’s rein and likely a safe house outside Ukraine.

Edit: The 600,000 limit for the armed forces is laughable. This is not because it is a lot or little, but because good luck sustaining it. The number likely represents about 2.5% of the total current population and about 5% or (likely more) of productive population (being generous here and including the kids as being productive, which, of course is not the case). That would be before more people leaving once it is done and over with. In a country that is broke and with little to no prospects.
 
Last edited:

Hoover

Member
Now the USA sells the Ukraine to the Russians and will gain a lot of money.
Yes, Zelenski will have to agree, but that is in no case the end of the conflict. It is very naive thinking that.


Being honest, that are all the Russian maximal demands. There are no real consequences mentioned if Russia breaches a treaty again. The aggressor is rewarded for his aggression without any consequences. It will be an encouragement for other countries trying to attack other countries, like China->Taiwan, North Korea -> South Korea, Russia -> Kazachstan, Russia -> Georgia and in the near or far future Russia -> Baltics.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
Now the USA sells the Ukraine to the Russians and will gain a lot of money.
Yes, Zelenski will have to agree, but that is in no case the end of the conflict. It is very naive thinking that.


Being honest, that are all the Russian maximal demands. There are no real consequences mentioned if Russia breaches a treaty again. The aggressor is rewarded for his aggression without any consequences. It will be an encouragement for other countries trying to attack other countries, like China->Taiwan, North Korea -> South Korea, Russia -> Kazachstan, Russia -> Georgia and in the near or far future Russia -> Baltics.
Like US and Iraq...
Iran?

Like UK and Suez...
Yes, only f when it is for our own interests.
The Sahara has been sold to Morocco or that one doesn't count? Any other one comes to mine?
 

SolarisKenzo

Well-Known Member
This "peace proposal" is just offensive.
It's a joke. Cannot be serious.

Trump, but to be honest I'm not quite sure he's got the slightest idea of what is actually written in the "deal", is basically saying "fuck the europeans, fuck the ukrainians" and "I like how Putin runs his country, it's my goal".

Come on, it would be a disaster. A future russian attack would be obvious.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
So what is the alternative? What is to be gained for sustaining the war for another year? Will Ukraine be in a better position a year from now? Will it regain lands and whatever else they are looking (rather hoping) to achieve? The answer, in my opinion, is a hard no.

Betrayal of Euros? I don’t think so. I am going to tap that sign again: this is what happens when you want the ball in someone else’s court instead of being a serious and rational player. They did this to themselves, not Trump. They can also still reject the whole thing and so can Ukraine. Wasn’t there a conviction by many just a few short months ago that Ukraine and Europe should just say ef off to the US and keep going on their own? What happened to that plan?

Reuters now reports that the Trump admin is threatening to stop weapon deliveries to and intel sharing with Ukraine.


We are basically back to square one with Trump, but potentially better terms than last time. There are even some vague security guarantees this time:


But we have to be honest with ourselves and Ukraine in particular (as we should have been long time ago): no one in their right mind will send their troops to fight for Ukraine in any official and open capacity.

Here is another thought from the past. The Euros can step in here and provide better, more concrete guarantees. After all, it’s only the second best army in Ukraine and -pick your nonsense- they are standing against.

The most frustrating part is that this was so obvious years ago and talked about right here (all documented in the posts). There was no chance ever (!) Ukraine would actually defeat Russia. This is a ridiculous proposition. All these needless waste of lives and destruction. I said back in 2022 that the patient is more dead than alive, back when the times were still “good”. Many thought that was preposterous and/or offensive. Things are much worse now.

Non-expansion of NATO is another obvious outcome of this war if Russia were to succeed. This is the entire point. This could had been avoided had the NATO members not get themselves involved head-deep into the conflict and basically become direct participants.

Kazakhstan… Russia does not need to invade Kazakhstan. Also, Kazakhstan would fold ten times over If it did with a fraction of resources Russians used in 2022. The same is more or less true for any other ex-Soviet state, but Ukraine, as we had found out the hard way. Kazakhstan is a nothing burger in comparison. Some regions of Kazakhstan, I bet, would not even know that there was an invasion before the outcome was obvious. Moreover, Kazakhs are not as dumb to provoke such a turn of events. Those who had forgotten, should refresh themselves on the events of early 2022 in Kazakhstan, just before the UA invasion, and the outcome of those events.

To finish off this post, none of the things are obvious and no outcome is determined. I doubt this new plan will be outright agreed to by either side. There will be more ball passing and other nonsense. The war, in the meantime, will continue. More death and destruction. It will then eventually end, with this plan or some other, with situation for Ukraine deteriorating on the exponential scale. It does not mean there will be some immediate collapse, but in time they will lose everything they have if this continues long enough. This outcome is rather predictable.

ISW disagrees with my assessment. Perhaps, they are right. We now, however, are looking for an ability to “challenge Putin’s theory of victory”, not actually a victory of our own.

IMG_2929.jpeg
IMG_2930.jpeg

This is another frustrating part: these people have been signing these songs for years now, sitting in their comfortable chairs, warm offices, all amenities within reach. It’s amazing how clueless these people are and lack understanding of places and people they write about, as well as some basic things, or so it seems. These people are a big part of the problem because they affect policy, war and peace, life and death, building and destruction. While they create the propaganda content, or should, it appears they believe the nonsense themselves, so it is no propaganda, but their actual view of the situation, quoted and spread/amplified by the lemmings with little to no clue at all, who themselves called Ukrainians Russians until a few years ago (any Ukrainian who has lived “out West” for a while can confirm this) and didn’t really see a difference between the two countries. They now sing praises, differentiate between mental capacities, brutality, you name it, between the two nations, tweeting ridicules, etc. In reality, they should pack up their bags and head to the trenches, to save Ukraine from this terrible outcome, kill some nasty Russians, maybe even assassinate Putin and let the justice they are demanding prevail. Anyway… this “five-page” post is going to end here. Things suck, but what are you gonna do.
 

Aleks.ov

New Member
The USA never wanted to annex Iraq or Iran, nor did they want to erase their culture. The latter is a fact in the occopied territories.
When you write such nonsense, do you even remotely imagine the cultural diversity (190 peoples) and the number of national republics (24) in Russia? State languages are official on an equal basis with Russian, national schools, theaters, books are published, etc., and all this for centuries of peaceful coexistence. And at least study a little the history of Crimea and the southeast, by whom most of the major cities were founded and why it is the most urbanized macro-region of Ukraine.
Regarding Iraq, I have no words. Apparently, we're supposed to consider the rise of ISIS as an example of cultural flourishing and diversity.
 
Last edited:

Hoover

Member
Rubio said that the plan is still a WIP-paper.
We have to wait if Russia is moving (which I don´t think) and if not, how Trump will react.
But Trump will again attack Zelenskij (the victim) and not the attacker, because Trump is always kicking downwards.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Now the USA sells the Ukraine to the Russians and will gain a lot of money.
Yes, Zelenski will have to agree, but that is in no case the end of the conflict. It is very naive thinking that.


Being honest, that are all the Russian maximal demands. There are no real consequences mentioned if Russia breaches a treaty again. The aggressor is rewarded for his aggression without any consequences. It will be an encouragement for other countries trying to attack other countries, like China->Taiwan, North Korea -> South Korea, Russia -> Kazachstan, Russia -> Georgia and in the near or far future Russia -> Baltics.
They are not, this is a flat out false statement, and you know that. Russian "maximal demands" include Kherson left shore, including Kherson city, and the rest of Zaporozhye region including Zaporozhye city. Previous Russian demands also set much lower limits on the size of Ukraine's armed forces. And, the real consequences mentioned are that Russia would once again be buried under a pile of sanctions and lose recognition of their annexed areas. Russia would lose out on two major political goals. One of the things that makes this war bad for Russia is that it was cut off from western technology and was left with serious economic limitations placed by sanctions. This isn't and likely won't be enough to collapse Russia's economy, but the lost economic development, and the challenges Russia has had to overcome in my opinion outweigh by a large margin any economic gains from the annexed area which were in bad shape pre-war, and are in worse shape now. The lifting of sanctions and recognition of territorial gains are the thing that in my opinion makes this deal good for Russia. Losing both is a real consequence. In terms of territory, this is arguably a bad deal for Russia. If the war lasts another 12 months, Russia will likely have more territorial gains then what this deal envisions. This deal likely represents the lowest Russia is willing to accept in all the major points.

Now the USA sells the Ukraine to the Russians and will gain a lot of money.
Yes, Zelenski will have to agree, but that is in no case the end of the conflict. It is very naive thinking that.


Being honest, that are all the Russian maximal demands. There are no real consequences mentioned if Russia breaches a treaty again. The aggressor is rewarded for his aggression without any consequences. It will be an encouragement for other countries trying to attack other countries, like China->Taiwan, North Korea -> South Korea, Russia -> Kazachstan, Russia -> Georgia and in the near or far future Russia -> Baltics.
What a strange view of it. Consider the political and geo-strategic context for Russia invading Ukraine and intervening in Georgia's attack (remember they were the aggressor) on their breakaway regions. Now consider the context of Kazakhstan. There's a reason there's little threat of Russia invading Belarus. Kazakhstan is closer to Belarus in terms of being a Russian partner and potential client state than it is to Ukraine or Georgia, openly hostile and trying to move closer to NATO.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
ISW

The premise of a "Russian battlefield victory is inevitable" is yet to be seen, but it looks like that.
The premise of "Russian outlasting the West" is yet to be seen, but it looks like that.
What "Ukrainian's own ability"? That is not existent. Own?

Russian is not advancing "rapidly". Agreed.
Proportionate to the (high?) losses Ukraine is suffering? Sustainable losses (and Ukrainians leaving the country) that Ukraine is suffering? If we decide not to look at that... That helps a lot, avoid what you don't want to see.
"When well staffed..." That helps a lot, avoid what you don't want to see.
"2023 and 2024..." That helps a lot, avoid what you don't want to see.
Well, now it's about Kupiansk. Look at that and, again, avoid what you don't want to see. (Kupiansk isn't finished yet, let's look at the "great Ukrainian success" there and forget everything else.)

"Challenge Putin's theory of victory..." Agreed.
One question: What is Zelenki's "theory of victory"? "Keep in the fight", forever?

Things will be better because we want things to go our way?
 
Top