The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

personaldesas said:

Even if that were true, how is that different from any other war? Lend-Lease also changed the course and duration of the war against Germany. You said yourself that this is normal. "Like in every war". Yet somehow it only turns the supplier into the “real” opponent when Russia needs an excuse for poor battlefield performance.

Is your “we’re fighting NATO” fairy tale really easier to swallow than admitting that Ukraine, with outside help, has resisted Russia's poorly planned and executed invasion?

Click to expand...

War is a business, that is normal.
I didn't say anything about poor performance, but about how long the show has been going on. Hoover just pointed out why the show was still going on in 2024... Well, all right, some fantasy about China giving Russia ∼$90bn for free.
I don't think Russia planned an invasion and a war, it planned a SMO; like the bunch of traitors who planned a coup d'etat in Spain in 1936. It was just as good as the US after-the-Iraq-war planning.
The real opponent is Ukraine... fighting with NATO weapons while NATO money keeps the country running.
No ex-Soviet army needs and excuse for bad performance, no army needs an excuse; not even the US army in Vietnam, Afghanistan or the 3rd battle of Fallujah. Sorry, was I pointing out at any bad performance or at keeping Ukraine "in the fight"? As we love repeating. Did the Robotine offensive failed because of Russian bad performance?
BTW, I still think that calling an offensive planned in a NATO HQ in a NATO country "NATO offensive" is fair, even if not completely accurate; everyone understood what offensive I was talking about without feeling outraged. I have mentioned the Kursk return ticket before, never the NATO return ticket.

What I still haven't been able to find is how Ukraine is going to "win". Well, not even Tisdall was able to swallow that and added the "or holding its own". Not in the battlefield, it seems that we all agree with that. Not with the economy, whatever is left of the 90bn plus another 70bn just to hold in 2027. Talking about Ukraine defeating Russia with missiles its just a joke... well, another one; and a sad joke for Ukraine.

Edit
Is the las paragraph, maybe, reality trumping fairy tales?
The pun was intended with the first Trump, I forgot to mention.

Russia invaded Ukraine with armies, not with small bands trying to launch a coup. Multiple columns of armoured vehicles & tens of thousands of soldiers crossed the border simultaneously at several points. Maybe 150,000 men were in the initial invasion force, with many more in reserve, & a few thousand tanks.

That's an invasion. No doubt about it.

It seems clear that they expected a quick & easy victory, just like Franco, Mola, Sanjurjo et al did in 1936, but it certainly wasn't a coup. They expected fighting - just not as much as they got. They didn't have hundreds of thousands of troops ready for nothing.

personaldesas said:

Then Russia can take responsibility for its own decisions. Being pressured by the West does not establish that it had no choice but to invade Ukraine. If you think invasion was the right choice, defend that choice instead of blaming the West for Russia’s decision.

Click to expand...

Russia does not regret invading Ukraine, they regret not invading earlier than they did, there's talk of upgrading the smo to an actual war and finishing the job.


And you think Russia is up there with the US and China? Really?


Russia may not be up there with the US and China but Russia is a big contributor and facilitator


And you still haven’t answered the question: would a change of government in France forces Germany invading it?


if the change of government was as a result of a Russian sponsored coup then anything can happen, we all see what happened in Romania

swerve said:

Russia invaded Ukraine with armies, not with small bands trying to launch a coup. Multiple columns of armoured vehicles & tens of thousands of soldiers crossed the border simultaneously at several points. Maybe 150,000 men were in the initial invasion force, with many more in reserve, & a few thousand tanks.

That's an invasion. No doubt about it.

It seems clear that they expected a quick & easy victory, just like Franco, Mola, Sanjurjo et al did in 1936, but it certainly wasn't a coup. They expected fighting - just not as much as they got. They didn't have hundreds of thousands of troops ready for nothing.

Click to expand...

I agree... And I strongly disagree with your "small bands", that is all they had.
13m in Afghanistan, 44m in Ukraine, scale is important. Do armies plan and expect anything but victory?

It appears people are beginning to clue in about the Flamingo program (read scam). A few examples:



From here (an exchange with the CEO):

Good day, Ms. Irina. You received a codification index for the Flamingo FP-5 cruise missile in October 2025. It was codified as a drone, supposedly to facilitate its launch into production. Your company has not codified any more missiles since then. In July 2026, Denys Shytlerman stated that you were already producing 3 Flamingo FP-5 missiles per day—the same Denys had reported back in March 2026. That amounts to 90 missiles per month. On August 20, 2025, President Zelenskyy announced that mass production of the state-of-the-art long-range Flamingo (FP-5) missile should begin in Ukraine by early 2026. The President called the Flamingo the "most successful" among all Ukrainian weapons currently in existence. On November 19, 2024, Zelenskyy tasked the production of 3,000 cruise missiles by the end of 2025. As we all understand, your company was the primary producer. And now you are stating that this was a political statement about cruise missile production, that you did not count on it, and planned to switch straight to ballistics. You have already reported twice that you received codification for the ballistic missile F7 in June 2026 and in August 2026. Both times, you reported that codification takes 2-4 weeks. But you still haven't received the code. Thus, Ukraine has neither cruise missiles nor ballistic ones (at least not yet); you have one more month to launch ballistic missiles at Moscow, as your company promised. Shytlerman promised by the end of autumn, you by the end of the year. Where did the cruise missiles go, Ms. Irina? By the most conservative estimates, you should have made about 1,000 of them. Or did the Ministry of Defense not order them from you? Don't answer that—it's a state secret. All the figures and dates I cited are in the public domain.

From here:

In the story with the pink flamingo, which suddenly transformed from the most powerful weapon into a "political statement," just as King Midas's gold turned back into shit, there are a heap of important questions.

First off, who, how, and with what intent deceived the President of Ukraine, who as far back as August last year called "Flamingo" the "best missile," and informed the public about the launch of serial production?..

Also in August this year, President Zelenskyy ordered "Flamingo" missiles to "fly off to winter in Russia."

It turns out that someone deliberately fed the head of state and supreme commander-in-chief false information that undermined his reputation and sparked distrust in society toward the words of the country's leader.

Second, who, with what intent, in the General Staff made incompetent decisions—and perhaps deliberately harmful ones—about deploying the so-called "Flamingo missile," which in reality turned out to be a "political statement"..

I’ll remind you that high-ranking General Staff representatives were even present at the pompous Fire Point press conference in November last year.

Third, who and with what intent in the Ministry of Defense made decisions about procuring these so-called "Flamingo missiles," which turned out to be a "political statement"..

Over the entire existence of this "political statement," about 100 "Flamingo missiles" were manufactured and launched—both in tests and "in combat."

Based on ShtilerMAN's statements that the missile cost the Ukrainian budget $600,000, it turns out that just to scare Putin, at least $60 million was spent. ShtilerMAN also repeatedly said that the Fire Point company was developing—or had already developed—its own engine for this "missile"; how much that project cost is unknown.

Terekh's claim that the state didn't spend a single penny on development is false, because Fire Point has no other source of funding besides state money or funds from our partners that are channeled into the budget. This is all OUR MONEY.

It's intriguing who exactly made the decisions to start developing the "missile," serial production, deployment, halting production.. Could it really have been Iryna Terekh herself.. That can't happen in the arms market. The Verkhovna Rada's ad hoc investigative commission, the relevant Rada committee—they need to sort this out; I also see signs of criminal offenses here.

There's work here for NABU too, and for the DBR, which stubbornly turns a blind eye to cases worth billions of dollars but has persistently been trying—for a whole year already!—to throw the entire Kasyanov family behind bars for those accurate strikes on Moscow.



People began to really “suspect” after FirePoint posted that last video:



It’s cute that they/some still think that this is just miscommunication and Zelensky was not aware. The thing was as clear as bright sunny day from the start and commented on by me as such. Wait till they hear about their new epic ballistic missiles (what colour will they be?). And the air defense frejas or whatever they called them. Gon’ produce cheap missiles better than Tomahawks enough for the whole Europe and then some though!

rsemmes said:

BTW, I still think that calling an offensive planned in a NATO HQ in a NATO country "NATO offensive" is fair, even if not completely accurate

Click to expand...

Sure. Then you also ought to call the Great Patriotic War “America’s Eastern Front campaign”. Fair, even if not completely accurate.

rsemmes said:

I used before the example of The Lost Cause, the ACW. The British Empire kept supporting the South even after it was clear that the war was lost; the Union won financial compensation from an international tribunal for that.

The war should have ended in 2022 (let's say 2023), Ukraine wants to defend itself (like Iran) and we want to keep Ukraine in the fight, to get a weaker Russia, as we have stated; in 2022 and that Dutch report and everywhere else.
My logic is the reality of what it is happening, real politik. We defend Ukraine as much as we defend Iran, but we will fight to the last Ukrainian soldier because it is in our interest.

I have to say that I am a bit confused about your logic or with your decision to read whatever you want to read. It is clear that I am "blaming" (asking, actually) us: "Are we digging...", not the victim of our real politik.
Should I say victims? Iran, Russia (you know that Ukraine is killing Russian civilians, right?) and, yes, the great victim of our real politik: Ukraine. And Yemen, and the Houthis... and Indochina and Vietnam... and Libya and Iraq and Egypt and Gaza and Lebanon... and the Spanish Republic. Seaspear gave a try to History, do you want to give a barmy try to "defend", "aggression" and "victim" or to your barmy History?

Click to expand...

Yes but what about I mean what about?

You are off again, your solution is simple Ukraine should surrender, give up it's independence and become a satellite state of Russia.

I don't think Russia planned an invasion and a war, it planned a SMO;

Click to expand...

please mark satire as a satire.

rsemmes said:

I used before the example of The Lost Cause, the ACW. The British Empire kept supporting the South even after it was clear that the war was lost; the Union won financial compensation from an international tribunal for that.

The war should have ended in 2022 (let's say 2023), Ukraine wants to defend itself (like Iran) and we want to keep Ukraine in the fight, to get a weaker Russia, as we have stated; in 2022 and that Dutch report and everywhere else.
My logic is the reality of what it is happening, real politik. We defend Ukraine as much as we defend Iran, but we will fight to the last Ukrainian soldier because it is in our interest.

I have to say that I am a bit confused about your logic or with your decision to read whatever you want to read. It is clear that I am "blaming" (asking, actually) us: "Are we digging...", not the victim of our real politik.
Should I say victims? Iran, Russia (you know that Ukraine is killing Russian civilians, right?) and, yes, the great victim of our real politik: Ukraine. And Yemen, and the Houthis... and Indochina and Vietnam... and Libya and Iraq and Egypt and Gaza and Lebanon... and the Spanish Republic. Seaspear gave a try to History, do you want to give a barmy try to "defend", "aggression" and "victim" or to your barmy History?

Click to expand...

Ukraine wouldn't be killing any Russians if Russia wasn't killing Ukrainians it's pretty much that simple.

personaldesas said:

Sure. Then we also ought to call the Great Patriotic War “America’s Eastern Front campaign”. Fair, even if not completely accurate.

Click to expand...

Scale is relevant, I would say.

rsemmes said:

Scale is relevant, I would say.

Click to expand...

Oh, you’re right. Really good point. US Lend-Lease to the USSR averaged about 1.4% of US GDP per year. Total US aid allocated to Ukraine averaged about 0.11% per year over 2022–2025. So the US devoted roughly 13 times as much of it's economy per year supporting the USSR as it did to Ukraine.

Unless, of course, part of your fairy tale is that sending less support somehow makes it more you fighting instead of the actual army.

Any other convenient definitions or arbitrary lines you’d like to add? I’m curious what you’ll come up with next.

That maybe you would like to add the GDP of the Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine to compare.

Edit
Meaning... How much was that aid then, how much is that aid (NATO, not the US, the aid that made Robotine possible) today for those getting the aid and adding Russia just to see how much it is paying to get that "aid" that Hoover mentioned; or paid in 2024.

rsemmes said:

That maybe you would like to add the GDP of the Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine to compare.

Click to expand...

Are you saying I could provide identical aid and act identical in two scenarios, yet be merely supporting in one and actively fighting a war in the other, based on the recipients economy? This is quite funny.

But please, give me the cutoff: what percentage of the recipient’s GDP turns their army’s campaign into mine? Below it I’m providing aid, above it I am in a war and doing the fighting.

Just so I understand the rules of the fairy tale.

personaldesas said:

Are you saying I could provide identical aid and act identical in two scenarios, yet be merely supporting in one and actively fighting a war in the other, based on the recipients economy? This is quite funny.

But please, give me the cutoff: what percentage of the recipient’s GDP turns their army’s campaign into mine? Below it I’m providing aid, above it I am in a war and doing the fighting.

Just so I understand the rules of the fairy tale.

Click to expand...

You are still... "D'andole vueltas a la perdiz" but, why not!
Point of note, you brought the GDP trying to prove that the Earth is flat.

Let's try with the recipient, just to improve our perspective. What was the % of military support provided to the SSSR? Do we include economic support? I guess it should be only for one, similar scale, offensive.
What was the % of military support provided to Ukraine for that offensive? Do we count training? Do we count economic support? That would be (~)100% cost of keeping the country running.

Please allow me to make my point clear: No NATO, no Robotine.
And it was planned in a NATO HQ.

♫ We're on a road to nowhere ♫

Edit
I cannot call it a perfect timing because it is a cruel timing for Ukraine, but that (Fire Point) is how Ukraine will win the war with missiles.

That narrative seems to only serve for protecting Russian military pride from reality, but if that's important to you, I won't stop you living in a fairy tale land.

rsemmes said:

I agree... And I strongly disagree with your "small bands", that is all they had.

Click to expand...

Small bands? Didn't you see the convoys of vehicles? There was one many miles long, NE of Kyiv, that got jammed up. If Ukraine had been ready for war that'd have been massacred. That convoy alone proves that your "small bands" is nonsense.

swerve said:

Small bands? Didn't you see the convoys of vehicles? There was one many miles long, NE of Kyiv, that got jammed up. If Ukraine had been ready for war that'd have been massacred. That convoy alone proves that your "small bands" is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Small bands as in the coup in Spain, "all they had" doesn't exactly apply to Russia.

Small bands?

The entire army strength in Spanish Morocco, from the start. Took control of the territory almost immediately, leaving the rebel commanders there free to send as many of their men as they could transport to Spain to fight. That gave the rebels control of the largest army command, by far, from Day 1, with the best troops, & no local opposition, so it could be deployed wherever it was needed.

The proportion of the peninsula army they controlled after the first day or two is disputed, but with the troops from Africa they controlled well over half the total army, & most of the rest had been disorganised by the rebellion.

There were eight military districts in mainland Spain. In five, rebels more or less took control of the military command, or already ran it (e.g. Zaragoza) very quickly & were obeyed by most officers & men, so could quickly overpower any opposition. They were supported by many officers who weren't actively involved in the conspiracy, but joined it as soon as conspirators started issuing orders. Quite a lot of senior officers didn't actively take part in the rebellion, but knew about it in advance & did not oppose it. There were very many who refused to rebel, but once the rebels were in control in their area willingly joined them.

Small bands?

The entire army strength in Spanish Morocco, from the start. Took control of the territory almost immediately, leaving the rebel commanders there free to send as many of their men as they could transport to Spain to fight. That gave the rebels control of the largest army command, by far, from Day 1, with the best troops, & no local opposition, so it could be deployed wherever it was needed.

The proportion of the peninsula army they controlled after the first day or two is disputed, but with the troops from Africa they controlled well over half the total army, & most of the rest had been disorganised by the rebellion.

There were eight military districts in mainland Spain. In five, rebels more or less took control of the military command, or already ran it (e.g. Zaragoza) very quickly & were obeyed by most officers & men, so could quickly overpower any opposition. They were supported by many officers who weren't actively involved in the conspiracy, but joined it as soon as conspirators started issuing orders. Quite a lot of senior officers didn't actively take part in the rebellion, but knew about it in advance & did not oppose it. There were very many who refused to rebel, but once the rebels were in control in their area willingly joined them.

Small bands?

The entire army strength in Spanish Morocco, from the start. Took control of the territory almost immediately, leaving the rebel commanders there free to send as many of their men as they could transport to Spain to fight. That gave the rebels control of the largest army command, by far, from Day 1, with the best troops, & no local opposition, so it could be deployed wherever it was needed.

The proportion of the peninsula army they controlled after the first day or two is disputed, but with the troops from Africa they controlled well over half the total army, & most of the rest had been disorganised by the rebellion.

There were eight military districts in mainland Spain. In five, rebels more or less took control of the military command, or already ran it (e.g. Zaragoza) very quickly & were obeyed by most officers & men, so could quickly overpower any opposition. They were supported by many officers who weren't actively involved in the conspiracy, but joined it as soon as conspirators started issuing orders. Quite a lot of senior officers didn't actively take part in the rebellion, but knew about it in advance & did not oppose it. There were very many who refused to rebel, but once the rebels were in control in their area willingly joined them.