Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Looking more likely that the House is finally moving ahead with Ukraine funding. Johnson seems to have agreed to bring it to the House floor (meaning near certain passage).
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

To their 'credit' more and more of the mainstream outlets are starting to report actual reality rather than the nonsense coming out of NATO/Zelenskiy. The turning point, so far as I've observed it, was Zelenskiy's statement back in February about 31,000 dead Ukrainians. While it's understandable he wants/needs to keep bullshitting his Western backers, it didn't go down well in Ukraine, where people see with their own eyes that the cemetaries in single towns and cities have vastly more fresh graves than Zelenskiy claims have been killed throughout the entire country. When literally every single family in Ukraine personally knows somebody who has been killed in this war...

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...s-been-killed-two-years-of-the-war-in-ukraine

...who does he imagine he is gaslighting with his 31,000 figure?

Since then, there has been a shift in the media by even the staunchest Ukraine supporters towards reporting facts rather than Ukrainian propaganda. I was personally gratified to see Ben Hodges reduced to spreading his delusional gibberish on some obscure Canadian Youtube channel the other day (the title of his 'presentation' was "The Siege of Crimea Has Begun" and it remains the funniest video posted anywhere on the internet in the last month).

2 notable (for different reasons) examples of the shift are:

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-great-risk-front-line-collapse-war-russia/

That article is worth a read because its sources are Ukrainian commanders. Sample quote:

"They spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely.

“There’s nothing that can help Ukraine now because there are no serious technologies able to compensate Ukraine for the large mass of troops Russia is likely to hurl at us. We don’t have those technologies, and the West doesn’t have them as well in sufficient numbers,” one of the top-ranking military sources told POLITICO"

The other article that caught my eye was this one, and it's because of the source:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13248937/Sanctions-Moscow-hurt-European-economies-Russias-GROWN-encouraged-Putin-form-stronger-ties-China-aggressive-West.html

Ordinarily I wouldn't promulgate anything to do with the Daily Mail but this is actually quite an amazing article precisely because it is coming from the Daily Mail. For the first 24 months of this war they were the biggest cheerleaders of Ukraine and the Russian sanctions, and their sources were vacuous morons like Ponomorenko, Podolyak, Yellen, Sullivan, and, naturally, Ben Hodges. For this article they've somehow managed to get Ksenia Kirkham and Alan Cafruny (i.e people who actually know what they're talking about and with a record to back it up) on the line. No way they'd have sought people like this out for their opinions even a few months ago.

Proper news agencies like The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have been reporting facts on this war for over a year now - and they've been occasionally pilloried for it - but it's good to see that even those outlets that spent the first 2 years of the war serving as Zelenskiy's uncritical stenographers are now starting to face reality.
 
Last edited:


You know what I find funny about that kind of stuff? It's the fact that those clowns from Russia and other like-minded dictatorships out there can say whatever bullshit against their enemies and then come out immune from criticism because no one from the media is calling them out or because the media are outright ignoring them. But if someone from the US government used that kind of language against geopolitical rivals or wartime enemies on the other hand, that person would get ripped to shreds in the media and then sacked in the morning.

The Western media needs to start calling out that cnut Medvedev in public if they want to be fair and equal to everyone.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:


You know what I find funny about that kind of stuff? It's the fact that those clowns from Russia and other like-minded dictatorships out there can say whatever bullshit against their enemies and then come out immune from criticism because no one from the media is calling them out or because the media are outright ignoring them. But if someone from the US government used that kind of language against geopolitical rivals or wartime enemies on the other hand, that person would get ripped to shreds in the media and then sacked in the morning.

The Western media needs to start calling out that cnut Medvedev in public if they want to be fair and equal to everyone.
Click to expand...


No need to waste any time with Medvedev. He's irrelevant and is only saying this stuff for domestic consumption.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:


You know what I find funny about that kind of stuff? It's the fact that those clowns from Russia and other like-minded dictatorships out there can say whatever bullshit against their enemies and then come out immune from criticism because no one from the media is calling them out or because the media are outright ignoring them. But if someone from the US government used that kind of language against geopolitical rivals or wartime enemies on the other hand, that person would get ripped to shreds in the media and then sacked in the morning.

The Western media needs to start calling out that cnut Medvedev in public if they want to be fair and equal to everyone.
Click to expand...


Well, there are some politicians that are inmune. A guy named Trump, I don't know if you heard about it, young fella with a lot of energy, grabbing woman by the pussy, who would be able to kill someone in 5th ave in broadday light and people would still vote for him and he is of the opinion that Russia should be allowed to do whatever they want, also has a very nice opinion about mexican immigrants like they are rapist and murderous.

Sacked in the morning, doubtful
 
Matthew Blackburn's (senior researcher at NUPI) latest article was quoted by The Telegraph which is why I'm linking the whole thing here. It's another example of what I wrote above, about how more and more fiercely pro-Ukraine mainstream outlets are starting to use actually informed and rational people for their reporting rather than Ukrainian and/or NATO Raytheon board members "retired generals". As with the Daily Mail in my previous post, the Telegraph has been an uncritical stenographer for Zelenskiy since 2022 so it's notable that even they are starting to present reality.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/looming-ukraine-debacle-210160

The overall gist is that the West went into this war with absolutely no idea of what they were getting into and is now equally bereft of any semblence of a coherent strategy for getting themselves and Ukraine out of it.

Sample passages:

Another established pattern is the repetition of moralistic binary language. The West “cannot let Russia win.” The “rules-based order” could unravel. Then there is the new domino theory: if Ukraine falls, Russian hordes will flood further west. The personalization of the conflict onto one evil man, Vladimir Putin, continues with the death of Alexei Navalny. It is a Manichean struggle of good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, civilization and darkness. There can be “no peace until the tyrant falls.” The Western alliance must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine.

What is lacking throughout the discourse is realism. What is the real balance of power between the warring nations, and what can be concluded from two years of Russia-NATO hard power competition? Unsurprisingly, Western leaders are reluctant to admit that the dire situation facing Ukraine is related to their own fundamental miscalculations about Russia. Russia’s multiple blunders in this war are well-known but what of those made by the Western alliance?

And:

Overall, NATO was not well prepared for the war in Ukraine; its military doctrines foresaw interventions in civil wars or conflict with weaker opponents, not a proxy war of attrition with a peer competitor.

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced. The Russian military has adapted to conditions of near total battlefield visibility, the mass use of drones, and the vastly reduced power of tanks and aircraft. This includes innovative infantry assault tactics, new methods of using and countering drones, and, more recently, the devastating use of glide bombs that allow Russian air power to be used while evading anti-aircraft fire. On the tactical and operational level, Russia is engaging many parts of the front simultaneously, forcing Ukraine into an exhausting and constant redeployment of troops. Presenting Russian military successes as “human wave” or “meat assaults” is clearly inaccurate. Russia’s approach is gradual, attritional, and anything but mindless.

And:

The lack of realism in Western discourse is clear. There is indeed a serious risk that, rather than the West teaching Russia a lesson and putting Putin in his place, the opposite may occur. Is Russia, in fact, educating the West on what it means to use hard power and wage interstate conflict in twenty-first-century conditions? Russia advertises its version of great power sovereignty, in which a united, resilient, and unwavering state can defeat the pooled sovereignty of the EU and NATO.

We have all heard the objection that Putin simply cannot be trusted and that he wants nothing less than the complete elimination of Ukraine as an independent state. Yet, does not the blind continuation of the West’s dysfunctional Plan A also threaten the total physical destruction of Ukraine?


All of these observations are as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but we're 2 years into the Orwellian era of truth-telling being a radical act so it's good the mainstream outlets are finally starting to report reality, even a little.
 
Last edited:
DT12 said:
Matthew Blackburn's (senior researcher at NUPI) latest article was quoted by The Telegraph which is why I'm linking the whole thing here. It's another example of what I wrote above, about how more and more fiercely pro-Ukraine mainstream outlets are starting to use actually informed and rational people for their reporting rather than Ukrainian and/or NATO Raytheon board members "retired generals". As with the Daily Mail in my previous post, the Telegraph has been an uncritical stenographer for Zelenskiy since 2022 so it's notable that even they are starting to present reality.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/looming-ukraine-debacle-210160

The overall gist is that the West went into this war with absolutely no idea of what they were getting into and is now equally bereft of any semblence of a coherent strategy for getting themselves and Ukraine out of it.

Sample passages:

Another established pattern is the repetition of moralistic binary language. The West “cannot let Russia win.” The “rules-based order” could unravel. Then there is the new domino theory: if Ukraine falls, Russian hordes will flood further west. The personalization of the conflict onto one evil man, Vladimir Putin, continues with the death of Alexei Navalny. It is a Manichean struggle of good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, civilization and darkness. There can be “no peace until the tyrant falls.” The Western alliance must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine.

What is lacking throughout the discourse is realism. What is the real balance of power between the warring nations, and what can be concluded from two years of Russia-NATO hard power competition? Unsurprisingly, Western leaders are reluctant to admit that the dire situation facing Ukraine is related to their own fundamental miscalculations about Russia. Russia’s multiple blunders in this war are well-known but what of those made by the Western alliance?

And:

Overall, NATO was not well prepared for the war in Ukraine; its military doctrines foresaw interventions in civil wars or conflict with weaker opponents, not a proxy war of attrition with a peer competitor.

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced. The Russian military has adapted to conditions of near total battlefield visibility, the mass use of drones, and the vastly reduced power of tanks and aircraft. This includes innovative infantry assault tactics, new methods of using and countering drones, and, more recently, the devastating use of glide bombs that allow Russian air power to be used while evading anti-aircraft fire. On the tactical and operational level, Russia is engaging many parts of the front simultaneously, forcing Ukraine into an exhausting and constant redeployment of troops. Presenting Russian military successes as “human wave” or “meat assaults” is clearly inaccurate. Russia’s approach is gradual, attritional, and anything but mindless.

And:

The lack of realism in Western discourse is clear. There is indeed a serious risk that, rather than the West teaching Russia a lesson and putting Putin in his place, the opposite may occur. Is Russia, in fact, educating the West on what it means to use hard power and wage interstate conflict in twenty-first-century conditions? Russia advertises its version of great power sovereignty, in which a united, resilient, and unwavering state can defeat the pooled sovereignty of the EU and NATO.

We have all heard the objection that Putin simply cannot be trusted and that he wants nothing less than the complete elimination of Ukraine as an independent state. Yet, does not the blind continuation of the West’s dysfunctional Plan A also threaten the total physical destruction of Ukraine?


All of these observations are as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but we're 2 years into the Orwellian era of truth-telling being a radical act so it's good the mainstream outlets are finally starting to report reality, even a little.
Click to expand...

I will make 2 comments:

- Saying that Russia was well prepared for this war with its laughable display marching to kiev and running and kharkiv area is quite an statement. I totally agree that they adapted to the circumstances a lot, but because its goals changed completely

- "NATO was not prepared for this war". NATO didn't go to war with Russia, NATO didn't put boots in the ground. If NATO would face Russia would be whooping its ass in a conventional war. So par Russia is stalled in a 2 year war with a country with far less resources, with far less people using an amalgamation of war arms from different sources, US, Germany, Soviet and most of them are second tier and discarded arms. And they started to shift the tide when Ukraine didn't receive armament. That doesn't say much of the strength of the supposedly 2nd/3rd strongest army. Don't get me wrong, I said here multiple times that I would never understand the comments that said that Russia army would fold in no time. But Russia army would be obliterated if NATO would enter the war. This text talks like NATO failed in a war....that is not waging and talking of Russia teaching a lesson to an army...that is not fighting

Talking or orwellian, you bought completely the russian pamphlets that this is a war russia vs NATO when NATO is not even there
 
95 of DT's 118 posts are in this thread, all of them pro-russia. I hope he's at least getting paid.
 
I think it can be summed up with the following statement:

All the military equipment aid that the United States has provided to Ukraine, combined, does not meet the equipment numbers or standard of 1 US, Un-activated, Low Readiness, National Guard Infantry Division.
 
DT12 said:
Matthew Blackburn's (senior researcher at NUPI) latest article was quoted by The Telegraph which is why I'm linking the whole thing here. It's another example of what I wrote above, about how more and more fiercely pro-Ukraine mainstream outlets are starting to use actually informed and rational people for their reporting rather than Ukrainian and/or NATO Raytheon board members "retired generals". As with the Daily Mail in my previous post, the Telegraph has been an uncritical stenographer for Zelenskiy since 2022 so it's notable that even they are starting to present reality.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/looming-ukraine-debacle-210160

The overall gist is that the West went into this war with absolutely no idea of what they were getting into and is now equally bereft of any semblence of a coherent strategy for getting themselves and Ukraine out of it.

Sample passages:

Another established pattern is the repetition of moralistic binary language. The West “cannot let Russia win.” The “rules-based order” could unravel. Then there is the new domino theory: if Ukraine falls, Russian hordes will flood further west. The personalization of the conflict onto one evil man, Vladimir Putin, continues with the death of Alexei Navalny. It is a Manichean struggle of good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, civilization and darkness. There can be “no peace until the tyrant falls.” The Western alliance must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine.

What is lacking throughout the discourse is realism. What is the real balance of power between the warring nations, and what can be concluded from two years of Russia-NATO hard power competition? Unsurprisingly, Western leaders are reluctant to admit that the dire situation facing Ukraine is related to their own fundamental miscalculations about Russia. Russia’s multiple blunders in this war are well-known but what of those made by the Western alliance?

And:

Overall, NATO was not well prepared for the war in Ukraine; its military doctrines foresaw interventions in civil wars or conflict with weaker opponents, not a proxy war of attrition with a peer competitor.

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced. The Russian military has adapted to conditions of near total battlefield visibility, the mass use of drones, and the vastly reduced power of tanks and aircraft. This includes innovative infantry assault tactics, new methods of using and countering drones, and, more recently, the devastating use of glide bombs that allow Russian air power to be used while evading anti-aircraft fire. On the tactical and operational level, Russia is engaging many parts of the front simultaneously, forcing Ukraine into an exhausting and constant redeployment of troops. Presenting Russian military successes as “human wave” or “meat assaults” is clearly inaccurate. Russia’s approach is gradual, attritional, and anything but mindless.

And:

The lack of realism in Western discourse is clear. There is indeed a serious risk that, rather than the West teaching Russia a lesson and putting Putin in his place, the opposite may occur. Is Russia, in fact, educating the West on what it means to use hard power and wage interstate conflict in twenty-first-century conditions? Russia advertises its version of great power sovereignty, in which a united, resilient, and unwavering state can defeat the pooled sovereignty of the EU and NATO.

We have all heard the objection that Putin simply cannot be trusted and that he wants nothing less than the complete elimination of Ukraine as an independent state. Yet, does not the blind continuation of the West’s dysfunctional Plan A also threaten the total physical destruction of Ukraine?


All of these observations are as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but we're 2 years into the Orwellian era of truth-telling being a radical act so it's good the mainstream outlets are finally starting to report reality, even a little.
Click to expand...

I'd guess that NATO were, and are, highly prepared for a war started by Russian attacks on them. If it ever happens Russia will fare very badly indeed.

But Russia didn't attack NATO, they attacked Ukraine, seemingly in an attempt to regain past "glories". Instead they have been bogged down for years, instead of the quick and total vvictory/occupation that they expected. The financial and human costs has been an utter disaster for them that has turned Putin led Russia into international pariah status. All in all an utter and totally indefensible disaster.
 
4bars said:
I will make 2 comments:
- Saying that Russia was well prepared for this war with its laughable display marching to kiev and running and kharkiv area is quite an statement.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's also a statement that nobody has made. His observation was:

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced.

Russia's farcical beginning to this war is very well documented. It's also what led the West to the (in the end catastrophic) conclusion that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if they simply sent it lots of money and weapons. Russia messed up the first 3 months of this war. The West has messed up the subsequent 2 years. And Blackburn's point is that while Russia had a Plan B to switch to, the West has none and is committed to a strategy (sic) that is inevitably going to fail. I agree with him. You're free not to. Pinning the entire blame for Ukraine's loss on Mike Johnson is clearly shaping up to be the West's latest narrative and I've no doubt it'll gain a lot of traction.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
has turned Putin led Russia into international pariah status.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of the world continues to do business with Russia. Believing that the collective West cutting themselves off from Russia constitutes "the world" consigning Russia to "international pariah status" is another reason why its strategy to "isolate" Russia has failed. If there's any worthwhile lesson to ever come from this war, it'll be the West getting over itself and understanding that it is no longer a metonym for the world.
 
Case in point to the above, from Austria's chancellor:

https://geopolitique.eu/en/2024/04/...on-with-the-federal-chancellor-karl-nehammer/


"On the other hand, we must find a way to negotiate in order to regain peace. For this to happen, we must re-examine a mistake we made. Since 2022, we have constructed our response to the Russian aggression in a bubble, a sort of Western echo chamber. We very quickly agreed upon how we should aid Ukraine and how the war should be ended. Yet a large part of the world — I am thinking specifically of the BRICS — does not share our views and does not understand our position. This is a problem"


(note by the way another time-honoured Western trait there - not agreeing with them is synonymous with not understanding them)
 
Last edited:
4bars said:
Talking or orwellian, you bought completely the russian pamphlets that this is a war russia vs NATO
Click to expand...

"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.
 
DT12 said:
The vast majority of the world continues to do business with Russia. Believing that the collective West cutting themselves off from Russia constitutes "the world" consigning Russia to "international pariah status" is another reason why its strategy to "isolate" Russia has failed. If there's any worthwhile lesson to ever come from this war, it'll be the West getting over itself and understanding that it is no longer a metonym for the world.
Click to expand...

I think you are being delusional. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an example of extreme self harm right up there with Brexit.

Until Putin dies Russia will continue it's downward spiral.

Your GDP continues to decline and with 7.7% inflation, when the rest of the world is getting it down under 3%. The invasion of Ukrain was simply Putin's megalomania at pray and Russia's population (and Ukraine's) is going to pay the price.

If Russia didn't have a bizarre love affair with "strong man" dictatorships Putin would be long gone.
 
Last edited:
DT12 said:
"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.
Click to expand...

We, in this sense, is the colloquial for "We must continue to help" not "We are literally fighting in this conflict."

If NATO was actually fighting in this conflict, the Russian Army would be about as combat effective as the Wehrmacht in April 1945.
 
DT12 said:
"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.
Click to expand...

Cameron can say whatever. Like labrov. NATO is not there
 
I wouldn't necessarily discount @DT12 's latest posts. Many Western experts on Twitter are wondering about Western long-term strategy and expectations. There's heavy criticism on Western leaders for spouting empty slogans and rhetoric and not clearly articulating how they think the war should end (and on what terms).

Defence production is increasing but the pace may be rather slow as Western governments still seem hesitant to commit to more long-term contracts for supporting Ukraine.

Also, The Economist had a piece on middle powers not joining the economic war against Russia. Countries like Mexico, India, Brazil and Indonesia. UN voting seems to indicate Russia is a pariah state but we don't necessarily see that translated into actual policy. Countries still enable their financial institutions & private sector to do business with Russia.

That being said, it also seems the West itself isn't yet all-in on sanctions either. They can still go up a couple of gears but choose not to.
 
As for negotiating, I've noticed that the counter-question rarely seems to be asked: in a scenario in which Western countries want to force Ukraine to the negotiation table, does that make Putin more or less likely to negotiate?

My guess is that strong battlefield performances by Ukraine make it more likely for Putin to start negotiating but I can't necessarily back that up, it's just a hunch. He has other global ambitions in Africa and the Middle East. Is he willing to risk all of that for Ukraine? Is he willing to risk losing more expensive hardware (ships, fighter jets) that are very costly to replace and thereby risk hollowing out his military? Is he willing to risk another round of mobilization that can hurt him politically?

Then there's Ukraine itself. In a scenario in which Western aid to Ukraine is reduced, will that make Ukraine stop fighting? Even if Western countries wanted negotiations and stop aid to force Ukraine to negotiate, would Ukraine do it? I don't know the answer but people seem quite convinced that the West can make Ukraine do what it wants. Would Ukraine not resort to guerrilla warfare?
 
VorZakone said:
I wouldn't necessarily discount @DT12 's latest posts. Many Western experts on Twitter are wondering about Western long-term strategy and expectations. There's heavy criticism on Western leaders for spouting empty slogans and rhetoric and not clearly articulating how they think the war should end (and on what terms).

Defence production is increasing but the pace may be rather slow as Western governments still seem hesitant to commit to more long-term contracts for supporting Ukraine.

Also, The Economist had a piece on middle powers not joining the economic war against Russia. Countries like Mexico, India, Brazil and Indonesia. UN voting seems to indicate Russia is a pariah state but we don't necessarily see that translated into actual policy. Countries still enable their financial institutions & private sector to do business with Russia.

That being said, it also seems the West itself isn't yet all-in on sanctions either. They can still go up a couple of gears but choose not to.
Click to expand...

Oh I absolutely agree with the criticism that Russia was picture like a joke and would fold in three months like Kofman and other so called experts. And in 2022 and beginning of 2023 I said it countless times in this hread. Loads of utteroptimistic propaganda

Also about western countries making business with russia still, capitalism gotta capitalism.

My 2 points with DT12 is:

- Is ridiculous is saying that now Russia is the epitome of the strategy when its beginning to 1 year was laughable and only got a break when the west didn't supply enough munition, something pretty basic. In short, Russia is tying with a country much smaller, with much less resources and not so well supplied by the west with quantities and with a majority of second tier arms that they want to get rid off to enrich the military industrial sector. Now it looks because it was capable to defend themselves, mining a country in unprecedented volume, blowing up dams that they are master strategist
- That NATO is fighting Russia and winning when NATO is not there in any boots on the ground, wings in the sky and boats at the sea capacity. Talking about NATO failing because they thought that Russia is a weaker opponent when is a peer rival, when is the way around, Ukraine a weaker opponent

Again, the answer is always in the middle. Nor Russia was so shit (despite of the shitty beginning) nor Ukraine with the western support is so rosy. And in the end is what Obama said, Ukraine is not as important for the West as it is for Russia, and Russia is going all in because Putin needs to survive and US is starting to wishy wash as it has not that much at stake while Europe is not prepared and hope that this stops in Ukraine
 
DT12 said:
In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. Russia had to transform their economy into a war economy, similar to Germany in 1939. Massive government spending for weapons, ammunition and compensation for soldiers kept the economy from crumbling. The decisive moment will be when the war is over and the economy needs to be changed again. That's when Russia will collapse and feel the consequences of their idiotic war.


DT12 said:
It's also what led the West to the (in the end catastrophic) conclusion that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if they simply sent it lots of money and weapons
Click to expand...
I wish the West actually did what they pledged. Unfortunately, the some were only talking but not acting.
On contrary Trump and his MAGA idiots successfully blocked the 60 billions USD for Ukraine for several months causing severe ammunition issues. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have conquered any ground.
Trump is Putin's ally and undermining Western efforts to support the Ukraine. Not far behind him is the coward Scholz who for blocks the delivery of the Taurus system for obscure reasons. With Taurus the Crimea bridge would be destroyed already and Russia's supply couldn't get to the frontline. Massive blow for Russia.

It's the incompetence of the West that's turning the tide not Russian excellence on the battlefield.
 
4bars said:
Oh I absolutely agree with the criticism that Russia was picture like a joke and would fold in three months like Kofman and other so called experts. And in 2022 and beginning of 2023 I said it countless times in this hread. Loads of utteroptimistic propaganda

Also about western countries making business with russia still, capitalism gotta capitalism.

My 2 points with DT12 is:

- Is ridiculous is saying that now Russia is the epitome of the strategy when its beginning to 1 year was laughable and only got a break when the west didn't supply enough munition, something pretty basic. In short, Russia is tying with a country much smaller, with much less resources and not so well supplied by the west with quantities and with a majority of second tier arms that they want to get rid off to enrich the military industrial sector. Now it looks because it was capable to defend themselves, mining a country in unprecedented volume, blowing up dams that they are master strategist
- That NATO is fighting Russia and winning when NATO is not there in any boots on the ground, wings in the sky and boats at the sea capacity. Talking about NATO failing because they thought that Russia is a weaker opponent when is a peer rival, when is the way around, Ukraine a weaker opponent

Again, the answer is always in the middle. Nor Russia was so shit (despite of the shitty beginning) nor Ukraine with the western support is so rosy. And in the end is what Obama said, Ukraine is not as important for the West as it is for Russia, and Russia is going all in because Putin needs to survive and US is starting to wishy wash as it has not that much at stake while Europe is not prepared and hope that this stops in Ukraine
Click to expand...
Actually, Michael Kofman has consistently been one of the more calmer & rational voices. I don't think he ever suggested that Russia was a joke or close to collapsing.
 
VorZakone said:
Actually, Michael Kofman has consistently been one of the more calmer & rational voices. I don't think he ever suggested that Russia was a joke or close to collapsing.
Click to expand...

I remember reading Kofman back at the beginning that he doubted that Russia would have the capability to last 3-6 months more in terms of war resources. It is true that his discourse is poised, but often times he gives his opinion followed by "who knows" or "we need more information" or "fog of war". So yes, he is not pontificating that "this is what is going to happen for sure" etc...And I like his general tone, the way he analizes, but he lost me quite a lot in predictions at the beginning with that dicourse, he just failed miserably and it showed that he had little idea what was going on besides explaining things after events already happened
 
AfonsoAlves said:
If NATO was actually fighting in this conflict, the Russian Army would be about as combat effective as the Wehrmacht in April 1945.
Click to expand...

So this is the 3rd time on the last page alone that this sentiment has been expressed. I wasn't planning to respond to it, because it is a part of the same arrogant Western thinking that has led Ukraine this far down the garden path. The people who now say NATO would effortlessly smash Russia in a direct conflict are the same people who 2 years ago were saying the Russian army would collapse by summer 2022, or that Western sanctions would shatter the Russian economy within months and make it impossible for Putin to continue the war.

But by a happy coincidence, earlier today one of the most unwaveringly pro-Ukrainian outlets (Times Radio) published a lengthy interview with one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, 'General Sir' Richard Shirreff (NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander). In short, he knows what he's talking about. And here he is, today, saying that NATO is nowhere near ready to fight a war with Russia, and won't be for many years unless very severe changes are made now across all NATO countries.




There is a reason why every single Western leader is on record as setting "never entering into a direct war with Russia over Ukraine" as the one indelible red line in this conflict, and it has nothing to do with "Putin may use nuclear weapons". It would be complete and utter carnage for both sides. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to actual NATO commanders. How many leaders of democratic Western European nations are ready to campaign on the back of sending (as it would require) literally hundreds of thousands of their soldiers to die in a war with Russia? Putin, we are told, is ready to sacrifice all these Russian lives, because he's an ectothermic psychopath. Are your leaders ready to do the same? As Richard Shirreff suggests in that video, it would take a monumental effort on the part of politicians to convince their voters to go along with the types of colossal sacrifice required to fight a war with Russia.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.