Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

 
Oldham said:
So we should just let Putin play his war games?
Sometimes you have to be brave and stop evil and this is in my opinion what should be done...
Click to expand...
It's not a question of "bravery". When every major political and military leader in the West is saying direct war with Russia must be avoided "at all costs" (the acceptable 'cost' here being Ukraine), it's likely they have access to information that you don't about what the consequences of that war would be.

And for you and others who have begun to casually throw around words like "bravery" and "cowardice" when saying "we" must fight Russia directly - here's the link to the Ukrainian Foreign Legion:

https://ildu.com.ua

Let me know the link works and that your application has gone through.
 
the_cliff said:
After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

Click to expand...

If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.
 
DT12 said:
If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? What specific behavior, quotes etc. shows that he bought into his own narrative?
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? His own interests are to secure aid and maintain positive PR and Ukrainians by and large chose to fight back.

He wasn't forced or anything by Western allies to fight, that's a decision Ukraine made for itself.
Click to expand...
He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.
 
DT12 said:
He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.
Click to expand...
But how do you know he got caught up in the "Ukraine can defeat Russia" rhetoric specifically?

The premise of your argument is that he would have behaved differently if the West was "honest". In fact, if I recall correctly, Western intelligence were honest in their assessment pre-invasion and told him that Ukraine was likely to get crushed if they didn't prepare better. He must have been given the same intel about Kyiv being stormed by Russia in potentially several days.

Instead, under those circumstances, he and his team chose to stay and rally the country to fight back.

The notion that he was convinced by the West that he could win doesn't really fly for me. Because it's precisely in those early days where the situation looked extremely vulnerable (and the West pessimistic) that he didn't back down

In other words, I don't recall the West singing kumbaya with Zelensky 2 years ago. The West was pessimistic and shared alarming intel with Ukraine on its chances for resistance, but Zelensky and his government chose to fight regardless.
 
Last edited:
Defenders of Ukraine’s strategy accuse the White House of prioritizing domestic politics over Kyiv’s military goals. U.S. officials say the rationale behind their warnings is more nuanced than critics suggest, noting that Moscow’s counterattack has hurt Ukraine more than the refinery attacks hurt Russia.
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?
 
africanspur said:
I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?
Click to expand...
I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Just feel sorry for Ukrainians at this point, and more than slightly embarrassed by the inertia of the West.
 
VorZakone said:
I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.
Click to expand...
The US public is super sensitive about the price of gasoline, attacks on oil refineries inevitably leads to the price of oil going up and as a result the price of gasoline

No matter the reason the US president is always blamed if the price of gasoline goes up more than a few cents, Biden or Trump, it would make no difference
 
I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement. Ukraine was willing to agree to neutrality on military alliances but EU membership would be left open.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

Still, the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless. It suggests that Kyiv had no say in the matter.
Click to expand...


 
Last edited:
This thread says Poland's role was bigger than known, and that the Polish felt that the Russians were bluffing but tried to subjugate Ukraine at the negotiation table after the early military failures. Also says Russian officials threatened Ukrainian officials and that the Ukrainian delegation, including current minister Rustem Umerov, had symptoms of poisoning (here's a WSJ piece which may be linked).

 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

Click to expand...

It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.
 
That_Bloke said:
It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.
Click to expand...
Another quote from Ukrainian negotiator Arakhamia from a different article, when asked why Ukraine didn't agree to Russia's terms.

First of all, to agree to this point, we would have to change the [Ukrainian] Constitution. Our path to NATO is written into the Constitution.

Second of all, we did not and still do not trust the Russians to keep their word. This would only have been possible if we had security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, walk away, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief, and then [Russia] would invade, only more prepared this time — because the first time they invaded, they were actually unprepared for us to resist so much. So we could only work [with them] if we were 100 percent confident that this wouldn’t happen a second time. And we don’t have that confidence.
Click to expand...
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time
 
If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?
Click to expand...

Difficult to say, but it's not like Putin has single-handedly spellbound an entire nation that will suddenly wake up upon his death. There is a big propaganda apparatus that has filled the population with lies about the conflict, and I'm sure many of his closest allies at the top of the food chain actually agree with Putin's reasons for the invasion. Putin's death could maybe act like a good opportunity for negotiations though. Whoever takes over wouldn't massively lose face by giving concessions to Ukraine, like Putin would.

It's all speculation, of course, and I don't see Putin dying the next 10 years. The bad ones always seem to live forever.
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?
Click to expand...
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
 
stefan92 said:
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answers @Mike Smalling and @stefan92.

I guess there are nutters everywhere, as the images show flattened villages, you can't be more unrestrained than that.
 
the hea said:
Pro Russian Tegram channels are saying that ATACMS missiles where used in the attack.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).
 
stefan92 said:
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
Click to expand...
Economic reasons that you've mentioned aren't really relevant. The war costs much more (both directly and indirectly via sanctions) — and you'll need tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment to build/rebuild the industrial infrastructure (let alone the civilian one that is also required for it to function considering the damage from the war). Russia has a lot of untapped natural resources on its own territory that aren't getting harvested because of the lack of infrastructure investment.

The issue is people who are benefitting from this war — and I mean both the oligarchy and common folk who are working in military production (although they wouldn't be able to influence the decision directly). And another issue is that we can't really know how genuine Putin's elite are in their ideological convictions at this point (and there's no real way to check). If those who share the same beliefs as Putin (like Patrushev) will stay in power, nothing will change. If it's more practical people (like Sobyanin), I think the war will meet its swift end.
 
harms said:
I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).
Click to expand...
Astra didn't mention ATACMS that was mentioned on Rybar and at least one other pro Russian channel I checked this morning. I just used Rob Lees tweet to show which attack I was referring to. Sorry for being unclear.
 
nimic said:
Do they have equipment and logistics for a million soldiers at war?
Click to expand...
Those people who advocate for that don't really give the impression that they would care about that to me.
 
TwoSheds said:
Yeah I don't believe the meat armour one, sorry. They perhaps just have more troops than troop carrying capacity so have them sit on the top or something.
Click to expand...
The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?
Click to expand...

I think its wishfull thinking. The whole idea that in countires that has only briefly flirted with democracy that the replacement of a dictator will be progressive is sort of naive considering that their brief spell with democracy was considered humaliating. On a whole I dont think the Russians national psyche and narrative will offer something radically better than whats already on the table.
 
stefan92 said:
The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top
Click to expand...

Makes more sense I guess.
 
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/

"As Ukraine’s ousted chief commander Zaluzhny found to his cost, rational warnings that things may not turn out well can get commentators and analysts in trouble. But suspending critical thinking won’t win this war either.

The early burst of patriotic fervor which saw draft centers swamped with volunteers has evaporated. An estimated 650,000 men of fighting age have fled their country, most by smuggling themselves across the border.

Two years ago, the trains heading out of Ukraine were almost exclusively carrying women, children and the elderly to seek refuge. This week, around a third of the passengers on one train carrying this correspondent out of the country were men of fighting age. Somehow they’d managed to get waiver papers to leave"
 
Gehrman said:
I think its wishfull thinking. The whole idea that in countires that has only briefly flirted with democracy that the replacement of a dictator will be progressive is sort of naive considering that their brief spell with democracy was considered humaliating. On a whole I dont think the Russians national psyche and narrative will offer something radically better than whats already on the table.
Click to expand...
I think the realistic hope is not a democracy but a more practical minded leader that would be willing to trade geopolitical ambitions for economical gain, lifting of the sanctions etc.

Not that it would be this simple, I’d imagine that the west would ask for significant reparations (and rightly so), so it would be a significant short-term loss for a potential long-term gain for Russia.

All wishful thinking though. Everybody seems to be dying except for the one that actually needs to.
 
Germany arrests two for alleged military sabotage plot on behalf of Russia

BERLIN, April 18 (Reuters) - Two German-Russian nationals have been arrested in Germany on suspicion of plotting sabotage attacks, including on U.S. military facilities, in what officials called a serious effort to undermine military support for Ukraine.

According to Spiegel magazine, the facilities included the Grafenwoehr army base in the southern state of Bavaria, where Ukrainian soldiers receive training to use U.S. Abrams tanks.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...itary-sabotage-plot-behalf-russia-2024-04-18/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.