> As winter ends, Russia has lost this phase of the conflict
Russia is losing "phase" after "phase" of the conflict until all the Ukrainian cemeteries will be filled with men aged 20 to 65. I hate Atlanticist propaganda.
It's not very convincing to portray an obvious lose-lose scenario as a win for anyone. What can be said is that Russia so far has not reached any of its political and military objectives. So far, the Russian aggressors have even failed to capture a relatively unimportant town of 70,000 inhabitants as part of an allegedly large offensive.
Is there a contradiction somewhere? Everyone, not least every Ukrainian, knows the prize of the defeat of Russia will be a large part of a generation of Ukrainian men and women.
That doesn't make it "not a defeat" for Russia unless the initial ambitions of Russia are achieved (And let's face it, they won't be). It's a very expensive victory for Ukraine and an even more expensive defeat for Russia.
Russia lost 20 million men(!!!!) In WW2 and yet it was still a victory. Ukraine can and will win this conflict, but of course the cost will be a massive amount of deaths on their end.
The damages were caused by the invaders. Everything was preventable and they decided to attack. But it's easier to blame the army who dare to risk their lives to defend their country, right? Regarding the Mariupol reconstruction, this is a story pushed by the Russian propaganda and in reality, it will take decades to fully rebuild the city. And what about the life of all the civilians, those won't come back. That's what Russia call a "liberation".
You don't have to be an `Atlanticist` to see how bad things are for Russia in term of what they expected vs what they got, in fact even inside Russia many (pro war) voices criticise the pace and results of most operations.
They lost insane amount of men and equipment and aren't anywhere close to their initial objective, and they seem to struggle much more than Ukrainians in term of replenishing ammo and equipment
They're not losing the war but they're clearly struggling much more than they ever expected
What else do you expect? Hollywood told us we can't loose so I guess it should be that.
It's all cope after cope after cope, poor Ukrainian men dragged by force are the ones paying for Zelensky next round of fundings.
It's true that Ukrainians winning for almost a year they should be at the gates of Moscow now, no? That's what I would think if newspapers in my country (France) were to be believed.
They aren't trying to invade Russia. They are trying to defend their sovereign country against Russian aggression. Russia is showing the world how incompetent their military is at the same time Ukraine is successfully defending their homeland. Putin is a pathetic joke. He can't even keep the mercenaries from disparaging his weak military.
Ukraine will never be "at the gates of Moscow" because they aren't trying to invade Russia.
It's not their business - Crimea is Russian domestic affair now and the opinion of the whole world is irrelevant. Much like the opinion of the whole world of what happens in Guantanamo or Xinjiang is safely ignored. Except that people are not in any death camps in Crimea but actual resort camps such as Artek.
That's been their excuse for most of their past invasions. Russia did not feel secure enough with East Germany, I guess it won't end until Portugal is secured.
Anyway, I think the chance that Ukraine would continue beyond their internationally recognized borders is close to zero.
European countries stopped invading each other after WW2 (most of the exceptions committed by SU/Russia).
Who knows how this will end up, it's still very open. In WW1, Russia collapsed after about 3 years of war, in Afghanistan it took them about 10 years to retreat (and subsequently collapse).
The biggest mask off moment was when Russia targeted civilian electricity and heating infrastructure in the middle of the winter in regions with Russian-speaking majority like Kharkiv and Odessa.
I think indiscriminate bombing of civilian housing that has taken place for a year now is worse. You can always make a so-so argument that a power plant has some military importance, even if the civilian suffering is terrible. But a 10 story residential building filled with civilians hasn't even go that bad excuse.
It's like the old "Mission Impossible" reveal where there are nested masks:
1. we'll come in and replace you're idiot government goons with our idiot government goons.
2. we'll come in and punish/kill all the people you don't like.
3. we'll come in and clean things up; maybe have to kill some of people too. Sorry, but it'll be worth it after we finish!
4. looks like we were actually going to come in and kill lots of people indiscriminately, take lots of stuff and your children too. If you don't like it you know where to send a complaint.
5. yeah, we're actually just going to kill everyone here and start over, even the ones who look like they're cooperating. That's actually always been the plan; thanks for your help.
The people of Ukraine seem to know the stakes, and have for a while. In fact, it seems like most of the "ex soviet sphere of influence" countries are aware of what goes on in lubyanka.
In a democracy (to some extent) the government serves the people; in an autocracy the people and everything else in the country exist only to execute and glorify the whims of the leader.
Yes, underlining the point that the west (and western media) should never equate "Russian speaking" people and regions with "Russia-supporting" or "wants to be ruled by Russia".
I don't quite understand what you're getting at. The current president of Ukraine was born and raised in a Russian speaking part of the country and Russian is his first language.
Did Ukraine invade Russia? Was Ukraine a threat to Russia in any way?
Don't believe Kremlin propaganda, if there's one thing you can trust about Russian diplomats it's that they lie, even when they know that you know they're lying. It's been well known for decades. It's official doctrine and is called maskirovka.
Did Ukraine use Nazis to ethnically cleanse Russian speakers in regions which wanted independence? According to all Western media before a year ago: yes.
I would prefer if you spoke clearly instead of using insinuation and false equivalence. "The people on here absolutely will not, for any reason, consider both sides of the situation". So why not in your own words describe the side of the situation you feel is underrepresented here?
It would have been just as barbaric, but then that would be in line with Russian stated goals of the war i.e. to "protect the Russian-speaking people from oppression", and Russian terror-bombing of these civilians exposes this as obvious lie.
Ukraine transports most of military equipment and soldiers by electric trains. So it is is also military infrastructure. And Russians only targeted trafostations and substations, those are relatively easy to fix and replace, not power plants themselves.
Compare it to how West bombed everything in Iraq before invasion...
>Electrical Power Facilities
>The United States targeted electrical power distribution facilities, but not generation facilities, throughout Iraq, according to a senior CENTCOM official. He told Human Rights Watch that instead of using explosive ordnance, the majority of the attacks were carried out with carbon fiber bombs designed to incapacitate temporarily rather than to destroy.100 Nevertheless, some of the attacks on electrical power distribution facilities in Iraq are likely to have a serious and long-term detrimental impact on the civilian population.
>Electrical power was out for thirty days after U.S. strikes on two transformer facilities in al-Nasiriyya.101 Al-Nasiriyya 400 kV Electrical Power Transformer Station was attacked on March 22 at 6:00 a.m. using three U.S. Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles outfitted with variants of the BLU-114/B graphite bombs.102 These dispense submunitions with spools of carbon fiber filaments that short-circuit transformers and other high voltage equipment upon contact.
----
Oh, wait. That's "whataboutism" isn't it? That handy defence which means you're not allowed to point that the accuser has committed exactly the same crimes as the accused.
>That handy defence which means you're not allowed to point that the accuser has committed exactly the same crimes as the accused.
What accuser?
Neither the Economist nor the commenter to which you replied is the United States of America.
I think.
Maybe the commenter is the literal United States of America?
edit: Your spelling of "defense" and the person to which you replied's comment history seems to indicate that a non-American is accusing a non-American of being an American.
>seems to indicate that a non-American is accusing a non-American of being an American....
Aye. But there's so many American poodles in Europe, it's hard to tell the difference.
Love the downvotes by the way. If only downvoting a fact you don't want to hear could somehow make it not true any more!
I also didnt mention the US's strafing of the retreating Iraqui army during the Gulf War either [0]. Who can forget the photos of the destroyed columns of vehicles, heading back to Iraq and the soldiers burned to death in their retreating trucks? It'll be interesting to see the howls of outrage from the Americans [and poodles] if Ukraine withdraws from Bakhmut and the Russians shell their retreating forces.
Taking out one transformer, in a hot country, hours before a full on assault/takeover of a country. A tactical move to win battles.
Vs a long campaign of sending cruise missiles into a variety of power equipment. With no follow-up. Began half a year into a war, just as winter sets, in a very cold country. A strategic move to hurt civilians.
What can you do against a brainwashed and totally unquestioning populace who believe that their country is always in the right? I'ts like trying to argue logic with a Flat-Earther.
Amazing how such an ethical and morally upstanding country has been involved in some kind of war / invasion / conflict / bombimg campaign, continuously since the end of WW2. [0] It must be the rest of the world picking on you all the time.
I marched against the Iraq invasion. America isn't perfect. There's plenty to discuss about that. But.
But you're crusading is doing no one any favors. You are deflecting from a far more malicious war of aggression, with dastardly & vile strategies of causing civilian pain en mass, being pushed at the highest levels of government.
What did America do once we invaded Iraq? We tried to build a functioning safe democracy. We turned the nation over to the people as we said we would. We built tons of infrastructure, a gift from America. We rebuilt transformers time and time again after insurgent attacks. American military interventionist keeps feeling extremely stupid & never goes right, and comes with tragic losses & horrors of war, but the contrast of intent versus the war against Ukraine just cannot be any more razor clear.
>The use by Russia of hard-to-replace Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles at the end of winter would appear to indicate increasing desperation in Moscow.
From what Ive read they were using regular cruise missiles and the Iranian drones to overwhelm, tie up and reveal Ukrainian AA.
Meanwhile, Kinzhals were used to target AA installations specifically, coz they couldn't be shot down.
The ultimate goal being to be able to degrade Ukrainian AA, such that Russia can start using its air force on the front line again with a lesser fear of it being shot down.
It depends who you ask, there are many interpretations:
> The Kremlin likely deliberately launched missiles that Ukrainian air defenses cannot intercept to achieve results within the Russian information space despite the dwindling supplies of such missiles. Ihnat noted that Russia has up to 50 Kinzhal missiles and had used some missiles that it cannot replace. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely used these scarce missiles in fruitless attacks to appease the Russian pro-war and ultranationalist communities, which have overwhelmingly called on him to retaliate for the Bryansk Oblast incident on March 2
I'm kind of suspicious of sources that impute propaganda motives for military tactics.
It's not that it's impossible, it's just that Occam's razor suggests that all other things being equal, military attacks are probably executed for the purposes of achieving military advantage.
I think it's quite reasonable to look at propaganda motives, since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will"/propaganda/strategic communication purposes, there is literally no military tactical value for target like a behind-the-lines power plant, only the demoralizing propaganda effect of the population being without power with the expectation that they might pressure Ukrainian leadership towards whatever Russia wants.
>since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will
I've read many articles that have claimed this but never seen a shred of evidence presented for it ever. It's just assumed. Always.
In fact, a good half of the articles that claimed it and simultaneously explained that it was a terrible tactic that historically has never worked. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for this and I think it is very clearly true. I am equally certain Russia knows this.
So... no evidence + claims of a self defeating stupid tactic suggests to me that they might be blowing up power stations for reasons other than "to break their will".
Everything point to the fact that Russians are very wrong about a lot of their assumptions. What seems stupid to us come straight from their "how to war" textbooks
All military actions are for a political purpose. Sometimes that's long term and sometimes it's short term. Trying to "get a win" to boost morale is quite common. Think Sherman taking Atlanta in time for Lincoln's 1864 election.
You should read their articles, they offer plenty of insights with sources.
You shouldn't view Russia as a unified block, there seem to be a lot of internal drama and politics going on, especially between Wagner and the Russian MoD, Kadyrov &co
Russia loves symbols too: dates, ceremonies, "retaliations", &c. you gotta put a good shows to keep the wheel spinning.
And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? They're not even remotely close to the front
I dont view Russia as a wholly unified bloc (indeed, for personal reasons it would be a sheer impossibility for me to do so), and I'm well aware of prigozhin's trolling. I would find it hard to take that man at his word if he declared that the sky was blue.
I dont think that there is any evidence that either are relevant here though.
>And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ?
To tie up and overwhelm their air defences so that they have to be spread more thinly and can't be concentrated at the front.
I forget the exact numbers but the drones were something like $10k and ended up being shot down by $500k missiles. Indeed it was an economically efficient tactic if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA.
I doubt this was the rationale because (i) they continued to target a lot of civilian infrastructure and (ii) Ukraine continues to have enough AA to turn sorties deep into Ukrainian territory into suicide missions. Russia might be able to perform some real SEAD, it's a very dangerous threat to Ukraine, but this would come at substantially higher costs of losing expensive fighter jets that cannot be replaced for several years. That's the reason why they haven't tried it yet.
If the above thesis is correct and these strikes are about degrading AA, the measure of success is whether the russian airforce starts actually taking a role on the front line (recently it hasn't been much used).
Trying to lob a few ballistic missiles at a couple of AA sites is not an effective route to suppressing any country's air defense system. Instead you want a systematic role back, which is the opposite of what we've seen Russia do.
What you mean is you wish Russia had the ability to coexist with it's neighbors. Your comment seems to indicate both countries are equally to blame for the war. That is not the case.
I didn't talk about blame at all. Sometimes I get the urge to say fair and peaceful statements in very infected topics and watch/listen to the strong reaction.
Canada coexists with the USA, but if Canada has tried to outlaw English and make French the only state language, some different story could materialize.
Maybe not all of Canada, but I can imagine a mutually cooperative transfer of Vancouver to the USA. Vancouver no longer wanting to be in, combined with American desire to enlarge Point Roberts.
No, but what if China started setting up military installations in Canada on the US border with Canada's blessing, or even insinuated that it would? How do you think that would go? Not simping for Russia here, but this is not a simple and straight-forward issue.
> No, but what if China started setting up military installations in Canada on the US border with Canada's blessing, or even insinuated that it would?
This is a dumb Russian PR narrative. Until 2014, the presence of US military in Europe was decreasing and European countries were dismantling their Cold War stocks too. For example, last American tanks left Europe in 2013[1], and Germany went from 3800 tanks in 1980s to 200 today[2].
While that sounds super informed and non-biased, let's pretend for a minute that it isn't the amount of military stocks (since everyone uses missiles and drones now anyway) but the location. So let me re-phrase the question. Do you think the US would be super-cool with China putting a military base with one single missle close to us? Let's not pretend that NATO wasn't founded to take down the Soviet Union (and mostly succeded!). So, while I would be the first to admit that Putin prob. has some ulterior motives, it isn't fantasy. Also, we have absolutely destroyed countries for "acting a little too communist-y" in our hemisphere before, so it isn't like this sort of thing can't realistically make people nervous. Again, not defending Russia, but everyone pretending that this is just "super crazy evil guy doing Hitler things out of the blue" is really sophomoric.
> Do you think the US would be super-cool with China putting a military base with one single missle close to us?
I think that these super-duper clever questions insinuating missiles and bases in Eastern Europe are also dumb and misleading. In the founding act on NATO-Russian relations, it was agreed upon that no-one would place strategic weapons in Eastern Europe, and NATO upheld its part. Placement of conventional forces has also been modest to put it mildly, limited to a small number of light infantry, for training purposes. Things only began to change after 2014. You can guess why.
When modern warfare is missiles and drones you don't need conventional forces, you just need the base ... right? Also, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find it interesting that every subject on Earth seems to have two sides to the story except this one, apparently.
Russia wants to push the narrative that the war is about NATO or Ukrainian nazis or helping suppressed Russians or whatever they're claiming today. The truth is they started the war in 2014 when the Ukrainian people made it clear they wanted to get closer to the EU and further from Russia. Putin wants his empire, he mourns the dissolution of Soviet and calls it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". He published a weird manifesto about Ukraine in 2021 about how Ukraine isn't a real country without Russia. He can't stand the thought of a free Ukraine that's part of the European community, it has nothing to do with NATO expansion.
As further proof of this he has said that he's not concerned about Sweden and Finland joining NATO after their applications, even though Russia threatened both countries with military actions previously. And you also have to remember why these countries in eastern Europe are part of NATO: to protect themselves against Russian aggression. The Baltic states remember clearly what it was like to be invaded by Russia, as do Poland.
Russia is not some innocent victim being attacked from all sides like they want to paint themselves out to be. They're imperialists and in their own official propaganda they claim to be saviours against the decadent west. Lavrov called gender neutral bathrooms dehumanizing for instance.
>Russia is not some innocent victim being attacked from all sides like they want to paint themselves out to be.
Never said they were ... but that was literally the point of NATO, right? My main point is that this is nuanced. It is not just a one-sided story of maniacal Put-ler ravaging Europe in a bloodthirsty quest of destruction. Again, the US is (generally) considered the "good guys" and look at the shit we are capable of to maintain our influence in the Western hemisphere. And it isn't like Russia is a crippled country on its last gasps of air, it has more nukes than anyone on Earth and that alone means that this shit in Ukraine will only ever be the US feeding Ukrainian soldiers into the meat-grinder and trying to turn Oligarchs salty to prove a point. There will never be a "real win", which would entail an invasion of Russia or giving Ukraine serious weapons to attack Russia with. The very best, pie-in-the-sky that Ukraine can hope for is for Russia to leave a shit-ton of dead Ukrainians when they decide to leave the country. It is a very fucked situation.
What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree, as far as I know the treaty doesn't say anything about attacking others, only about defending everyone that has signed the treaty if they get attacked. But I'm not part of NATO or very knowledgeable, maybe I'm wrong?
My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO.
USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago, and they have asked for and received support from other countries sympathetic to the idea that invading countries to take their land by force is undemocratic, illegal, immoral, and worth defending against.
Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed.
Nobody in Crimea (and also very few people in e.g. Donetsk) has asked for Ukrainian state to return, but there it goes with Zelensky promising liberation (a.k.a. military invasion) to Crimea.
So Russia now contains the war on not-quite-its turf to avoid the war on the turf it considers integral.
What would you expect any national leader to say if their territory was invaded? And what about the rest of Ukraine, was the people in Kiev asking to be liberated by the Russian army last year?
Russia is currently containing the war on not-at-all-its turf to stall while they're deporting or killing unfriendlies on their illegally annexed territory.
>What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree
No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked!
>My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO.
All of this is Russia big-dicking its influence in that area. Just as I said before.
>USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago
Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war)
>Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong.
How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then?
>I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed.
I agree it is fucked. I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. These have been thought out. And there is no innocent country on Earth. That is propaganda as well.
Russia is doing two things from my perspective. First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.
> No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked!
It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany.
> Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war)
And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription?
> How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then?
Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth.
> I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly.
I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy.
> And there is no innocent country on Earth.
Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day.
> First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost.
NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead.
> Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.
Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.
Well you are all over the place here. I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not.
>It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion.NATO has never attacked Russia
correct and correct, never said they did.
>and the economic downfall was of their own doing.
well, now that isn't quite correct is it? We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. No one was or is ever going to full on attack Russia when it can end most of the Earth.
>do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine?
From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no!
>You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth.
Were those not already in place?
>Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy.
I mean, I agree with you, however I am curious of a war where this did not happen? The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people?
>Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day.
No it doesn't. But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen (from the perspective of the one getting BTFO'd, not the one winning, they always think they are righteous.)
> I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not.
I live within range of Russia's Iskander missiles and see reports from the war each day. Russia is the local bully that everyone's afraid of. Our military basically exists for one reason, to stop a Russian invasion.
> We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO.
Speaking of being all over the place, is this in any way relevant to the current war? Russia has been given lots of chances of integrating their economy with the rest of the world since the fall of Soviet, they're not acting out of economic necessity.
> From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no!
Then what were their column on their way to Kiev doing? They can call it whatever they want, nobody makes it illegal to call it a war if they don't actually think it's a war.
> Were those not already in place?
No, only a small part of the current sanctions were in place before the full scale invasion, and plenty of western companies has since withdrawn from the Russian market. As for the security guarantees, I'm not aware of any except the Budapest memorandum, which didn't really work out that well.
> The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people?
I've never seen anyone celebrate the destruction of entire cities in a modern war where precision weapons where available. I'm sure Ukraine has made all kinds of strikes, but I don't consider them the same since they're the ones defending themselves. They've made a few excursions into Russia with helicopters and drones, I don't think I've seen any reports of a single civilian casualty from those. Meanwhile there were bodies of executed civilians lying on the streets and buried in shallow mass graves after Russian troops left certain places.
> But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen
That's just proving my point IMO. Wars are horrible, and Russia are the ones that started this one. Russia can end it whenever they want, but they don't want to, so they're responsible for all the misery happening in both their neighboring country and their own right now. And the rest of us don't want war to succeed. Russia understands one thing, and that is power. They look down on what they consider to be weakness, and consider themselves to be better than others. Russian propaganda calls this a culture war against western ideas, Putin actually mentioned trans people in one of his speeches about this war that supposedly is about NATO.
“You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
>From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no! (Russia has invaded not Ukraine)
This is some premium-quality BS right here. You're mistaking disinformation for a sincerely held perspective. But as pointed out, when the armoured columns are over the border and halfway to Kiev, then you can't really pretend that it's not an invasion, and expect to be believed. We're not buying it, and you should be ashamed of trying to sell it.
I'm going to take your argument as a sincere argument and not an ad hominem attack that is sounds like. I can tell from your comment that you have a specific perspective on this. I can assure you that I do not. But, if you asked someone high up in the Russian military do you think they would tell you that they invaded Ukraine? I am going to suggest they might say that they read the writing on the wall and sent early armaments to protect themselves. I understand that you would think this is a lie. But, I am just saying from their perspective they would say they have done nothing wrong and are protecting themselves. Ukraine, would say they were minding their own business and Russia attacked them after multiple threats for no reason. That is not to say I think Russia is telling the truth. Just that from their perspective they are not doing anything wrong. And as a side note, even if you are passionate about a subject it is a more powerful argument to attack the idea, not the person. That is childish ... although I will admit it used daily for political arguments in the US.
Thank you for that large helping of word salad. My advice to you is to learn to think and write clearly, call out BS when you hear it, and not interpret that as "ad hominem attack".
I don't know what you mean "by specific perspective" that I have whereas you pretend objectivity. But, being neutral in situations of injustice is not "objectivity", it is choosing the side of the oppressor.
As to the idea Russia would say "they have done nothing wrong and are protecting themselves" well, they would say that, wouldn't they? You do not have to take it at face value after the facts on the ground clash with it.
The idea that Russia had to do it (send troops across the border) to protect themselves is nonsense, not even logically consistent with what you said before: "It didn't happen, and you made me do it." It's the logic of a narcistic abuser. A full-scale invasion clearly happened and is ongoing.
You repeat "from their perspective they are not doing anything wrong" without addressing that this is not a factual perspective, it is a disinformation.
I never said and Ukraine will not say ,that Russia attacked "for no reason", just that the reasons are selfish, greedy, cruel, undemocratic and intolerant; and not as you present them.
Well, try and say it simply without dressing it up, e.g. "BS, Russia did not invade Ukraine, and Ukraine made them do it" and see just how delusional it sounds.
More historically apt US had plans to annex British Canada when Canada was British proxy that threatened US security. Canada only coexisted with US when Britain conceded influence over Canada which was forced to become geopolitically aligned to US. Extrapolate to RU/URK, PRC/TW. Big countries want their neighbours either aligned or toothless buffer states.
Kinzhal cost $2 million USD per missile and Russia supposedly hit a private home with one. Even Iskander missiles cost about the same. It may be an error in reporting it may have been "standard" cruise missile. But even so for a modern military what a stupid waste of now limited resources.
Cost is relative. If Kinzhals and Iskander only cost $2 million a country like Russia would have been able to produce many more of them.
The low prices that Russia cites for its military equipment is propaganda to push the narrative that they can figh and win wars more effectively than the West. The prices that are listed for their tanks are often the subsidized per unit price of a handful tanks given to some African war lord.
According to Ukraine they destroyed a private home.
According to Russia one kinzhal vaporized a NATO secret operations base, even killing US officers.
Both or neither could be true. In this conflict neither side will even admit to how many of their own troops have died. The fog of war is really thick.
While nothing is for sure, I'll grant the claims by Ukraine a lot more credence than those by Russia. Russia has a terrible track record when it comes to the truth.
Destroying civilian infrastructure is a valid strategy according to the russian doctrine. Focusing on ordinary apartments, though is just a waste of missiles after 1 year of war without the shock factor anymore. Unfortunately, they acquired iranian drones purposely for the civilian housing.
117 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] threadRussia is losing "phase" after "phase" of the conflict until all the Ukrainian cemeteries will be filled with men aged 20 to 65. I hate Atlanticist propaganda.
That doesn't make it "not a defeat" for Russia unless the initial ambitions of Russia are achieved (And let's face it, they won't be). It's a very expensive victory for Ukraine and an even more expensive defeat for Russia.
They lost insane amount of men and equipment and aren't anywhere close to their initial objective, and they seem to struggle much more than Ukrainians in term of replenishing ammo and equipment
They're not losing the war but they're clearly struggling much more than they ever expected
Ukraine will never be "at the gates of Moscow" because they aren't trying to invade Russia.
This issue will be in the end again decided by power.
Anyway, I think the chance that Ukraine would continue beyond their internationally recognized borders is close to zero.
I'm not even sure what is their chance of regaining anything at all.
Who knows how this will end up, it's still very open. In WW1, Russia collapsed after about 3 years of war, in Afghanistan it took them about 10 years to retreat (and subsequently collapse).
Russia occupying Kyiv is possible, but rather unlikely. I think it's less likely than a Russian collapse.
1. we'll come in and replace you're idiot government goons with our idiot government goons.
2. we'll come in and punish/kill all the people you don't like.
3. we'll come in and clean things up; maybe have to kill some of people too. Sorry, but it'll be worth it after we finish!
4. looks like we were actually going to come in and kill lots of people indiscriminately, take lots of stuff and your children too. If you don't like it you know where to send a complaint.
5. yeah, we're actually just going to kill everyone here and start over, even the ones who look like they're cooperating. That's actually always been the plan; thanks for your help.
The people of Ukraine seem to know the stakes, and have for a while. In fact, it seems like most of the "ex soviet sphere of influence" countries are aware of what goes on in lubyanka.
In a democracy (to some extent) the government serves the people; in an autocracy the people and everything else in the country exist only to execute and glorify the whims of the leader.
Don't believe Kremlin propaganda, if there's one thing you can trust about Russian diplomats it's that they lie, even when they know that you know they're lying. It's been well known for decades. It's official doctrine and is called maskirovka.
What did the Russians claim? Do you even know? Why are you asking me these questions?
btw, the mask off moment was in 2014, when “polite men” occupied crimea
Fuck Russia, at any rate.
Compare it to how West bombed everything in Iraq before invasion...
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.5.htm#_ftnref99
----
----Oh, wait. That's "whataboutism" isn't it? That handy defence which means you're not allowed to point that the accuser has committed exactly the same crimes as the accused.
What accuser?
Neither the Economist nor the commenter to which you replied is the United States of America.
I think.
Maybe the commenter is the literal United States of America?
edit: Your spelling of "defense" and the person to which you replied's comment history seems to indicate that a non-American is accusing a non-American of being an American.
How droll.
Love the downvotes by the way. If only downvoting a fact you don't want to hear could somehow make it not true any more!
I also didnt mention the US's strafing of the retreating Iraqui army during the Gulf War either [0]. Who can forget the photos of the destroyed columns of vehicles, heading back to Iraq and the soldiers burned to death in their retreating trucks? It'll be interesting to see the howls of outrage from the Americans [and poodles] if Ukraine withdraws from Bakhmut and the Russians shell their retreating forces.
Talk about pots and kettles!
[0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/highway-death-in-pictures-1...
[0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/dont-photograph-people-like...
Vs a long campaign of sending cruise missiles into a variety of power equipment. With no follow-up. Began half a year into a war, just as winter sets, in a very cold country. A strategic move to hurt civilians.
What can you do against a brainwashed and totally unquestioning populace who believe that their country is always in the right? I'ts like trying to argue logic with a Flat-Earther.
Amazing how such an ethical and morally upstanding country has been involved in some kind of war / invasion / conflict / bombimg campaign, continuously since the end of WW2. [0] It must be the rest of the world picking on you all the time.
[0] https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/u-s-launch...
[0] https://archive.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024...
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
[0] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-07/Graphics-Major-U-S-mil...
[0] https://sites.evergreen.edu/zoltan/interventions/
I marched against the Iraq invasion. America isn't perfect. There's plenty to discuss about that. But.
But you're crusading is doing no one any favors. You are deflecting from a far more malicious war of aggression, with dastardly & vile strategies of causing civilian pain en mass, being pushed at the highest levels of government.
What did America do once we invaded Iraq? We tried to build a functioning safe democracy. We turned the nation over to the people as we said we would. We built tons of infrastructure, a gift from America. We rebuilt transformers time and time again after insurgent attacks. American military interventionist keeps feeling extremely stupid & never goes right, and comes with tragic losses & horrors of war, but the contrast of intent versus the war against Ukraine just cannot be any more razor clear.
From what Ive read they were using regular cruise missiles and the Iranian drones to overwhelm, tie up and reveal Ukrainian AA.
Meanwhile, Kinzhals were used to target AA installations specifically, coz they couldn't be shot down.
The ultimate goal being to be able to degrade Ukrainian AA, such that Russia can start using its air force on the front line again with a lesser fear of it being shot down.
> The Kremlin likely deliberately launched missiles that Ukrainian air defenses cannot intercept to achieve results within the Russian information space despite the dwindling supplies of such missiles. Ihnat noted that Russia has up to 50 Kinzhal missiles and had used some missiles that it cannot replace. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely used these scarce missiles in fruitless attacks to appease the Russian pro-war and ultranationalist communities, which have overwhelmingly called on him to retaliate for the Bryansk Oblast incident on March 2
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens...
It's not that it's impossible, it's just that Occam's razor suggests that all other things being equal, military attacks are probably executed for the purposes of achieving military advantage.
I've read many articles that have claimed this but never seen a shred of evidence presented for it ever. It's just assumed. Always.
In fact, a good half of the articles that claimed it and simultaneously explained that it was a terrible tactic that historically has never worked. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for this and I think it is very clearly true. I am equally certain Russia knows this.
So... no evidence + claims of a self defeating stupid tactic suggests to me that they might be blowing up power stations for reasons other than "to break their will".
You shouldn't view Russia as a unified block, there seem to be a lot of internal drama and politics going on, especially between Wagner and the Russian MoD, Kadyrov &co
Russia loves symbols too: dates, ceremonies, "retaliations", &c. you gotta put a good shows to keep the wheel spinning.
And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? They're not even remotely close to the front
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/01/putins-russian-critics-...
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-can-wagner-head-yevgeny-prigozh...
I dont think that there is any evidence that either are relevant here though.
>And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ?
To tie up and overwhelm their air defences so that they have to be spread more thinly and can't be concentrated at the front.
I forget the exact numbers but the drones were something like $10k and ended up being shot down by $500k missiles. Indeed it was an economically efficient tactic if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA.
Why would you degrade Kyiv AA if you can't even take Bakhmut ? It's not like Kyiv AA will stop the Russian current operations 700km away
AA deployed in Kiev is AA not deployed in Bakhmut.
It parallels the way that NATO took out Serbia's power grid in 1999 before executing their bombing campaign, probably for similar reasons (AA): https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans...
If the above thesis is correct and these strikes are about degrading AA, the measure of success is whether the russian airforce starts actually taking a role on the front line (recently it hasn't been much used).
This is a dumb Russian PR narrative. Until 2014, the presence of US military in Europe was decreasing and European countries were dismantling their Cold War stocks too. For example, last American tanks left Europe in 2013[1], and Germany went from 3800 tanks in 1980s to 200 today[2].
[1] https://www.stripes.com/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-ger...
[2] https://www.fpri.org/2015/03/bundeswehr-2-0-a-german-militar...
While that sounds super informed and non-biased, let's pretend for a minute that it isn't the amount of military stocks (since everyone uses missiles and drones now anyway) but the location. So let me re-phrase the question. Do you think the US would be super-cool with China putting a military base with one single missle close to us? Let's not pretend that NATO wasn't founded to take down the Soviet Union (and mostly succeded!). So, while I would be the first to admit that Putin prob. has some ulterior motives, it isn't fantasy. Also, we have absolutely destroyed countries for "acting a little too communist-y" in our hemisphere before, so it isn't like this sort of thing can't realistically make people nervous. Again, not defending Russia, but everyone pretending that this is just "super crazy evil guy doing Hitler things out of the blue" is really sophomoric.
I think that these super-duper clever questions insinuating missiles and bases in Eastern Europe are also dumb and misleading. In the founding act on NATO-Russian relations, it was agreed upon that no-one would place strategic weapons in Eastern Europe, and NATO upheld its part. Placement of conventional forces has also been modest to put it mildly, limited to a small number of light infantry, for training purposes. Things only began to change after 2014. You can guess why.
As to one-sidedness, murdering innocent people tends to be morally pretty one-sided indeed.
As further proof of this he has said that he's not concerned about Sweden and Finland joining NATO after their applications, even though Russia threatened both countries with military actions previously. And you also have to remember why these countries in eastern Europe are part of NATO: to protect themselves against Russian aggression. The Baltic states remember clearly what it was like to be invaded by Russia, as do Poland.
Russia is not some innocent victim being attacked from all sides like they want to paint themselves out to be. They're imperialists and in their own official propaganda they claim to be saviours against the decadent west. Lavrov called gender neutral bathrooms dehumanizing for instance.
Never said they were ... but that was literally the point of NATO, right? My main point is that this is nuanced. It is not just a one-sided story of maniacal Put-ler ravaging Europe in a bloodthirsty quest of destruction. Again, the US is (generally) considered the "good guys" and look at the shit we are capable of to maintain our influence in the Western hemisphere. And it isn't like Russia is a crippled country on its last gasps of air, it has more nukes than anyone on Earth and that alone means that this shit in Ukraine will only ever be the US feeding Ukrainian soldiers into the meat-grinder and trying to turn Oligarchs salty to prove a point. There will never be a "real win", which would entail an invasion of Russia or giving Ukraine serious weapons to attack Russia with. The very best, pie-in-the-sky that Ukraine can hope for is for Russia to leave a shit-ton of dead Ukrainians when they decide to leave the country. It is a very fucked situation.
My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO.
USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago, and they have asked for and received support from other countries sympathetic to the idea that invading countries to take their land by force is undemocratic, illegal, immoral, and worth defending against.
Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed.
So Russia now contains the war on not-quite-its turf to avoid the war on the turf it considers integral.
Russia is currently containing the war on not-at-all-its turf to stall while they're deporting or killing unfriendlies on their illegally annexed territory.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/ukraine-russi...
No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked!
>My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO.
All of this is Russia big-dicking its influence in that area. Just as I said before.
>USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago
Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war)
>Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong.
How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then?
>I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed.
I agree it is fucked. I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. These have been thought out. And there is no innocent country on Earth. That is propaganda as well.
Russia is doing two things from my perspective. First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.
It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany.
> Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war)
And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription?
> How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then?
Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth.
> I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly.
I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy.
> And there is no innocent country on Earth.
Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day.
> First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost.
NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead.
> Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.
Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.
>It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion.NATO has never attacked Russia
correct and correct, never said they did.
>and the economic downfall was of their own doing.
well, now that isn't quite correct is it? We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. No one was or is ever going to full on attack Russia when it can end most of the Earth.
>do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine?
From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no!
>You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth.
Were those not already in place?
>Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy.
I mean, I agree with you, however I am curious of a war where this did not happen? The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people?
>Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day.
No it doesn't. But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen (from the perspective of the one getting BTFO'd, not the one winning, they always think they are righteous.)
I live within range of Russia's Iskander missiles and see reports from the war each day. Russia is the local bully that everyone's afraid of. Our military basically exists for one reason, to stop a Russian invasion.
> We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO.
Speaking of being all over the place, is this in any way relevant to the current war? Russia has been given lots of chances of integrating their economy with the rest of the world since the fall of Soviet, they're not acting out of economic necessity.
> From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no!
Then what were their column on their way to Kiev doing? They can call it whatever they want, nobody makes it illegal to call it a war if they don't actually think it's a war.
> Were those not already in place?
No, only a small part of the current sanctions were in place before the full scale invasion, and plenty of western companies has since withdrawn from the Russian market. As for the security guarantees, I'm not aware of any except the Budapest memorandum, which didn't really work out that well.
> The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people?
I've never seen anyone celebrate the destruction of entire cities in a modern war where precision weapons where available. I'm sure Ukraine has made all kinds of strikes, but I don't consider them the same since they're the ones defending themselves. They've made a few excursions into Russia with helicopters and drones, I don't think I've seen any reports of a single civilian casualty from those. Meanwhile there were bodies of executed civilians lying on the streets and buried in shallow mass graves after Russian troops left certain places.
> But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen
That's just proving my point IMO. Wars are horrible, and Russia are the ones that started this one. Russia can end it whenever they want, but they don't want to, so they're responsible for all the misery happening in both their neighboring country and their own right now. And the rest of us don't want war to succeed. Russia understands one thing, and that is power. They look down on what they consider to be weakness, and consider themselves to be better than others. Russian propaganda calls this a culture war against western ideas, Putin actually mentioned trans people in one of his speeches about this war that supposedly is about NATO.
“You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
This is some premium-quality BS right here. You're mistaking disinformation for a sincerely held perspective. But as pointed out, when the armoured columns are over the border and halfway to Kiev, then you can't really pretend that it's not an invasion, and expect to be believed. We're not buying it, and you should be ashamed of trying to sell it.
I don't know what you mean "by specific perspective" that I have whereas you pretend objectivity. But, being neutral in situations of injustice is not "objectivity", it is choosing the side of the oppressor.
As to the idea Russia would say "they have done nothing wrong and are protecting themselves" well, they would say that, wouldn't they? You do not have to take it at face value after the facts on the ground clash with it.
The idea that Russia had to do it (send troops across the border) to protect themselves is nonsense, not even logically consistent with what you said before: "It didn't happen, and you made me do it." It's the logic of a narcistic abuser. A full-scale invasion clearly happened and is ongoing.
You repeat "from their perspective they are not doing anything wrong" without addressing that this is not a factual perspective, it is a disinformation.
I never said and Ukraine will not say ,that Russia attacked "for no reason", just that the reasons are selfish, greedy, cruel, undemocratic and intolerant; and not as you present them.
I think I just did, no?
The low prices that Russia cites for its military equipment is propaganda to push the narrative that they can figh and win wars more effectively than the West. The prices that are listed for their tanks are often the subsidized per unit price of a handful tanks given to some African war lord.
According to Russia one kinzhal vaporized a NATO secret operations base, even killing US officers.
Both or neither could be true. In this conflict neither side will even admit to how many of their own troops have died. The fog of war is really thick.