The guardian is Western media. You posted a link to an article which undermines your thesis.
All wars have significant issues with fraud. If you think this is worse than any other consider the war budget.
Economics says that Ukraine is not doing as badly as you project. Their supply chains are robust. Russia on the other hand is a basket case. I agree victory is illusive, but to cast the war as lost, is I think hyperbole. The USA withdrawal is not insignificant and it can be said this is a war by proxy between nuclear superpowers. Something Putin is fond of saying. European views on this differ.
The anti war sentiment rather diluted out. There's a lot of global warfare, Putin has a hand in much of it. Perhaps when we have one war to fight, anti war left sentiment can coalesce but right now it has it's hands full in the middle east.
"The Pandora papers do not indicate whether any dividends were ever paid or their size."
"Nor do they reveal how many payments might have been made."
"One reason for setting up Maltex was “tax-efficient accumulation of business profits”;"
This all sounds like a nothingburger. It is most likely the local equivalent of creative Hollywood accounting.
This kind of rhetoric is the equivalent of saying that someone doesn't deserve saving form the local mafia because they're a criminal too -- after all, they ran a red light once and claimed a few things on their tax return they likely shouldn't have.
> Zelensky has made statements that indicates he wants the war to go on forever
No, he wants security guarantees. Without them, putin will attack again and war will go on forever. He wants security guarantees because that is the only way to ensure peace. So much so that he offered to step down in exchange to join NATO.
Why do you suggest a side that is undoubtedly winning forget about their hundreds of thousands dead and simply withdraw?
It's like saying the US should've surrendered to Japan after the first bomb.
Japan knew they were in an unwinnable position, unlike Ukraine.
Ukraine is simply unable to win, and the options are only to negotiate or to continue feeding the meat grinder with Ukrainian men and women. Simple choice.
There's nothing to be gained by allowing one corrupt regime to battle another corrupt regime, explicitly promising to never negotiate an end to the fighting and guaranteeing millions more Ukrainian men and women get maimed and shredded by the war machine.
Accepting forever war is evil and you are supporting the thousands more Ukrainians who will be killed.
Zelensky has repeatedly and explicitly stated he supports forever war 'at any cost'.
> There's nothing to be gained by allowing one corrupt regime to battle another corrupt regime
This is the least ambiguous war you're ever likely to see. There is clear right and there is clear wrong.
Ukraine is clearly in the right. Russia is clearly in the wrong.
Submission to the aggression of an authoritarian regime that has invaded your nation is the dumbest, most nihilistic, most futureless choice available.
Russia attacked Ukraine. They do not deserve to get any land unless the US wants to now signal "if you have the bigger military, just go and try to take land, you might just get it".
So if you want to give Trump a short polticial win, cool. But if you want to stop future wars trying to force the smaller and innocent nation into a peace at any cost has some historic precedent. Do you know which historic prrcedent I might be talking about and what happened after?
The long lasting peace we had was a result of a rules based order. Trump and Putin wants to bring back raw strength into geopolitics, which will lead to an era of wars.
The reason people fret over this war is not because they care for the poor people of Ukraine. They (we, Europeans) care because we have the Huns at the gate. Ukraine happens to be the gate.
The idea that Europeans are concerned about Russian expansionism is fanciful. Germany is addicted to Russian gas and has funneled billions to the regime, building up their military for decades.
Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if Europe had built up its own military at the same time. They didn't. World War II ended 80 years ago and Europe is still expecting the US to pick up the defense bill, despite an economic machine worth trillions.
Europe are at least as guilty as the United States in creating this problem. They bankrolled Russia and refused to spend on arms.
The blame for Russian aggression lies with Russia.
Europe collectively spends far more on defence than Russia does.
European nations, between them, are close to parity with the US for military tech.
European nations' soldiers are fed, paid, and equipped. Russia's are not.
The abject state of the Russian army is why they failed to roll into Kyiv on day three, and why they are now bombing civilian infrastructure that they then planned to own and operate.
Clearly, Germany can import a lot more Russian gas before Russia develops martial prowess. (Not that they should.)
Russia's air superiority is disputed by a few squadrons of F-16s, and their navy is conducting operations on the sea bed. Britain and France both have carriers. Any coalition including Britain and France would absolutely merk Russia in a defensive war.
I guess Musk’s reason for not wearing a suit is because he’s got fuck you money, and also because he has to keep up the tech bro appearance, for Tesla be valued like a car company otherwise.
> -Had Zelensky have agreed to end the war at the Istanbul meetings of April 2022, the war could have ended after only two months, and eventually Russian troops would have fully withdrawn back to the pre-war lines.
> If Zelensky tries to prevent Trump from reaching an end-of-war deal with Putin, the Russian army is likely to keep fighting until it takes by force of arms what Putin thinks he needs to secure his western border.
Which one is it?
How can Russia be, in the same analysis, a country fighting for survival, that would surely withdraw from this fight for survival if papers to that effect were signed, and capable of overrunning a whole sovereign nation out of spite?
This analysis is at best a mash up of Kremlin's talking points and wishful thinking. How can nations seeking protection against an imperialistic, bloodthirsty country that has shown repeatedly it will commit war crimes on a massive scale in the name of securing more geopolitical power be declared in the end culpable for that aggression on the basis of seeking protection against it?
No one had any problems with Zelensky's "attitude" until Trump told them to, and his followers turned on a dime as usual to comply with the new decree.
Or rather, the western media was so full of anti-Russian / pro-Ukranian propaganda that most of you are just ignorant of the other side of the debate.
If you turn off your political biases and zeal, and read the article again, you will realise that the author is actually talking Realpolitik that is in the interest of the Ukraine. It's all good and well to shout out about right and wrong, good and evil in politics, but is it morally defensible asking the Ukranians to fight the "good fight" on your behalf, as long as you personally don't suffer the consequences for it?
Let us ignore superpower politics, and, for the sake of this argument, believe that the west is supporting Ukraine in good-faith. The west trained Ukrainian soldiers and armed them to resist the Russian invasion. That was a positive step. The Ukranians are fighting bravely. They had some initial success too. Great. That was 2+ years ago. What has happened since? Is Ukraine winning the war? The answer is no - one counter-offensive it launched has already failed. Till date, Ukraine has lost around 20% of its territory and more than 100,000+ soldiers. It is continuing to lose territory and soldiers. The simple fact is that Ukraine's military is losing because it is no match against Russia's larger military.
The military arithmetic is simple - what Ukraine needs today is not just more arms, but most importantly more soldiers. Is any western country willing to commit soldiers today, to fight alongside the Ukranians? The hard truth is no. And yet, the west (currently EU only) wants Ukraine to keep fighting. That's not some speculative opinion. This is what Germany's intelligent chief recently said: - Ukraine needs to fight the Russians till 2030 - https://nordot.app/1271064963068608531 !! Wow!
Please tell me - How much more territory should Ukraine lose, and how many more Ukranians need to die, till you accept the reality that Ukraine cannot win alone against Russia?
(The stark reality of the matter is that those of you asking Ukraine to fight Russia alone, to the last Ukranian, are nothing but cowards.)
Oh boo fucking hoo, the west got involved in politics in Russia's sphere of influence. Russia would never stoop so low. But if it did, we should probably kill 100,000 people, eh?
The author has no thought about self-determination or self-defense. He or she argues that Ukraine deserves to be invaded for having the temerity to try to escape.
You think DV is fair when your bitches get uppity? Was dinner late, did your wife sass you? Fucking cunt (whump) I'll teach you (whump) to entertain thoughts of (whump) joining Nato...
I hope that author ends up twitching in a pool of blood and teeth, killed by someone bigger and stronger, probably over a parking spot. A social-darwinist adventure.
Ukraine has lost around 20% of its territory and more than 100,000+ soldiers. How much more territory should Ukraine lose, and how many more Ukranians need to die, till you accept the reality that Ukraine cannot win alone against Russia?
None of you in the west are willing to send your soldiers to Ukraine to fight alongside them because most of you would rather be keyboard warriors here, than actually fight Russians in battle. That is why you ask Ukraine to fight Russia, till the last Ukranian. It's cowardice and nothing else. Recently the German intelligence chief said that Ukraine needs to fight the Russians till 2030!! ( https://nordot.app/1271064963068608531 ).
When Yulia Tymoshenko, an opposition member in Ukrane heard this, she too realised that none of you in Europe have any genuine concern about the future of Ukraine. She wrote on her Facebook:
IF THE WAR IN UKRAINE ENDS BEFORE 2030, RUSSIA MAY USE ITS RESOURCES FOR AGGRESSION AGAINST EUROPE EARLIER THAN EXPECTED. This sensational statement was made today by the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, who for the first time officially confirmed what we so did not want to believe. At the cost of the very existence of Ukraine and at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, someone decided to pay for the "exhaustion" of Russia for the sake of security in Europe? I didn't think that they would dare to say this so officially and openly… That explains a lot… I believe that the Verkhovna Rada is obliged to respond immediately. We are initiating such a step. THE WAR MUST END IMMEDIATELY ON THE MOST JUST TERMS! (Translation, original in Ukranian).
30 comments
[ 0.79 ms ] story [ 851 ms ] threadAll wars have significant issues with fraud. If you think this is worse than any other consider the war budget.
Economics says that Ukraine is not doing as badly as you project. Their supply chains are robust. Russia on the other hand is a basket case. I agree victory is illusive, but to cast the war as lost, is I think hyperbole. The USA withdrawal is not insignificant and it can be said this is a war by proxy between nuclear superpowers. Something Putin is fond of saying. European views on this differ.
The anti war sentiment rather diluted out. There's a lot of global warfare, Putin has a hand in much of it. Perhaps when we have one war to fight, anti war left sentiment can coalesce but right now it has it's hands full in the middle east.
"The Pandora papers do not indicate whether any dividends were ever paid or their size."
"Nor do they reveal how many payments might have been made."
"One reason for setting up Maltex was “tax-efficient accumulation of business profits”;"
This all sounds like a nothingburger. It is most likely the local equivalent of creative Hollywood accounting.
This kind of rhetoric is the equivalent of saying that someone doesn't deserve saving form the local mafia because they're a criminal too -- after all, they ran a red light once and claimed a few things on their tax return they likely shouldn't have.
No, he wants security guarantees. Without them, putin will attack again and war will go on forever. He wants security guarantees because that is the only way to ensure peace. So much so that he offered to step down in exchange to join NATO.
There's a simple solution to that. The war can end tomorrow. All Russia needs to do is get out of Ukraine. All of it.
Simple to do, easy to achieve. No more Russians need to die.
What cost is there to Russia to get out of Ukraine but the bruising of Putin's ego? That is a small price to pay.
It's like saying the US should've surrendered to Japan after the first bomb.
Japan knew they were in an unwinnable position, unlike Ukraine.
Ukraine is simply unable to win, and the options are only to negotiate or to continue feeding the meat grinder with Ukrainian men and women. Simple choice.
Why do you suggest that a side that has valiantly resisted the invader forget about their hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded and simply submit?
Putin thinks Ukraine is not a real country. Putin thinks Ukrainians are not a real people. Putin thought he could flip Ukraine in three days.
Ukraine has spent three years explaining to him that he is wrong.
Russian apathy and nihilism won't ever change that.
Accepting forever war is evil and you are supporting the thousands more Ukrainians who will be killed.
Zelensky has repeatedly and explicitly stated he supports forever war 'at any cost'.
This is the least ambiguous war you're ever likely to see. There is clear right and there is clear wrong.
Ukraine is clearly in the right. Russia is clearly in the wrong.
Submission to the aggression of an authoritarian regime that has invaded your nation is the dumbest, most nihilistic, most futureless choice available.
It's not rational to choose it.
This is enturely the point the FUD is in overtime. Russia does not have 1 year of equipment losses left.
They can replenish easily, while US supply chains will take 5-7 years to even replenish the equipment already deployed in several categories.
Russian gains are accelerating too. It doesn't take a Putin shill to see blatant reality, so why bother denying basic reality?
Analysts believe Ukraine will collapse completely in 4 months without further US assistance. [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/world/americas/ukraine-us...
So if you want to give Trump a short polticial win, cool. But if you want to stop future wars trying to force the smaller and innocent nation into a peace at any cost has some historic precedent. Do you know which historic prrcedent I might be talking about and what happened after?
The long lasting peace we had was a result of a rules based order. Trump and Putin wants to bring back raw strength into geopolitics, which will lead to an era of wars.
Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if Europe had built up its own military at the same time. They didn't. World War II ended 80 years ago and Europe is still expecting the US to pick up the defense bill, despite an economic machine worth trillions.
Europe are at least as guilty as the United States in creating this problem. They bankrolled Russia and refused to spend on arms.
Europe collectively spends far more on defence than Russia does.
European nations, between them, are close to parity with the US for military tech.
European nations' soldiers are fed, paid, and equipped. Russia's are not.
The abject state of the Russian army is why they failed to roll into Kyiv on day three, and why they are now bombing civilian infrastructure that they then planned to own and operate.
Clearly, Germany can import a lot more Russian gas before Russia develops martial prowess. (Not that they should.)
Russia's air superiority is disputed by a few squadrons of F-16s, and their navy is conducting operations on the sea bed. Britain and France both have carriers. Any coalition including Britain and France would absolutely merk Russia in a defensive war.
The real question was why the edgy, free speech, new media "organisations" invited to the WH don't have the balls to ask?
> If Zelensky tries to prevent Trump from reaching an end-of-war deal with Putin, the Russian army is likely to keep fighting until it takes by force of arms what Putin thinks he needs to secure his western border.
Which one is it?
How can Russia be, in the same analysis, a country fighting for survival, that would surely withdraw from this fight for survival if papers to that effect were signed, and capable of overrunning a whole sovereign nation out of spite?
This analysis is at best a mash up of Kremlin's talking points and wishful thinking. How can nations seeking protection against an imperialistic, bloodthirsty country that has shown repeatedly it will commit war crimes on a massive scale in the name of securing more geopolitical power be declared in the end culpable for that aggression on the basis of seeking protection against it?
No one had any problems with Zelensky's "attitude" until Trump told them to, and his followers turned on a dime as usual to comply with the new decree.
If you turn off your political biases and zeal, and read the article again, you will realise that the author is actually talking Realpolitik that is in the interest of the Ukraine. It's all good and well to shout out about right and wrong, good and evil in politics, but is it morally defensible asking the Ukranians to fight the "good fight" on your behalf, as long as you personally don't suffer the consequences for it?
Let us ignore superpower politics, and, for the sake of this argument, believe that the west is supporting Ukraine in good-faith. The west trained Ukrainian soldiers and armed them to resist the Russian invasion. That was a positive step. The Ukranians are fighting bravely. They had some initial success too. Great. That was 2+ years ago. What has happened since? Is Ukraine winning the war? The answer is no - one counter-offensive it launched has already failed. Till date, Ukraine has lost around 20% of its territory and more than 100,000+ soldiers. It is continuing to lose territory and soldiers. The simple fact is that Ukraine's military is losing because it is no match against Russia's larger military.
The military arithmetic is simple - what Ukraine needs today is not just more arms, but most importantly more soldiers. Is any western country willing to commit soldiers today, to fight alongside the Ukranians? The hard truth is no. And yet, the west (currently EU only) wants Ukraine to keep fighting. That's not some speculative opinion. This is what Germany's intelligent chief recently said: - Ukraine needs to fight the Russians till 2030 - https://nordot.app/1271064963068608531 !! Wow!
Please tell me - How much more territory should Ukraine lose, and how many more Ukranians need to die, till you accept the reality that Ukraine cannot win alone against Russia?
(The stark reality of the matter is that those of you asking Ukraine to fight Russia alone, to the last Ukranian, are nothing but cowards.)
Oh boo fucking hoo, the west got involved in politics in Russia's sphere of influence. Russia would never stoop so low. But if it did, we should probably kill 100,000 people, eh?
The author has no thought about self-determination or self-defense. He or she argues that Ukraine deserves to be invaded for having the temerity to try to escape.
You think DV is fair when your bitches get uppity? Was dinner late, did your wife sass you? Fucking cunt (whump) I'll teach you (whump) to entertain thoughts of (whump) joining Nato...
I hope that author ends up twitching in a pool of blood and teeth, killed by someone bigger and stronger, probably over a parking spot. A social-darwinist adventure.
And you: you're defective for liking this shit.
None of you in the west are willing to send your soldiers to Ukraine to fight alongside them because most of you would rather be keyboard warriors here, than actually fight Russians in battle. That is why you ask Ukraine to fight Russia, till the last Ukranian. It's cowardice and nothing else. Recently the German intelligence chief said that Ukraine needs to fight the Russians till 2030!! ( https://nordot.app/1271064963068608531 ).
When Yulia Tymoshenko, an opposition member in Ukrane heard this, she too realised that none of you in Europe have any genuine concern about the future of Ukraine. She wrote on her Facebook:
IF THE WAR IN UKRAINE ENDS BEFORE 2030, RUSSIA MAY USE ITS RESOURCES FOR AGGRESSION AGAINST EUROPE EARLIER THAN EXPECTED. This sensational statement was made today by the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, who for the first time officially confirmed what we so did not want to believe. At the cost of the very existence of Ukraine and at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, someone decided to pay for the "exhaustion" of Russia for the sake of security in Europe? I didn't think that they would dare to say this so officially and openly… That explains a lot… I believe that the Verkhovna Rada is obliged to respond immediately. We are initiating such a step. THE WAR MUST END IMMEDIATELY ON THE MOST JUST TERMS! (Translation, original in Ukranian).
Downvotes in 3-2-1...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38803047