Russia-Ukraine

[Yoused]

… it doesn’t make Russia anymore justified in its invasion or Ukraine any less worthy of supporting …

My underlying feeling is: imperialism, bad. Not much more to it than that. The expanding of national borders is not to be encouraged. Especially when it involves adventurism and the slaughter of the locals (which, of course, invites reexamination of America's expansionist past).

 

[AG_PhamD]

While it’s true that things like causality counts are few and far between it’s not true that you can’t find critical thinking on Ukrainian strategy or governance even from Ukrainians themselves. The Kyiv Independent for instance ran a series of articles on issues in the military intelligence service and of course there was the recent scandal in the defense ministry which almost toppled the minister (though he himself was never under suspicion of wrongdoing). If anything it seems the war has given the government more power to tackle corruption than it had before, though that can be dangerous. Further military analysts, including Ukrainian ones can offer very balanced views on what is happening on the ground even they’ll caution they don’t have access to complete information or if they do they can’t share everything.

As far as I can tell the Ukrainians are using Bahkmut and Vuhledar much like Severdonesk and Lysenchansk (sic for all proper nouns) earlier: using territorial defense and weaker units to grind down Russian forces while they prepare counteroffensives. There is of course the danger that they’ll get that wrong and suffer greater losses or more important losses than the Russians. We won’t know until after whether they are making the right call. Heck truthfully they probably won’t really know either too. Then there’s the danger that even if they are making the right calls that it won’t be enough as they have to generate enough combat potential to get through the defenses the Russians have been preparing. While the Kharkiv offensive went well, they found the weak spot early. The Russians have since mobilized large numbers of men and on defense the low quality of those troops won’t matter as much. So there will be fewer weak spots and while they did find one eventually in Kherson, that grinding fight did not go so well for the Ukrainians initially. They took a lot of casualties which was indeed reported on and they eventually succeeded because himars and long range artillery was effectively able to strangle Russian resupply over the river, thus forcing a retreat over that river. Which the Russians managed to pull off despite the odds. Credit where credit is due. Continuing to cut off supplies which has been a key Ukrainian tactic will be harder, not impossible as they’ve shown but harder.

So again on depending on who read, you can get a very hard look at both sides and a range of opinions. It’s not true that all the reporting is sunshine and rainbows on the Ukrainian side though overall of course it is amazing what they’ve done. Anything less than amazing and they would’ve lost given the material differences between the two sides even with the Russian blunders.

I’m not saying you can’t piece together a decent picture of what’s going on in Ukraine, as well can be done given the dynamic and secretive nature of war. My comments were directed at the American press. But the way our media reports on the war is far from objective. For example, we hear plenty of speculation on Russian hardware and personnel losses, but very little speculation on the Ukrainian side. Obviously the west and western media is overwhelmingly on Ukraine’s side, even if they are against American or NATO involvement in the war. In the interest of supporting Ukraine, reporting negative information serves no good.

Indeed there have been bits and pieces of Ukraine cracking down on corruption (ie the defense minister- or more specifically his subordinate) in the US MSM. But ultimately that’s done to demonstrate a positive image- which is fine. But there is for an example a lot of talk about Russian’s poor training and disorganization. If you listen to western soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they often speak of these same issues. Obviously Ukraine for the most part has faired better despite this and I’m sure experiences vary considerably. The impression I have is that things are not nearly as positive as our media likes to show.

We hear a lot about Russian war crimes- which are truly atrocious and unacceptable. But I would not expect our media to report on Ukrainian war crimes which I have to imagine have occurred given the nature of war.

I have no opinion on the Ukraine’s resource allocation in the defense of Bakhmut. I assume Ukrainian leadership is doing what they think is best. I don’t have the background to make such determination. What I do know is that Russia apparently has expended unfathomable resources towards this area and made remarkably little progress over months despite all of the effort. But over the past several weeks it seems Ukraine has been losing territory at a considerably faster pace compared to before. Generally speaking I would say losing territory is not a good thing, unless it’s part of a broader strategy. But obviously losing a battle does not mean you’re losing the war. And as much as things appear to be in a “stalemate” throughout most of the war front, I would imagine this is due to the brutal winter weather and probably both sides pausing as much as possible to get new soldiers trained and replacement equipment.

Obviously the Ukrainian media has an interest in conveying certain information. And much of our media just uses the Ukrainian government and media’s info and often lack independent analysis. The Russia media is very hard to judge- so much of it is just complete nonsense with no basis in reality but occasionally they will have factual information. It can be hard to discern fact from fiction, but when there are facts, its often information you will not get elsewhere.

I will reiterate my opinion of the war is that the West must provide aid and see this though to the end. And this tendency of reactivity rather than proactivity when it comes to supplying aids needs to stop. My criticism has nothing to do with the consideration of aid, but rather how our media operates. But again, the choice between objective reporting and trying to keep up troop moral and public support and reporting news that could potentially support the opposing side is a tough call, especially given that some may not be as supportive of the war as many of us are here. I really don’t like the ends justifying the means as an argument.

 

[Yoused]

Why would you keep fighting for a city that looks like this?

​

Answer: if you let them take it, they will advance and do this to the next city.

 

[Yoused]

This is long, but it is quite interesting, if you can sit through over an hour. But he spends the first 20~25 minutes talking about the thing, and more importantly, its wider implications.

​

One of the things that struck me, later on, was where he said Mariupol is one of the places whence they sent tanks of steel-production off-gasses to Russia for separation: the source of a huge fraction of the world supply of neon, which is important for the EUV projectors used to burn microchips. If you thought we had a supply problem recently, it is only going to get worse, and more expensive.

 

[dada_dave]

So as I said previously the two most likely candidates to blowing up Nordstream were Russia and Ukraine - the two countries at war and both with motives ironically (though both motives should’ve been weakened by Russian actions). Russia had more easy means but the coyness of the Western response after the initial blaming of the obvious suspect suggested the latter. Now evidence is pointing to Ukraine:

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1633138353510948865

https://mobile.twitter.com/Georg_Heil/status/1633154303014629391

Both from the NYT and German media. It should be noted that this is (strong) evidence, but not ironclad proof, and there are still plenty of questions if it was a Ukrainian op who organized it and exactly what they had hoped to achieve as the Russians had mostly nullified the pipelines themselves by their own actions. So again before racing to conclusions, wait until more information becomes available as there can still be twists and turns yet in terms of who was responsible, could still be Russia, could still be another party, and how it was done.

But again the Hersh story is definitely bullshit.

 

[dada_dave]

So Trump admits that the reason Russia would never have invaded Ukraine under his watch is because “he would let them take parts” - just the Russian speaking parts of course. Because they’re his to give naturally and because Russia would’ve totally stopped there and because simply being Russian speaking, like say Zelenskyy, means they actually want to be a part of Russia.

Fox Edits Trump Saying He’d Let Russia Have Some of Ukraine

While Trump told Hannity on the radio he could’ve prevented war by negotiating a deal with Russia, that portion was curiously edited out when aired on Fox News.

www.thedailybeast.com

Oh and Fox weirdly edited out that part. Huh.

 

[Yoused]

The massive Russian missile assault yesterday, which probably amounted to nearly half a billion dollars worth of materiél, was apparently a response to a Ukrainian commando group crossing into Russia-proper, killing 3 officials in Bryansk. Of course, the speculation is that it was actually of domestic origin, but that does not fit with the Kremlin narrative.

Ukrainian citizens killed: about 1. Effect on the front lines: nil.

 

[dada_dave]

The massive Russian missile assault yesterday, which probably amounted to nearly half a billion dollars worth of materiél, was apparently a response to a Ukrainian commando group crossing into Russia-proper, killing 3 officials in Bryansk. Of course, the speculation is that it was actually of domestic origin, but that does not fit with the Kremlin narrative.

Ukrainian citizens killed: about 1. Effect on the front lines: nil.

It’s not speculation - they are a Russian group currently in Ukraine loosely associated with the Ukrainians but not officially a part of their military or intelligence (unlike a separate set of Russians who are). Their leader unfortunately is apparently a nasty piece of work - one of the far right wing fighting against the regime rather than for it. Unsure about the rest of them, probably similar for most if he’s the leader. The raid was reportedly signed off by Ukrainian intelligence.

I doubt the missile attack was actually in response and was always planned - Russia always claims it’s for some provocative thing or another but in reality this has been expected for awhile. Basically the attacks have subsided and come semi-regularly as Russia can now only perform them as they replenish stocks. So there’s a semi regular cadence to them and there’s been one expected since the end of February given the pattern and the believed rate of ballistic missile production.

 

[Eric]

I've maintained this the whole time, in fact I would go as far as to assume Trump would've even armed Putin.

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

 

[Cmaier]

I've maintained this the whole time, in fact I would go as far as to assume Trump would've even armed Putin.

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

He’d have no choice. Alleged piss tapes and all.

 

[dada_dave]

I've maintained this the whole time, in fact I would go as far as to assume Trump would've even armed Putin.

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

Indeed and Fox weirdly edited that part of the interview out when they aired it

 

[dada_dave]

https://techboards.net/threads/pro-democracy-protests-in-georgia.4008/#post-134614

Russia admitting what they did in 2014 by threatening Georgia with it again.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I've maintained this the whole time, in fact I would go as far as to assume Trump would've even armed Putin.

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

I don’t think Trump would have armed Russia, but I think there is an argument to negotiate territory in exchange for peace (so long as Ukraine does not agree to disarmament and other such ridiculous concessions). In fact, if you ask many military experts, including General Miley, many suggest that ultimately a peace deal involving territorial concessions will have to be made, especially for this to be wrapped up in any reasonable amount of time. That’s not a pro-Russian view, it’s one of managed expectations.

Trump’s stance on the matter I think has very little to do with any ideological notion or moral obligation to democracy or the greater geopolitical implications. As I have said many times I don’t think Trump has a backbone when it comes to such things, it’s all about appeasing his base and/or presenting an image of prestige. If he could broker a peace deal, he would then brag he created “the most peace, the best peace, like nothing you’ve ever seen before”- or something along those lines.

So depending on what Trump is persuaded to do by his base and whatever his generals tell him he needs to do I believe would dictate his actions. And I don’t think the military would support suspending aid right now for a number of reasons.

The compromise is essentially lives vs land and sovereignty - and how many resources America and the west want to allocate to Ukraine. Ultimately I think it’s for Ukraine to decide their future and thus their compromises. On the other hand we as citizens should have a vote on where our money and resources go. It’s not just military aid, we are supporting pensions, govt payroll, and presumably the rebuilding of a now half devastated country. Yup

That said, I believe if there was any time for such a compromise, it was a year ago. Any concessions now, especially beyond the 2014 borders would be a tremendous victory for Russia over Ukraine and the West and would signal to other bad actors that they can conquer whatever land they want so long as they hold out long enough.

Also relevant, Fox should not be editing interviews to make people like Trump or Kanye more palatable- or to alter their talking points to protect people or present a slightly different message. Granted, other channels have edited clips and interviews in the past to make people look better or worse. More recently I believe it was ABC that edited a Biden interview that some could argue was done to make him look better while other would argue it was “cut for time” which is I’m sure what Fox will argue in this case. The fact of the matter is this happens all too frequently and it’s quite shameful. Fox has presented itself as particularly dishonest and not credible recently. And then media companies have the audacity to complain when they are called out or when polls reveal no one trusts them.

But it’s worth asking if Fox cut Trumps comments about conceding territory, what does that say about how Fox feels and their viewers actually feel about supporting Ukraine?

 

[Yoused]

this

I don’t think Trump would have armed Russia, but I think there is an argument to negotiate territory in exchange for peace (so long as Ukraine does not agree to disarmament and other such ridiculous concessions). In fact, if you ask many military experts, including General Miley, many suggest that ultimately a peace deal involving territorial concessions will have to be made, especially for this to be wrapped up in any reasonable amount of time. That’s not a pro-Russian view, it’s one of managed expectations.

does not square with

That said, I believe if there was any time for such a compromise, it was a year ago. Any concessions now, especially beyond the 2014 borders would be a tremendous victory for Russia over Ukraine and the West and would signal to other bad actors that they can conquer whatever land they want so long as they hold out long enough.

I mean, life is full of compromise, but this is not a matter for which compromise is sensible.

 

[AG_PhamD]

this

does not square with


I mean, life is full of compromise, but this is not a matter for which compromise is sensible.

Many of the same problems exist now as they did before a year ago when looking to the future (ie risk of future invasion, etc). But at least back then there was an opportunity for both sides to spin this in a remotely palatable way for everyone involved. Now that Russia and Ukraine by extension NATO is neck deep in a war, neither side is going to accept a compromise. There is no way to spin this after Russia has largely been humiliated, Ukraine has lost likely hundreds of thousands and has had much of their country leveled.

There was a moment perhaps where Russia could have won some by taking some contested territory (and That doesn’t mean they get everything they wanted) and lost taking all of Ukraine. Ukraine could have won in the sense of humiliating Russia, preventing them from taking their country entirely, and prevented a years long conflict with insurmountable suffering and lost by losing some of their territory. NATO would have not been largely involved at that point

That’s what a compromise is. Neither side is going to be particularly happy.

But as I’ve said, the point of compromise is long gone the way things are now. The only way Trump could negotiate a peace deal in a short amount of time is to suspend military aid entirely or to threaten US boots on the ground- neither of which is a good answer.

My point is you either have to negotiate for peace (opportunity has past for that) or you better give Ukraine everything they need to win within reason. The latter in my opinion is currently our only choice. The hesitancy to provide air defense, tanks, fighter jets, etc ensures only one thing, that more Ukrainians will needlessly die because politicians are too busy twittling their thumbs.

 

[dada_dave]

 

[dada_dave]

 

[Cmaier]

Arrest warrant issued for Putin.

 

[dada_dave]

Arrest warrant issued for Putin.

Ah the ICC stepping up about the child abductions. For both Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. Good. Unsure about enforcement as usually heads of state are given diplomatic immunity when traveling though diplomatic immunity can be revoked it’s usually an expulsion with arrests only being made at the behest of the diplomat’s government. At least, that was my understanding. Of course maybe sich immunity is negotiated beforehand and is so typically granted it’s treated as de-facto? In that sense it simply won’t be granted and he won’t be able to go … I wonder how this impacts travel to say the UN? Unsure how these things work.

Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova

Today, 17 March 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) issued warrants of arrest for two individuals in the context of the situation in Ukraine: Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin...

www.icc-cpi.int

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I've maintained this the whole time, in fact I would go as far as to assume Trump would've even armed Putin.

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex part of Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

I appreciate that the term “surrender caucus” is making the rounds and I haven’t heard a member of it yet have a good comeback to that label.