A decade long war of attrition is fine apparently as long as Dave fucks over Golgoth or whatever.

Afghanistan. — RogueAI

Yes, well, if Ukraine was 80% mountains it would be a little more difficult to get those tanks through.

what about my last question to you tho? — Changeling

But are they really losing if they're fighting against another corrupt putin-puppet being in charge of their country? — Changeling

Russia hasn't demanded Zelensky step down and that a Putin puppet be installed as far as I know. But if you're fighting a losing battle then, yes, you are losing, obviously. The question is can they win and at what cost. I don't think they can beat Russia and I don't think reducing their country to rubble trying is worth it.

Tens of thousands of dead Ukranians, cities turned to ash = "some broken bones"

Jfc — StreetlightX

Brave Westerners willing to fight to the Ukranians' last broken bone. :sad:

If someone can't come up with even one thing they're being told about this war from their own side that is more propaganda/spin than truth then they're not worth talking to as they are not capable of critical analysis. That goes for Westerners and Russians.

We're not discussing this on the same level. Take care.

If David drives off Goliath and suffers some broken bones in the process, who's the big loser of that fight? — RogueAI

We're not in a Bible movie. Discuss this like an adult or don't discuss it at all.

I am sorry, gentlemen, but the rot is deep. If we ever want to be of help to anyone, the first responsibility is a cool and detached look at reality. Without that we are useless to them.

If our propaganda is utterly invisible to you and you think it's the 'truth' then you're just a tool. For a start, the spin that Russia is getting 'mauled' by Ukraine as if Ukraine are winning here rather than just holding out while suffering much greater losses, if you include non-combatants, is batshit crazy.

You mean achieving aims, which it would have settled for before the war is a complete disaster for it and a victory for the Ukraine who now can't even stop the war by conceding what would have prevented the war in the first place? That's ridiculous. The big loser in terms of strategic outcome here is Ukraine. They'll probably never get the breakaway regions back and never get to join NATO and as a bonus have their country completely fucked up.

It is absolutely heart-breaking.

Do you think they can sustain these kinds of losses indefinitely??? — RogueAI

I don't expect them to keep doing the same things. I expect them to adjust strategy to reduce their losses.

Propaganda: zealous speech to persuade. "Their propaganda is all lies, our propaganda is full of truth." — Bitter Crank

Yes, and no one has answered my question. Given we do propaganda too, obviously. What is it? If it's invisible to us, that's a problem.

OK, what military objectives has Russia achieved so far. — RogueAI

The overarching basic aims of the invasion are as follows.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
"Russia is ... aiming for a neutral Ukraine. Russia may also seek to hold on to its territorial conquests - both Crimea in the south and in Ukraine's east."

They control the breakaway regions now and they've got Zelensky to say his country will never join NATO for a start.

You seem to be looking for some middle ground here — Changeling

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list.

Lot of strawmen and red herrings there. It can be a disaster on some metrics for either or both parties. What's relevant to Putin are his strategic goals. My ideal scenario is the same as everyone else's here. That he loses tomorrow and goes home. But despite his difficulties, I've yet to see any evidence that he'll lose at all. But same challenge to you: "Let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me."

Russia quit Afghanistan — RogueAI

Yes. After ten years.

According to some posters in this thread, all the coverage back in February on Russia being about to invade Ukraine was also 'Western propaganda'... — Changeling

Nothing to do with me. But let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me.

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster
Russian propaganda>It's all going to plan
Any non-idiotic impartial observer>Neither of those is true. They are both just propaganda.

Hopefully with massive civil unrest in Russia culminating in the fall of Putin. — Wayfarer

Just saw your edit, and what? That's it. A hope on the basis of no evidence with no probability assigned because you don't "want to entertain any other idea", i.e. facing reality might be too uncomfortable, so you'll just cheer on the death and destruction from your living room hoping it'll work out somehow. Well, gee, don't hurt yourself trying to be helpful.

Can you deal with my post, please and give your analysis. I never said the war was justified (in fact I said the opposite from the start) or wasn't a disaster in human terms. Read what I wrote and respond.

Not sure what's hilarious about giving me a Biden speech. But if you're happy with that and aren't willing to contribute anything beyond, ok.

Yes, I'm aware this is the Western propaganda line. You're literally parroting what we all read in Western newspapers every day. But apart from the fact their economy is contracting as would be expected you've presented no evidence for anything you've said.

In short, the whole adventure has been a catastrophic error of judgement which is going to end in disaster for the Russian government. — Wayfarer

Ok, how? Tell me what you think is going to happen over the next few months and how Putin's strategic objectives will not be achieved. No one is arguing they won't be achieved at a cost, but if they are achieved, he's won the war. So, I'm not and have never said this was a good idea or is good for Russia economically; what I've said is I don't believe a prolonged war will deter Putin from pursuing and ultimately achieving at least most of what he set out to achieve. I expect he'll end up getting more than what he asked for before the war. And a real danger is the longer it goes on, the more he may demand.

Even some Western media outlets concede:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/russias-war-of-attrition-with-ukraine-where-nobody-wins.html

"...the conflict quickly risks becoming a “war of attrition,” analysts say — essentially, a prolonged struggle in which both sides seek to exhaust the opponent through the gradual loss of personnel, equipment and supplies.

“The war in Ukraine is likely heading towards a grinding war scenario — a stalemate phase during which both sides have limited ability to conduct offensive operations while the devastation and human suffering continues,” Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at Teneo Intelligence, said in a note this week.

What concerns me is a Lindy effect where the longer the war goes on the longer it's likely to go on. So, I'm not backing a horse; this isn't a competition between me and you over who gets to be right about who wins, it's a determination, from my point of view, about how further devastation in Ukraine can be minimized.

So, do a little analysis. Explain to me where you see this situation in three months time. Explain to me how Putin will be defeated and retreat from Ukraine without them acquiescing to his demands. What's the line of reasoning here. His soldiers will get demoralised and give up? He'll admit it was a whoopsie and back down? What?

Again, I'm not arguing they'll go through with it. Mostly because it would be a red line for China and India. But again, I expect scare tactics from Russia eventually if they don't get their way.

I see. Another poster who needs an English course. — Olivier5

I taught academic English for over ten years. But I won't have to dig very far into that experience to clear this one up.

We normally use WILL to speak about the future. It is always combined with another verb.

Examples of Will:

I will go to the cinema tonight.
He will play tennis tomorrow.
The Kremlin spokeman said they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. — Olivier5

Your use of will above pertains to a present message of intention. My hypothetical concerned a future message of intention. I used the 'first conditional' to express this hypothetical.

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

The essence of the structure here is:

[If that is what it takes][clause 1]...[he will make us think (he will use nukes)] [clause 2]

"We use the first conditional when we talk about future situations we believe are real or possible."

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/conditionals-1

So, whether or not Russia is currently sending the message it might use nukes doesn't abrogate the possibility that it will send that message in the future. I mean Russia also assured NATO and the rest of the world the whole idea it was going to invade Ukraine was preposterous, didn't it? What basis do you have for the idea that because Russia isn't currently threatening to use nukes, it won't do so?

They communicated, in NATO's general direction, that they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. So I don't think they want NATO to believe that they will use nukes in Ukraine.
Or is that too logical? — Olivier5

I was talking about the future, not now. Is that too logical?

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

PERHAPS he's got SOME decency left — Olivier5

So, they can make one up. Again, I don't expect it to come to that but they know which buttons to push in more ways than one.

You can call Putin a banana for all I care if you can explain to me how this war can be ended without conceding to at least some of the Russian demands.

I don't expect Putin to use nuclear weapons but I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes.

Any fool knows that 1 nuclear strike is enough to black mark that nation for ever. — FreeEmotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

He is still a human being. — Olivier5

How is that a good thing?

He could easily set up a false flag chemical weapons attack on his troops and use that as an excuse>Pride solved. As for decency, don't make me fucking laugh.

Every party has limitations but who do you think will take more pain before folding? Putin or the West? Who do you think is the tougher and more instransigent party when push comes to shove, Russians or Western Europeans? Who do you think is more likely to effectively tell their politicians "Too much! Make it stop!" when their pocketbook gets hurt more and more by spiralling inflation? Western Europeans or Russians? Who do you think is more scared of military escalation? The Western European public may support continued war now when there appears to be little or no cost to them. Just wait until that changes as the economic and security stakes rocket. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that.

Yes, I think the danger is our media leading us to believe it's all going terribly for Putin and he's out of options blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to get pummelled, 90% of Russia's forces there are intact and regathering for a new offensive, and Putin has plenty more threats he can use to scare the shit out of us.

@SophistiCat @ssu

(Just on the practical side here, might come back to the more philosophical point about violence later.)

My understanding from what I've read is that Putin won't agree to a ceasefire until he's negotiating from a position of strength, which he hasn't yet achieved. One metric for achieving that would be to cut the Ukranian forces off from the sea. Another, would be to take some of the major cities. If that is true and the Ukranians are provided with more weapons and encouraged not to back down to Russian demands where does that leave us?

It seems to me the worst case scenario for Ukraine is a continued war of attrition that they're not losing quickly but can't win either and lose slowly until Putin achieves his military position of strength. And so they continue fighting while their cities are reduced to rubble; their citizens lose access to food, water and electricity; civilian casualties mount; and the cost of reconstruction both in terms of time and money skyrockets. And seeing as NATO has explicitly ruled out intervening militarily, which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome?

A) Ukraine eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight was most likely not in their interests.

B) Putin eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight may have been in their interests if they can achieve a better long-term negotiated solution than they would have if they had not continued to fight.

Considering the Kremlin's stated aim (as per a recent TV interview) is to "destroy the anti-Russia the West has created on its borders" how likely is it that the continued destruction of Ukraine over the next few months would be more of a problem for Putin than Ukraine itself to the extent that Putin would risk appearing weak and backing down to stop it happening? And considering Putin has Germany by the balls re oil and gas, how likely do you think threats of further economic sanctions are going to sway him?

My first instinct is to want to support Ukraine in every possible way against Russia, but, ultimately, the only effective support would be direct military NATO involvement, which I'm against due to the risk of a wider war. So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands.

To @SophistiCat @ssu Is the difference between us here anything other than differing assessments of likely outcomes? I presume you would not support the continuation of a pointless war of attrition, the only appreciable result of which is greatly increased levels of suffering among the most vulnerable in Ukraine?

Lastly, it bothers me that NATO countries are likely aware of the above calculus and as intimated early may be delibarately extending the war just to send Russia some kind of message. So, call me a surrender monkey if you will, but the prospect of NATO fighting Russia by proxy to the last drop of Ukranian blood is something that I will never get on board with and will never feel guilty about not getting on board with.

:ok:

Biden must have an intelligence far superior to all of us Apollodorus.... — Apollodorus

There ya go.

"shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians Republicans control the Earth." — Baden

:chin:

Or are we out of date on that?

Cool. Can you do this bit next?

"shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians control the Earth."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) Shhh....)

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Slavic people. Take English "Polack" — Apollodorus

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Hispanic people. Take English "Spick".

None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. Stay on topic.