Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor? — baker

The US made it's grand entrance a long time ago.

NPR is not that biased, a bit dull maybe but that's in a sense the price to pay for neutrality... And the New Yorker remains IMO the best magazine in the world, written in the best English. They do top notch radio reporting at
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/

That wasn't grand, that was underhanded.

But they would need more than just those ATGMs, but also artillery and medium range Surface-to-Air missile systems. — ssu

Yes, so far we've heard mainly about the ATMG's and Manpads, but there maybe other things in the pipe or stuff deployed in secret. But mechanized warfare requires serious training and logistics, so it's not clear to me what other weapons systems can be just thrown in.

But still, it's not going well for the Russians. — ssu

We really don't know how Putin and his generals evaluate things. Russia tolerates far more casualties than Western armies.

If Russia achieves it's objectives (which we don't even know at this point ... other than they are obviously in Ukraine), Putin, generals, Kremlin and even most ordinary Russians may view the war as a hard fought battle, but worth it.

In particular, people shouldn't underestimate how much ordinary Russians hate Nazism, and the West's own journalists have been documenting this movement in Ukraine since 2014. Whatever political / moral / policy discussions we may have about it, Russians will react to videos of these people (that they happily produce themselves) extremely negatively.

Also, it's estimated some 10 000 people have died in the civil war in the East since 2014 to the start of this war, so the logic of "getting it done" when Russians / ethnic Russians are dying anyways regularly, can make a lot of sense from the Russian perspective.

However, we really don't know much about what the average Russian is thinking about things (obviously sanctions are hitting, no one like wars--except those neo-nazis--, people are dying, and so on), but once the war is over there are many bases on which it could be considered "worth it" to ordinary Russians.

Russians were already demonized by our media before the war ... so, it's unlikely they care too much about even more demonization.

The Western media logic is mostly: we disapprove, therefore it's a blunder, therefore Russian troops are unmotivated, therefore Putin is looking for an off-ramp. But this logic is entirely self-generated.

Putin maybe happy to end the war with what he (from his perspective) reasonably asked, but he maybe perfectly content also cutting Ukraine in half and taking everything East of the Dnieper River.

Russians like land ... that's why they have the most of it already.

It's been a while since I've read the New Yorker, I'll check it out.

NPR... ehhhh, I'll pass. But still, many sources it's appreciated. :up:

Most welcome.

Maybe Putin wants to use this war to cement his dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a quick war.

As the Frontline documentary said, Putin has the same succession problem Yeltsin had. He can't step down without fear of prosecution. So he'll just stay there for life?

I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC. — Manuel

All three of those are known for bias (Fox is worthless).

So he'll just stay there for life? — frank

Yes - in his case, a few more weeks with any luck.

I think it's obvious that what we're seeing in Ukraine - the mass destruction of cities and hospitals, the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants - is simply state-sponsored terrorism on a massive scale.

There are no unbiased news sources, as a general rule. So, be aware of the bias and then calculate how much to discount.

I wish I could access different channels — Manuel

Don't we all! There are a few news channels available on the Internet beside Fox, BBC, and CNN. Deutsche Welle, for instance. Various radio stations in countries stream their service on the Internet -- so you could listen to National Public Radio (US) too.

Ask Google for English (or other language) radio services in Europe or Mars... wherever.

There are no unbiased news sources, as a general rule. So, be aware of the bias and then calculate how much to discount. — Bitter Crank

I'm going to take that as a biased statement, and add a grain of salt to it.

Yes, there's some silver linings here or there, but overall this war is a disaster for all, first of course for Ukraine and Russia, and second for the rest of us. The global economy is taking a hit, during a pandemic... If it leads to less globalisation, shorter local value chains, and less European dependency on petro-states, that'll I suppose be positive, further down the road. In the meantime, food prices are sky-rocketing. — Olivier5

This is the real tragedy. I am do not live in Europe, I live in Asia, and my perspective is like one who comes across two men trying to kill each other. I would say to them: do not do that. Your existence is important. I am not taking sides. Stopping the fight would be a good thing. I am against against war. I think a nation must be able to defend itself against enemies within and without. That's in the CIA handbook I think.

This also means I do not support violent overthrow of governments for any reason. Lets be consistent here. Should George W. Bush be violently overthrown because of what he did in Iraq? He was given a second term.

There simply is no way around this: Putin made huge gambles, made huge victories (2014 annexation of Crimea), or at least he could think so if getting territory with poor economy is that, and basically had punched way over his weight class. And now he lost it in the gamble. Made a catastrophic error on starting this war. — ssu

I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east.

If Russia achieves it's objectives (which we don't even know at this point ... other than they are obviously in Ukraine), Putin, generals, Kremlin and even most ordinary Russians may view the war as a hard fought battle, but worth it. — boethius

Such an irony that some human beings consider the loss of other human beings off the face of the earth worth something.

I wonder how the ceasefire talks are going...

putin and his 'inner circle': "You have to submit to authoritarian, kleptocratic rule."
Ukraine: "Yeah... we don't want that."

What is a viable solution to this conflict?

I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC.
— Manuel

All three of those are known for bias (Fox is worthless). — frank

Let's look at some evidence. Headlines today:

Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv
Russian troops advance three miles towards Ukraine's capital, whose mayor says it is well defended.

EUROPE
Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv -BBC

LIVE UPDATES: Russia makes new demand over what they claim America is secretly doing in Ukraine
-FOX News


40-mile-long Russian convoy largely dispersed -CNN

Looks like we are neck deep in a propaganda war. First of all, it is not "all lies" (incidentally similar to the spelling of "ALLIES". ) There is truth mixed in, at least what we accept as truth. There are statements that are encouraging to each side and demoralizing to each side. For someone involved in the war, what the news channels choose to put on their headlines has an effect, and has a different effect on the combatants since the headlines are different. This is more than propaganda. This is psychological warfare.

The reason I do not go to those sites is that I do not want unverified and unverifiable statements to affect my view of the situation, although they do. The news channels can lie all they want and issue corrections later - the damage is done.

So are these news items true?

BBC - maybe, the Russians may be advancing. Who knows?

FOX - this is verifiable. Has Russia made new demands? Follow the link.

CNN - Maybe the Russians have fled. Maybe they cleared their traffic jam. Maybe they are advancing on Kiev.

Why I watch RT and Sputnik is simply because I know whose side they are on, their intention is to promote a certain point of view, propaganda, no-one believes they are unbiased. CNN and other channels can build up trust and use that to mislead, suddenly and effectively.

RT :403 - Forbidden . That’s an error.

Client does not have access rights to the content so server is rejecting to give proper response. That’s all we know.

Sputnik: LIVE UPDATES: Russia Ready to Resist Sanctions, It Will Be Difficult But There Is No Panic - MFA

So sanctions are hurting you, Boris, well well, your propaganda is now trying to calm the Russian people. Looks like they are ... working....

(Useful information from Sputnik)

And this : (no comment)

Video: Speaking in Poland, Harris Needs to Check Notes to Know Where She's Standing

(!)

With satellite and drone coverage, there shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind about the whereabouts of the 40-mile convoy. The contents might be doubtful, but its location should not be.

Good, solid, verifiable, reliable information can be hard to find in many situations, but in the middle of conflict, it's out of reach at times in several ways. There is deliberate misinformation (propaganda); error-based misinformation (failure to fact-check); perception-based misinformation (looked like a duck, sounded like VP); missing information (things get lost). Bonafide information (aka the truth) may be disbelieved or rejected out of hand.

How many people in several categories have been killed so far? How many people have been injured, and how badly? There are always good reasons to inflate or deflate totals, and where an accurate count is desired all round, it may just be impossible to obtain.

Here's a good primer on Putin, made by PBS Frontline. Tells well how we are where we are now and just how and why Putin got to power. Worth seeing. — ssu

I could not get past the first few minutes. What a disgusting piece of anti-Putin propaganda. From the classist "unemployed spy" to the accusations of corruption from the first five minutes, interviewing a man who 'tried to arrest Putin" to obtain reliable testimony on corruption charges.

Nice try at war propagada: it is effective in that it does not convince anyone who is either too clever or too dumb or too biased, but gives a cudgel to those who want to force the anti-Putin narrative to its extremes.

PBS (Public BS?) has lost my respect completely. This is the kind of BS that the far right channels put out to defame certain democrats. Favorite line "The Russians are not Democtrats" Autocratic? I am not sure the UN Charter prescribes or proscribes political systems.

Why don't you think RT or Sputnik don't have a documentary on how 'x' rose to power in the United States? It will be instantly attacked as a piece of anti-American shill. Unfortunately some people still trust some news channels maybe they want to believe.

No offence to 'ssu'.

How many people in several categories have been killed so far? How many people have been injured, and how badly? There are always good reasons to inflate or deflate totals, and where an accurate count is desired all round, it may just be impossible to obtain. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed, but do you note the way casualties are bandied about like a set of brownie points for each side? These are people too. The more Ukranian civilians killed the better for the 'cause'.

Can we stick with what we know for sure? What do we know for sure?

That's true, "objectivity" isn't really attainable - I perhaps meant to say somewhat less propagandistic.

However, we really don't know much about what the average Russian is thinking about things (obviously sanctions are hitting, no one like wars--except those neo-nazis--, people are dying, and so on), but once the war is over there are many bases on which it could be considered "worth it" to ordinary Russians. — boethius

I think many understand what is happening, but then there are of course those who believe what is said. I think here the issue is that Putin is still holding to the idea of "special military operation" and the Russian media is showing Russian troops handing out food and blaming the Ukrainians (neo-nazis) to be shelling the civilians. That can sink in for a while. But too big casualty figures you cannot hide, it simply goes by word of mouth. If Americans don't trust their media, Russians don't trust it on a larger scale. At least those that can use their brains.

Maybe Putin wants to use this war to cement his dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a quick war.

As the Frontline documentary said, Putin has the same succession problem Yeltsin had. He can't step down without fear of prosecution. So he'll just stay there for life? — frank

Not like he was seriously challenged by anyone or anything before.

But those protests at him in 2012 likely made him wary. Likely he has seen that "being liberal" won't help him. He hasn't been able to produce similar economic growth as China, so the war has been his response in order to get higher popularity. That documentary tells why it hasn't been so: basically put up to sustain the kleptocracy, I think Putin massed his wealth just because of taking power. But what he failed to do is to do anything about the kleptocracy, which would have been important. I remember him only declaring that Russia has to be a dictatorship of laws, meaning that laws should be followed as the word of a dictator (Stalin?)

This shows the utter lack of understanding how a country governed by laws operates and that it is usually the dictatorships that are the most corrupt.

I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east. — FreeEmotion

He has lost this. Even if he can declare a military victory.

Just ask yourself: what does he win, if he conquers all of Ukraine? He would have to occupy a huge country. Ok, that's not going to happen (or it will, who knows). So let's then think of what he gains from this war if Zelenskyi's government would accept tomorrow his demands. So he gets Crimea and the puppet states of Donbas that he can then have join the Russian federation.

And what then? He basically had them already. Now he has a bit more territory and 1) an army that needs a lot to refitting and money to cover the losses, 2) new territory that is devastated by war and would need billions in investment, 3) a ruined Russian economy, 4) an unified Europe and NATO, who are now going to spend on the military as during the Cold War and treat him as an imminent threat, nearly.

So what's the victory with all that above? Can you see it?

You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin.

We only hear the pro-war almost kamikaze level fanaticism side of Ukrainians (as you point out) but we'll hear other voices as soon as the war ends: and the viscous partisan fighting has only just begun. — boethius

Yeah, people forget, this is a country that's been at war with itself (in parts) for years - over exactly these issues (the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, far-right nationalism, Crimea...) the idea that they're now suddenly all united behind, not just a single goal, but a specific method for achieving it, is ludicrous. War certainly unifies people, but, a) not when the attacker is ideologically aligned with one of the sides in that dispute, and b) it only lasts the duration of the war, or less if massive losses begin.

A smart politician needs to make decisions that they think their population will be satisfied with in the long-term, not one which placates the kind of simplified jingoism that war necessitates. In Ukraine, I imagine that's excruciatingly difficult and it seems to me Zelensky is doing a good enough job of walking that fine line between being realistic about the future. and keeping morale up for the fight at their doorstep.

Here, however, and in other social media, mainstream media, politicians even, I've absolutely no sympathy for this faux camaraderie, this enthusiastic joining in with the jingoism and war-time bravado. It's just going to make that job harder.

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. — ssu

Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons?

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. — ssu

Well maybe you should try reading what I've written, it's less confusing than you making up what I think.

Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. — Isaac

You keep dodging the answer. Or failing to understand it.

Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. Yet how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. Only annexing territory is even more threatening as you then the country doesn't even respect the borders. The US just cannot walz into Mexico and occupy the country, even if we say Mexico is in the "sphere of influence" of the US. If a country disintegrates totally and cannot perform the tasks of a sovereign country, only then it's usual that the neighbors get nervous and at least look after their citizens in the country. Before that, it's usually the UN that gets involved.

Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons? — Isaac

It's called deterrence. Look, nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. But they perform a crucial role. And so does everything in an armed forces, when that armed forces is for deterrence. And that's what armies ought to do: have training exercises, keep their equipment ready, and have the generals retire to their golfclubs after a career made in peace-time exercises. That's what the Swiss army has done successfully since Napoleon.

And you simply need the conventional forces, because the use of nuclear weapons is so limited. If a aircraft breaches the aerospace, you wouldn't use a nuclear weapon for that. Hence the need for conventional forces.

↪boethius are you averse to including evidence/sources with your posts? — Changeling

I should have time today to look for sources, I'm not sure what sources you want.

One reason I try to avoid posting sources is simply that leads to accusations that the source is biased. This isn't a journalist forum, but more focused on argument, so I try to keep to arguments of the form "if the premises are true, the conclusions follows" and let people makeup their own mind about the premises. However, I'm not against sourcing, just takes a lot of time and, as @ssu has pointed out, there's a big fog of war element, we can only speculate about a lot of stuff; things can deteriorate rapidly in warfare.

That being said, for the foundation of my analysis of simply what conventional warfare is like to assess the battle field as best we can, since a lot of decision making depends on whether you think Russia will win or lose. Now, we can't really know Ukraine's prospects for victory, but presumably the Ukrainian leadership knows and NATO countries also know more than us. We criticize the Nazi's and Japanese for not surrendering to avoid unnecessary loss of life when there were no more prospects of victory--I see no reason why that criticism only applies to them because "they're bad". The "right" to fight to the death doesn't mean that's the best decision to make; just like if a bunch of ex-marines invaded your home, fighting back depends on A. prospects of victory regardless and B. if it's an existential threat (if they are there to torture, sry "enhanced interrogation" you, and then murder you then fighting back is a good decision if no one's coming to help ... but if they just want your frozen pizza's because the store ran out and then they'll be on their way, a low-odds fight to the death maybe isn't the best decision).\

Likewise, for the EU, supplying arms and hitting with sanctions isn't morally justifiable if it just results in more people killed and undermining European security for the next several decades. If the only possible resolution of the conflict is diplomatic, then that should be the focus. If there is a impasse in the talks (and Ukrainian negotiators being executed as "spies") then the EU could step in and offer things to Russia and also Ukraine and protect negotiators from being executed etc.

The current problem in the negotiations is Russia is already asking essentially the minimum that it won't possibly make any concessions on. However, the EU could not only offer things to Ukraine for also offer things to Russia who then offer "something" to make the settlement more sellable to Ukrainians.

Being in the EU already may simply motivate Ukraine to keep fighting from the West for several decades, which isn't really good for Ukrainians nor the EU.

Of course, diplomacy requires some evaluation of the war situation. If we think Russia is really, or then Russian leaders perceive, in a bad spot one negotiation strategy follows from that assumption. If Russia is actually getting what it wants the hard way and, at least leadership, perceives no risk of military loss or social upheaval in Russia, then a different negotiation strategy follows from that. If what Western media repeats as "super bad for Russia" is viewed by Russian leadership as a good thing (maybe they actually want a break with the West, but couldn't do that themselves as the Russian people would actually revolt about that, but if the West does it, that's grand; likewise, maybe Putin wants all Oligarch wealth to be seized by the West as it's wealth outside of Russia that is laundered around in corrupt schemes ... which Putin doesn't necessarily want corruption; you don't need corruption if you control the government, everything can be done "legally").

So, there is a purpose for evaluating the war situation and how Russian leadership and ordinary Russians perceive things, nor merely intellectual brainstorming.

A good source to start with is I found this Candian artillery youtuber with a lot of military analysis made before this war, and who has stated he cannot comment on the war due to Canadian Forces policy. So, all this material made before the war is presumably not biased towards Russia or Ukraine, and he is not commenting what he thinks now, so the channel doesn't promote one side or another.



This video is a bit long, but I think gives a real good feel for how hard and how much skills is required to be an effective infantry soldier.

One really important part, is the short bit about the positioning of trenches; takes significant skill for senior commanders to decide where to send soldiers to dig in, the strategic purpose, and then there's a chain of decision making all the way down to the squad leader positioning individual trenches and even then soldiers themselves deciding all sorts of details as seen in the video.

I think anyone who looks at this source will get a good feel for my view that handing out small arms to civilians is just killing people for no military justification. People with rifles will be fired upon by mortar and artillery, bombs dropped on them etc.

It takes significant experience and skill to a) always be hiding in a battle situation and b) have some idea if you're safe or not. Observers can sneak anywhere and order strikes from artillery tens of kilometres away, and observers then see where the shells land and send back corrections. Observers we rarely see talked about in the media, but are basically have the same sneaking around skill set as snipers, just an additional skill of knowing better where they even are and what direction their looking at and the distance to things they're looking at.

What the video also shows is the level of vulnerability of the soldiers when they first reach this position compared with the stage 6 trench they have built at the end. The combat effectiveness or "force multiplier" of the trench is several orders of magnitude. Of course, trenches don't move, so infantry can't bring this force multiplier with them to assault an enemy position. The tank is basically a trench that you can take with you.

Without serious armor and supporting artillery fire, and ideally air support as well, it's basically impossible for infantry to assault a well dug in position by themselves (why WWI resulted in one giant stalemate for so long).

Hence, we do see a lot of chaos in the East of Russian troops maneuvering around and they can be ambushed and harassed. However, if the strategy is to encircle the entire East, then the North-West and South-West pincers are being well dug-in as they go, and it really seems to me that Ukrainians can't do much about that with just infantry.

In particular any sort of conscript or civilian given a rifle, will have essentially zero effectiveness in any offensive maneuver. Infantry (alone) do have a few offensive maneuvers they can do, but it will almost always involve a "long sneak / death march" to arrive somewhere the enemy simply doesn't expect. This requires a high level of sneak skill, strength and endurance to carry stuff (weapons, ammo, food) many kilometres and still be effective enough to take enemy position; the utility of such maneuvers is also extremely limited as without armor infantry simply can't go very far and very fast, so even if you do take some enemy positions you can't really follow through to rout the enemy rear positions. If you look at a map of Ukraine and think about how far you can actually carry heavy stuff in a day, you'll get a feeling for the limitations of infantry maneuvers. Why armor is so effective at offensive maneuvers starts with simply being able to get to the battle in a reasonable amount of time; the difference in maneuverability is basically exactly the same as if you decided to do everything by walking instead of car or public transport for the next week.

And, once you have armor you have significantly more logistical problems: armor needs fuel and heavy ammunition. You can send someone with a bunch of food and a buddy with a bunch of ammo to resupply a whole infantry unit for the day, and these people will be hard to spot and difficult to kill even if you do spot them from the air; but you can't resupply tanks and armored personnel carriers and armored artillery on foot, so you need fuel and ammo trucks which can't just sneak around in the woods and marshes.

Likewise, why armor is so effective at counter offensives as well. If you look at a map of Ukraine and you imagine a position on a defensive line 20km away coming under assault ... if you have to walk there with your weapons, ammunition, food, it will take you the entire day and the whole battle maybe over by the time you get there. Ok, you can hop in a civilian car and drive there ... by any artillery or air strikes at all on the road between here maybe impassible to a civilian vehicle and if you some under artillery fire on the way, a civilian vehicle won't offer much protection.

Whereas having an APC solves a lot of problems compared to a civilian vehicle, and also can carry way more ammunition and brings along it's own machine gun and cannon that maybe useful too. However, even if the APC is immediately disabled when arriving at the battle, ATMG's are unlikely to just kill everyone inside (far more likely to be disabled than be totally destroyed), so the infantry can get out are "fresh" for the fight; if the area is secured, of even not, there maybe still a whole bunch of supplies in the APC that are incredibly useful for continuing the operation (conventional warfare, even by infantry with unmounted arms, consumes large amounts of ammunition, super difficult to resupply on foot whereas one APC arriving, even if immediately disabled, may still provide a significant amount of ammunition).

One last note, when we see online videos of tanks being hit by ATGM's, the large explosion can be the reactive armor working as intended, and super long ATMG shots can easily be at decoys.

Disabling an armored vehicle is not the same as killing everyone inside, and if the crew survives, Russia has plenty more armored vehicles. Even when we see totally destroyed armor, this could still be blown up sometime after the vehicle was disables and the crew escaped. Vehicles can be disabled by just driving over the wrong thing, but it is the skilled crew that is far more valuable than the vehicle. There are weapons that can completely obliterate a tank and everyone who dwells within the tank, but they are heavy weapons and not shoulder mounted ATGM's.

But the main thing to be taken away from the trench video, is that that's how to effectively use conscripts, and still requires learning how to dig and fortify a trench and experienced professionals deciding where it's useful to send people to dig trenches, and out of shape conscripts are going to need a lot of time and experienced sergeants regularly checking in on them to yell at them.

So, if you mobilized a month before an invasion you can secure a lot of positions and lazy out of shape middle-managers can even get in shape a bit.

And, once you've dug one trench, this in no way prevents digging more! You can then leave a tiny garrison in your front line trenches and have everyone else go dig a second line, third line, etc. You don't really ever get to the end of trench digging. No one has ever said "this is it, this is the last trench to dig".

Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. — ssu

Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started.

how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. — ssu

Again, if I had actually said anything about those interests justifying invasion then this might be relevant, but since I haven't, it isn't. Please, if you want to discuss, discuss with me, not with some imaginary version of me saying things in your head. Find a quote and respond to it, it's really simple. And if you can't find a quote of me saying the thing you're ascribing to me, that should be something of a red flag that you might not be following the point.

It's called deterrence. — ssu

Deterrence against whom? - Apparently, no-one would attack America (even without the missile defence base in Poland) because even without that base they were a massive nuclear superpower, and you said no-one would attack massive nuclear superpowers, so why the base? If America faces no threats on account of the nuclear weapons it has then why add anything new to that arsenal? You're giving me reasons why countries have military at all, I'm asking for reasons why they expand them as America has done.

A good source to start with is I found this Candian artillery youtuber — boethius

The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material.

The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material. — ssu

Yeah, I think a lot of people base their expectations on Iraq and Afghanistan / first person shooter games.

We haven't seen much conventional warfare on television for decades, so I was looking for something more than just a demo video of a lot of explosions (which there are many), and this Matsimus is kind of a gold mine for contextualizing what we're seeing, and his latest video is just explaining why his lips are sealed about what he thinks of the current war, so it's a pretty rare resource that's not also promoting a point of view of current events.

Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started. — Isaac

Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. Or then simply haven't read what I say (or perhaps it's been in the exchanges with others I guess).

In order to keep that countries do not want to join NATO, perhaps the issue would be then not to annex territories from them and make speeches how "artificial" their country is. (Oh I think I know what you will say: but we aren't talking about Russia, I don't care a fuck about Russia or something like that...)

I've said that there would have been a multitude ways for Russia leave NATO in the "new NATO" figuration thinking about out-of-theatre operations like Afghanistan and Libya and have had Western Europe make it's armed forces even smaller. It made that absolutely worse possible decision annexing territory of neighboring countries, which only reinforced the Eastern members that they were totally justified in their fears of an imperialist Russia. And that's now clear to even the Western NATO members, which as like the US didn't understand this when the Russo-Georgian war happened and desperately tried to "reset" the relations with Russia.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons by calling for a UN meeting where they will try and create a narrative that the US and Ukraine had a bioweapon lab in Kiev, thinking the world is gullible enough to fall for such bullshit as reasons to why we might see the result of bioweapons soon.

Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons by calling for a UN meeting where they will try and create a narrative that the US and Ukraine had a bioweapon lab in Kiev, thinking the world is gullible enough to fall for such bullshit as reasons to why we might see the result of bioweapons soon. — Christoffer

The problem with the bioweapons lab thing ... is that US seems to have admitted to it.

As surreal as it is, Fox News has some actual critical thinking about it:

— Christoffer