But they would need more than just those ATGMs, but also artillery and medium range Surface-to-Air missile systems. — ssu
But still, it's not going well for the Russians. — ssu
So he'll just stay there for life? — frank
I wish I could access different channels — Manuel
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.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
Not like he was seriously challenged by anyone or anything before.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
He has lost this. Even if he can declare a military victory.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
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
As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. — ssu
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
You keep dodging the answer. Or failing to understand it.Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. — 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.Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons? — Isaac
↪boethius are you averse to including evidence/sources with your posts? — Changeling
Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. — ssu
how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. — ssu
It's called deterrence. — ssu
The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material. — ssu
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).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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.