We're been out of the loop Isaac, to comment on geopolitics one must know every single living language, as well as all the dead ones for context.

Otherwise, the Russian army and reserves are far larger and now on the defensive and have all the benefits Ukrainians had defending Kiev, and the Russian army can disable the entire Ukrainian grid at will, and also has nuclear weapons that it can deploy at any moment. — boethius

Let's see then how triumphant the victorious Russian forces are then, shall we?

Thank you for that article. :up: Hadn't heard that term tankie before.

From the article:

It’s American exceptionalism turned on its head — an inability to imagine that people in other countries have the agency to form their own social movements and revolutions without help from the U.S. This worldview leads them to de-legitimize and dismiss protesters in Hong Kong, Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, Lebanon and Venezuela as illegitimate, and to deny horrific human rights abuses in a score of countries across the globe from Russia to Bolivia.

This sounds so familiar to me. The criticism against the US I can understand, but then being an apologist to totalitarian regimes is at first confusing. Yet of course, it should not be. Especially if someone tries to make a living out of journalism or commentary, then you have to pick a side. It's not only about the hand that feeds you (as depicted well in that article), it's also the polarized readers that demand that. And if you become a persona non grata to one audience, why would you write anything that for them and then inflame also the other side. Those trying to stay out of the ideological camps have simply to tread carefully, I guess.

Let's see then how triumphant the victorious Russian forces are then, shall we? — ssu

Exactly, this is the position you're supporting along with the other pro-NATO policy and Zelenskyites:

See if the Russians lose for as of yet unexplained reasons at the cost of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the near total destruction of the Ukrainian economy.

And not only that, but lose against a smaller force that now needs to be on the offensive, seen as the Russians have already conquered a large majority of the territory they mean to annex (they clearly still want to conquer the rest, but they don't need to).

In addition to being able to shutdown the Ukrainian grid at any time and have nuclear weapons to deal with problematic situations if they want.

We're been out of the loop Isaac, to comment on geopolitics one must know every single living language, as well as all the dead ones for context. — boethius

Ha! Yes. Lucky for those fluent Russian speakers we have here that the issue of the day is to do with Russia. I wondered why there was so little talk of what's going on in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, Brazil...

Little did I realise everyone is wisely refraining from comment from not knowing the native language.

As I've said, this war looks like to be going something like the Russo-Japanese war. The Russian Tzardom didn't fall because of the Russo-Japanese war, as you too might know from history. But the poor war did have some consequences.

But the poor war did have some consequences. — ssu

Yes, indeed, let's sacrifice every single Ukrainian for a chance to "have some consequences".

As an observation of the legacy of the war, you maybe right, who knows, but how does that benefit Ukrainians in either case?

That wasn't what I asked. I asked about your derogatory use of the term 'Putinists'. Does it apply to Gabuev when he concludes that the protests are too small to be much of a threat, or only to us?

See if the Russians lose for as of yet unexplained reasons — boethius

Right on, boethius. No one has ever convincingly explained or made any sound hypothesis that this war might not be a victory for Russia. Because it's all just Western propaganda. Like the talk that Russia would invade Ukraine, in the first place.

The glorious Russian army will be victorious!!! Why can't the Ukrainians understand this and surrender?

Oh, and just for @Jamal here's the report about Zelensky's prisoner release in Ukrainian (linked to directly as a source in the Grayzone article, but we'll skip over the completely unjustified and unsubstantiated accusations of reliance on english language propaganda).

https://focus.ua/uk/amp/ukraine/521825-osuzhdennyy-za-pytki-byvshiy-kombat-tornado-onishchenko-vyshel-na-svobodu-eks-nardep

I translated it using a little known facility called Google Translate. Of course I had to infiltrate a Liberal Democrat conference to find out about this obscure tool, but I made it out alive to bring this new magic called 'translation' to us tankies. Vive La Revolution!

The good thing with today's Russia is that all the old soviet jokes can be recycled. So...

God created three great virtues: Honestly, Intelligence and Putinism.

But since nobody is perfect, one who is honest and intelligent is rarely a putinist; if one is putinist and intelligent, one is often dishonest; and if one is an honest putinist, then one is not very intelligent.

Once the 'referenda' have run their course and the occupied territories are integrated to Russia, there won't be anything left to negotiate.
— Olivier5

There is the rest of Ukraine to negotiate over and avoiding or inviting the use of nuclear weapons. — boethius

What a splendid idea! The West could nuke Moscow and Saint Petersbourg, putting Putin in a stronger position to negotiate peace.

What a splendid idea! The West could nuke Moscow and Saint Petersbourg, putting Putin in a stronger position to negotiate peace. — Olivier5

Impossible to make sense of your statement here.

Right on, boethius. No one has ever convincingly explained or made any sound hypothesis that this war might not be a victory for Russia. Because it's all just Western propaganda. Like the talk that Russia would invade Ukraine, in the first place. — ssu

Please cite the hypothesis if it's been made.

And, you've already moved the goal posts as your criteria for "not victory" includes things like technically winning a war but it "has some consequences".

What was under discussion was the idea that if Ukraine fights long enough the Russian state would simply collapse. This was the proposed mechanism of "win".

Wasn't that your idea?

↪boethius Wasn't that your idea? — Olivier5

You state that once the territories are annexed that there's nothing left to negotiate.

There is obviously the rest of Ukraine that can be negotiated as well as the use of nuclear weapons, such as trying to negotiate that not happening.

Something the US is currently doing:

Biden adviser: US in private talks with Russia over nuclear weapons to avoid public ‘tit for tat’ — The Hill

Another word for "private talks" is "negotiation".

The US diplomatic strategy ... finally just talking directly to Russia after all this time insisting only Zelensky can be discussed with ...

Seems to be to try to convince Russia that a conventional military strike on Russian forces would follow the Russian use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

This seems to be grasping at diplomatic straws.

First, if the use of tactical nuclear weapons produces an easy victory in Ukraine then the loss of some military assets elsewhere is simply a "cost of doing business".

Second, the easy retaliation for the US striking Russia (a country the US is not at war with) can just be using more nukes in Ukraine, absolutely destroying every base, command centre, logistics hub etc. absolutely decimating the Ukrainian capacity to wage war.

What would be the US response to that? Just a larger conventional strike? And again, even if Russia didn't retaliate against NATO it is easily a net benefit in military terms.

Or, are these "private talks" just the US seeing they've achieved their policy objectives for their constituents the arms dealers and are now willing to wrap things up?

If people have arguments that conventional weapons are a deterrence to nuclear weapons, people are free to explain that. Likewise, why wouldn't Russia simply retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons against the bases which launched these attacks against its forces?

If they did, why would NATO retaliate for that with nuclear weapons of its own if the whole purpose of the conventional attack was to avoid using nuclear weapons, as a full scale nuclear war over Ukraine makes no sense any everyone in NATO knows that.

Solution: resolve the situation diplomatically which is suddenly US and EU officials are talking about.

Seems unlikely that something like this could take place in Putin's Russia:



^{Washington DC, USA; Oct 21, 1967
George Harris demonstrating against the Vietnam war
100,000+ protesters participating
Photo by Bernard N Boston
(Similar protests have been seen elsewhere)}

Nowadays, such protesters wouldn't really be seen as crazy extremists, except perhaps in Moscow?
Either way, Putin has put a firm lid on other voices.

I tend to look at Al-Jazeera, FT and Antiwar.com, they seem to me to be reasonable- for the most part, though the Financial Times is inconsistent and obviously "pro-Western". Still, it's useful to know what the global elite are thinking.

Obviously I don't trust RT or CNN much in this topic. I still feel that I may be missing out on some very good websites on this topic, which, given recent developments merits getting as much accurate info as is possible at the moment. I'm skeptical of the NYT and the like. Nevertheless, and knowing that a complete bias free reporting is not possible, what sites are you all using?

Sources: FSB reports 260,000 men left Russia, wants to close borders
09:30 AM, 26 September 2022
Novaya Gazeta Europe
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has reported that 261,000 men had left Russia after the announcement of “partial” mobilisation in the country, our source in the Presidential Administration tells us.

Discussions on closing the border for men of military age began in the Presidential Administration on Wednesday, 21 September, when law enforcement agents had started reporting the numbers of men leaving the country. According to our source, the last report by FSB from 25 September stated that 261,000 men had left Russia in the period from Wednesday to Saturday evening.

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/09/26/sources-fsb-reports-260000-men-left-russia-wants-to-close-borders-news

Look at this fucking madness

Nevertheless, and knowing that a complete bias free reporting is not possible, what sites are you all using? — Manuel

Meduza, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, AP, Deutsche Welle, France 24, BBC world news, NPR.

No source is free of bias, but some are more reliable and professional than others.

Yep. Bias is inevitable, accurate presentation of the facts given context, is not.

Thanks for those sources.

The wording "catastrophic consequences " was part of a message to the Kremlin from the White House regarding the use of tactical nukes. :eyes:

^^^
It's for real. :(

Please cite the hypothesis if it's been made. — boethius

That the Russian invasion of Ukraine is only Western propaganda? Sure.

(9th February, 2022) Western media and governments have expressed alarm over a suspected buildup of Russian military forces close to its over-1200-mile border with Ukraine. There are reportedly almost 100,000 troops in that vicinity, causing President Joe Biden to warn that this is “the most consequential thing that’s happened in the world in terms of war and peace since World War II.”

Yet this is far from the first media panic over a supposedly imminent Russian invasion. In fact, warning of a hot war in Europe is a near yearly occurrence at this point.

_ _ _

Thus, many readers will be forgiven for thinking it is Groundhog Day again. Yet there is something different about this time: coverage over the conflict has been enormous and has come to dominate the news cycle for weeks now, in a way it simply did not previously. The possibility of war has scared Americans and provoked calls for a far higher military budget and a redesign of American foreign policy to counter this supposed threat.

Russia, for its part, has repeatedly rejected all allegations that it plans to attack Ukraine, describing them as “fiction.” “Talks about the coming war are provocative by themselves. [The U.S.] seems to be calling for this, wanting and waiting for [war] to happen, as if you want to make your speculations come true,” said Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia.

(See here)

Today, eight years after the start of the conflict, Russia is amassing a large number of troops along the border. Has it changed its approach? That is unlikely. Despite Western predictions of an imminent invasion, it is questionable that the intended target of the Russian military mobilisation is Ukraine.

(See No, Russia will not invade Ukraine)

Seems unlikely that something like this could take place in Putin's Russia: — jorndoe

Except you can find photos like that from years ago already. This is from 2007 and then Putin's elections:


Perhaps Russia now experiences something that the US experienced in 2020 after the death of George Floyd?

It's for real. — magritte

What's concerning (among all the concerning stuff) is that Biden doesn't want domestic tranquility in Russia. He wants regime change.

What would be concerning if no Russian would want (secretly?) regime change. Yet many opt to leave... perhaps the ghost of Stalin is too frightening.

Putin had a somewhat good run for Russia. Until 2014, and especially from February 24th this year it really been a train wreck.