is that it's YOU who change the meaning to fit your own narrative, not me, so don't even try to dismiss this just because it doesn't fit your argument. — Christoffer

I've literally cited the legal definition of race. I've zero interest in your personal version.

co-Zelenskyites on here because virtually every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain. — Isaac

Hardly surprising that that you are living in an alternative reality. As Ukrainians already have regained territory. They didn't have to rely on an insurgency to fight the Russians, which some experts thought they would have to rely.

But as a leftist tankist I assume you have a totally different view on 'experts on the matter' are.

Putin lost this war on the first day. Ukraine didn't collapse as the Afghan government did.

I've literally cited the legal definition of race. I've zero interest in your personal version. — Isaac

I've literally described in what way the comparison is being made and you ignore it. Comparing Russian citizens following a state doctrine to another group of citizens following another state doctrine is not racism or is about race whatsoever. You invent a race card to play instead of actually fucking reading what people write.

I've zero interest in your low-quality bullshit. You have infested this thread with so many bloated strawmen and invented twists and turns to fit your own argument and narrative that it's impossible to discuss anything in here without you taking a crap on everything. You don't care to read or understand others' writings, you only care to push your own ideas and attack others based on whatever false narrative you conjured up about others' texts.

This thread should be renamed to "Putin/Russia apologists group think" since that's what this whole thread is about.

I posted a call by Jonathan Little for a revolution in Russia, here:

My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan

(source: https://www.lemonde.fr/le-monde-in-english/article/2022/03/28/jonathan-littell-my-dear-russian-friends-now-is-the-time-for-your-own-maidan_6119497_5026681.html)

I hope you like it. You good friends here did not.

Because the chances of a victory are very, very small, thousands of people will die in the meantime, and Russia can have a revolution without a Ukrainian victory just as well. — Isaac

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I trust that Ukraine will win this war, and that it will result in regime change in Russia.

This thread should be renamed to "Putin/Russia apologists group think" since that's what this whole thread is about. — Christoffer

I call them putinistas.

Hardly surprising that that you are living in an alternative reality. — ssu

Well. I'm all ears. Just quote from the expert opinion you're using to counter those I've cited who put Ukraine's chances of success very low. Then we can have a discussion.

You just muttering about alternative realities without a shred of expert evidence is not a discussion, it's just your ill-informed opinion.

a leftist tankist — ssu

How ironic. you know tankies were the ones willing to use tanks to achieve their political objectives. Not the ones opposed to doing so.

I assume you have a totally different view on 'experts on the matter' are. — ssu

No, just the normal view. I cited General Mark Miley, I cited Swift analysts, I cited Christopher Chivvis, Nicholas Wheeler, Princeton University... Is there some good reason why these are the 'wrong' experts other than that they disagree with you?

Yeah, on one side we have "Putin Apologists" and "Kremlin Agents". Ok, fine. If, regardless of how many times we condemn Putin - an act that has zero value, either informative, or from a moral perspective or anything else - that is the charge, whatever.

At least we aren't pushing for World War III, because Russia is so bad.

I call them putinistas. — Olivier5

From barely two pages back...

Just because folks have opinions and share them here, does not make those a form of "parroting" of anyone. ...You guys don't like it when we disagree with you, fair enough, but we are not parroting the enemies of the folks you are parroting. — Olivier5

Or simply...

What is it with your obsession with little me? This war is not about me — Olivier5

But of course, anyone not toeing the media-sanctioned line must be demonised with aplomb.

Still waiting for a shred of evidence to support your position. Anything? The slightest mention will do, just anything we can actually discuss other than your uninformed ad hoc reckons.

No, just the normal view. I cited General Mark Miley, — Isaac

LOL! :rofl:

An absolutely ludicrous idea!

Even you wrote his name wrong (MIlley), and obviously that when the general says the obvious, that there is no quick victory for Ukraine (something that Ukrainian military leaders themselves have said), you interpret in your fantasies "every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain." How telling.

For others here, let's just quote what actually this Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said, which obviously is very important. To have this thread to be about the reality about the war in Ukraine. From US defense.gov website:

This is a war of choice -- it's a war of choice for Russia. They embarked on a tremendous strategic mistake. They made a choice in February of this year to illegally invade a country that posed no threat to Russia. In making that choice, Russia established several objectives. They wanted to overthrow President Zelenskyy and his government. They wanted to secure access to the Black Sea. They wanted to capture Odessa. They wanted to seize all the way to the Dnipro River, pause, and then continue to attack all the way to the Carpathian Mountains.

In short, they wanted to overrun all of Ukraine, and they lost. They didn't achieve those objectives. They failed to achieve their strategic objectives and they are now failing to achieve their operational and tactical objectives.

Russia changed their war aims in March and beginning of April. Their war of choice then focused on the seizure of the Donbas, the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. That was their operational objectives and they failed there. Then they changed again and expanded to seize Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

The strategic reframing of their objectives, of their illegal invasion have all failed, every single one of them. And we've just witnessed last week Russia's retreat from Kherson. They retreated across the Dnipro River, they moved to more defensible positions south of the river. Their losses due to Ukrainian success and skill and bravery on the battlefield have been very, very significant.

And it's clear that the Russian will to fight does not match the Ukrainian will to fight. On the battlefield, Ukrainians' offensive up in Kharkiv has been very successful, where they crossed the Oskil River and they have moved to the east and are near the town of Svatove.

There is a significant ongoing fight down in Bakhmut right now and in the vicinity of Siversk and Soledar, where the Ukrainians are fighting a very, very successful mobile defense. There is limited contact right now in Zaporizhzhia and limited contact in and around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. And as we already discussed, Kherson's offensive has already been successful.

So across the entire front line trace of some 900 or so kilometers, the Ukrainians have achieved success after success after success and the Russians have failed every single time. They've lost strategically, they've lost operationally, and I repeat, they lost tactically.

What they've tried to do, they failed at. They started this war and Russia can end this war. Russia can make another choice, and they could make a choice today, to end this war.

And what Milley continues about the Ukrainians:

Ukraine is going to continue to take the fight to the Russians. And I just had a significant conversation with my Ukrainian counterpart and he assures me that that is the future for Ukraine.

As Ukraine continues to fight, air defense capabilities are becoming critical for their future success. An integrated system -- an integrated air defense system, an integrated air and missile defense system, is what is necessary as Ukraine repels Russian aerial attacks.

And a significant portion of today's conversations in today's meeting with almost 50 countries focused on how we, as a global coalition, can provide the right mix of air defense systems and ammunition for Ukraine to continue its control of the skies and prevent the Russians from achieving air superiority.

To combat continued Russian strikes, last Thursday, the United States announced $400 million in additional commitments to support Ukraine, and those capabilities included missiles for the HAWK air defense systems, which is a complement to what Spain has recently committed. There's other air defense systems included in that $400 million package, along with ground systems such as up-armored Humvees, grenade launchers and additional HIMARS ammunition and lots of other pieces of equipment.

Wars are not fought by armies; they're fought by nations. This war is fought by the Ukrainian people, and it's fought by the Russian people, and this is a war that Russia's leadership has chosen to put Russia into. They didn't have to do this, but they did, and they have violated Ukrainian sovereignty and they violated territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is in complete contradiction to the basic rules that underlined the United Nations Charter established at the end of World War II. This is one of the most significant attempts to destroy the rules-based order that World War II was fought all about, and we, the United States are determined to continue to support Ukraine with the means to defend themselves for as long as it takes.

But at the end of the day, Ukraine will retain -- will remain a free and independent country with its territory intact. Russia could end this war today. Russia could put an end to it right now, but they won't. They're going to continue that fight. They're going to continue that fight into the winter as best we can tell, and we, the United States, on the direction of the president and the secretary of defense, we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to keep them free, sovereign, independent with their territory intact.

AND FURTHERMORE, Milley continues:

Ukrainians are not asking for anyone to fight for them. They don't want American soldiers, or British, or German, or French, or anybody else to fight for them. They will fight for themselves. All Ukraine is asking for is the means to fight, and we are determined to provide that means. Ukrainians will do this on their timeline, and until then, we will continue to support all the way for as long as it takes. It is evident to me and the contact group today that that is not only a U.S. position, but it is a position of all the nations that were there today. We will be there for as long as it takes to keep Ukraine free. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

See reference here.

Still waiting for a shred of evidence to support your position — Isaac

Which one?

Where in any of that does it say that Ukraine are likely to win back Crimea?

Nowhere.

The assessment of every single expert I've read (and cited) is that it is very unlikely that Ukraine will win back the territory they have lost. That's the issue.

It's not a question of whether they'll fight, or whose decision it is, or how many battles they've won. It's a question of whether they should include ceding territory on their negotiations.

Not a single expert thus far has suggested they didn't ought to, as you are.

Where in any of that does it say that Ukraine are likely to win back Crimea?

Nowhere. — Isaac

Wrong again, Isaac.

It's even in bold, so you could notice it. (But again, too much to assume you would read what people say or write)

we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to keep them free, sovereign, independent with their territory intact.

It's even in bold, so you could notice it. (But again, too much to assume you would read what people say or write) — ssu

That doesn't even mention likelihood. Christ!

The point is that Ukraine are unlikely to win back their lost territory militarily.

in terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory, defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine, to include what they claim is Crimea…is not high — Milley

"world renowned" Swift analysts put that "not high" probability at 4%.

Your evidence that it's likely?

Nowhere to be seen.

in terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory, defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine, to include what they claim is Crimea…is not high — Milley — Isaac

Why the ellipsis?
"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory - defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea - the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily,"

And?

Any evidence at all that victory is likely? Anything whatsoever? One, even passing mention that contradicts the analysis by the Swift center?

What part of "Why the ellipsis?" is no clear?

"world renowned" Swift analysts put that "not high" probability at 4%. — Isaac

Link to the source ?

Link to the source ? — neomac

I've already cited the source. I'm not playing this "let's wait a few pages and then pretend there's no citations" game. It's dull and transparent. Find a new game.

I'm not playing this "let's wait a few pages and then pretend there's no citations" game. — Isaac

That's the game I'm playing: link the source you quote (if available online). And I couldn't find such a link from your previous posts.

Incoherent ramble again from you, Isaac.

The fact that I stated is that Milley doesn't see a quick victory for Ukraine (just as the Ukrainians don't either see it) makes you fantasize that Milley (or your Miley) is concluding "that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain." That's simply is utterly false.

Please look at what he actually said (from the site given):

(Milley) So, in terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back.

The Russian military is suffering tremendously. Leaders have been, you know, their leadership is really hurting bad. They've lost a lot of causalities, killed and wounded. They've lost -- I won't go over exact numbers because they're classified, but they've lost a tremendous amount of their tanks and their infantry fighting vehicles. They've lost a lot of their fourth and fifth-generation fighters and helicopters and so on and so forth.

The Russian military is really hurting bad. So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.

More of the timetable is actually discussed during the briefing.

And of course, the Ukrainians have put forward their terms, hence they are open for peace talks.

Where does he say that the Ukrainians are likely to win back their lost territory?

Where is the conclusion of swift analysts contradicted?

Where is any expert evidence at all that regaining the disputed territory is sufficiently likely?

Where is any expert opinion that Ukraine needn't cede territory as part of any deal?

The question is whether continued war is worth the cost. That question is answered by

1. What difference will it make to the lives of the population in that region being under Russian rule or Ukrainian rule?

2. What cost, in human lives and well-being, will it cost to regain the region.

Answering (1) requires an analysis of Ukraine's governance of the region.

Answering (2) requires an analysis of how long it will take, if ever, for Ukraine to regain the territory (assuming the costs of war increase with time).

Milley's comments speak to the latter, suggesting a long and costly war. So the benefits at 1 have to be even higher now. That's the conclusion these analyses yield.

To support your position in the light of them you need to show either that the benefits of 1 are even higher than previously thought, or that Milley et al. are wrong. You've done neither.

The costs of regaining the territory are too high relative to the gains.

Now trying to change the question again?

What in "as long as it takes - for the territory to be intact" do you not understand?

Anytime soon doesn't mean never, especially when you just said the US will back them up as long as it takes. And notice just what Milley says:

But Kherson and Kharkiv, physically, geographically, are relatively small compared to the whole, so that that -- the military task of militarily kicking the Russians physically out of Ukraine is a very difficult task. And it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks unless the Russian army completely collapses, which is unlikely.

And this is quite in line what the Ukrainians are actually thinking about: Crimea is an issue for next summer. Or something on that timeline.

Putin's Russia has been and is in a (dehumanizing) systematic process of creating a Ukraine of more hate, which, in time, I'm sure they would/will use to justify more (given the chance), perhaps with the help of some questionable friends. — jorndoe

It's interesting that those neonazis don't get the focus of those seeing neonazis in Ukraine as Putin sees. But Putin's far-right views are in line with the imperialist idea of Russia being the third and final Rome... and everything good coming from Holy Russia and everything bad coming from the decadent immoral West.

From Putin's annexation speech (30th September):

Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. I now want to return to what I said, I want to address all the citizens of the country – not only to those colleagues who are in the hall – to all the citizens of Russia: do we want to have, here, in our country, in Russia, parent number one, number two, number three instead of mom and dad – have they gone made out there? Do we really want perversions that lead to degradation and extinction to be imposed on children in our schools from the primary grades? To be drummed into them that there are various supposed genders besides women and men, and to be offered a sex change operation? Do we want all this for our country and our children? For us, all this is unacceptable, we have a different future, our own future

I repeat, the dictatorship of the Western elites is directed against all societies, including the peoples of the Western countries themselves. This is a challenge for everyone. Such a complete denial of man, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, the suppression of freedom acquiring the features of a “reverse religion” [the opposite of what the religion is] – outright Satanism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ, denouncing the false prophets, says: By their fruits you shall know them. And these poisonous fruits are already obvious to people – not only in our country, in all countries, including many people in the West itself.

Russia’s Vindictive Rage ^{(via MSN)
— Tom Nichols · The Atlantic · Nov 21, 2022}

It’s obscene; it’s not constructive; it’s criminal to bomb peaceful cities. These things shouldn’t even be uttered—to ‘wipe a city off the face of the Earth’ is obscene. There are 1,001 ways to fight without touching civilians. — Yaakov Kedmi

Russia, as Kedmi and others now seem to realize, has gone far beyond any of the rationalizations Putin deployed last winter about saving the Ukrainians from “Nazis” or any other such nonsense. — Tom Nichols

Oh wait, is that "mainstream"? A "partyline"...? :grin:
"Destruction of our nation is the sole reason for their existence."
Had some such comments — and this ain't the only one — come out of some small country, then some would just have gone ahead and called them paranoid already.
Repeat: No one is marching on Moscow, or have threatened with that. Yet! :wink:

I appeal to Army General Sutovikin, a hero of Russia. Comrade Army General, I ask you to complete the destruction of the energy infrastructure of the Nazi Ukrainian junta, Captain Solovyov. — Nov 17, 2022

Huh ? Talking about the Nazi thing.

What in "as long as it takes - for the territory to be intact" do you not understand? — ssu

Nothing.

Third time. Where in that speech does it contradict the view that Ukraine are unlikely to regain their lost territory? I get that the US aim to support their attempt. That's obvious, it earns the hawks millions.

The question is whether it's worth it. It's no different question, it's the same one I've been asking for 300 pages and getting nothing but a fascinating range of ways of dodging the question.

Is the chance of Ukraine regaining their lost territories worth the cost? It's a simple question. How many lives is that region's choice of governance worth?

Apart from the mad bombing (now extended to Kherson apparently), Izium, Bucha, and such, atrocious incidents may of course be found on all sides:

Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range
^{— Malachy Browne, Stephen Hiltner, Chevaz Clarke-Williams, Taylor Turner · The New York Times · Nov 20, 2022
• via Business Insider: UN reviewing video of captured Russian soldiers who appear to have been killed at close range, NYT reports
• via Yahoo: UN reviewing video of captured Russian soldiers who appear to have been killed at close range, NYT reports}

Ukraine to investigate alleged prisoner shooting video
^{— Julia Mueller · The Hill · Nov 20, 2022}

Will see what comes of it.

Waging war costs. Could always cease the invasion destruction re-culturation. :up:

Analysis: Surge in Russia's defence and security spending means cuts for schools and hospitals in 2023 ^{(via MSN, St Louis Post)
— Darya Korsunskaya · Reuters · Nov 22, 2022}

Important stuff from April that you may have missed.

Russia-Ukraine War By The Numbers
^{— The Onion · Apr 1, 2022}

At least we aren't pushing for World War III, because Russia is so bad. — Manuel

Nobody is pushing for WW3 here. We just don,t understand why you guys would chose this hill to die on. What is the point of defending mass murderers on a philosophy forum?

Is the chance of Ukraine regaining their lost territories worth the cost? It's a simple question. How many lives is that region's choice of governance worth? — Isaac

When you in your ignorance (or living in your alternative reality) think there is no difference between Ukraine and Russia...

Ukraine and Russia, however, have quite similar governments, particularly in the East where Ukraine were fighting the pro-Russian breakaway factions. Similar in levels of corruption, similar in human rights, similar in press freedoms, similar in approach to ethnic and national minorities within their territory. — Isaac

And don't understand why Ukrainians would fight an aggressor in the first place, because the only thing would be that more people would die....

It's simple

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Then it's obvious nobody can make you understand the reality here. That Ukrainians will fight an imperialist aggressor, which in the end will likely lose just like it lost in the Russo-Japanese war or in Afghanistan.