Weren't you the guy predicting Ukraine's offensive was going to push the Russians out of Crimea? :lol:

The West wasn't willing to stick its neck out for Ukraine when Ukraine was still in decent shape. It sure as hell won't risk a war with Russia now that Ukraine is lost. — Tzeentch

Is it lost? Has Putin got all the territories he formally annexed? Have Russian got the Western side of the Dnipro?

Or is this your Pro-Russian ramblings again?

Once people finally acknowledge Ukraine is militarily completely lost, perhaps their next steps can be chosen more rationally. There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that. In fact, it will benefit Ukraine to make decisions based on reality.

Additionally, framing the other side as partisan is intellectual poverty. Lets keep things civil.

Call it a "special defense operation" if you must (or escalation or both). Doubtful that the Kremlin can withstand such a move (cf their posturing propaganda threats). A fairly straightforward strategy. Can send a message to other would-be invaders, by the way. But, while reasonable enough, it's not likely to happen (giving fuel to things like boethius's "drip feed" hypothesis), at least not with NATO as the combined international air force: — jorndoe

Seems we see eye to eye after all this time.

The no-fly zone idea was analyzed also at length at the start of the war, here and elsewhere, especially as Zelensky and social media spent a considerable amount of energy pushing for it.

I also explained at length how NATO boots on the ground could work in practice (especially before the war started). A move I'd be entirely for if it prevented further deaths; of course that wouldn't happen if it triggered nuclear war, but it's also arguable such a move is actually less risky than the current strategy of a slippery slope towards nuclear war.

Neither a no-fly zone nor boots on the ground happen because protecting Ukrainian land or Ukrainian lives is not the goal.

The goal is to drip feed arms to Ukraine enough to prop it up in order to damage Russia (which may not even be happening), super charge arms profiteering both directly to Ukraine as well as indirectly by creating a new Cold War, protect the USD from the Euro by having the Europeans destroy their competitiveness and fully prostrate themselves as meaningless vassals on the world stage.

Like every other US proxy force, Ukraine will be dropped like a shoe filled with spiders the moment it outlives its usefulness.

Ukrainian partisans will say "But, but, but, but what happened to all our promises! What happened to defending freedom and democracy and all that! How is this possible! How is this honourable! How is this acceptable!"

Cries that will travel all the way to the mountains of Afghanistan and echo there through eternity. The Taliban will smile knowingly and no one else will care. Down the memory hole the war will go.

The goal is to drip feed arms to Ukraine enough to prop it up in order to damage Russia (which may not even be happening), super charge arms profiteering both directly to Ukraine as well as indirectly by creating a new Cold War, protect the USD from the Euro by having the Europeans destroy their competitiveness and fully prostrate themselves as meaningless vassals on the world stage. — boethius

What will be the goal (in Ukraine) if Trump wins the elections? Can you predict that too?

What will be the goal (in Ukraine) if Trump wins the elections? Can you predict that too? — neomac

My prediction is that if Trump wins the elections, for sure Ukraine will have outlived its usefulness.

To what extent it outlives its usefulness before we even get to the election is a somewhat open question.

Support is already being pulled back but we can presume US / NATO still wants to avoid total embarrassment.

At the same time, that doesn't really matter all that much as even extreme embarrassment can be simply spun away and back page news by the next news cycle.

For example, I have a vague impression, a sort of whisper really, from all the way down the abyss of the memory hole that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was an extreme embarrassment, leaving billions in weapons for the Taliban and "friends and allies" literally falling off the last planes as they skedaddled away. Any political consequence for anyone? No.

Within a few weeks everyone agreed (everyone that matters, everyone white) that Afghans just didn't want freedom hard enough, were giving a magnificent opportunity but were lazy fighters and let freedom slip through their fingers.

So it shall be with Ukraine: We gave them everything and they still lost! Losers! Losers! Losers!

Russia is not conducting classic highly mobile offensives that rely on airpower, but uses grinding attrition warfare making use of drones and artillery.

A no-fly zone would be costly and bring with it a high risk of escalation, while not significantly altering the balance of power.

Besides, the US is not looking to get further embroiled in Ukraine and is actually looking for an exit strategy. Ukraine is a senseless project that needlessly created tensions between Russia and the West, while in the rest of the world flashpoints are threatening to boil over which have actual strategic importance for the US.

The neocons shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine in a big way.

Once people finally acknowledge Ukraine is militarily completely lost — Tzeentch

How is Ukraine completely lost?

Seems that you are living in your own bubble or something.... :snicker:

How is Ukraine completely lost?

Seems that you are living in your own bubble or something.... — ssu

The balance of power being heavily in favor of the Russians is completely obvious, and nothing short of a miracle will change it because neither the US nor Europe is willing to stick their neck out.

The only question now is how much more punishment Ukraine will receive before it finds an off-ramp, and the sooner people understand the reality of this situation, the more lives can be spared.

If it appears I am "living a bubble" it is only by one's lack of insight.

The Gremlin circle, with Pukin at the helm, has been telling a particular story, a tale of doom and destruction, a vast plot and dire existential threat:

As for our country, after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. — Vladimir Putin · Feb 24, 2022

In essence, Russia is fighting the notorious collective West, defending its very existence as a country, people, and civilization. — Valentina Matviyenko · Jun 10, 2022

We are fighting for our place in the world, for our historical future, and, undoubtedly, victory will be ours. Our country is now experiencing a truly historic moment. The main factor in Russia's development is its sovereignty, the right to independently determine its own destiny. Sovereignty is a guarantee of the well-being and dignity of our citizens, it is the future of our children. In such matters, Russia has never retreated and will not retreat, because otherwise it will cease to be Russia. — Sergey Naryshkin · Jul 5, 2022

Either we win in the way we consider our victory, or there will be World War III, sooner or later. I don't see any other way. — Margarita Simonyan · Dec 4, 2022

It is no longer a secret to anyone that the strategic goal of the United States and its NATO allies is 'victory over Russia on the battlefield' as a mechanism for significantly weakening or even destroying our country. — Sergey Lavrov · Dec 27, 2022

The Westerners' plans are to continue to pull Russia apart, and eventually just erase it from the political map of the world. — Nikolai Patrushev · Jan 10, 2023

We pray to the Lord that He will enlighten those madmen and help them understand that any desire to destroy Russia will mean the end of the world. — Patriarch Kirill of Moscow · Jan 19, 2023

The Western elite make no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, “Russia’s strategic defeat.” What does this mean to us? This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country. — Vladimir Putin · Feb 21, 2023

If Russia stops its special military operation without achieving victory, there will be no Russia, it will be torn apart. — Dmitry Medvedev · Feb 22, 2023

Currently, we are again facing a serious danger. Exploiting Ukraine, the collective West seeks to break up Russia and to rob it of its independence. — Sergei Shoigu · Feb 23, 2023

They have one goal: to disband the former Soviet Union and its fundamental part — the Russian Federation. I do not even know if such an ethnic group as the Russian people will be able to survive in the form in which it exists today. — Vladimir Putin · Feb 26, 2023

The existential nature of threats to the security and development of our country, driven by the actions of unfriendly states is recognised. — Sergey Lavrov · Mar 31, 2023

Ukraine is a puppet of forces that want to destroy Russia and take away its historical lands. — Roman Starovoyt · Jan 22, 2024

for us this is about our destiny, a matter of life and death — Vladimir Putin · Feb 18, 2024

For the domestic audience it's a (hyperbolic) nationalistic call for unity (seen before), in general it's for anyone they might pick up along the way because of something negative about "the West" or NATO, which is easy enough. Many has independently commented (← you can check their credentials sources whatever yourself), including Catriona Kelly (Mar 20, 2022) · Ruth Deyermond (Mar 20, 2022) · Robert Person, Michael McFaul (Apr 2022) · Emily Ferris (Jul 27, 2022) · Andrew Katell (Feb 26, 2023) · Delhi audience (Mar 4, 2023) · Steven Pifer (Mar 6, 2023). NATO has kept tiptoeing around Russia.

The Kremlin's authoritarianism regress oppression opacity irredentism posturing polemic bombing is indeed threatening, and anyone valuing democracy transparency freedom can be expected to respond, which, granted, can also be threatening. Incidentally (perhaps), the Kremlin circle tends to conflate themselves and Russia, in their responses. It might be possible to argue that Armenia Israel Palestine Moldova whichever is endangered. But Russia? Get real. Ironically, the Kremlin's supposed grievances towards two or three continents + NATO, are Ukraine's real grievances towards the Kremlin.

Happy New Year, Ukraine. And Russia.

The balance of power being heavily in favor of the Russians is completely obvious, and nothing short of a miracle will change it because neither the US nor Europe is willing to stick their neck out.

The only question now is how much more punishment Ukraine will receive before it finds an off-ramp, and the sooner people understand the reality of this situation, the more lives can be spared.

If it appears I am "living a bubble" it is only by one's lack of insight. — Tzeentch

So...

The media insisted that a "counterattack" that it forecasted didn't achieve much without air superiority, material advantage in artillery or anything similar that.

And the US Congress is bickering about the support to Ukraine...

Hence @Tzeentch declares it all over and a glorious Victory to Vladimir Putin!!!


Well, time then to end this thread as the war has been won by Russa and it's all over. :snicker:

The West wasn't willing to stick its neck out for Ukraine when — Tzeentch

neither the US nor Europe is willing to stick their neck out — Tzeentch

Well, then no one was. :shrug: China, North and South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, ...

the NordStream bombings which were obviously planned (and probably carried out) by the US — Tzeentch

... in your opinion (again)?

a glorious Victory to Vladimir Putin!!! — ssu

And the West served it to him on a silver platter. This is a worse strategic failure than Vietnam.

You seem to have a dissenting understanding of my own, do you understand why Russia invaded Ukraine? Try to remember in your understanding that all is process. Russia and China and the BRICS are not the bad guys here. If you know the history behind what is occurring, we can then talk, the aggressors are the Yanks, and the Europe that they own. The BRICS forever, and the end of
colonialism.

I believe you are speaking of the Soviet Union which no longer exists. The West is the one with the outrageous history of subjugation and slavery maintained to this day. America began taking over the colonial powers of Great Britain just after the First World War. America saved their butts in that war, and the British realized that they can no longer call the shots in the world anymore, they needed the Americans.

America does colonialism different from the British, but it is even more brutal. The Brits would move into the subjugated country and take over its complete administration, bleeding the colony of its vitality through force of arms. The Americans do it too, but somewhat different, but much of their violence is covert and they are rather expert at making economic warfare upon weaker nations. The second world war the Yanks also found profitable, much of the world was devastated, America relatively untouched, they claimed to have defeated the Nazi war machine, when in fact it was Russia the crushed that monster war machine and chased it through Europe right back to Berlin. These wars made America a superpower, and with the folding of Soviet Russia, it made it the only superpower and has been one bitch of a master ever since.

There is a shift in global power due to America's desire for world domination usurping the sovereignty of much of Europe and in the processes installing nuclear war heads on their soils, bought and paid for. America has plans of ruling the world, and it just got a wakeup call, and its name is the BRICS. If you wish to discuss this, give me some indication you know some history, other than home grown propaganda, some world history. Example, what lead up to the invasion of Ukraine, start with the reunification of Germany and go on from there.

If you wish to discuss this, give me some indication you know some history, — boagie

Why don't you give me some indication that you're capable of more nuance than the average propaganda bot?

Example, what lead up to the invasion of Ukraine, start with the reunification of Germany and go on from there. — boagie

So how did you think this would go, you just jump in here and demand I write a history book to prove my credentials?

Well, do you know what lead up to the invasion of the Ukraine. If not don't, don't waste my time.

Well, do you know what lead up to the invasion of the Ukraine. If not don't waste my time. — boagie

It's been a long thread. You didn't say anything we didn't hear already a thousand times.
Being you pro-Russian, it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong.

Why, I had no idea you were so open-minded. The problem began with the unification of Germany, which was an agreement between all the allied countries under the protection and guidance of America. It was agreed to by Russia as well, on the condition that NATO did not move any further east towards Russia. This was agreed to by America, stating we will not move one inch closer to the borders of Russia. They lied, and soon began their advance toward the Russian border. With each country America took into its fold moving closer, they also placed nuclear warheads on the soil of these countries. Starting to get the picture?

Each time lying to the Russians they would go no further. America's dreams is world domination, by means of its superpower and usurping the sovereignty of each country it can place nuclear weapons into. Russia did not want war, but Russia's security concerns were simply ignored, and America moved ever closer with its nuclear weapons. Ukraine is on Russia's border, this was the last straw, Russia and Ukraine were in the process of reaching a peaceful agreement for her to remain neutral, America overthrew that democratically elected and friendly Ukraine government, and replaced it with its puppet. All of those supporting America are countries subjugated economically to America, and or are previous European colonial powers that do not want to give up the economic colonies. The BRICS is the other half of the world saying, enough is enough, and drew a line in the sand, that line was Ukraine. America has been a nasty piece of work and cruel master, and a new day has dawn, it could all be resolved if America wish to be a decent world citizen, instead of a war monger. War is America's cottage industry and the world is fed up!

You seem to have a dissenting understanding of my own, do you understand why Russia invaded Ukraine? Try to remember in your understanding that all is process. Russia and China and the BRICS are not the bad guys here. If you know the history behind what is occurring, we can then talk, the aggressors are the Yanks, and the Europe that they own. The BRICS forever, and the end of colonialism. — boagie

This is so typical, even in an Philosophy Forum.

Where does this eagerness come from to justify and hail one side from another when both sides could be criticized for disrespecting human rights or international laws? Why this desperate and naive intent to put countries to be either "the bad guys" and those opposing them "the good guys"? There's much criticize all Great Powers, but then again, they sometimes can have good policies too. Apparently this is too much to fathom for many.

Is it so controversial or illogical to be for human rights, peace and against colonial and imperial aspirations universally?

Or is it just trolling?

Because I asked you in another thread the same following questions and you never replied, but again does fit this thread too:

Why on Earth praise the BRICs?

You think those Great Powers are different or better, or some kind of champions of human rights and against genocide? Yeah, they surely will condemn things that are in their interest. But it's not some universal value they agree on.

What about what Russia did in Chechnya or now is doing in Ukraine or what China is doing in Uighuria to the Uighurs?

I think it is similar acts, although far more worse in the case of Russia. In the First and Second Chechen wars multiple more Chechens were killed than Palestinians have been killed in the current war in Gaza and there are far fewer Chechens than Palestinians. And the treatment of the Uighurs in China will definately constitute the legal definition of genocide.

So :vomit: for praising such countries like Russia and China.

Russia is not conducting classic highly mobile offensives that rely on airpower, but uses grinding attrition warfare making use of drones and artillery. — Tzeentch

Obviously the no-fly zone is more wishful thinking and will not happen.

However, I don't think the role of the Russian airforce should be minimized. The planes drop glide bombs, "the small one" being 500 kg.

The typical 155mm artillery shell is 45 kg, and FPV drones are still smaller in payload.

This capacity to destroy much more hardened targets on the front shouldn't be dismissed in terms of tactical and strategic impact, especially Urban warfare where concrete buildings are good protection against artillery but are vulnerable to much larger bombs.

Without these large bombs it may not be possible for Russia to advance at more than a snails pace, such as we saw in Bakhmut before deployment of the glide bombs.

Of course, even without the planes the Russians are at a significant advantage, as you say, but not necessarily enough to take heavily fortified positions in acceptable amounts of time, resources and man power.

This is so typical, even in an Philosophy Forum.

Where does this eagerness come from to justify and hail one side from another when both sides could be criticized for disrespecting human rights or international laws? Why this desperate and naive intent to put countries to be either "the bad guys" and those opposing them "the good guys"? There's much criticize all Great Powers, but then again, they sometimes can have good policies too. Apparently this is too much to fathom for many. — ssu

Really, typical? It seems to me @boagie is literally the first participant in this discussion to present things as BRICS are good and America is bad.

@Isaac and myself and others, spent dozens of pages explaining that we're criticizing Wester policy because we are Westerners and therefore responsible first and foremost for the policy in our own Western countries and the political blocks they're a part of.

But, let's say America has some good policies ... does that excuse leading Ukraine to war and then having Ukraine sacrifice so many Ukrainian lives for American (elite) perceived interests, on false pretences?

As for the war "not being lost" yet, we discussed, you and me, t some length at the start of the conflict of how Ukraine has, based on information available to us, essentially zero chance of victory against the Russians.

Your only argument against this conclusion is that maybe Ukrainian generals know something we don't and have some sort of secret tactic, weapons or plan that may surprise us.

Seeing as I couldn't even imagine what that secret thing could even potentially be, I predicted "that not happening" and things going exactly as we agreed are extremely likely based on the available information (that Ukraine will not be able to achieve any significant offensive, such as cut the land bridge much less push Russia to the pre-war border, given Russias far greater capacities, Ukraine would simply have the same problems the Russians had in their Northern offensive, but much, much harder).

So, since that time has slipped away and hundreds of thousands of lives have as well, have you seen since this secret thing that could deliver Ukraine victory?

Because if you haven't, then everything is exactly on course according to your own evaluation sans secret move of some sort: Ukrainians are outmatched in every capacity and therefore are succumbing to attrition.

Obviously the no-fly zone is more wishful thinking and will not happen.

:100: , that ship sailed a long time ago.

And the point has been mooted by how ineffective the Russian Air Force has been. Most of their activity is lobbing off missiles from Russian air-space, granted they've had particularly high losses in the last two weeks with more ambitious operations.

The main benefit of a no fly zone at this point would be that Ukraine's Air Force could operate much more freely, which might very well break the stalemate. But such a no fly zone is going to invariably involve striking targets in Russia. You can't tell your pilots to fly SEAD/DEAD sorties and then tell them they need to stop at the border. They need to fire on threats to be successful and radiation seeking missiles don't stop for borders.

Plus, there are lower risk options if NATO was willing to spend the money. Sufficient numbers of old 4th Gen fighters, the F-16, Strike Eagles, and Hornets, which exist in volume and are actively being replaced, would likely allow Ukraine to carry out a sufficent number of CAS sorties. But this would require training a large number of pilots and willingness to spend. If they aren't going to give Ukraine fighters in sufficient quantity, I see no reason to expect that they would use their own.

Again, you didn’t say anything that I didn’t already hear a thousand times in this thread and outside of it. That’s why I indirectly asked you: “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Still waiting for an answer.

My prediction is that if Trump wins the elections, for sure Ukraine will have outlived its usefulness. — boethius

Meaning? What will happen then?

Really, typical? It seems to me boagie is literally the first participant in this discussion to present things as BRICS are good and America is bad. — boethius

The problem is that he didn’t make any arguments that you/Tzeench/Isaac wouldn’t make yourselves. So one may wonder why the different conclusion? BTW your/Tzeench/Isaac’s conclusion doesn't seem that different either. [1]


[1]

That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. — neomac


@Tzeentch's claim here is pretty easy to support.

We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism (however "soft" you want to call it -- being smothered by a pillow can have the exact same end result as being stabbed in the chest). — boethius

With each country America took into its fold moving closer, they also placed nuclear warheads on the soil of these countries. — boagie

AFAIK there are no NATO nukes east of Germany.

Each time lying to the Russians they would go no further. — boagie

Not really.

America's dreams is world domination, — boagie

America already had world domination. The US voters don't seem particularly impressed with what it did for them.

The BRICS is the other half of the world saying, enough is enough, and drew a line in the sand, that line was Ukraine. — boagie

The only BRICS country that cares about Ukraine is Russia. Even China's support is only lukewarm.

does that excuse leading Ukraine to war and then having Ukraine sacrifice so many Ukrainian lives for American (elite) perceived interests, on false pretences? — boethius

I guess we'd have to ask the Ukrainians. Oh wait we already went over this and you didn't care about the evidence then either.

Such a naughty attitude, one's position on political matters is really dependent upon the information each has been exposed to, and it seems to me we have not been exposed to the same info. Russia in this matter has always been of the defensive as NATO kept moving ever closer to her borders until they were right in their backyard. You do not seem to be aware of the global power shifting away from America as a unipolar power, the goal of much of the world in a multipolar world, one more infused with a cooperative nature rather than subjugation. As to your belief that China isn't interested in the outcome of the Ukraine war. America has accused her of supplying arms to Russia, it would seem they do not share your belief.
China's response was, we have not been supplying arms to Russia and will not, but if you attempt to invade Russian, even God will not help you. America has been a brutal master, but with the BRICS she's got a wake-up call. America's ever-growing domination and economic warfare have sown the seeds of the present conflict. Do you believe America is a democracy?

LOL!! America the beautiful! You are not even remotely in touch with what is going on.

NATO is moving closer to Russia with its nuclear weapons Russia is NOT moving closer to NATO. Try to get past your bias and figure out who is the aggressor here. Supposedly China is very aggressive and has been in the past, America has umpteen military bases surrounding China, again, who is the aggressor?

Let's assume you are right whatever point you are trying to make, still “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Do you have anything to say about this? It's the third time I'm asking.