You got called out by me for basically copypastaing a Biden speech. Many of us have condemned the invasion as absolutely unjustified. That's a different issue.

If you want to listen to some analysis about what's going on militarily, you might watch from minute 11 to minute 15 of the following:



"I'm just shaking my head at the US media, all the armchair generals, people who don't know their history, don't understand the geography. Putin's bogged down... etc, they're stalled. It's nonsense. Kyiv is not the first target on the list, it's the last target on the list. You go for the capital when you've got everything else under control... If you want to attack a city from three sides, you don't want one side to start without the other two... He's not stalled, he's not bogged down, he's waiting until everything else in place.

A few key points:

1) Look at a map. There is no way Russia was ever going to allow Ukraine, which completes a C encirclement of Moscow to ever be under NATO control.
2) Putin is on track to win the war as planned. He's constructing a diagonal line of control from the NE to the SW. This cuts the Ukranian army in two, similarly to how the Germans cut the allied armies in two at the beginning of WWII by going through the Ardennes.
3) There will be a three vector attack on Kyiv. Russia will be attacking from the North from Belarus, from the South from Crimea, and from the East after Kharkhiv falls.

You might not agree with this analysis and it might not turn out as described but it is proper analysis and if you look at a map of Putin's military positioning and the analogies given, the reasoning makes a lot more sense than blanket declarations, backed up by nothing, that this has been a military disaster for Putin

Good example of propaganda here: In this case through what looks like intentionally shoddy reporting of a dubious and unconfirmed event.

"Russian commander killed ‘deliberately’ by his own troops in Ukraine, Western officials say"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-commander-ukraine-colonel-medvechek-b2044282.html

Looked into this story, which I first saw in a Twitter post. No evidence for it, apparently, except a FB post by a Ukranian journalist (parroted by unnamed Western 'officials', I guess). Seems the Daily Mail got a version too except in their version, there's video of the guy alive and hospitalised but with serious injuries to his legs. That didn't stop them headlining the story:

"Revealed: Russian commander has DIED after being run over with a tank by his own mutinous troops"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10652501/Russian-commander-deliberately-run-tank-soldiers-DIED.html

"Ukrainian journalist Roman Tsymbaliuk said in a Facebook post on Tuesday that Colonel Medvedev's tank battalion of 1,500 troops had lost around half its strength to either death or injury.

'A soldier, choosing a convenient moment during the battle, ran over his brigade commander, Colonel Yuri Medvedev, with a tank, injuring both his legs,' Tsimbalyuk wrote in his report to his followers.

'Medvedev is in a hospital in Belarus and has already been awarded the Order of Courage.' He said the Colonel is now awaiting compensation.

There was no independent corroboration of the claim, but a video released by Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov - a close ally of Vladimir Putin - allegedly showed Medvedev being transported by medical troops to Belarus for hospital treatment."

So, he's dead according to the headline but in the body of the story he seems to be alive in hospital. The Independent leaves out the bit where he's alive and just runs with him being dead.

It might turn out the story is true or it might turn out it's bullshit of half-true (Note for example how him being run over morphed into him being deliberately run over by 'mutinous' troops as if it couldn't have been, e.g. a battlefield accident). I can guarantee you anyhow we won't be getting any retractions.

We have no problem telling people when faced with a mugger, 'just give them your wallet and walk away, don't be a hero'. Stakes are much higher here but it seems fine to us to risk escalation because of the underdog narrative or whatever.

Running with the analogy and directing this at those who think Ukraine should be encouraged to fight on: suppose we have a friend who is being robbed by a guy with a gun. We have a gun too, but we don't want to fight the other guy with a gun directly because... mutually assured destruction. Is it morally justifiable for us then to encourage our friend to fight, maybe by giving him a knife? I mean, sure, he might do some damage but the chances are he'll lose his wallet anyway and come off much worse than the better-armed aggressor (who has made it into his house and is now burning his furniture). Note too that even if he asks us for a knife, it doesn't mean we're 'taking away his agency' by refusing to give one to him. Maybe we just don't want him to get killed.

We seldom find ourselves in the firing line, yet we do comment on the events that happen around the World. — ssu

And it behoves us then as passive observers to put some effort in, no? Some critical thought? I know you do. Anyhow, that's the crux for me.

People are entitled to an opinion, — Olivier5

Goalposts shifted. Yes, people are entitled to an opinion and people are entitled to opinions about opinions. It's opinions, goalposts, and cheerleaders all the way down, isn't it?

'Propaganda' is another misunderstood word. Just using the passive voice can make the perpetrator disappear. '10 children died in Iraq today' v 'Russia bombed a school killing 10 children today'. Fascinates me it's so effective though that I still haven't managed to get our American friends to find one example of it in anything they've read about this war.

I never claimed you were cheerleading, @RogueAI was though in my view. Again, read the last few pages. And my objection is that this is an attitude that is easy to take when you're not in the firing line. I'm not even married to the word. Whatever word you like to apply to a trivialized show of support from the sidelines that displays an absolute ignorance for the effects of continued war on the victims. Also, I don't particularly enjoy taking the gloves off here, I can go back to being nice but I do want to call out in the strongest possible terms that kind of behaviour, because it's the type of thing you'd probably usually get a pat on the back on.

He was just joking, man. :lol:



Just read the David and Goliath stuff from the last page for a start. I'm not going to be your English instructor any more. Sorry, if that's nasty but you're an arrogant nasty little sod yourself when you want to be, aren't you?

First, do you know what 'cheerleading' means in this context? You don't have a good record on understanding what posters are saying. So, let me know what you think it means and if we've got that straight I'll give you a quote.

I'm reminded of when you cluelessly accused me of not knowing English. Anyway, what's nasty is referring to a war like it's a cliche scene from a movie, learning absolutely nothing about what's going on, refusing outright to engage in any critical thought whatsoever, and using that basis of pure ignorance to call for its continuation.

When the whole country looks like that, the cheerleaders here might actually get bored and change their mind, moving on to the next shiny object to get their armchair kicks from.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/how-russia-is-using-tactics-from-the-syrian-playbook-in-ukraine

“The important lesson from Syria is when military and political victory is their explicit ambition there is pretty much nothing that will cause them to stop except achieving that."

"The woman in labour stared out from the stretcher, as medics rushed her over a wasteland left by a Russian attack on a maternity hospital. In a different hospital and feeling her baby slipping away, she begged doctors: “Kill me now.” Hours later, both she and her child were dead.

The horror of the attack on a maternity hospital in the besieged Ukrainian port city of Mariupol stunned the world. But it was not the first time Russian bombs had fallen on women as they gave birth."

This is fine. Whatever it takes. Because hopefully Putin might be overthrown or something. Eventually.

Similarly, the impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. Tell you what guys, get your own asses down to Ukraine, do without food, clean water, and heat in the freezing cold while being fucking shot at and then tell us how you want this to go on and on until bad man Putin gives up.

Shhh, look, Dave shot big ship! Yay!

A decade long war of attrition is fine apparently as long as Dave fucks over Golgoth or whatever.

Afghanistan. — RogueAI

Yes, well, if Ukraine was 80% mountains it would be a little more difficult to get those tanks through.

what about my last question to you tho? — Changeling

But are they really losing if they're fighting against another corrupt putin-puppet being in charge of their country? — Changeling

Russia hasn't demanded Zelensky step down and that a Putin puppet be installed as far as I know. But if you're fighting a losing battle then, yes, you are losing, obviously. The question is can they win and at what cost. I don't think they can beat Russia and I don't think reducing their country to rubble trying is worth it.

Tens of thousands of dead Ukranians, cities turned to ash = "some broken bones"

Jfc — StreetlightX

Brave Westerners willing to fight to the Ukranians' last broken bone. :sad:

If someone can't come up with even one thing they're being told about this war from their own side that is more propaganda/spin than truth then they're not worth talking to as they are not capable of critical analysis. That goes for Westerners and Russians.

We're not discussing this on the same level. Take care.

If David drives off Goliath and suffers some broken bones in the process, who's the big loser of that fight? — RogueAI

We're not in a Bible movie. Discuss this like an adult or don't discuss it at all.

I am sorry, gentlemen, but the rot is deep. If we ever want to be of help to anyone, the first responsibility is a cool and detached look at reality. Without that we are useless to them.

If our propaganda is utterly invisible to you and you think it's the 'truth' then you're just a tool. For a start, the spin that Russia is getting 'mauled' by Ukraine as if Ukraine are winning here rather than just holding out while suffering much greater losses, if you include non-combatants, is batshit crazy.

You mean achieving aims, which it would have settled for before the war is a complete disaster for it and a victory for the Ukraine who now can't even stop the war by conceding what would have prevented the war in the first place? That's ridiculous. The big loser in terms of strategic outcome here is Ukraine. They'll probably never get the breakaway regions back and never get to join NATO and as a bonus have their country completely fucked up.

It is absolutely heart-breaking.

Do you think they can sustain these kinds of losses indefinitely??? — RogueAI

I don't expect them to keep doing the same things. I expect them to adjust strategy to reduce their losses.

Propaganda: zealous speech to persuade. "Their propaganda is all lies, our propaganda is full of truth." — Bitter Crank

Yes, and no one has answered my question. Given we do propaganda too, obviously. What is it? If it's invisible to us, that's a problem.

OK, what military objectives has Russia achieved so far. — RogueAI

The overarching basic aims of the invasion are as follows.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
"Russia is ... aiming for a neutral Ukraine. Russia may also seek to hold on to its territorial conquests - both Crimea in the south and in Ukraine's east."

They control the breakaway regions now and they've got Zelensky to say his country will never join NATO for a start.

You seem to be looking for some middle ground here — Changeling

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list.

Lot of strawmen and red herrings there. It can be a disaster on some metrics for either or both parties. What's relevant to Putin are his strategic goals. My ideal scenario is the same as everyone else's here. That he loses tomorrow and goes home. But despite his difficulties, I've yet to see any evidence that he'll lose at all. But same challenge to you: "Let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me."

Russia quit Afghanistan — RogueAI

Yes. After ten years.

According to some posters in this thread, all the coverage back in February on Russia being about to invade Ukraine was also 'Western propaganda'... — Changeling

Nothing to do with me. But let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me.

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster
Russian propaganda>It's all going to plan
Any non-idiotic impartial observer>Neither of those is true. They are both just propaganda.

Hopefully with massive civil unrest in Russia culminating in the fall of Putin. — Wayfarer

Just saw your edit, and what? That's it. A hope on the basis of no evidence with no probability assigned because you don't "want to entertain any other idea", i.e. facing reality might be too uncomfortable, so you'll just cheer on the death and destruction from your living room hoping it'll work out somehow. Well, gee, don't hurt yourself trying to be helpful.

Can you deal with my post, please and give your analysis. I never said the war was justified (in fact I said the opposite from the start) or wasn't a disaster in human terms. Read what I wrote and respond.

Not sure what's hilarious about giving me a Biden speech. But if you're happy with that and aren't willing to contribute anything beyond, ok.

Yes, I'm aware this is the Western propaganda line. You're literally parroting what we all read in Western newspapers every day. But apart from the fact their economy is contracting as would be expected you've presented no evidence for anything you've said.

In short, the whole adventure has been a catastrophic error of judgement which is going to end in disaster for the Russian government. — Wayfarer

Ok, how? Tell me what you think is going to happen over the next few months and how Putin's strategic objectives will not be achieved. No one is arguing they won't be achieved at a cost, but if they are achieved, he's won the war. So, I'm not and have never said this was a good idea or is good for Russia economically; what I've said is I don't believe a prolonged war will deter Putin from pursuing and ultimately achieving at least most of what he set out to achieve. I expect he'll end up getting more than what he asked for before the war. And a real danger is the longer it goes on, the more he may demand.

Even some Western media outlets concede:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/russias-war-of-attrition-with-ukraine-where-nobody-wins.html

"...the conflict quickly risks becoming a “war of attrition,” analysts say — essentially, a prolonged struggle in which both sides seek to exhaust the opponent through the gradual loss of personnel, equipment and supplies.

“The war in Ukraine is likely heading towards a grinding war scenario — a stalemate phase during which both sides have limited ability to conduct offensive operations while the devastation and human suffering continues,” Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at Teneo Intelligence, said in a note this week.

What concerns me is a Lindy effect where the longer the war goes on the longer it's likely to go on. So, I'm not backing a horse; this isn't a competition between me and you over who gets to be right about who wins, it's a determination, from my point of view, about how further devastation in Ukraine can be minimized.

So, do a little analysis. Explain to me where you see this situation in three months time. Explain to me how Putin will be defeated and retreat from Ukraine without them acquiescing to his demands. What's the line of reasoning here. His soldiers will get demoralised and give up? He'll admit it was a whoopsie and back down? What?

Again, I'm not arguing they'll go through with it. Mostly because it would be a red line for China and India. But again, I expect scare tactics from Russia eventually if they don't get their way.

I see. Another poster who needs an English course. — Olivier5

I taught academic English for over ten years. But I won't have to dig very far into that experience to clear this one up.

We normally use WILL to speak about the future. It is always combined with another verb.

Examples of Will:

I will go to the cinema tonight.
He will play tennis tomorrow.
The Kremlin spokeman said they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. — Olivier5

Your use of will above pertains to a present message of intention. My hypothetical concerned a future message of intention. I used the 'first conditional' to express this hypothetical.

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

The essence of the structure here is:

[If that is what it takes][clause 1]...[he will make us think (he will use nukes)] [clause 2]

"We use the first conditional when we talk about future situations we believe are real or possible."

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/conditionals-1

So, whether or not Russia is currently sending the message it might use nukes doesn't abrogate the possibility that it will send that message in the future. I mean Russia also assured NATO and the rest of the world the whole idea it was going to invade Ukraine was preposterous, didn't it? What basis do you have for the idea that because Russia isn't currently threatening to use nukes, it won't do so?

They communicated, in NATO's general direction, that they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. So I don't think they want NATO to believe that they will use nukes in Ukraine.
Or is that too logical? — Olivier5

I was talking about the future, not now. Is that too logical?

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

PERHAPS he's got SOME decency left — Olivier5

So, they can make one up. Again, I don't expect it to come to that but they know which buttons to push in more ways than one.