I'm sure it'll show up. Meanwhile, it looks like Russia's response to Biden's fiery rhetoric in Poland has been to unleash some real fire and fury on Lviv.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60887974

"Lviv's mayor, Andriy Sadoviy, said that "with today's blows, the aggressor sends greetings to President Biden"

It's also plausible. Anyway, if you have a source on that, I'll read it, yes.

How I see it playing out is as above: Russian puppet control of Donbass and Ukraine accepting neutral status. The question is how long it takes. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the better but that is the difficult one to judge.

There is information out there if you dig but, yes, it's not easy to know their intentions; what they say means almost nothing because they're happy to lie to misdirect. My hope is that China is putting some pressure on them to gradually deescalate and they might accept some kind of autonomy deal on the Donbass that stops short of full independence. Europe might also put some background pressure on Zelensky to concede he's more or less lost that region to Russian puppet control.

They've been pushed back from the vicinity of Kyiv, in the first successful large Ukrainian counter-offensive. — Olivier5

I've read various reports on this but nothing solid yet. Its significance depends too on Russian plans. If they are as they say they are concentrating on the South and East now, that's where Ukranian victories would be most significant.

After that, that is to say, if they and the Ukrainians can both last that long, then either they launch general conscription, use chemical weapons, or sign a peace treaty under significant military pressure. — Olivier5

OK, but the first two of these scenarios are disastrous for Ukraine and the third only a win if the Russians make significant compromises. So, your outlook appears no more optimistic than mine.

When someone points out that the 'Russia's war is going disastrously' narrative might not be entirely accurate — Baden

A bit more analysis on whether the failure to advance further on Kyiv was a disaster or intentional or something in between.

https://twitter.com/defencewithac/status/1507498359812149261

"I think it was all about Donbas from the start. The stuff In rest of country was a feint. Fact Kyiv remains mostly untouched while Mariupol is flattened speaks volumes."

Defence With A 'C' @defencewithac: Seen a number of similar suggestions that Kyiv was a mere feint, which I think are equally as implausible as the idea that Kyiv was the Russian centre of gravity, which we shall examine... err, now. /1

One of the opening gambits for the Russians was a failed air assault on an airport on the city outskirts, which suggests an attempt to capture Kyiv via coup de main. More specifically, it suggests an attempt to capture the Ukrainian government via coup de main. /2
·
19h
The persistent advances on the city from both north and east, and the attempts to encircle it, would also imply that Kyiv was more than just a mere feint, and that a reasonable effort was being made to try and capture it. /3
·
19h
That said, operationally Kyiv is far more important to the Ukrainians than it is to the Russians, which would explain why Ukr has expended so much effort in its defence, stripping other areas of units and systems in order to protect the capital. /4
·
19h
Conversely, the Rus deployed most of their units in the south and east, which suggests that while certainly Kyiv was an important target, it wasn't the central axis upon which the operation hinged. Otherwise it would have made sense to deploy vastly more forces to it. /5
·
19h
As for why Kyiv has been less bombarded (relatively speaking...) than other cities, the simple answer is that the Russians haven't gotten as close and are having more difficulty bringing artillery to bear on the main city. /6
·
19h
The Rus approach to urban conflict has long been one of "find the enemy with probes, flatten that area with artillery, then send in troops to clear the rubble." This is what we've seen in Mariupol for example. /7
·
19h
But in Kyiv they haven't really gotten close enough to do that on the core city, though residents of the suburbs and surrounding towns/cities would beg to differ that their region has somehow gotten off lightly. /8
·
19h
This incidentally seems to be half the Russian's problems in places like Chernihiv and Sumy, where small probes by single/pairs of tanks with a few IFV in support are routinely getting ambushed and overwhelmed by local Ukrainian superiority. /9
·
19h
Thus, I don't think Kyiv is really one or the other. It doesn't seem to be the central goal that everyone is obsessing over, but to call it the object of a mere feint is to give the Russians too much credit for an otherwise mediocre advance. /end

----

Vastly prefereable and more enlightening than 'It's all a disaster' or 'It's all going exactly to plan'.

Yes, they do propaganda and we do propaganda too. Theirs is often outlandish and laughable and I've pointed that out at the start of the thread. Ours is often more run-of-the-mill, like panic-denying any narrative that doesn't make the Russians look bad. E.g. When someone points out that the 'Russia's war is going disastrously' narrative might not be entirely accurate, these people open their skull, drop their brain on the floor, and start babbling about any other bad thing Russia has done as if you must support that because you're not agreeing with everything they're saying.

Except...
Bonus side:

Propagandists and cheerleaders vs The Ukraninan people: Think I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the armchair fanboys who think helping means emptying their heads of all critical thought and pretending everything's going to be alright because the good guys always win despite a few broken bones.

Taking sides:

NATO vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukranian people rather than the organization who helped get them attacked and is now standing on the sidelines trying to look like the good guys while they continue to suffer.
Putin vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the brutal dictator who's happy to kill them in any number to achieve his strategic objectives.
Zelensky vs the Ukranian people: Think I'll stick with the Ukranian people rather than the feckless clown who could have avoided this war and now spends his time running around the world's TV screens spouting empty propaganda while his people continue to die.

Taking sides isn't much in the way of analysis though, particularly seeing as, from my point of view, the moral side to take is pretty obvious. All I expect of anyone here is intelligent analysis. And that can come from any side.

E.g.

Durn.

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground? — Manuel

Forgot about this guy: https://twitter.com/defencewithac Good follow for detailed info about what's going on on the ground.

I thought his ratings were in the toilet. But anyway, do you think he'll run again?

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers. — frank

That may very well be true. Russian organizational structure means Russian generals need to lead from the front, putting them right in the firing line, or so I've read.

Update on the Russian mutiny propaganda story. The Guardian runs with it but half-heartedly as it seems to smell the bullshit all over it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/russian-troops-mutiny-commander-ukraine-report-western-officials

"However, while there was some evidence to corroborate the claim that the commander had been run over, it was less clear whether, as the western officials claimed, the colonel had died. On Friday night, they partially retracted the claim in the light of conflicting evidence on social media. They said they were seeking to clarify whether he was alive or dead – and said that the key point was that he was a victim of a mutiny, not whether he had been killed or not."

Those 'western officials' and their 'key points' eh? :rofl:

In case you didn't see this interesting prediction by Oleksiy Arestovych from 2019: — petrichor

Really interesting, thanks.

Of course they're going to lie about their casualties and the civilians they killed and just about everything else. That's what the military does. That doesn't mean you should underestimate them though.

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground? — Manuel

Tough one. Fog of war and so on. Best you can do is get your information from a wide variety of sources and try to piece together something that makes sense. Actually, I original came across the guy as a guest on a finance channel. Sometimes finance news outlets are more likley to tell you the truth because there's money involved for their customers.

Yeah, I know it's a few weeks old. He has one he did today actually, but it's much more finance orientated. He's still of the same view though that Russia is winning and that the narrative that it's a disaster for them is not not based on anything solid on the ground.

Have you asked yourself what's not reported in the Western media? Or considered the difference between a bunch of facts or half facts and how they are contextualized or interpreted? E.g. Western media says 'bogged down'. A military analyst says 'waiting'. How do you know which is true? Apparently, you just ignore the line of reasoning outlined here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673465 because it hasn't been reported in the Western media. You are absolutely proving my point about propaganda. Again, if this was about Kant, and I told you Kant was crap because I read that in the media, you'd think I was a fool. And that's how you sound to anyone interested in analysing what's going on in this conflict. It's willful ignorance.

No, I didn't accuse you of propganda for expressing horror at what's happening. I have several times expressed horror at what's happening. I said the unsubstantiated idea that the war was going disastrously for Putin was propaganda parroted from Western media. Which is supported by the fact that A) The idea is not based on your own analysis or serious analysis you've read. You apparently haven't done any or read any. B) Actual analysis that has been done suggests it's likely very misleading to say the least.

@Wayfarer You seem to be conflating moral judgements with military analysis, which is just going to complete confuse you and everyone else who tries to interact with you. Morally. we agree the invasion was unjustified and Putin is a very bad guy, so there's no debate on that score and there's no need to keep inserting it.

As for 'backing the wrong horse' that is a comment on your repeated suggestion that Putin might succeed or win, whatever that might mean, but I'm not going to argue the case further at this point as it's obviously inflammatory. — Wayfarer

It's just a poorly chosen metaphor seeing as I'd much prefer if Putin lost. Ask me how soon. Yesterday. I'm not a fantasist though. I follow where the evidence leads.

My reasoning is that Putin's forces may succeed in finally subduing the Ukrainian army — Wayfarer

Regardless of your qualifications, that is absolutely not consistent with:

The Russian campaign is arguably already a total failure — Wayfarer

So if Russia kills or displaces most of the population and practically destroys the country, then do you call that 'success'? — Wayfarer

Success for Russia is achieving their objectives. If, hypothetically, their objective is to destroy the country then of course it's a success for them. What else would you call achieving your military objective?

But the images we've been seeing of entire regions completely gutted by long-range missiles, millions of people fleeing, bodies in the streets - this is not 'propoganda', it's actually happening. — Wayfarer

Yes, and how do you square this with Russia being the big loser of this war. When I post this kind of stuff it's to demonstrate how badly Ukraine is losing and suffering in the process. Which is right on point.

If you don't believe in relevant reasoning or evidence re making a judgement on military success or failure. For example, if you have no interest in looking at a map or military positioning or historical precedent, then while you are entitled to your opinion, it's entirely worthless. Kind of like if I was to say, "Hey, Kant was wrong, his philosophy was a disaster", and when asked to provide some kind of analysis as to why, refuse and just repeat the charge. An opinion, but a useless one.

you may see the mods as pro-Russian. but I tend to see them (or most of them) as pro-Western. — Apollodorus

Glad to be perceived as being on the opposite side of everyone here. :up:

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!