Ukraine Watch...

[PS_RalphW]

Reports that a 7th Russian general has been killed, and a brigade commander was run over and killed by his own troops - not by accident.

Also a suggestion (not from any direct evidence I suspect) that Ukraine now has more tanks than it started the war with, quite a few of them with labels in Russian.

If the west can keep the supply of modern weapons up at the rate Ukraine needs them for another month, I can see them forcing Russia to retreat on most fronts (if the war stays conventional).

[UndercoverElephant]

The whole situation is very strange - to us from our western point of view. On face value it looks like a colossal mistake on every level from Putin. But other world views are available. Remember that Russia is one of the richest counties in the world, on a per capita basis, taking into account the actual important stuff; energy, land, minerals, chemicals, water etc (climate vulnerability too?). Sure the UK and EU have huge GDP on paper, but sooo much of that is fairly pointless fluff, or 100% dependent on those energy, land, minerals, chemicals, water etc. resources we are fairly short of (especially on a per capita basis).

In the post collapse, post industrial, post globalisation, climate breakdown world, driven by scarcity economics, maybe Russia doesn't look so daft?

Have we, the west, simply misjudged the real state of the world? We're still acting like it's 1990 when Russia is positioning for 2030?

I don't think there is any question that it is a colossal mistake - there is no way Putin expect this level of resistance. But it is also the case that he may have been taking into account the demise of the fiat dollar - maybe he decided the west just doesn't matter as much going forwards, because Russia can trade its abundant natural resources for a new gold-back Chinese currency. Who needs fiat dollars in that situation?

[Default0ptions]

Given the recent headlines about “Russia hints at scaling back war on Ukraine” it’s worth looking back at Russia’s original statement of what it was trying to achieve, rather than what our media pundits and politicians assumed and assured us were the ‘real’ objectives.

I’m using excerpts from the ’full text of Putin’s Declaration of War on Ukraine’ (their headline text) in the Spectator at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ful ... on-ukraine

So, whittling most of the waffle out, Putin stated explicitly that ‘our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories’. So it’s an in-and-out action to achieve limited objectives.

He said those objectives were in response to the following:

“The people's republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.”

I’m not saying that I agree with these reasons, or condone Russia’s response. I’m just trying to get some clarity about what was, wasn’t, and may have been wrongly assumed to have been the stated objectives, which have been somewhat swept under the carpet by our “free press’s” relentless agenda.

It appears that Russia considers it has done about enough to reduce the Ukraine’s military assets.

‘Denazification’. The openly far right Azov battalion is based in Mariupol which seems to have been subject to some pretty heavy fighting. Maybe the Russians think they are close to winding that up soon.

So, Russia says, they’ll finish securing the Donbas and withdraw, with their objectives achieved.

The likely financial implosion of ‘the west’ as a direct result of the sanctions that certainly condemn us to years of hardship and severe energy and commodities shortages that we imposed on ourselves seem to be a bit of fully expected schadenfreude.

[PS_RalphW]

I go by what Russia does, not what they say. They sent in 200.000 military from the North, east and south, with huge numbers of tanks straight down the roads to the capital, spearheaded by helicopters straight to a forward airfield.

If it looks like full scale invasion, sounds like full scale invasion then it Was full scale invasion intended to remove and kill the president

[adam2]

I agree.

[Stumuz2]

I go by what Russia does, not what they say.

Spot on.

[Stumuz2]

Given the recent headlines about “Russia hints at scaling back war on Ukraine” it’s worth looking back at Russia’s original statement of what it was trying to achieve, rather than what our media pundits and politicians assumed and assured us were the ‘real’ objectives.

He said those objectives were in response to the following:

“The people's republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.”

Let's use a basic syllogism to see if you agree with the same statement, keep the facts the same but the places.

“The people's republics of Calais turned to Boris Johnson with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Paris regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Calais, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the United Kingdom”

Agree?

[Catweazle]

Given the recent headlines about “Russia hints at scaling back war on Ukraine” it’s worth looking back at Russia’s original statement of what it was trying to achieve, rather than what our media pundits and politicians assumed and assured us were the ‘real’ objectives.

He said those objectives were in response to the following:

“The people's republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.”

Let's use a basic syllogism to see if you agree with the same statement, keep the facts the same but the places.

“The people's republics of Calais turned to Boris Johnson with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Paris regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Calais, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the United Kingdom”

Agree?

The Russians would probably use Northern Ireland in their version, with Eire playing the part of Russia.

All nonsense.

[Stumuz2]

Von de leyan thinking she can tweet lower gas prices for the EU.
When she was defence procurement minister in Germany, Ursula von der Leyen had soldiers on parade with broomsticks for rifles. She seems no better at understanding basic economics. Price theory and empirical evidence both say she's completely wrong.

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/ ... 3327282177

Basically, the plan is,
1/ EU buys gas as one. Until France stabs them in the back and Germans do side deals.
2/ If that does not work.....Price controls! Force your local petrol station to sell petrol below cost.

[Stumuz2]

And not a word of thanks for the reverse supplying of the EU by UK LNG terminals.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-03-24/

[Stumuz2]

The Russians would probably use Northern Ireland in their version, with Eire playing the part of Russia.

No, the syllogism requires a full spectrum military. Rules Eire out.

[dustiswhatweare]

Given the recent headlines about “Russia hints at scaling back war on Ukraine” it’s worth looking back at Russia’s original statement of what it was trying to achieve, rather than what our media pundits and politicians assumed and assured us were the ‘real’ objectives.

I’m using excerpts from the ’full text of Putin’s Declaration of War on Ukraine’ (their headline text) in the Spectator at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ful ... on-ukraine

So, whittling most of the waffle out, Putin stated explicitly that ‘our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories’. So it’s an in-and-out action to achieve limited objectives.

He said those objectives were in response to the following:

“The people's republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.”

I’m not saying that I agree with these reasons, or condone Russia’s response. I’m just trying to get some clarity about what was, wasn’t, and may have been wrongly assumed to have been the stated objectives, which have been somewhat swept under the carpet by our “free press’s” relentless agenda.

It appears that Russia considers it has done about enough to reduce the Ukraine’s military assets.

‘Denazification’. The openly far right Azov battalion is based in Mariupol which seems to have been subject to some pretty heavy fighting. Maybe the Russians think they are close to winding that up soon.

So, Russia says, they’ll finish securing the Donbas and withdraw, with their objectives achieved.

The likely financial implosion of ‘the west’ as a direct result of the sanctions that certainly condemn us to years of hardship and severe energy and commodities shortages that we imposed on ourselves seem to be a bit of fully expected schadenfreude.

With Ralph on this one, not what is said, it's what's done. Empire building is empire building however you try and dress it up. Those days are gone, Putin is a couple of centuries late to the party.

[UndercoverElephant]

Given the recent headlines about “Russia hints at scaling back war on Ukraine” it’s worth looking back at Russia’s original statement of what it was trying to achieve, rather than what our media pundits and politicians assumed and assured us were the ‘real’ objectives.

I’m using excerpts from the ’full text of Putin’s Declaration of War on Ukraine’ (their headline text) in the Spectator at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ful ... on-ukraine

So, whittling most of the waffle out, Putin stated explicitly that ‘our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories’. So it’s an in-and-out action to achieve limited objectives.

He said those objectives were in response to the following:

“The people's republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help.
In this regard … I decided to conduct a special military operation. Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.”

I’m not saying that I agree with these reasons, or condone Russia’s response. I’m just trying to get some clarity about what was, wasn’t, and may have been wrongly assumed to have been the stated objectives, which have been somewhat swept under the carpet by our “free press’s” relentless agenda.

It appears that Russia considers it has done about enough to reduce the Ukraine’s military assets.

‘Denazification’. The openly far right Azov battalion is based in Mariupol which seems to have been subject to some pretty heavy fighting. Maybe the Russians think they are close to winding that up soon.

So, Russia says, they’ll finish securing the Donbas and withdraw, with their objectives achieved.

The likely financial implosion of ‘the west’ as a direct result of the sanctions that certainly condemn us to years of hardship and severe energy and commodities shortages that we imposed on ourselves seem to be a bit of fully expected schadenfreude.

You are either a russian troll, or a complete f***ing idiot. If I was running this board, you would be banned along with your chum invalid.

[dustiswhatweare]

You are correct UE. Perhaps they are being left there so that casual viewers of the site can see the rebuttals. I pointed out the obviousness of Invalids employment status a few pages ago and got a proper telling off from another not Russian troll long term site member (water off a ducks back, this is the internet after all).

[UndercoverElephant]

You are correct UE. Perhaps they are being left there so that casual viewers of the site can see the rebuttals. I pointed out the obviousness of Invalids employment status a few pages ago and got a proper telling off from another not Russian troll long term site member (water off a ducks back, this is the internet after all).

The point of view being expressed by these two individuals was already in line with Putin's re-imagining of Ukrainian-Russian history. Now it is line with Putin's re-imagining of the purpose of the war (oops, sorry, "special military operation"). If he didn't want to take Kiev, why the massive armoured column sent in that direction from the north, and why the attempt on day one to take the airport? It is transparent bullshit.