Anonymous wrote:The end? Russia leaves. Pays billions to Ukraine. Putin has to leave power. They may have to give up nukes but. They can still salvage that for a short window after regime change. Otherwise us sanctions don’t come off. Russia is done as even a second tier power. They will be more like Turkey or Greece.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this type of disinformation (from just this past Friday, no less) is simply dangerous.

Tucker Carlson is sounding more like "Baghdad Bob" every day.

https://www.liveabout.com/baghdad-bob-quotes-4068522

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

How's this looking now, OP?

OP here. Since you asked, I'm excited by the progress made by Ukraine and hope it continues, although my understanding is that liberating Kherson will be much more difficult.

Ukraine seems to be able to handle difficult.

I like the fact that 40k Russian troops are close to being fully cut off in the south and the eastern offensive certainly can't have helped with Russian supplies, reinforcements, or morale. If it's a war of attrition, I like Ukraine's chances on its own ground and the steady supply of Western support. Putin played his last card (aside from nuclear shenanigans) by cutting off natural gas to Germany. If Europe can bridge the gap over the next year or two, there ain't going back to Russian oil and gas. And those sanctions are going to begin to really bite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

How's this looking now, OP?

OP here. Since you asked, I'm excited by the progress made by Ukraine and hope it continues, although my understanding is that liberating Kherson will be much more difficult.

Ukraine seems to be able to handle difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

How's this looking now, OP?

OP here. Since you asked, I'm excited by the progress made by Ukraine and hope it continues, although my understanding is that liberating Kherson will be much more difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

How's this looking now, OP?

Anonymous wrote:this type of disinformation (from just this past Friday, no less) is simply dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an amazing debate on Russian state TV. Finally, some voices of sense dare to speak:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1569070513909022720

Hope they don't go home to polonium in their underwear.

Note the gasligting calling the Ukrainians Nazi's when their president is....Jewish.

Just 12 months ago the NYT had articles attacking the Ukranian government for including far-right, pro-Nazi groups...how fast some forget!

If you asked all Americans about Ukraine I am pretty sure this would be the results:
90% unable to find it on a map
90% know no one from Ukraine
95% know nothing about its history

That being said 95% would say they support giving them weapons to fight Russia. Nothing really to do with Ukraine.

Why? Americans just hate Russia and Russians in general. Not that we know any typically, it’s just our thing. If aliens invaded earth we would probably side with the aliens if they attacked Russia first.

You're so wrong about Americans' motivations to support Ukraine. It's not because they hate Russia, it's because they hate bullies. Ukraine did nothing wrong to provoke this invasion. Frankly, I think you already know this, but you're just trying to spread propaganda to influence people.

99% Americans don't know anything about the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Independently, they don't know anything about who did what wrong. They were told what to think. Come on.

I think most people are aware that Russia has been messing with our elections and social cohesion and thus recognize Russia as our geopolitical foe.

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an amazing debate on Russian state TV. Finally, some voices of sense dare to speak:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1569070513909022720

Hope they don't go home to polonium in their underwear.

Note the gasligting calling the Ukrainians Nazi's when their president is....Jewish.

Just 12 months ago the NYT had articles attacking the Ukranian government for including far-right, pro-Nazi groups...how fast some forget!

If you asked all Americans about Ukraine I am pretty sure this would be the results:
90% unable to find it on a map
90% know no one from Ukraine
95% know nothing about its history

That being said 95% would say they support giving them weapons to fight Russia. Nothing really to do with Ukraine.

Why? Americans just hate Russia and Russians in general. Not that we know any typically, it’s just our thing. If aliens invaded earth we would probably side with the aliens if they attacked Russia first.

You're so wrong about Americans' motivations to support Ukraine. It's not because they hate Russia, it's because they hate bullies. Ukraine did nothing wrong to provoke this invasion. Frankly, I think you already know this, but you're just trying to spread propaganda to influence people.

99% Americans don't know anything about the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Independently, they don't know anything about who did what wrong. They were told what to think. Come on.

Anonymous wrote:this type of disinformation (from just this past Friday, no less) is simply dangerous.

KHARKIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukrainian troops retook a wide swath of territory from Russia on Monday, pushing all the way back to the northeastern border in some places, and claimed to have captured many Russian soldiers as part of a lightning advance that forced Moscow to make a hasty retreat.

A spokesman for Ukrainian military intelligence said Russian troops were surrendering en masse as “they understand the hopelessness of their situation.” A Ukrainian presidential adviser said there were so many POWs that the country was running out of space to accommodate them.