Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

An attack on Crimea is enormously difficult, the only land route onto the peninsula, the Perekop Isthmus, is 9km wide, with no cover and heavily fortified. It's not realistic to think that Ukraine has the capability to go through there.

True, but because it is peninsula, it also means you can quite easily block off the Russian's from resupply (if you can destroy the Kerch Bridge) and then slowly choke the Russians out without having to assault it, like they did in Kherson city.

Or maybe they are straight up going to storm the beaches like D-Day :lol: Doubt it though.

It's all in the strategy, and who knows what it will be. God knows what weapons the Ukrainians have these days, but I hope its a lot.
 
What’s the thought process behind this from both sides?

It wouldn't surprise me if Ukraine deliberately leaks the "attack on Crimea" rumor, so Russia will keep a considerable force on the peninsula and maybe even better, rotate a bunch of its forces there. That would make their attack on the front much easier.
Personally I don't see a D-Day on the beaches of Crimea. Russia still controls the water and Ukraine has only small boats, which will be easy to spot and sink.
 
True, but because it is peninsula, it also means you can quite easily block off the Russian's from resupply (if you can destroy the Kerch Bridge) and then slowly choke the Russians out without having to assault it, like they did in Kherson city.

Or maybe they are straight up going to storm the beaches like D-Day :lol: Doubt it though.

It's all in the strategy, and who knows what it will be. God knows what weapons the Ukrainians have these days, but I hope its a lot.
I don't think I've seen even one realistic prognosis that included Ukrainians retaking Crimea in the plan for this counter-attack. Most expect it to be given back as a collateral at the end of this war. Ukraine doesn't have any military fleet of note and neither are their aerial forces strong enough to be able to play a key role in retaking Crimea — and retaking Crimea without the overwhelming support from air & sea is going to cost tens of thousands of lives.

Retaking all the land up to Crimea is probably something they'll attempt to do though.
 
I don't think I've seen even one realistic prognosis that included Ukrainians retaking Crimea in the plan for this counter-attack. Most expect it to be given back as a collateral at the end of this war. Ukraine doesn't have any military fleet of note and neither are their aerial forces strong enough to be able to play a key role in retaking Crimea — and retaking Crimea without the overwhelming support from air & sea is going to cost tens of thousands of lives.

Retaking all the land up to Crimea is probably something they'll attempt to do though.

I think everyone's assuming they're going to charge into Crimea shooting everything. I don't think that's the case. There will be a slow degradation of existing Russian forces there before any movement of troops. But it could take a while for that to happen.

Assuming they can reach the near entrance to Crimea (and that's a big ask in itself), then HIMARs (or drones) will be able to hit all troop and ammo bases in Crimea with ease. They'll just shell everything from a distance including the bridge, ship docks, train stations etc.

If the defensive situation in Crimea gets more and more difficult for the Kremlin, they are more likely to give it up in negotiations.
 
Last edited:
IF Ukraine are able to liberate Kherson oblast and Zaporizhzhia oblast it would make the counter offensive a massive succes, talking about Crimea is just unrealistic at this point.

Even the first 2 will be a monumental task when you consider that Russia has been building defensive fortifications and minefields for the past 6 months and Ukraine only have a very small air force and a pretty limited amount of mechanized troops available.
 
IF Ukraine are able to liberate Kherson oblast and Zaporizhzhia oblast it would make the counter offensive a massive succes, talking about Crimea is just unrealistic at this point.

Even the first 2 will be a monumental task when you consider that Russia has been building defensive fortifications and minefields for the past 6 months and Ukraine only have a very small air force and a pretty limited amount of mechanized troops available.

Exactly. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions would be more than enough to put Putin under immense pressure in Russia to end this senseless war. Even the most propaganda irradiated people will start to ask themselves why they are fighting, if they even can't keep a few regions in Ukraine. Even with the western support, Ukraine won't be able to retake all of their regions including Crimea and Donbass most likely. They need to create a scenario, where Russia "voluntarily" leaves those reagions like they did in Afghanistan.
 
IF Ukraine are able to liberate Kherson oblast and Zaporizhzhia oblast it would make the counter offensive a massive succes, talking about Crimea is just unrealistic at this point.

Even the first 2 will be a monumental task when you consider that Russia has been building defensive fortifications and minefields for the past 6 months and Ukraine only have a very small air force and a pretty limited amount of mechanized troops available.

Agreed. UA forces need to push out the RA troops from those towns first before even thinking about taking Crimea. I mean, seriously, some people are overhyping the UA forces. I don't say they are bad, but they are still a long way from being well trained and equipped to take their eastern lands, let alone Crimea.
 
Exactly. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions would be more than enough to put Putin under immense pressure in Russia to end this senseless war. Even the most propaganda irradiated people will start to ask themselves why they are fighting, if they even can't keep a few regions in Ukraine. Even with the western support, Ukraine won't be able to retake all of their regions including Crimea and Donbass most likely. They need to create a scenario, where Russia "voluntarily" leaves those reagions like they did in Afghanistan.

This. I'd say ukraine should capture the 4 Oblast and then go to the negotiating table.
 
The realistic path through Crimea hasn't really changed since the liberation of Kherson, which IMO is: A) liberate Nova Khakovka (right to the left side of the Dnieper river), B) block the water supply to Crimea, C) slowly but surely weaken the russian forces and infrastructure there with long range artillery, D) apply pressure in other fronts to the point that Russia keeping battle and/or occupation forces in Crimea isn't sustainable anymore, E) Profit: either Putin makes the political decision of staying in Crimea and eventually losing the war, or voluntarily leaves (with the subsequent political backlash) in order to keep a chance of winning in the Donbas.

Easier said than done though.
 
Last edited:
The UA has had three or four towns under massive pressure from the RA right now for months, which is exhausting their reserves, something that people really have not thought about, I think. They have to relive them first before applying any meaningful pressure anywhere.

Those towns would have been starting points for the UA counterattack. I don't see many other places where the UA could go and gain any meaningful territory without relieving the pressure in those towns or getting encircled themselves in new places.
 
The realistic path through Crimea hasn't really changed since the liberation of Kherson, which IMO is: A) liberate Nova Khakovka (right to the left side of the Dnieper river), B) block the water supply to Crimea, C) slowly but surely weaken the russian forces and infrastructure there with long range artillery, D) apply pressure in other fronts to the point that Russia keeping battle and/or occupation forces in Crimea isn't sustainable anymore, E) Profit: either Putin makes the political decision of staying in Crimea and eventually losing the war, or voluntarily leaves (with the subsequent political backlash) in order to keep a chance of winning in the Donbas.

Easier said than done though.


One also has to take into consideration that a large swath of the Crimean population are now going to be pro-Russian given the levels of actual Russian migration into the area once Putin invaded in 2014. They were already quite pro-Russian when I was there circa 2009ish, so one can only imagine that unlike. the rest of Ukraine, taking Crimea will be much more difficult in that defeating Putin's military and the existential crisis it would send his regime into which may cause him to use WMDs is one thing, winning the hearts and minds of the local population will be another.
 
IF Ukraine are able to liberate Kherson oblast and Zaporizhzhia oblast it would make the counter offensive a massive succes, talking about Crimea is just unrealistic at this point.

Even the first 2 will be a monumental task when you consider that Russia has been building defensive fortifications and minefields for the past 6 months and Ukraine only have a very small air force and a pretty limited amount of mechanized troops available.

I think the best case scenario is a widespread mutiny and subsequent loss of morale for much of the Russian military to continue fighting, which could create a tipping point situation for the Ukrainians to attempt retaking the peninsula.
 
Which 4 are you referring to ?

Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Once all are in Ukraine hands then I think that its wise for ukraine to go to the negotiation table
 
Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Once all are in Ukraine hands then I think that its wise for ukraine to go to the negotiation table

But why would Putin be incentivized to negotiate on such losing terms ? If anything, he would be incentivized to use more powerful weapons to regain lost territory.
 
One also has to take into consideration that a large swath of the Crimean population are now going to be pro-Russian given the levels of actual Russian migration into the area once Putin invaded in 2014. They were already quite pro-Russian when I was there circa 2009ish, so one can only imagine that unlike. the rest of Ukraine, taking Crimea will be much more difficult in that defeating Putin's military and the existential crisis it would send his regime into which may cause him to use WMDs is one thing, winning the hearts and minds of the local population will be another.

I don't see Crimea "solved" anytime soon regarding its identity, I was thinking more about the military issue. If a big size of its population is pro-russian, that's something that has to be dealt with after military and/or diplomatic victory. Regarding that, I think we agree that the UA approach must be more "getting them voluntarily out" than "getting ourselves in".
 
But why would Putin be incentivized to negotiate on such losing terms ? If anything, he would be incentivized to use more powerful weapons to regain lost territory.

I like to watch two Italian YouTube channel on the subject. One is parabellum and the other is Ivan grieco. The speakers include former nato colonels/generals, an Italo polish expert with friends in Ukraine and several journalists who had lived at both sides of the barricade

They all seem to agree on the same arguments

A- putin entered the war thinking it would be a walk in the park with Ukraine people throwing rose petals at his feet

B- time is in Russian side. They have hordes of men to act as cannon fodder and they can fire missles from russia knowing that no one would dare striking hard deep into Russian territory

C- their one true red line is Crimea. The regime cannot afford to lose it

I also watch russian commentators pro ukraine and they agree especially with c

Ukraine can't afford the war to last forever or a frozen conflict. That's because Russia will come back, they will keep on firing missles in Ukraine + no one would be stupid to invest in Ukraine in such circumstances. Thus I think that the solution would be for Russia to retain crimea on the condition that it gives its blessing for Ukraine to enter nato and the EU. That would still be a bitter pill for putin to swallow which is why he needs to lose the 4 oblasts first. Thus such concessions will be interpreted as a way out for putin while recognition to a Russian crimea could be sold as a win at home front
 
I like to watch two Italian YouTube channel on the subject. One is parabellum and the other is Ivan grieco. The speakers include former nato colonels/generals, an Italo polish expert with friends in Ukraine and several journalists who had lived at both sides of the barricade

They all seem to agree on the same arguments

A- putin entered the war thinking it would be a walk in the park with Ukraine people throwing rose petals at his feet

B- time is in Russian side. They have hordes of men to act as cannon fodder and they can fire missles from russia knowing that no one would dare striking hard deep into Russian territory

C- their one true red line is Crimea. The regime cannot afford to lose it

I also watch russian commentators pro ukraine and they agree especially with c

Ukraine can't afford the war to last forever or a frozen conflict. That's because Russia will come back + no one would be stupid to invest in Ukrainein such circumstances. Thus I think that the solution would be for Russia to retain crimea on the condition that it gives its blessing for Ukraine to enter nato and the EU. That would still be a bitter pill for putin to swallow which is why he needs to lose the 4 oblasts first. Thus such concessions will be interpreted as a way out for putin while recognition to a Russian crimea could be sold as a win at home front

NATO membership is obviously going to be a loss for Putin, as would losing the four oblasts you cite given that he has controlled most of two of them for the past decade. The Ukrainians, after having been terrorized by over the past 14 months, are obviously not going to settle for anything less than a complete victory, including Crimea. Therefore, this proposal would be dead in the water because neither side would find the outcome acceptable. The only way this will end if Putin falls from within after the Ukrainians take enough territory to make it appear like a humiliating Russian loss. At that point, they would be able to retake Crimea since the Putin regime and/or whoever replaces it would be more focused on existential matters in Moscow than neo-imperialist conquest in the Black Sea.
 
NATO membership is obviously going to be a loss for Putin, as would losing the four oblasts you cite given that he has controlled most of two of them for the past decade. The Ukrainians, after having been terrorized by over the past 14 months, are obviously not going to settle for anything less than a complete victory, including Crimea. Therefore, this proposal would be dead in the water because neither side would find the outcome acceptable. The only way this will end if Putin falls from within after the Ukrainians take enough territory to make it appear like a humiliating Russian loss. At that point, they would be able to retake Crimea since the Putin regime and/or whoever replaces it would be more focused on existential matters in Moscow than neo-imperialist conquest in the Black Sea.
Seems doubtful to me. I think Ukraine & Russia will find a diplomatic way to settle on Crimea. I'd be extremely surprised if Ukraine takes back Crimea through military force.
 
Seems doubtful to me. I think Ukraine & Russia will find a diplomatic way to settle on Crimea. I'd be extremely surprised if Ukraine takes back Crimea through military force.

If there's no Russian military left to defend it, they may do so. But in order to get there, Putin would need to fall from within.

I seriously doubt there will be some sort of amicable diplomatic agreement on Crimea given that it is officially still a part of Ukraine (as recognized by most of the world), therefore the Ukrainians won't settle for anything less. than the complete undoing of all of Putin's invasions from 2014 to 2022.
 
Has anybody seen this clownish comment made yesterday by the Chinese ambassador about Ukraine and other former Soviet states? It was on French TV of all places. That's the kind of gaffe that would get any ambassador sacked.



Anyway, you can't ask for a bigger no-no if anyone hopes to see China broking anything here. Zelensky will definitely not receive a Chinese envoy any time soon.
 
Has anybody seen this clownish comment made yesterday by the Chinese ambassador about Ukraine and other former Soviet states? It was on French TV of all places. That's the kind of gaffe that would get any ambassador sacked.



Anyway, you can't ask for a bigger no-no if anyone hopes to see China broking anything here. Zelensky will definitely not receive a Chinese envoy any time soon.


China is increasingly weak imo. Beyond the banking crisis, the fact that Xi is going to the lengths of having fake Chinese police stations in the US is a sign of how desperate he is to squash any form of dissent.
 
I think what matters to Ukraine (and Europe) at the end of the day is not the land. In my opinion they have achieved survival as a country and thus their primary strategic objective, and so can rebuild after the war and be just as successful as any other EU country.

But we must make sure Russia does not start another war in 5 years time and destroy everything again because they are just pigs by nature. Nobody wins when Russia starts wars.

Whether it means bringing Ukraine into NATO, or other cast iron security guarantees (not the flimsy ones we pushed them to agree to when they gave up nuclear weapons), I don't know. But it must happen.

But of course, it's too early to talk about negotiations just yet. We need to give them as much chance as we can to physically regain as much land as possible. Then we go to the table.
 
Last edited:
NATO membership is obviously going to be a loss for Putin, as would losing the four oblasts you cite given that he has controlled most of two of them for the past decade. The Ukrainians, after having been terrorized by over the past 14 months, are obviously not going to settle for anything less than a complete victory, including Crimea. Therefore, this proposal would be dead in the water because neither side would find the outcome acceptable. The only way this will end if Putin falls from within after the Ukrainians take enough territory to make it appear like a humiliating Russian loss. At that point, they would be able to retake Crimea since the Putin regime and/or whoever replaces it would be more focused on existential matters in Moscow than neo-imperialist conquest in the Black Sea.

A- Crimea is Russia's red line. Its historical and military importance mean that Putin and its regime can't survive without it. Most of the time regimes aren't voted out and I doubt that Putin want to die anytime soon. A desperate Putin is a dangerous one both in terms of nukes and in terms of political decisions that he can take to avoid that (I'd come to that later). In both cases we would be in trouble. That include Ukraine btw.

B- The region is heavily fortified and most of its people are Pro Russian. So if Ukraine is determined to go in Crimea then this will end up in a proper bloodshed.

C- Ukraine is not fighting the war alone. If the West decide to pull out its military help then it would be game over in a couple of months. There's plenty of leverage in that

D- Russia is sinking deeper and deeper in China's pockets which is bad news for the West. Russia on its own is a regional power armed with nukes. A China-Russia partnership is terrifying. The former have the men and the weapons while the latter have the resources. Add Taiwan (and its precious semiconductors) and the three can easily go toe to toe with the US and the West. Such alliance is bad news for Ukraine as well especially if China start supplying Russia with arms. We need a relatively strong Russia as that means an independent Russia who still believe it can go solo against the world thus not needing the 'inferior' Chinese (that's the typical Russian mentality and not my opinion).

E- Semi conductors makes the world tick. You'll find them from the fridge you have at home right to the F35 the US utilise to control the air. Over 60% of semiconductors are done in Taiwan under huge trading secret. Thus there no way the US will allow China to invade Taiwan and if it means throwing Ukraine under the bridge to focus on Taiwan then so be it. Its within Ukraine's interest to end this war fast.

F- Russia can throw far more men into the war then Ukraine can. It can also bombard Ukraine from Russia knowing that no one is stupid enough to strike Russia hard in its own territory. This create an environment were there's a never ending war which is bad news for Ukraine. The country is in a mess, it needs heavily investment and it needs to move on. Support from the West will one day weaken or end as well. Time is indeed in Russia's side

G- Wars often end around the negotiation table especially one were its impossible to invade the invader for obvious reasons. Negotiations mean that everyone wins and lose a little.

I believe that the deal I suggested is fair to everyone. Ukraine gets NATO protection and the prosperity guaranteed by EU membership, Russia gets the political win it needs to leave the conflict with dignity and the people in Ukraine (including those in Crimea) will live in peace. Don't take me wrong I'd love to see Putin's head on a spike. However that is unlikely to happen and the consequences to that would probably be far worse then anyone in the West would want, Ukraine included.
 
But why would Putin be incentivized to negotiate on such losing terms ? If anything, he would be incentivized to use more powerful weapons to regain lost territory.
I think the idea is that if Ukraine retakes all 4 of those regions, Putin will likely be done as he bet everything (and then some) on the outcome of this war. And the subsequent government would have to negotiate to at least take the first step on the path of redemption.

Although you never know just how strong (or seemingly strong) the autocrat’s power is until the tipping point is over and he’s gone, so maybe he’d still be able to stay in power even then. And Putin will never give up Crimea.
 
A- Crimea is Russia's red line. Its historical and military importance mean that Putin and its regime can't survive without it. Most of the time regimes aren't voted out and I doubt that Putin want to die anytime soon. A desperate Putin is a dangerous one both in terms of nukes and in terms of political decisions that he can take to avoid that (I'd come to that later). In both cases we would be in trouble. That include Ukraine btw.

B- The region is heavily fortified and most of its people are Pro Russian. So if Ukraine is determined to go in Crimea then this will end up in a proper bloodshed.

C- Ukraine is not fighting the war alone. If the West decide to pull out its military help then it would be game over in a couple of months. There's plenty of leverage in that

D- Russia is sinking deeper and deeper in China's pockets which is bad news for the West. Russia on its own is a regional power armed with nukes. A China-Russia partnership is terrifying. The former have the men and the weapons while the latter have the resources. Add Taiwan (and its precious semiconductors) and the three can easily go toe to toe with the US and the West. Such alliance is bad news for Ukraine as well especially if China start supplying Russia with arms. We need a relatively strong Russia as that means an independent Russia who still believe it can go solo against the world thus not needing the 'inferior' Chinese (that's the typical Russian mentality and not my opinion).

E- Semi conductors makes the world tick. You'll find them from the fridge you have at home right to the F35 the US utilise to control the air. Over 60% of semiconductors are done in Taiwan under huge trading secret. Thus there no way the US will allow China to invade Taiwan and if it means throwing Ukraine under the bridge to focus on Taiwan then so be it. Its within Ukraine's interest to end this war fast.

F- Russia can throw far more men into the war then Ukraine can. It can also bombard Ukraine from Russia knowing that no one is stupid enough to strike Russia hard in its own territory. This create an environment were there's a never ending war which is bad news for Ukraine. The country is in a mess, it needs heavily investment and it needs to move on. Support from the West will one day weaken or end as well. Time is indeed in Russia's side

G- Wars often end around the negotiation table especially one were its impossible to invade the invader for obvious reasons. Negotiations mean that everyone wins and lose a little.

I believe that the deal I suggested is fair to everyone. Ukraine gets NATO protection and the prosperity guaranteed by EU membership, Russia gets the political win it needs to leave the conflict with dignity and the people in Ukraine (including those in Crimea) will live in peace. Don't take me wrong I'd love to see Putin's head on a spike. However that is unlikely to happen and the consequences to that would probably be far worse then anyone in the West would want, Ukraine included.

I don’t see how Putin spins merely keeping Crimea as a victory if Ukraine joins NATO and regains the eastern provinces. That would require a 1984 style complete disregarding of years of propaganda on the subject. To keep your Italian theme, I think this only ends with a Mussolini style stringing up from a balcony (maybe without the gymnast).
 
I don’t see how Putin spins merely keeping Crimea as a victory if Ukraine joins NATO and regains the eastern provinces. That would require a 1984 style complete disregarding of years of propaganda on the subject. To keep your Italian theme, I think this only ends with a Mussolini style stringing up from a balcony (maybe without the gymnast).

Most of Russia get their information either through the TV or through state financed propaganda in social media. Both are controlled by Putin's cronies. Which explain why the Russians believe the silly Z propaganda despite it being comical. Thus if Putin say that he won the war then most people will believe him especially if he comes with a piece of paper stating that the world had recognised Crimea as Russian.
 
A- Crimea is Russia's red line. Its historical and military importance mean that Putin and its regime can't survive without it. Most of the time regimes aren't voted out and I doubt that Putin want to die anytime soon. A desperate Putin is a dangerous one both in terms of nukes and in terms of political decisions that he can take to avoid that (I'd come to that later). In both cases we would be in trouble. That include Ukraine btw.

B- The region is heavily fortified and most of its people are Pro Russian. So if Ukraine is determined to go in Crimea then this will end up in a proper bloodshed.

C- Ukraine is not fighting the war alone. If the West decide to pull out its military help then it would be game over in a couple of months. There's plenty of leverage in that

D- Russia is sinking deeper and deeper in China's pockets which is bad news for the West. Russia on its own is a regional power armed with nukes. A China-Russia partnership is terrifying. The former have the men and the weapons while the latter have the resources. Add Taiwan (and its precious semiconductors) and the three can easily go toe to toe with the US and the West. Such alliance is bad news for Ukraine as well especially if China start supplying Russia with arms. We need a relatively strong Russia as that means an independent Russia who still believe it can go solo against the world thus not needing the 'inferior' Chinese (that's the typical Russian mentality and not my opinion).

E- Semi conductors makes the world tick. You'll find them from the fridge you have at home right to the F35 the US utilise to control the air. Over 60% of semiconductors are done in Taiwan under huge trading secret. Thus there no way the US will allow China to invade Taiwan and if it means throwing Ukraine under the bridge to focus on Taiwan then so be it. Its within Ukraine's interest to end this war fast.

F- Russia can throw far more men into the war then Ukraine can. It can also bombard Ukraine from Russia knowing that no one is stupid enough to strike Russia hard in its own territory. This create an environment were there's a never ending war which is bad news for Ukraine. The country is in a mess, it needs heavily investment and it needs to move on. Support from the West will one day weaken or end as well. Time is indeed in Russia's side

G- Wars often end around the negotiation table especially one were its impossible to invade the invader for obvious reasons. Negotiations mean that everyone wins and lose a little.

I believe that the deal I suggested is fair to everyone. Ukraine gets NATO protection and the prosperity guaranteed by EU membership, Russia gets the political win it needs to leave the conflict with dignity and the people in Ukraine (including those in Crimea) will live in peace. Don't take me wrong I'd love to see Putin's head on a spike. However that is unlikely to happen and the consequences to that would probably be far worse then anyone in the West would want, Ukraine included.

A - their red line shifts constantly. When they annexed the 4 Ukrainian regions, they also told the west that they will regard them as Russian territory and that means defend them with any means, nuclear included. Ukraine attacked 2 of them and pushed them back, liberated Kherson. Did Putin press the red button? No, he did not. Fearing and talking constantly about Russia's red lines only helps their fear agenda. Mostly useful idiots talk today about Russia's red lines. By the way, the western red line is far more dangerous than Russia's and I never see them talking about it.

B - When the Crimean bridge exploded, there was miles of traffic jam because of people leaving the peninsula. It's safe to say, that if Ukranian forces would stand before Crimea's border, most of the Russian's would flee. Especially those, who settled there after 2014. So bloodshed is a very unlikely scenario.

C - The west will never pull out of this war, because it's no longer only Russia against Ukraine, but an authoritarian regime against western democracy. We defend ourselves by supporting Ukraine, so we will defend ourselves as long as it is necessary and Putin is no longer a threat.

D - A China - Russia partnership is long established and far from being terrifying. Nato will always be way stronger as long as the U.S continues to lead Nato and China uses Russia as a ressource colony. There is no real partnership between them other than to annoy the west. Also if your partnership is only based on a common enemy, it is shit to begin with.

E - one has nothing to do with the other. First of all, China still needs many years to build up their navy. Second of all, U.S is giving Ukraine something like 5% of their annual military budget and they don't use their navy to support Ukraine. The U.S would absolutely have no problem to support Taiwan while giving Ukraine 5% of their budget to keep Russia in line. Also no one on our, the western side, will throw someone under the bus. A very strange thought.

F - Russia can only theoretically throw in more men. In reality, it's probably even fewer. Ukraine is the one who was attacked, so most of their men are willing to fight for their country and freedom. While Putin needs to irradiate russians to order them to die in human wave attacks. They already ran out of prisoners and the first mobilisation wave wasn't as smooth as he would have liked. With every new wave, it will get harder and harder for him to find more "volunteers" and willing men to die for his imperialistic ambitions, while keeping the public quiet at the same time. They also have internet and see those gigantic cemeteries for their soldiers. And the sanctions are hitting their economy hard. The longer this goes on, the fewer funds Russia will have to finance this war. Their funds will run out way sooner than those of the west. They can't win a money war against the west, it's impossible. So no, the time is definetly not on Russia's side.

---
Many things you wrote are said in pro Russian channels. Talking about red lines, the narrative of the strong Russia and the weak west, that has to end his support soon is only used by useful idiots. I really hope you're not one of them.
 
Last edited:
I don't think being pragmatic about the reality is necessarily a pro Russian sentiment. Russia has placed nearly 300 k pigs, sorry I mean soldiers, in Ukraine.

Just doing some basic calculations, Ukraine will need close to a million guys to shift each and every last pig out by force. I don't think they have those forces. I could be wrong, I know NATO are constantly training new soldiers for them, but it's unlikely. I also know the modern weapons make up for a lot of the shortfall, but it's still quite a bit to do imo.
 
A - their red line shifts constantly. When they annexed the 4 Ukrainian regions, they also told the west that they will regard them as Russian territory and that means defend them with any means, nuclear included. Ukraine attacked 2 of them and pushed them back, liberated Kherson. Did Putin press the red button? No, he did not. Fearing and talking constantly about Russia's red lines only helps their fear agenda. Mostly useful idiots talk today about Russia's red lines. By the way, the western red line is far more dangerous than Russia's and I never see them talking about it.

B - When the Crimean bridge exploded, there was miles of traffic jam because of people leaving the peninsula. It's safe to say, that if Ukranian forces would stand before Crimea's border, most of the Russian's would flee. Especially those, who settled there after 2014. So bloodshed is a very unlikely scenario.

C - The west will never pull out of this war, because it's no longer only Russia against Ukraine, but an authoritarian regime against western democracy. We defend ourselves by supporting Ukraine, so we will defend ourselves as long as it is necessary and Putin is no longer a threat.

D - A China - Russia partnership is long established and far from being terrifying. Nato will always be way stronger as long as the U.S continues to lead Nato and China uses Russia as a ressource colony. There is no real partnership between them other than to annoy the west. Also if your partnership is only based on a common enemy, it is shit to begin with.

E - one has nothing to do with the other. First of all, China still needs many years to build up their navy. Second of all, U.S is giving Ukraine something like 5% of their annual military budget and they don't use their navy to support Ukraine. The U.S would absolutely have no problem to support Taiwan while giving Ukraine 5% of their budget to keep Russia in line. Also no one on our, the western side, will throw someone under the bus. A very strange thought.

F - Russia can only theoretically throw in more men. In reality, it's probably even fewer. Ukraine is the one who was attacked, so most of their men are willing to fight for their country and freedom. While Putin needs to irradiate russians to order them to die in human wave attacks. They already ran out of prisoners and the first mobilisation wave wasn't as smooth as he would have liked. With every new wave, it will get harder and harder for him to find more "volunteers" and willing men to die for his imperialistic ambitions, while keeping the public quiet at the same time. They also have internet and see those gigantic cemeteries for their soldiers. And the sanctions are hitting their economy hard. The longer this goes on, the fewer funds Russia will have to finance this war. Their funds will run out way sooners than the west's. They can't win a money war against the west, it's impossible. So no, the time is definetly not on Russia's side.

---
Many things you wrote are said in pro Russian channels. Talking about red lines, the narrative of the strong Russia and the weak west, that has to end his support soon is only used by useful idiots. I really hope you're not one of them.

Most of the information comes from two channels whose presenters believe that NATO should have done more (ie with soldiers on the ground). Mirko Campochiari for example is an Italo-Polish military historian with friends in Ukraine. He recently took Z sympathisers to court for defamation and he then used the money he earned from it to Ukrainian NGOs. There's also a lot of guests invited including Generale Paolo Capitini who had worked with NATO and is a known EU federalist in Italy. Then they invite various reporters who actually lived/still live in various parts of Ukraine one even in the Donbas. Just because they don't exactly toe in line with CNN doesn't mean that they are pro Russian.
 
Last edited:
Most of Russia get their information either through the TV or through state financed propaganda in social media. Both are controlled by Putin's cronies. Which explain why the Russians believe the silly Z propaganda despite it being comical. Thus if Putin say that he won the war then most people will believe him especially if he comes with a piece of paper stating that the world had recognised Crimea as Russian.

I’m aware of the extent of state propoganda. I just wonder how they would sell (to the elite as well) the retention of Crimea alone as a price worth paying for the last 14 months. They effectively had Crimea anyway apart from a few slap on the wrist sanctions.