They won't ever stop fighting until they get their land back imo. Even if there was a ceasefire, a counterinsurgency would still continue indefinitely for the rest of Putin's time in office.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
They won't ever stop fighting until they get their land back imo. Even if there was a ceasefire, a counterinsurgency would still continue indefinitely for the rest of Putin's time in office.
Not sure about that. If Russian troops were freed up from the front they would be free to brutalise the occupied population. That stuff works for a long time - ask Machiavelli or the Israelis.
A battle priest has been felled.
If one guy feels this way then many more who can't speak on camera likely do as well.
Classic Russian propaganda.
Every sane person on planet earth could have told you this would be the final outcome, and this was a completely needless war.
So after 100,000 dead, billions spent (*cough* laundered *cough*), and a country left in ruins, they’re suing for peace.
Ukraine was used by the military industrial complex.
So after 100,000 dead, billions spent (*cough* laundered *cough*), and a country left in ruins, they’re suing for peace.
Ukraine was used by the military industrial complex.
Even if so, look at the trend - that’s what‘s important.
There wont be any peace deal, any deal signed with Putin isn't even worth the paper its written on, every Ukrainian knows that.
What final outcome? This is a war of attrition, we all knew that, so just keep supplying Ukraine until Russia eventually breaks, its the only option.
Should we wait for Medvedev to get back into power? He seems more reasonable.
Its the russian culture, not just Putin, so i'm not sure it helps to have a change of leadership.
Russia, as a people, are completely unhinged, obsessed with being the big empire, east europeans should just shut up and count themselves lucky that they get to be ruled by their superiors.
Right. Typical Russian wakes up, takes a shot of vodka and goes back to sleep dreaming of ruling over Bulgaria.
Let me know when the Ukrainians take them up on it. Meanwhile Biden is preparing a 60b package for them.
And does that package has to make its way through the house?
I suppose its completely reasonable to generalise the Russian people as a belligerent, racist collective who only yearn to conquer their neighbours, right?
In my view? Yes, the culture of Russia itself is the main problem, not Putin alone.
I do think most Russians view themselves above the countries around them, yes.
Both it and Israel aid does. Additionally, the financial package itself isn’t for Ukraine. It’s to replenish existing US weapons being sent to Ukraine for the US arsenal.
I wouldn’t say that. However, there is a strain of nationalism that exists in the population imo. Some of it is organic and the rest is brainwashed into the population by way of non stop domestic propaganda. Even when I was in Ukraine, most of the channels had Russian tv on full blast, which even there, rubbed off on the locals.
Mike Johnson has already decided that a war on the IRS is more important than his support for Israel, a country he is supposed to care deeply about.
So, i don't see anything getting through the house in terms of Ukraine in the forseeable future.
They will still get their weapons since the bill is to replenish US weapons, not to manufacture new ones for Ukraine. Also, if Johnson wants the Israel package to go through, he will have to play ball on Ukraine. That’s if he actually remains as speaker as there are rumblings he may not make it much further if he can’t avoid a shutdown in a week.
Operation isolate Crimea continues to find great success.
Link up some of the money laundering aspects of the Ukraine war. Sounds interesting.
Not that different from most countries then.
More moral issues on the Russian side.
I mean that form of exceptionalism isn't particularly unique. Not in the West too I should add.
Would also be interested in Suedesi's views on the matter given the above information.
That is partially true. Putin doesn't trust the West, as we have reneged on every agreement regarding previous conflicts (such as Minsk 1, Minsk 2, and the issue of no eastern NATO expansion if you want to go back further). I think once he secures control over the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, he may agree to a treaty, provided that Ukraine remains a weakened state with limited power. That's just realpolitik.
In the war of attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Russia is stronger militarily than Ukraine in every metric: production, military technology, and personnel.
For example, Russia is now producing over 5 million artillery shells a year, while the US can barely produce 360,000 a year. It's a significant disparity.
Another example is the cost of manufacturing artillery rounds. It costs a NATO country between $5,000 to $6,000 to produce a 155-millimeter artillery round, while it costs Russia around $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter shell. Oh, never mind, it's actually 8,000 Euros now.
We can discuss the root causes if you're interested, but your argument to "keep supplying Ukraine until Russia eventually breaks" seems wishful thinking.
https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/why-cant-the-pentagon-pass-an-audit/
It's institutionalized corruption meet one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe. Put 2 and 2 together, or do you need a tweet?
The link has nothing to do with Ukraine.
If the Russian military was stronger, he would've conquered all of Ukraine from the beginning. The reality is it isn't nearly as strong as you claim and with the Russian economy continuously suffering from sanctions, Russian troops being ill-equipped and suffering from low morale (and in many cases being incompetent given they are being forced to free prisoners to fight), there is no advantage for the Russians at all, particularly when you factor in that Ukrainians are fighting to preserve their own country and the Russians fighting to invade a foreign one.
Last edited:
It's also from 2000
So smug when posting it, yet missed that tidbit of information.
I'm sure he will correct this minor oversight with a Vivek or Peter Thiel op-ed or a PDB podcast.
I am too busy to participate in the match day thread, and frankly, I think there's too much fog of war to take any news at face value or to comment on it. Consider these headlines for context:
- NBC NEWS, JUNE 12: "Ukraine claims first gains in its counteroffensive against Russia" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-claims-first-gains-counteroffensive-russia-rcna88789
- NBC NEWS, AUG 31: "Ukrainian forces make gains on front line, Kyiv says. The breakthrough, if it holds, would be a vindication for Ukraine" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-counteroffensive-breakthough-crimea-rcna102799
- NBC NEWS, SEPT 7: "Ukrainian counteroffensive is making 'tangible progress' against Russia, Blinken tells NBC News. 'I think we are seeing real forward movement'" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-counteroffensive-progress-russia-blinken-interview-rcna103681
- NBC NEWS, NOV 3: Biden administration officials "are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces", and Ukraine "only has until the end of the year" before "urgent discussions" are necessary. https://nbcnews.com/news/world/us-european-officials-broach-topic-peace-negotiations-ukraine-sources-rcna123628
As someone who focuses on the bigger picture, I admit that I struggle to understand the strategic necessity of promising NATO membership to Ukraine. It seems illogical to me. Expanding NATO into countries with unstable conditions or those adjacent to potentially hostile neighbors increases the risk to American lives, given United States' obligation to defend each new member state. The only way this makes sense is from Lockheed's, Boeing's, Raytheon's, Northrop's and Halliburton's point of view.
Your focus on the MIC is funny. You can blame Putin for boosting the American MIC by invading Ukraine.