Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Starting to feel like we're entering the end game of this part of the conflict. Now that Ukraine has gone public on trading land for peace it 's just a matter of where the lines are drawn. I pity the people on the eastern side of it, hopefully they are all given freedom of movement to western Ukraine as part of any ceasefire.
I believe what's meant is that he flew to Moscow to beg for assistance , not that he fled.
I’d always thought his base was the Latakia coastal region, just north of Lebanon, no?
Fled maybe is not the right term, he is reported to have went there yesterday though to meet with Putin and discuss the situation:
https://caliber.az/en/post/president-assad-arrives-in-moscow-amid-rising-tensions-in-syria
The only source is some Telegram post so it is all unconfirmed.
It will be interesting to see what Putin can offer him this time around. Especially if there is trouble in Georgia too.
You've told Simbo several times before, they know, it's not going to change anything. It's on purpose at this point.
My ultimate goal is to annoy an admin enough that they add igorsushko to the filter.
Anyone know if Ukraine has received these Swedish aircraft or when they'll receive it?
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05...aft-to-ukraine-rolls-out-largest-aid-package/
What's the problem with him? I dunno who he is tbh, just has ended up on my follow list cos I guess he never came across as a moron to me
What's the problem with him? I dunno who he is tbh, just has ended up on my follow list cos I guess he never came across as a moron to me
He's simply not reliable. He'll exaggerate or straight up make stuff up sometimes. He's done this a lot with Ukraine.
Grim FT article on Ukrainian war recruitment but again it highlights the frustration of soldiers that the country seems to have blocked out the war and people in the big cities do not appreciate that their life is somewhat normal because of the sacrifices & efforts of the military.
https://www.ft.com/content/9b25288d-8258-4541-81b0-83b00ad8a03f
Putin signs off record Russian defense spending as top EU officials visit Kyiv
https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...-putin-drone-3a1a73c559b250ec26190edd9332100c
The hunt for one of the mountain of dead North Koreans that Zelenskiy keeps saying is accumulating in Kursk goes on.
"Our place should have been there [in eastern Ukraine], not here in someone else’s land,” Pavlo said. “We don’t need these Kursk forests, in which we left so many comrades.”
And despite weeks of reports suggesting that as many as 10,000 North Korean troops have been sent to Kursk to join the Russian counter-offensive, the soldiers we’ve been in contact have yet to encounter them.
“I haven’t seen or heard anything about Koreans, alive or dead,” Vadym responded when we asked about the reports.
The Ukrainian military has released recordings which it says are intercepts of North Korean radio communications.
Soldiers said they had been told to capture at least one North Korean prisoner, preferably with documents.
They spoke of rewards - drones or extra leave - being offered to anyone who successfully captures a North Korean soldier.
“It’s very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest,” Pavlo noted sarcastically. “Especially if he’s not here.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x9gz4ylwo
And...
"He said the Russian troops Ukrainians faced in Kursk were a mixture of well-trained paratroopers from the 76th Brigade, but also less organised Chechens, and African mercenaries. But he has seen no sign of the 12,000 North Korean troops that, according to the Pentagon, have been sent to Kursk. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky also told the Japanese Kyodo news agency Sunday that some North Koreans had been killed by Ukrainian forces and that they would ultimately be used as “cannon fodder” by the Kremlin.
"When we catch them or see a body,” Oleksandr said, “then I’ll know for sure that they’re here.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/03/europe/ukraine-russia-kursk-soldiers-incursion-intl/index.html
Funny how Zelenskiy keeps tweeting that Ukrainian troops are massacring North Koreans left right and centre yet there is not a shred of evidence for this (in the most extensively photographed and documented war in history no less) and not one of the Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk that both the BBC and CNN have spoken to have ever actually seen one of them.
Hopefully Zelenskiy's new plan to offer cash rewards to any soldier who can actually find one of these 12,000 North Koreans that they're gunning down will pay dividends.
"Our place should have been there [in eastern Ukraine], not here in someone else’s land,” Pavlo said. “We don’t need these Kursk forests, in which we left so many comrades.”
And despite weeks of reports suggesting that as many as 10,000 North Korean troops have been sent to Kursk to join the Russian counter-offensive, the soldiers we’ve been in contact have yet to encounter them.
“I haven’t seen or heard anything about Koreans, alive or dead,” Vadym responded when we asked about the reports.
The Ukrainian military has released recordings which it says are intercepts of North Korean radio communications.
Soldiers said they had been told to capture at least one North Korean prisoner, preferably with documents.
They spoke of rewards - drones or extra leave - being offered to anyone who successfully captures a North Korean soldier.
“It’s very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest,” Pavlo noted sarcastically. “Especially if he’s not here.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x9gz4ylwo
And...
"He said the Russian troops Ukrainians faced in Kursk were a mixture of well-trained paratroopers from the 76th Brigade, but also less organised Chechens, and African mercenaries. But he has seen no sign of the 12,000 North Korean troops that, according to the Pentagon, have been sent to Kursk. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky also told the Japanese Kyodo news agency Sunday that some North Koreans had been killed by Ukrainian forces and that they would ultimately be used as “cannon fodder” by the Kremlin.
"When we catch them or see a body,” Oleksandr said, “then I’ll know for sure that they’re here.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/03/europe/ukraine-russia-kursk-soldiers-incursion-intl/index.html
Funny how Zelenskiy keeps tweeting that Ukrainian troops are massacring North Koreans left right and centre yet there is not a shred of evidence for this (in the most extensively photographed and documented war in history no less) and not one of the Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk that both the BBC and CNN have spoken to have ever actually seen one of them.
Hopefully Zelenskiy's new plan to offer cash rewards to any soldier who can actually find one of these 12,000 North Koreans that they're gunning down will pay dividends.
Last edited:
Oh, and: "It's like dealing with cornered rats". Charming.
www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/28/ukrainian-mobilisation-officer-explained-kyiv-war-russia/
www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/28/ukrainian-mobilisation-officer-explained-kyiv-war-russia/
Last edited:
This honestly feels like the best outcome really. It's in no way ideal for Ukraine, but considering the amount of their men that they are losing and the uncertainty of US support, if they can trade the occupied territory for NATO membership, that would be a desirable outcome in terms of deterring Russia from trying this again in the future, no?
The problem is that there is no indication that Putin would agree to that at this point. He seems to be too invested in subduing Ukraine and seems to believe (rightly or wrongly) that Russia has the capacity to outlast Ukraine’s will to fight and western support - and ultimately force Ukraine’s capitulation.
This would be an acceptable and realistic deal (not sure about how realistic NATO is as opposed to security guarantees - of questionable credibility) for somebody who comes after Putin as he would be able to build his legitimacy on “bringing peace” (as there are indications that Russian public is slowly growing tired of war, although this is unlikely to cause political problems for Putin).
This could also work if backed by credible commitment and actions by the west to ramp up the support for Ukraine, especially in case Putin refuses to deal. Not sure how realistic that is.
However, Ukraine publicly declaring it’s openness for a ceasefire is generally positive as it at least puts the “neutral” (in fact pro Russian of course) countries and commentators (e.g. China or some people I this thread) in front of a choice - either support Ukraine’s suggestions or (by not supporting them) out themselves and clearly show that what they are advocating is not a “peace deal” or “ceasefire” or “negotiations” but rather a capitulation of Ukraine.
If that is what Ukraine really wants then it seems like a possible way forward.
This has gone on for a long time now and Ukraine has done incredibly well to hold Russia at bay.
But there is a limit to how much longer they can do that and just as importantly, how much longer the West will be able to support them.
Especially if the new Trump administration decides to withhold any further support.
I have long thought that the only way Russia could be stopped from taking control of Ukraine was by admitting them into NATO.
I agree that NATO membership for Ukraine is unlikely to be an option, some softer security guarantees + investing heavily into Ukraines defenses and their own production is more realistic. Make them as self reliant as possible.
I also think that any territory given to Russia will never be taken back diplomatically, despite what Zelensky says. I don't know if he even believes that himself. Russia is already working on removing any ties to Ukraine from the occupied territories, to legitimize them as Russian.
At this point though Zelensky really has to present himself as open to negotiations, if he doesn't then he risks losing support from the US. Ideally he will want Russia to be the one who refuses negotiations or play hardball, as you say Ukraine could then instead get increased US military support. At least those are the terms currently put out by the US delegation - both sides need to sit down and come to a conclusion. This ofcourse makes Russia/Putin look very weak, to have the Americans come in and sit them down and set the negotiation terms. He'll have to spin that somehow or try to make it look internally like he is in charge.
Ultimately though I think the negotiations will go badly for Ukraine in terms of concessions of territory and weak security guarantees.
Admission into NATO will be so tough that it will be nigh-on impossible. It might even break the Alliance.
On current alliance laws, every state has to approve/accept the new member. We saw how long it took the safe countries of Finland and Sweden to be accepted, with both Turkey and Hungary blocking the bids and asking for their pound of flesh. With Ukraine, it will be 10 times that because the new member would bring a very realistic risk for the alliance of being immediately implicated in a war with Russia. Currently, unlike what many people claim, Ukraine needs NATO much more than NATO needs Ukraine let's be honest. And some states like Hungary and Slovakia (maybe even Romania soon) are captured by Putin sympathisers and apologists. There is no way they will sign Ukraine's admission into NATO, not without considerable stalling and huge concessions in a process that might take several years.
I think it will be more realistic to form another "coalition of the willing" which will need to involve the major European powers (Germany, France, UK) and the US as bare minimum, then include anyone else willing to take part. Then sign a legally binding deal between this "coalition", Ukraine and Russia to send peace-keepers and vow to defend the territorial integrity of the new borders of Ukraine. With any attack by Russia on those new borders leading to an "article 5"-style declaration of war by the whole coalition.
The US under Trump will just block it, it's simply not feasible even if other memebrs could be open under certain conditions.
Yes that is a very fair post and your logic is very sound.
No part of Ukraine is ever joining NATO and it's taken clinical-grade delusion to ever think otherwise. All that talk from Blinken and Sullivan about "Ukraine's future is irreversibly in NATO" was just to string the Ukrainian people along. And it has nothing to do with Hungary or Slovakia or 'Trump' or whoever else has been mentioned in recent posts. Even leaving aside Russia's role, the US and Germany don't want Ukraine in NATO (nobody in Western Europe does, despite what the likes of France and the UK sometimes say). The situation that exists now is perfect for them. Militarise the shit out of Ukraine and use it as NATO's very own PMC with (take it away Lindsey) "not one drop of NATO blood at risk of being spilled".
Podolyak is a complete moron but he's also Zelenskiy's main 'adviser' (those 2 facts are related) and the last paragraph of his tweet today acknowledges that they're finally being told a few home truths behind the scenes after being strung along for almost 3 years:
On a separate issue I also recommend people stop paying attention to anything Zelenskiy has to say about the terms of any future settlement and what he'll "agree" to. Whatever those terms end up being and whatever agreements are signed, his signature is not going to be on any of them. Peskov has said numerous times that Russia doesn't recognise him as the legitimate president of Ukraine and won't acknowledge any agreements made by him. Washington is also sick to death of him and has got all the use out of him that they can. There's a reason all the various officials who've been fired for corruption or incompetence (Reznikov, Kuleba et al) weren't shipped off to the front lines (as they spent 2 years demanding every other Ukrainian be) but were instead quietly ushered out of the country to Berlin or London where they make speeches for the Yermak-McFaul Group and passive-aggressively criticise Zelenskiy in the Western media. Zelenskiy's going to be replaced long before any documents are signed. His Action Man shtick was very useful during the early part of this war, he sold the war to a mostly dumb Western audience very well ("this century's Winston Churchill!" as the British parliament called him, as they all lined up to get a photo with him in Kyiv. Now the poor guy can't wrangle a trip to Ukraine out of Kier Starmer for love nor money, he has never once visited in all the time he's been Prime Minister). Now he's a liability. And honestly, since the Praviy Sektor have already threatened to string him up by his nuts if he ever concedes an inch of Ukrainian territory, it's probably in his own best interests. If I were a betting man I'd say "Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Kingdom" (lol, as the kids say) Zaluzhny will be the guy signing the relevant papers.
Podolyak is a complete moron but he's also Zelenskiy's main 'adviser' (those 2 facts are related) and the last paragraph of his tweet today acknowledges that they're finally being told a few home truths behind the scenes after being strung along for almost 3 years:
On a separate issue I also recommend people stop paying attention to anything Zelenskiy has to say about the terms of any future settlement and what he'll "agree" to. Whatever those terms end up being and whatever agreements are signed, his signature is not going to be on any of them. Peskov has said numerous times that Russia doesn't recognise him as the legitimate president of Ukraine and won't acknowledge any agreements made by him. Washington is also sick to death of him and has got all the use out of him that they can. There's a reason all the various officials who've been fired for corruption or incompetence (Reznikov, Kuleba et al) weren't shipped off to the front lines (as they spent 2 years demanding every other Ukrainian be) but were instead quietly ushered out of the country to Berlin or London where they make speeches for the Yermak-McFaul Group and passive-aggressively criticise Zelenskiy in the Western media. Zelenskiy's going to be replaced long before any documents are signed. His Action Man shtick was very useful during the early part of this war, he sold the war to a mostly dumb Western audience very well ("this century's Winston Churchill!" as the British parliament called him, as they all lined up to get a photo with him in Kyiv. Now the poor guy can't wrangle a trip to Ukraine out of Kier Starmer for love nor money, he has never once visited in all the time he's been Prime Minister). Now he's a liability. And honestly, since the Praviy Sektor have already threatened to string him up by his nuts if he ever concedes an inch of Ukrainian territory, it's probably in his own best interests. If I were a betting man I'd say "Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Kingdom" (lol, as the kids say) Zaluzhny will be the guy signing the relevant papers.
It might be reasonable and realistic from the West/Ukraine side, but Putin does not have any incentive to sign such a deal unless he is under severe pressure. Putin thinks he is (albeit slowly) winning the war and improving its position and chances to eventually force Ukraine’s capitulation. Why would he agree to ceasefire, essentially foregoing his main aim (blocking Ukraine path to the West and having a pro-Russia regime there)?
I mean if the US threatened to put boots on the ground if Putin rejects the deal, sure. But it won’t happen. I do not think the threat to increase military support to Ukraine would do it - the west isn’t solving Ukraine manpower issues anyway. One may hope that the combination of domestic economic and political pressure and pressure from China to do a deal etc forces Putin to negotiate at some point, but that is a faint hope honestly.
Putin is 72 and not in the best health. A ceasefire would give Ukraine a reprieve and firmly anchor the territories under Ukraine’s control to the west at least for the rest his lifetime. Ukraine would build fortifications etc etc. Yes he could spin it (or anything really) as a win for the domestic audience, but for himself it would be a failure as the main goal would not be achieved. And I have seen no indication that the goal was any other than forcing the regime change in the Ukraine as a whole. One would hope that he targeted just some land to grab, and would be happy to do a deal but i just don’t see it. And I would be really happy to be wrong.
"^^ This war is not some kind of pet project of Vladimir Putin, despite how the West tries to present it. Whoever comes after him (and I'm still 99% sure it'll be Aleksey Dyumin) will have exactly the same set of priorities.
Its a typically dumb/manipulative headline, just forget you ever read it.
"Journallist": The suggestion is, its fairly simple really. That Ukraine joins NATO, but Russia takes control and keeps the land it has today, would that be a possibility?
Zelenskyy: There is no offer to have just one part of Ukraine in NATO, no one has suggested this. It could be possible but has to include the whole of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders (so including occupied territories, Crimea). You can't give a NATO invitation to just one part of a country and it would be impossible to ever recognise the occupied territories as Russian.
I did start by saying that If it is what Ukraine really wants, because I was a bit surprised when I read it.
Gerasimov told Brown that the Oreshnik strike was planned long before ATACMS approval.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/us/politics/russian-general-call.html
Blinken becomes the latest Western official to publicly call on Ukraine to start mobilising its 18-25 year olds.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...et-younger-people-fighting-russia-2024-12-04/
"But for example, getting younger people into the fight, we think, many of us think, is necessary. Right now, 18- to 25-year olds are not in the fight," he added.
Without mentioning a particular age group, NATO chief Mark Rutte voiced the same general view.
"We have to make sure, obviously, also that enough people are available within Ukraine," Rutte told reporters. "We need probably more people to move to the front line."
Come on young Ukrainian men, stop being selfish cowards and go fight for "the freedom of all of us". Lindsey Graham isn't getting his hands on those lithium deposits while there are still Ukrainian teenagers who think their role in this life is something other than to "bleed Russia" for NATO.
When these ghouls resolved to fight Russia until every last drop of Ukrainian blood has been shed, they really meant it. Zelenskiy keeps saying he can't mobilise anyone younger because then Ukraine will have no future. He still hasn't figured out his "friends and partners who will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes" couldn't give two f*cks about that. There's your "allies", Zelenskiy. Do you understand now what you've done by believing their bullshit? They won't put a single hair on their own militaries' heads in harm's way over Ukraine (they will over Taiwan), despite saying this is an "existential war for all of Europe", but they'll publicly cajole you into sending 18 year olds into the meat grinder.
And by the way if you're wondering if this sudden new aggressive media campaign by Western officials to get Ukraine to lower the conscription age is their way of preparing to pin the blame on Zelenskiy for losing the war - why yes, yes it is.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...et-younger-people-fighting-russia-2024-12-04/
"But for example, getting younger people into the fight, we think, many of us think, is necessary. Right now, 18- to 25-year olds are not in the fight," he added.
Without mentioning a particular age group, NATO chief Mark Rutte voiced the same general view.
"We have to make sure, obviously, also that enough people are available within Ukraine," Rutte told reporters. "We need probably more people to move to the front line."
Come on young Ukrainian men, stop being selfish cowards and go fight for "the freedom of all of us". Lindsey Graham isn't getting his hands on those lithium deposits while there are still Ukrainian teenagers who think their role in this life is something other than to "bleed Russia" for NATO.
When these ghouls resolved to fight Russia until every last drop of Ukrainian blood has been shed, they really meant it. Zelenskiy keeps saying he can't mobilise anyone younger because then Ukraine will have no future. He still hasn't figured out his "friends and partners who will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes" couldn't give two f*cks about that. There's your "allies", Zelenskiy. Do you understand now what you've done by believing their bullshit? They won't put a single hair on their own militaries' heads in harm's way over Ukraine (they will over Taiwan), despite saying this is an "existential war for all of Europe", but they'll publicly cajole you into sending 18 year olds into the meat grinder.
And by the way if you're wondering if this sudden new aggressive media campaign by Western officials to get Ukraine to lower the conscription age is their way of preparing to pin the blame on Zelenskiy for losing the war - why yes, yes it is.
Another fairly recent thing I've noticed in the mainstream media is thinly-disguised piss-take articles like this one from today: "Zelenskiy Offers One-Off $24 Payment To Win Over War-Weary Ukrainians".
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/world/europe/ukraine-war-grants-zelensky.html
There was a time when to write about him as anything other than the infallible second coming of Christ was akin to blasphemy and would get you blackballed from Western journalism as a paid Russian agent.
They're getting ready to dump him, it's clear as day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/world/europe/ukraine-war-grants-zelensky.html
There was a time when to write about him as anything other than the infallible second coming of Christ was akin to blasphemy and would get you blackballed from Western journalism as a paid Russian agent.
They're getting ready to dump him, it's clear as day.
You are mostly right. Putin feels like he’s slowly winning. He’s no incentive to cut a deal.
Except one thing though. Zero boots need to be put on the ground by US or NATO to turn this into a massive shitshow for Russia and to force Putin into a corner. There’s plenty of of boots (Ukrainian ones) on the ground as is.
The one thing the US has is an overwhelming aerial superiority with solid SEAD capabilities. Russia’s air defences in Ukraine are mediocre. I don’t expect it would take very long for the US airforce operating out of Poland to establish complete aerial superiority. And then start turning the screw by constantly bombing supply lines, command centres and providing overwhelming air support to Ukrainian operations. And thus turning the ~1.5k daily casualties for Russia to a number north of 5k.
It will need the US to lead the efforts though, only then will others follow. And I doubt Trump wants to go to war with Russia. Even if it doesn’t mean putting boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Last edited:
Whoever comes after Putin will somehow have ended Putin. At that point Russia will be busy with itself for the next 20 years again.
Unless he just falls over and his successor plans fall into place. In that case, see above.
Putin's successor will be installed by Putin. Dyumin is his protégé, he's been in training to take over as President since the annexation of Crimea (which he oversaw as chief of the Special Operations Forces).
While that may be true Putin lives off of being a strong man. And those standing in the shade of strong men are usually all but.
He isn't standing in his shade, he's an extremely capable and proven leader in his own right. If you want my personal opinion he's a more impressive statesman than even Putin was in his heyday. Again, despite how the West presents the Russian government, it is not some kind of Stalinist autocracy catering to the capricious whims of Vladimir Putin. It's a highly organised structure with a very long-term strategy. Nothing is fundamentally changing course when Putin goes.
That is a bold statement for a structure where influential leaders regularly prove incapable of staying inside of windows.
Which "influential leaders" would these be?