Russian invasion of Ukraine [Official Thread]

[Ashvazdanghe]

VIDEO: Russia drone targets Israel armored vehicle in Ukraine

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/193735/VIDEO-Russia-drone-targets-Israel-armored-vehicle-in-Ukraine

Ukrainian Army Spotted Using Israeli-Made Armored Vehicles

Joe SaballaNovember 14, 2022

 

 

 

Quote

The Ukrainian Army was spotted using several Israeli-made armored vehicles for the first time in the newly-liberated city of Kherson.

A Twitter account that tracks weapons and equipment supplied to Ukraine showed photos of the Gaia Amir Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles used in the invasion.

They were parked along residential buildings in an unspecified village in the Kherson region and are believed to have taken a large part in Ukraine’s retaking of the city.

#Ukraine: To make today even more notable- for the first time ever Ukrainian forces were spotted using Israeli-made military vehicles! Here we see an Israeli GAIA Amir MRAP , currently deployed in #Kherson Oblast.

There is no information how these vehicles appeared in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/yhoAH8J30M

—  Ukraine Weapons Tracker (@UAWeapons) November 11, 2022

 

While there is no information on how these vehicles appeared in the war-torn nation, Israel has made it clear that it would not supply military aid to Kyiv.

 

Quote

VIDEO: Israeli-made armored vehicles destroyed by Russia

MORE https://t.co/ojxa70SRwL pic.twitter.com/yxxZqUGzAN

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) November 13, 2022

 

Quote

The Gaia Amir MRAP is a multi-purpose 4×4 armored vehicle that carries up to 12 people.

It is based on a commercial Ford F550 chassis with independent suspension.

The vehicle has a rotary turret with a high-powered machine gun mounted on top.

The Gaia can transport personnel, evacuate wounded soldiers, deliver military supplies, and conduct reconnaissance missions.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/11/14/ukrainian-army-israel-armored-vehicles/

Ukrainian military using Israeli-made armored vehicles in Kherson

• By Al Mayadeen English
• Source: Agencies
• 12 Nov 19:02
• 1 Shares

 

The Israeli occupation has been proven to be arming Ukraine once again despite repeated denial from "Tel Aviv" about the matter.

Quote

The Ukrainian armed forces were found to be using the Israeli-made Gaia Amir Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle in the Kherson region of Russia as reported by both Ukrainian and Israeli media on Saturday.

Photos and videos of the MRAP in use were published on various social media platforms, proving that the Israeli occupation has been supplying Kiev with weapons under the table.

Published photos show an armored vehicle parked among residential buildings in an unspecified village in Kherson as Russia says that its forces are withdrawing from the region recently added to Russia's territories.

The vehicle has a rotary turret with a machine gun mounted on top, hidden by a camouflage net.

A rotary turret with a machine gun is mounted on top and hidden by a camouflage net. It is noted that these pictures were made in the Kherson region.

The delivery of the Israeli-made armored vehicles into Ukraine went unreported from either side, and it is not known how long this has been going on.

The MRAP can carry up to 12 people, weighing up to 14 tons with a carrying capacity of up to 12.4 tons.

The Israeli Amir is based on a Ford F550 chassis, a commercial vehicle, with independent suspension. Its main purpose includes transporting personnel, evacuating wounded soldiers, delivering cargo to the frontline, and conducting reconnaissance.

 

 

Quote

 

Are Israel-made armored vehicles being used in Ukraine?

https://www.jpost.com › article-722196

 

 

 Israeli-made Gaia Amir MRAP armored vehicles were claimed to have been spotted near Kherson in service of the Ukrainian army

Israeli-made Amir MRAP used by Ukrainian military seen in Kherson Region

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/israeli-made-amir-mrap-used-by-ukrainian-military-seen-in-kherson-region/

 

 

Quote

#Ukraine: To make today even more notable- for the first time ever Ukrainian forces were spotted using Israeli-made military vehicles! Here we see an Israeli GAIA Amir MRAP , currently deployed in #Kherson Oblast.

There is no information how these vehicles appeared in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/yhoAH8J30M

Ukraine Weapons Tracker (@UAWeapons) November 11, 2022

 

Quote

Israeli occupation media reported in mid-September that an Israeli arms manufacturer was supplying anti-UAV systems to Ukraine via Poland, with the sales conducted through Warsaw to circumvent "Tel Aviv's" refusal to sell advanced arms to Ukraine. The firm reportedly informed the Israeli Ministry of Security that it was selling arms to Poland, though it pretended not to know the latter was then giving the weapons to Kiev to use against Russia.

Meanwhile, the occupation has been pumping mercenaries and weapons into Ukraine since April.

 

Quote

Videos shared on social media in April appeared to show several Israelis fighting alongside Ukrainian forces and thanking "Israel" for its assistance.

The videos, which went viral, showed the men dressed in Ukrainian military uniforms in an unspecified forested area.

Hundreds of Israelis are thought to have traveled to Ukraine to join volunteer units following the war in Ukraine, but the exact numbers are unknown.

In addition to the substantial evidence of "Israel's" involvement in the war in Ukraine in favor of Kiev against Russia, Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported last March that a secret Israeli training unit of elite graduates is training Ukrainians to fight the Russian army.

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/ukrainian-military-using-israeli-made-armored-vehicles-in-kh

Israeli military vehicles appear in Ukraine for first time

There is no existing information on how or when these vehicles first arrived in the country

By News Desk - November 13 2022

Quote

Israeli-made MRAP GAIA Amir 4×4 armored car in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the #Kherson Oblast  pic.twitter.com/hbBUzVWP7M

— BlackNAFO(@DancehallHeat) November 11, 2022

 

Quote

I spoke to Israeli Prime Minister @YairLapid and informed him on unspeakable suffering, loss of life, and destruction caused by Russian missiles and Iranian-made drones. We discussed in detail Ukraine’s request for Israel to provide air and missile defense systems and technology.

— Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) October 20, 2022

https://thecradle.co/Article/News/18240

Destruction of Israeli armored car in Ukraine caught on video

Quote

https://www.gamingdeputy.com/destruction-of-israeli-armored-car-in-ukraine-caught-on-video/

[Son of Placid]

American version of why Russia can't win.

 

[علوي]

22 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

American version of why Russia can't win.

 

I'm just gonna do this in order, since it's probably the easiest.

1. The video claims that the Ukrainian people were not willing to welcome the Russians into the Ukraine. However, we saw the results of the referenda, didn't we? Those regions are now a part of Russia. If those people really were so angry and against the Russians, where are the uprisings? Where are the coups? There are none. The Ukrainian military are the ones fighting the Russians, not the Ukrainian people. 

2. The guy also claims that the Ukrainian military stopped the Russians' advances towards Kiev, which couldn't be further from the truth. We saw at the start of the war how the Russians were making rapid advances and the Ukrainians were utterly helpless. But, after the Russians withdrew from Kiev, and the Ukrainians stopped negotiating, the Russians changed their strategy and tactics. For the past months, they've been fighting to preserve their troops by any means necessary. This is why we have seen withdrawals from Kharkov and Kherson; because the Russians were preserving their troops while the Ukrainians were wasting theirs or temporary gains here and there.

3. Just to show how deceived and deceitful this guy is, he claims that the Russians wanted to get into Kiev and execute Zelensky, which was never the plan, even in the Western media. The plan was to scare the Ukrainians into negotiating, (which worked). But, after the Russians withdrew from Kiev as an act of goodwill, the Ukrainians lost any interest in negotiating.

4. He also says that the Russians were wrong to not use a missile campaign against Ukraine before starting the "invasion". Of course, the clear problem with this statement is that the special military operation was not an "invasion", rather the Russians were, as I've repeated at least a dozen times, "demilitarising" and "denazifying" Ukraine. Don't know how that turns into a "brutal full-scale unprovoked invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine". Only recently have the Russians shown signs of an actual war, such as destroying key civilian infrastructure. But since the beginning of the war, the Russians haven't done anything like this.

5. The video claims that the Russians were forced out of Kherson; that the Ukrainians were beating them there so they had to withdraw. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. The Russians had full control of Kherson, and yes, they were awaiting a Ukrainian offensive. (The Ukrainians had the final weapons from the West in their hands). Furthermore, because there was a major dam in the region which the Ukrainians were trying to blow up, the Russians had to withdraw in order to preserve their own troops as well as the lives of civilians. 

Why did I even waste 15 minutes on replying to this. I knew it was gonna be Western propaganda.

The guy is literally just reading American news outlets' articles, and taking every word they say as gospel. I'd be surprised if this guy even knows what RT is, let alone ever read one article from it. But if you want it to be more clear that he's wrong, why didn't he even mention the partial mobilisation? You know, the 300,000+ troops who are arriving in Ukraine as we speak? You'd think that Russia multiplying its ground forces by four or fivefold would be a clear turning point, even in the Western media? No, of course not. The Western media is the king of lies. And this guy is no different. No mention of the mobilisation. No mention that the West is running out of weapons to send to Ukraine. This video literally couldn't possibly be any more biased.

Go watch The New Atlas or The Duran or something, they'll teach a few lessons. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by -Rejector-
spelling + grammar mistakes

[VoidVortex]

On 11/19/2022 at 6:13 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Biden mistakes Kherson for Iraq's Fallujah

reading the transcript shows that Biden can barely pull his sentences together. Its rather quite embarassing for the "leader of the free world"

 

[Haji 2003]

Anti-war protests in Germany
 

Quote

“Germany is serving as a puppet exclusively for American interests and those of Nato,” the first orator warned to the hundreds-strong crowd, a mix of students, families and pensioners. Some carried banners for the German left, some peace flags and some homemade signs drawing complex parallels between the nine-month war in Ukraine and the coronavirus pandemic. As the anti-American rhetoric soared, the crowd applauded, jeered and whistled.

https://www.ft.com/content/fedc259f-bf96-4a22-b032-bc181d4dd51d

[علوي]

8 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Anti-war protests in Germany
 

https://www.ft.com/content/fedc259f-bf96-4a22-b032-bc181d4dd51d

There are major protests in France and Greece too. And minor ones pretty much everywhere else.

[علوي]

Russia says has not been after regime change in Ukraine

Quote

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN on Monday that a change of the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has not been the goal of the operation that started on February 24.

“Russia is striving to achieve its goals in the special military operation, and these goals can be achieved in different ways,” Peskov said.

His remarks contradicted comments made earlier in the day by Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev, who said a normalization of relations with Kiev could only happen if there was “regime change.”

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/21/693133/Change-of-Ukraine-regime-not-Russia-s-goal--Moscow

I don't think this is a contradiction. I do believe that Russia was/is not trying to bring about regime change in Kiev, but also that with the current government, Moscow and Kiev cannot cooperate. That's fine, since I don't think Russia has any interest in cooperating with a destroyed/failed state like Ukraine. 

[Son of Placid]

On 11/20/2022 at 1:28 PM, -Rejector- said:

4. He also says that the Russians were wrong to not use a missile campaign against Ukraine before starting the "invasion".

I vaguely remember a planned attack. Details escape me but the point was a group ready to invade got word the US would start with a missile attack and decided not to invade.  

As I watch as many sides of this war as I can find, nothing jives. 
Mainstream says the Russian economy was destroyed when countries moved their businesses out. Then a young Russian lady, (20s), videos a tour of a shopping mall. It looks like a mall you'd see in California. Multi floors, bright lights, food courts, etc. 4 stores closed, food and clothing. They miss McDs fries. 

Putin's first speech was on de nazifying the Donbass region. Saving the Russian people in Ukraine. He's had to hit Ukraine in areas where it hurts but I don't see where his focus has changed.
It also speaks of Russia's outdated equipment. Russia has been quiet for many years as their economy improved. There's no reason to think they haven't used that time to install Hillary's uranium where it counts. I'm thinking Ukraine is not big enough for their big guns. 
People are under the impression that Russia is behind the times. One of the stupidest things the West can do is underestimate Russia. Every time Russia pulls out the West calls it a surrender, pushed back, defeated, whatever. 
It's all so obvious to anyone who takes a step back and looks around.

[Northwest]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:28 PM, -Rejector- said:

3. Just to show how deceived and deceitful this guy is, he claims that the Russians wanted to get into Kiev and execute Zelensky, which was never the plan, even in the Western media. The plan was to scare the Ukrainians into negotiating, (which worked). But, after the Russians withdrew from Kiev as an act of goodwill, the Ukrainians lost any interest in negotiating.

@-Rejector-

So you just demonstrated that the use/threat of force was the only factor that compelled Kiev to participate in the negotiations. If this were the case, then why would Putin withdraw on the basis of goodwill, given that only force led to the negotiations in the first place? Why would Putin remove the one thing that led to negotiations in the first place: the Russian forces near Kiev? Had the use of force not been a factor in inducing the negotiations, then I would have agreed with Putin’s decision to withdraw, or at least understood it better.

20 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Russia says has not been after regime change in Ukraine

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/21/693133/Change-of-Ukraine-regime-not-Russia-s-goal--Moscow

I don't think this is a contradiction. I do believe that Russia was/is not trying to bring about regime change in Kiev, but also that with the current government, Moscow and Kiev cannot cooperate. That's fine, since I don't think Russia has any interest in cooperating with a destroyed/failed state like Ukraine. 

Again, this makes no sense.

a) Russia’s declared aims in Ukraine are 1) to secure Donbas’ and 2) to disarm/neutralise (not occupy) Ukraine, including the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Nazi battalions.

b) Russia has admitted that the current Ukrainian government is unwilling and unable to negotiate with Russia in good faith, given that Kiev is under the control of its Western (NATO) handlers.

How is Russia going to meet the goals of its SMO without removing the current regime in Kiev? If Zelensky and Co. are eventually forced to flee due to the destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, regime change would still be a factor: Zelensky’s government would be replaced by a neutral government that makes peace with Russia and distances itself from NATO. So one way or another, only regime change could work.

So far I do not see any signs that Ukraine’s NATO handlers are close to collapse. This is the key, as Russia has claimed that NATO, not Ukraine, is at war with Russia and is using Ukraine to this end. Also, even Russia’s supposed friends in Hungary and Turkey are still willing to let Finland and Sweden join NATO if certain conditions are met, so Russia’s frontline is still widening while the end of the war in Ukraine remains out of sight.

I don’t think that NATO is necessarily winning this war, but neither is Russia at this point. Both sides are committing suicide (a kind of “mutually assured destruction” without nuclear weapons).

[علوي]

4 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Putin's first speech was on de nazifying the Donbass region. Saving the Russian people in Ukraine. He's had to hit Ukraine in areas where it hurts but I don't see where his focus has changed.

At the start of the war, the Russians would leave the civilian infrastructure (such as power grids) alone. However, after the attack on the Crimea bridge (or around that time), when the Russians unleashed the drones all over Ukraine, they started to target such crucial infrastructure. This could be viewed as a shift in focus, but we can't really be sure.

[علوي]

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

So you just demonstrated that the use/threat of force was the only factor that compelled Kiev to participate in the negotiations. If this were the case, then why would Putin withdraw on the basis of goodwill, given that only force led to the negotiations in the first place? Why would Putin remove the one thing that led to negotiations in the first place: the Russian forces near Kiev? Had the use of force not been a factor in inducing the negotiations, then I would have agreed with Putin’s decision to withdraw, or at least understood it better.

It's not like the Russians stopped using force at all. They were still fighting elsewhere in the country (i.e. in the Donbass regions). They were still occupying a massive part of Ukraine. 

Just look how, when the Russians offer negotiations, Zelensky comes out and says that he won't negotiate until Russia withdraws from Ukraine AND Crimea as well. He wants the Russians to just give up the Donbass as well as Crimea, which always was and currently is theirs. 

Besides, it's not like the Russians desperately needed to negotiate. The negotiations were for the benefit of the Ukrainians; so that they could prevent their country from being destroyed. Russia was under no stress to sign a deal; it was all for Ukraine's benefit. However, they didn't take the chance (and they continue to refuse to do so) and prefer to be destroyed by the Russians.

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

Again, this makes no sense.

a) Russia’s declared aims in Ukraine are 1) to secure Donbas’ and 2) to disarm/neutralise (not occupy) Ukraine, including the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Nazi battalions.

b) Russia has admitted that the current Ukrainian government is unwilling and unable to negotiate with Russia in good faith, given that Kiev is under the control of its Western (NATO) handlers.

How is Russia going to meet the goals of its SMO without removing the current regime in Kiev? If Zelensky and Co. are eventually forced to flee due to the destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, regime change would still be a factor: Zelensky’s government would be replaced by a neutral government that makes peace with Russia and distances itself from NATO. So one way or another, only regime change could work.

This is only true if Ukraine still has military capabilities. But because the Russians are demilitarising Ukraine, there's no need for regime change. It's not like the Ukrainians (a) have any weapons themselves or (b) have any remaining partners who still have weapons to send to them. So once Ukraine's military is destroyed, that's it; there's no more threat to Russia/the ethnic Russians in Donbass. 

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia does incur regime change in Ukraine. I think it's highly unlikely, because like I explained, after demilitarisation there's no need to do so, but it's still a possibility. 

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

So far I do not see any signs that Ukraine’s NATO handlers are close to collapse. This is the key, as Russia has claimed that NATO, not Ukraine, is at war with Russia and is using Ukraine to this end. Also, even Russia’s supposed friends in Hungary and Turkey are still willing to let Finland and Sweden join NATO if certain conditions are met, so Russia’s frontline is still widening while the end of the war in Ukraine remains out of sight.

Hungary and Turkiye aren't concerned about Russia. Hungary doesn't want to fall into the same trap as Spain and Germany where they'll need to ban people from using heaters, and Turkiye is just, as usual, looking out for their own interests.

With Finland and Sweden, I don't think Russia has much concern in this regard. Russia launched its special military operation because the Ukrainians were planning an operation in the Donbass, not because Putin just woke up one morning and invaded a nation on a whim. 

Here's more information about this planned offensive:

Quote

Russia claims it has found a secret document showing that Ukraine was planning a military offensive against the breakaway Donbas region in March, according to the Russian foreign and defense ministry. 
...
The covert orders, allegedly dated January 22 and signed by National Guard of Ukraine commander Col.-Gen. Nikolai Balan, detail supposed preparations for troops for joint forces operations in Donbas, the Russian foreign ministry said. 

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-700752

Quote

The Russian Defense Ministry on Wednesday denounced a Ukrainian plan to launch during this March a military operation in the Donbass region, where the self-proclaimed autonomous republics of Donetsk and Lugansk are located.
...
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov...commented that it is a secret order of the commander of the National Guard of Ukraine, Colonel General Mykola Balan, dated January 22, 2022.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Russia-Reveals-Ukrainian-Plan-to-Attack-Donbass-Region-20220310-0003.html

Quote

Konashenkov also said that the unit of the Ukrainian airborne assault force, which is planned to be engaged in Donbas, has been trained by American and British instructors in Lviv since 2016 according to the "NATO standards" training program.

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php?yyyy=2022&mm=03&dd=09&nav_id=113234

Imam Khamenei (Q) also pointed this out during his meeting with Putin:

Back to the point, Russia was never concerned about Finland or Sweden. Until and unless one of them begins to be hostile to Russia, Russia won't act against them. Besides, the "war against NATO" thing is a metaphor. Russia isn't literally taking on all of NATO in a war, but it is taking a stand against its values (i.e. imperialism and barbarism). What Russia does about Finland and Sweden will depend on what those countries do against Russia. If they decide to host nuclear weapons or something, I don't think it would end well for them. 

Quote

[Dmitry Peskov said that] Russia’s reaction to Finland’s accession to NATO will depend on the proximity of the alliance’s infrastructure to its borders. "All will depend on what this process of expansion will imply. To what extent the military infrastructure will get closer to our borders," Putin’s press secretary explained.

https://tass.com/politics/1449971

Also see:

Quote

"It is clear that the decision on Finland and Sweden’s joining NATO does not strengthen the security of the region, but on the contrary, it complicates the security situation for everyone," [Dmitry] Medvedev told journalists following a meeting focused on security of Russia's northwestern frontiers.

https://tass.com/politics/1486165

The Finland and Sweden situation will depend on Finland and Sweden.

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

I don’t think that NATO is necessarily winning this war, but neither is Russia at this point. Both sides are committing suicide (a kind of “mutually assured destruction” without nuclear weapons).

Russia's mobilised troops are still coming into Ukraine; Ukraine's weapons are running out; and the winter is also approaching. Time is on the Russians' side; it's not a matter of 'if' they win, it's a matter of 'when'.

[علوي]

European Parliament passes resolution recognizing Russia as ‘state sponsor of terrorism’

Quote

A total of 494 MEPs backed the resolution, 58 opposed it and 44 abstained

https://tass.com/world/1540895

Quote

Moscow reacted angrily to the provocative decision by the European Parliament later in the day, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying, "I propose designating the European Parliament as a sponsor of idiocy."

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/23/693265/EU-Russia-parliament-Ukraine-terrorism

[علوي]

Zelensky pleads with Ukrainians to preserve energy as power system crippled

Quote

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has appealed to the nation to preserve energy as winter is on the horizon and the country will be facing power cuts at least until the end of March.
...
"The systematic damage to our energy system from strikes by the Russian terrorists is so considerable that all our people and businesses should be mindful and redistribute their consumption throughout the day," Zelensky said in his nightly video address.

He made the remarks as authorities said millions of people, including in the capital, Kiev, could face power cuts at least until the end of March.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/22/693189/Zelensky-pleads-with-Ukrainians-to-preserve-energy-as-power-system-crippled

[علوي]

Ukraine's War Crimes: Execution of Russian POWs

Quote

The Russian Defense Ministry claimed that murdering POWs was a “widespread practice” for Kiev’s forces.
<...>
[A] video...of the summary execution of Russian soldiers captured by Ukrainian troops...apparently shows the Russians surrendering and lying down on the ground. Another shows what looks like a Russian soldier appearing at the scene and discharging his firearm. The final clip is of Russian troops lying on the ground in pools of blood, apparently dead from gunshots to the head.

https://www.rt.com/russia/566970-russian-embassy-execution-footage/

[علوي]

Ukrainian mayor fined for using Russian language

Quote

Kiev has slapped the mayor of Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkov, with a fine for using what the authorities called a "non-state" language in an official TV address. Mayor Igor Terekhov is known for addressing his fellow residents in Russian.

Terekhov will have to pay a fine of 3,400 hryvnas ($92) for violating Ukrainian law, Taras Kremin, the Ukrainian government’s commissioner for the protection of the state language, said in a statement on Thursday.

https://www.rt.com/russia/567137-ukraine-mayor-fined-russian-language/

[علوي]

Moscow explains its Ukraine objectives to UN

Quote

The Russian military is using precision weapons against Ukraine’s infrastructure to disrupt the flow of weapons the US and its allies are funneling to Kiev with the aim of prolonging the conflict, Moscow’s envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia said on Wednesday.
...
Moscow is not targeting civilian residences, Nebenzia said, claiming that the regrettable damage to residential areas is often caused by Ukrainian air defenses deployed in populated areas.
...
One of Moscow’s objectives is to degrade the threat the Ukrainian military poses to Russia, and it will be pursued until Kiev adopts a more reasonable position, rather than the current language of threats and ultimatums, Nebenzia said.

https://www.rt.com/news/567073-security-council-ukraine-proxy-war/

[علوي]

Quote

If we summarize the ground strategy of the Russian Army throughout its campaign, after the initial February offensive, it can be formulated as follows: we do not attack anywhere except Donbass; we do not hold on to land and cities; if defense is fraught with costs and losses, we do not hesitate to retreat.

https://www.rt.com/russia/567610-russia-ukraine-and-west/

 

[Northwest]

@-Rejector-

According to multiple reports, there is no evidence that Russia is planning a counteroffensive prior to spring, if at all. Western officials claim that the upcoming months will likely feature little fighting on either side, and given the absence of developments on the Russian side, in this case I tend to agree with them. Furthermore, the Russians’ withdrawal from Kherson effectively violates the Russian Constitution, given that Kherson Oblast was annexed by Russia. According to the Constitution it is illegal for Russia to cede its own territory. So there is no way to sanitise the impact of the withdrawal, in light of reports that Russia is unlikely to recover it soon, if ever.

[علوي]

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

@-Rejector-

According to multiple reports, there is no evidence that Russia is planning a counteroffensive prior to spring, if at all. Western officials claim that the upcoming months will likely feature little fighting on either side, and given the absence of developments on the Russian side, in this case I tend to agree with them. Furthermore, the Russians’ withdrawal from Kherson effectively violates the Russian Constitution, given that Kherson Oblast was annexed by Russia. According to the Constitution it is illegal for Russia to cede its own territory. So there is no way to sanitise the impact of the withdrawal, in light of reports that Russia is unlikely to recover it soon, if ever.

The "developments on the Russian side" that you must be looking for is the fact that Ukrainians are freezing to death due to the Russian missile strikes. Russia is also still in the process of destroying Ukraine's military, which has been prolonged due to Western weapons coming in to Ukraine which has already slowed down. 

With regards to Kherson, it isn't Russia's main objective in the war. Losing that part of Kherson isn't too important to Russia, and even according to RT, Russia might not take it back.

Quote

It may so happen that the border of Kherson Region will be fixed for a long time, years or even decades, along the Dnieper River.

https://www.rt.com/russia/567610-russia-ukraine-and-west/

The withdrawal from that part of Kherson didn't have such a huge impact like you imagine. Rather, the withdrawal happened for the exact reason that Russia was preventing any risks posed to its troops, which has been consistent on its side throughout the entire war.

[Guest Guest]

7 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

With regards to Kherson, it isn't Russia's main objective in the war. Losing that part of Kherson isn't too important to Russia, and even according to RT, Russia might not take it back.

According to RT.com Russia has killed 10 Ukrainian soldiers for every 1 that Ukraine has killed and the Moskva was sunk by a stray cigarette that was dropped in the ship's magazine. So having declared Kherson to be part of the Motherland "forever" Russia abandoned its capital city because they never really wanted it in the first place? Likewise they sent a massive armored column towards Kyiv that only advanced thirty kilometers before their cheap Chinese tyres imploded leaving hundreds of armored vehicles and trucks to be captured by the Ukrainians because it was all part of The Plan.

If Ukrainian forces were currently kicking down Putin's study doors in the Kremlin then RT.com would be calling it a triumph of strategic planning and you would be claiming the Russians are luring the Ukrainians into a true sense of security.

[علوي]

46 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

According to RT.com Russia has killed 10 Ukrainian soldiers for every 1 that Ukraine has killed

Wow... that's so incredible considering that Russia has the best military in the world and it's fighting a state run by neo-nazis and drug addicts....

48 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

and the Moskva was sunk by a stray cigarette that was dropped in the ship's magazine.

Not sure exactly what you're talking about, what I found from RT was this:

Quote

...a fire broke out on board. This caused the unspecified ammunition stores to explode...

https://www.rt.com/russia/553902-flagship-sank/

And even the US has admitted that it isn't 100% certain that the ship was sunken by a Ukrainian missile:

Quote

Ukrainian officials claimed their forces had struck the vessel with anti-ship missiles. The Pentagon said it could not confirm the claim.

https://www.rt.com/russia/553902-flagship-sank/

In this transcript of a press briefing of the Ministry of Defense, if you read through it, you can see that the journalists ask about the ship and the defense official keeps repeating that the cause was "unknown". The journalists keep pressing him to give them the answer that they want, but he wouldn't do it because it wasn't true. 

This video covers the sinking of the ship pretty well.

1 hour ago, Guest Guest said:

So having declared Kherson to be part of the Motherland "forever" Russia abandoned its capital city because they never really wanted it in the first place?

I never said "they never really wanted it". Even according to General Surovikin, the withdrawal from Kherson was a "difficult decision". (See this article). However, this doesn't mean that this withdrawal turned the tides of the war. We still see that Russia is making gains all across the frontline; in Kupyansk, Kramatorsk, Gulyaipole, Bakhmut, and elsewhere. 

1 hour ago, Guest Guest said:

Likewise they sent a massive armored column towards Kyiv that only advanced thirty kilometers before their cheap Chinese tyres imploded leaving hundreds of armored vehicles and trucks to be captured by the Ukrainians because it was all part of The Plan.

Even Western media has admitted that it was part of Russia's plan to withdraw its troops from northern Ukraine. According to Reuters, the Pentagon has said that Russia's movements around Kiev were "more of a repositioning than a retreat". 

Besides, as I've already explained many times before, it is part of Russia's military tactics to capture more territory than necessary in order to shock the enemy into negotiating. They used these tactics in Syria against the US; it's nothing new.

@Northwest @Guest Guest

(Source: https://liveuamap.com/)

This website is extremely pro-Ukrainian. Look at the frontlines; across the whole thing all we can see is Russian attacks. Although there have been some setbacks with the special military operation such as the Kherson withdrawal, the operation is still going very well for Russia. 

[Guest Guest]

32 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

2 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

According to RT.com Russia has killed 10 Ukrainian soldiers for every 1 that Ukraine has killed

Wow... that's so incredible considering that Russia has the best military in the world and it's fighting a state run by neo-nazis and drug addicts....

Well, it is fairly incredible to think that "the best military in the world" launched a surprise attack against a country with 1/4 of Russia's population and a much smaller standing army, and that despite the Russians supposedly killing the Ukrainians at a rate of 10 to 1 they have not been able to capture and hold any major cities and after nine months are losing conquered territory despite conscripting hundreds of thousands of more soldiers and emptying the prisons.

40 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

Quote

...a fire broke out on board. This caused the unspecified ammunition stores to explode...

https://www.rt.com/russia/553902-flagship-sank/

And even the US has admitted that it isn't 100% certain that the ship was sunken by a Ukrainian missile:

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3174480/pentagon-confirms-russian-warship-moskva-struck

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html

I guess that it was just a coincidence that a mysterious fire broke out in the Moskva's magazine at the same time two Neptune missiles slammed into her hull?

52 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

2 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Likewise they sent a massive armored column towards Kyiv that only advanced thirty kilometers before their cheap Chinese tyres imploded leaving hundreds of armored vehicles and trucks to be captured by the Ukrainians because it was all part of The Plan.

Even Western media has admitted that it was part of Russia's plan to withdraw its troops from northern Ukraine. According to Reuters, the Pentagon has said that Russia's movements around Kiev were "more of a repositioning than a retreat". 

It became Russia's plan to withdraw forces from northern Ukraine after they sent a massive armored column towards Kyiv, sent paratroopers to capture Antonov airport just outside the city and activated hidden infiltrated Spetnatz troops in the city in a failed attempt to capture the capital and deliver a surgical strike against the Ukrainias government.

The Ukrainians were able to defend the airport and halt the Russian column's advance from a combination of ambush, tactical flexibility and the Russians having shoddy, poorly maintained and defective tires. Russian Soviet-era doctrines and inflexible chains of command meant the Russians kept pouring troops into a massive traffic jam on the highways and attempting to land troop transport  aircraft on the runways of Antonov airport despite the Ukrainians still controlling it because the Russian officers kept mindlessly following the invasion timetable without any reference to its failed objectives.

Essentially for weeks the area north of Kyiv became a giant turkey shoot for the Ukrainians, and the poorly led, trained and equipped Russian soldiers fled back to Mamashka as fast as their cheap boots would let them.

To quote from the very same Reuters articled you posted in proof of your claim the Russian retreat redeployment was all part of The Plan:

"Some analysts noted that Russia's promise to reduce fighting mostly covered areas where it has been losing ground.

"Does 'we'll drastically reduce military operations around Kyiv' = 'we’re getting our ass kicked, transitioned to a hasty defense?'" tweeted Mark Hertling, a retired U.S. lieutenant general and former commander of U.S. forces in Europe."

1 hour ago, -Rejector- said:

Besides, as I've already explained many times before, it is part of Russia's military tactics to capture more territory than necessary in order to shock the enemy into negotiating. They used these tactics in Syria against the US; it's nothing new.

In that case why are they surrendering territory and retreating? By reducing the territory they hold are they trying to give comfort to the enemy? Putin's logic: "We could have captured your capital, but decided not to because we thought if you retained Kyiv it would make you more likely to negotiate?"

1 hour ago, -Rejector- said:

This website is extremely pro-Ukrainian. Look at the frontlines; across the whole thing all we can see is Russian attacks. Although there have been some setbacks with the special military operation such as the Kherson withdrawal, the operation is still going very well for Russia. 

Right. That's why after nine months the Russians still don't even control large areas of the territories they have supposedly annexed into Mother Russia "forever", they're begging for artillery shells from North Korea, Russian conscripts are posting dozens of videos each day of their rusty unusable equipment and complaining about being sent to the front lines with no training, and Putin has been forced to empty his prisons of murderers, rapists and child molesters to proudly don the uniform of what you described as "the best military in the world."

I guess all's fair in love and special military operations, comrade?

[علوي]

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

they have not been able to capture and hold any major cities

What about Mariupol? Remember when they had cornered the nazis in the steelworks and they were waiting until Kiev ordered them to surrender? And when Kiev finally did do so, they claimed that the nazis had "completed the assigned combat mission" 

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

and after nine months are losing conquered territory

In case you have been sleeping throughout the past two weeks, Russia isn't losing any more territory. As I just explained, there have been fights all across the frontlines and the Russians have been victorious in all of them.

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

I guess that it was just a coincidence that a mysterious fire broke out in the Moskva's magazine at the same time two Neptune missiles slammed into her hull?

To date, there is still no evidence of the Moskva being shot by the Neptune missiles. Ukraine had come out with old videos claiming that it was the Moskva, but it was a desperate grasp for credit; nothing more. 

Look at Western media debunk Western media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cK20brOGoo

https://voxukraine.org/en/false-video-of-the-explosion-on-the-missile-cruiser-moskva/

https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/moskva-explosion-video-claims-false-1937965-2022-04-15

If the Neptune missiles really were the cause of the fire on the Moskva, why would Ukraine need to use fake videos to prove it?

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

It became Russia's plan to withdraw forces from northern Ukraine after they sent a massive armored column towards Kyiv, sent paratroopers to capture Antonov airport just outside the city and activated hidden infiltrated Spetnatz troops in the city in a failed attempt to capture the capital and deliver a surgical strike against the Ukrainias government.

The Ukrainians were able to defend the airport and halt the Russian column's advance from a combination of ambush, tactical flexibility and the Russians having shoddy, poorly maintained and defective tires. Russian Soviet-era doctrines and inflexible chains of command meant the Russians kept pouring troops into a massive traffic jam on the highways and attempting to land troop transport  aircraft on the runways of Antonov airport despite the Ukrainians still controlling it because the Russian officers kept mindlessly following the invasion timetable without any reference to its failed objectives.

Essentially for weeks the area north of Kyiv became a giant turkey shoot for the Ukrainians, and the poorly led, trained and equipped Russian soldiers fled back to Mamashka as fast as their cheap boots would let them.

To quote from the very same Reuters articled you posted in proof of your claim the Russian retreat redeployment was all part of The Plan:

"Some analysts noted that Russia's promise to reduce fighting mostly covered areas where it has been losing ground.

"Does 'we'll drastically reduce military operations around Kyiv' = 'we’re getting our ass kicked, transitioned to a hasty defense?'" tweeted Mark Hertling, a retired U.S. lieutenant general and former commander of U.S. forces in Europe."

If Russia had no intention of taking Kiev, (which they didn't), they're not going to focus all of their power on it. Their objective had been solely focused on the Donbas region. The Russians had no intention of taking Kiev or the city of Kharkov.

The Russians didn't even have nearly enough troops around Kiev to even think of taking the city. In fact, they hadn't even surrounded the city, as can be seen in the map below.

The ratio of Russian troops to Ukrainian troops in Kiev wasn't even 1:1, whereas it's common knowledge in the military world that in order to take a city, the ratio of attackers to defenders must be at least 3:1. 

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

In that case why are they surrendering territory and retreating? By reducing the territory they hold are they trying to give comfort to the enemy? Putin's logic: "We could have captured your capital, but decided not to because we thought if you retained Kyiv it would make you more likely to negotiate?"

They were giving up territory and withdrawing their troops from it in order to reposition them in the east, because their objective was to liberate the east. Not that hard to understand. 

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Right. That's why after nine months the Russians still don't even control large areas of the territories they have supposedly annexed into Mother Russia "forever"

Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and most of Kherson?!

13 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

they're begging for artillery shells from North Korea

First of all, there's no evidence that the DPRK have supplied weapons to Russia for the special military operation (SMO). Secondly, even if it did supply weapons, Russia wasn't "begging" for them. How many waves of missile attacks have hit Ukraine so far? 7 or 8?

Look at this article. You can see by the language used how pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia it is. However, it still acknowledges that even by Kiev's estimates, Russian missile stockpiles are high enough to continue the SMO.

https://mezha.media/en/2022/11/22/how-many-missiles-are-left-in-russia-unfortunately-a-lot/

14 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Russian conscripts are posting dozens of videos each day of their rusty unusable equipment and complaining about being sent to the front lines with no training

Most of those videos are just propaganda. And by the way, Ukraine has been conscripting inexperienced people to fight as nazis as well. People were taken from nightclubs to fight against the Russians. Conscription posters are being handed out in Churches, malls, recreation centres, etc. 

There's always going to be difficulty in war. But don't think for a second that Russia is the only country that endures that difficulty. In Syria, the US, who claims to have the greatest military on the planet, suffered from the exact same problems that they're claiming Russia is facing now.

Quote

some of the metal shipping containers leaked and were not properly sealed. Site inspectors noted that some weapons showed signs of rust.

https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/02/18/us-military-did-not-properly-store-or-account-for-nearly-715-million-in-weapons-for-syrian-partners-fighting-isis/

The US is also claiming that Russia had abandoned many of their tanks and trucks which ended up in Ukrainian hands, even though this exact thing happened with them in Afghanistan!

Quote

Approximately $7 billion of military equipment the US transferred to the Afghan government over the course of 16 years was left behind in Afghanistan after the US completed its withdrawal from the country in August...
...
This equipment is now in a country that is controlled by the very enemy the US was trying to drive out over the past two decades: the Taliban.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/politics/afghan-weapons-left-behind/index.html

The above article says that the equipment is in the hands of the Afghan government, but the Afghan government doesn't even exist anymore. The Taliban runs the country now. 

14 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Putin has been forced to empty his prisons of murderers, rapists and child molesters to proudly don the uniform of what you described as "the best military in the world."

Mate literally all militaries do that. Russia's no different. Kiev just keeps spreading propaganda to boost its support so it can receive more money from the US which it can use to buy mansions.

Quote

Once U.S. equipment is handed to the Ukrainian government, U.S. officials said, they have little direct knowledge of where that material goes, relying on the Ukrainian government for such information.
...
“Even if it’s a noble cause, there’s going to be theft. There’s going to be misconduct. There’s going to be nepotism. There’s going to be stupid decisions being made.
...
“Ukraine had been criticized for its corruption before the war began, and that corruption has not gone away,”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-billions-going-to-ukraine-officials-warn-of-potential-for-fraud-waste-11655121601

Quote

High-ranking officials from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky‘s inner circle have been purchasing multi-million dollar properties and real estate in Switzerland...

https://newspunch.com/high-ranking-ukrainian-officials-caught-splurging-on-luxury-real-estate-in-switzerland/

[علوي]

15 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

they have not been able to capture and hold any major cities

I forgot to mention the Sea of Azov, which has now become "Russia's inland sea" according to President Putin.

Quote

"As for the results of the special military operation, some of them may manifest themselves only after a long while. New territories have appeared. This is a significant result for Russia. These are serious questions. Take the Sea of Azov, which has become Russia’s inland sea. That’s very serious," he said.

https://tass.com/politics/1547333

[علوي]

The latest statistics for the mobilisation came out on Wednesday.

Quote

On Wednesday, [Putin] said half of the Russians called up for military service in September had been deployed to Ukraine. “Out of 300,000 of our mobilized fighters, our men, defenders of the fatherland, 150,000 are in the area of operations.” Some 77,000 were in combat units, he said.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/12/07/694076/Russia-Putin

[Northwest]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:33 PM, -Rejector- said:

The "developments on the Russian side" that you must be looking for is the fact that Ukrainians are freezing to death due to the Russian missile strikes. Russia is also still in the process of destroying Ukraine's military, which has been prolonged due to Western weapons coming in to Ukraine which has already slowed down.

@-Rejector-

There are several problems with the underlined, italicised claims.

1. According to open-source data, the Russian Armed Forces have been primarily targeting Ukrainian electrical distribution rather than actual generation. This likely explains why Zelensky chose to publicise Ukraine’s “losses” in English-language media. Actual data from Ukraine’s largest electrical company shows that Russian airstrikes did little to reduce Ukraine’s electrical generation, which is critical for the Ukrainian military effort (note that generation has been very stable since March): 
2. Most of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure is actually abroad rather than in the country, so limited Russian strikes do little to alter the correlation of forces in Russia’s favour. Ukraine is receiving the vast majority of its support from the collective West and its industrial bases. The problem is that Russia lacks the means to effectively neuter this economic reserve. In any case, the history of war shows that bombing alone rarely, if ever, serves to defeat an enemy.

On 12/6/2022 at 9:33 PM, -Rejector- said:

With regards to Kherson, it isn't Russia's main objective in the war. Losing that part of Kherson isn't too important to Russia, and even according to RT, Russia might not take it back.

Respectfully, I beg to differ. Kherson was and is a vital bridgehead for a march on Odessa: by all accounts Odessa is essential to victory. While General Surovikin’s decision to withdraw was militarily correct, the missing context is that Russia’s political leadership failed to establish a deep, well-supplied rear. For seven months Kherson, like many other locales, was lacking adequate supply and reinforcement. Furthermore, the lack of initiative on Putin et al.’s part ultimately led to a militarily wise but politically illegal decision, in which Russia effectively relinquished control of territory that it had prematurely annexed—that is, territory that it was not yet prepared to hold—thereby violating its own Constitution. All this exudes weakness and is taken advantage of by the collective West.

This isn’t the first such occasion: Putin himself conceded that signing the Minsk Agreements (2014–5) was an unenforced error on his part. The agreements were signed at a time when Russia could have easily crushed Ukraine, as former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted. Instead, the agreements allowed NATO to greatly strengthen Ukraine’s military and economy for nearly eight years.

[علوي]

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

According to open-source data, the Russian Armed Forces have been primarily targeting Ukrainian electrical distribution rather than actual generation. This likely explains why Zelensky chose to publicise Ukraine’s “losses” in English-language media. Actual data from Ukraine’s largest electrical company shows that Russian airstrikes did little to reduce Ukraine’s electrical generation, which is critical for the Ukrainian military effort (note that generation has been very stable since March): 

Like you said, the missile strikes were aimed at distribution rather than generation. And from the article you quoted,

Quote

Indeed, Ukraine’s excess power-generating capacity might be the reason why Russia targeted power distribution rather than power generation in the first place. If the other side has excess generation it would take numerous strikes just to get it down to 100% and the immediate effect on consumers would be null.

So Russia is still making an impact on Ukraine's power, just in a less simple way. 

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

Most of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure is actually abroad rather than in the country, so limited Russian strikes do little to alter the correlation of forces in Russia’s favour. Ukraine is receiving the vast majority of its support from the collective West and its industrial bases. The problem is that Russia lacks the means to effectively neuter this economic reserve. In any case, the history of war shows that bombing alone rarely, if ever, serves to defeat an enemy.

In this case - a war of attrition - bombing is actually critical for demilitarisation. The main reason behind Russia's strikes on the power grid (along with demoralising the Ukrainian citizens) is to stop trains from transporting military equipment to the frontlines. 

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

Respectfully, I beg to differ. Kherson was and is a vital bridgehead for a march on Odessa: by all accounts Odessa is essential to victory. While General Surovikin’s decision to withdraw was militarily correct, the missing context is that Russia’s political leadership failed to establish a deep, well-supplied rear. For seven months Kherson, like many other locales, was lacking adequate supply and reinforcement. Furthermore, the lack of initiative on Putin et al.’s part ultimately led to a militarily wise but politically illegal decision, in which Russia effectively relinquished control of territory that it had prematurely annexed—that is, territory that it was not yet prepared to hold—thereby violating its own Constitution. All this exudes weakness and is taken advantage of by the collective West.

I'm still confused about Kherson, to be honest. 

If this was an actual war, then yes, a march on Nikolaev and Odessa would be "essential for victory". However, it's called a "Special Military Operation" for a reason - Russia is trying to achieve its goals in the Donbass, and any other gains they make (such as Kherson, Zaporozhye, and perhaps, in the near future, Kharkov or Nikolaev), are secondary. Like you said, the decision to withdraw troops to behind the Dnieper river was "militarily correct", and I doubt that Russia would waste troops and equipment to try and hold a territory they didn't own a couple of months earlier.  

Nevertheless, the chances that Russia takes Kherson back and moves on towards Odessa aren't too slim. It would certainly be a(nother) "significant victory" for the Russians. Even to achieve their goal of "demilitarisation", ensuring that Ukraine is left without a port would be essential. 

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

This isn’t the first such occasion: Putin himself conceded that signing the Minsk Agreements (2014–5) was an unenforced error on his part. The agreements were signed at a time when Russia could have easily crushed Ukraine, as former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted. Instead, the agreements allowed NATO to greatly strengthen Ukraine’s military and economy for nearly eight years.

That's news to me - I actually heard that Russia wasn't ready to launch an operation in Ukraine in 2014/5. Nevertheless, Merkel is true, it seems it was a mistake for Russia to wait 8 years and allow 14,000 people to be killed. I don't think this takes away from Russia's value, though, since Russia isn't alone in making mistakes, and their mistakes are dwarfed by the Americans' failure after 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan.

[علوي]

Kremlin promises to 'liberate' territory held by Ukraine

Quote

Russian troops will eventually liberate parts of the former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia in October but which remain under Kiev’s military control, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has told journalists.
...
Peskov noted that Moscow has made “no statements” about the possible absorption of additional territories into Russia, but that it had every intention to fully “liberate” the lands it claims under its sovereignty.

“There are occupied territories that are yet to be freed,” he stated, adding that Russia’s goal of “demilitarizing” Ukraine remained unchanged.
...
Ukraine remained in control of the city of Zaporozhye, the provincial capital of Zaporozhye Region, throughout the ongoing hostilities. Kherson has been under Russian control between early March and November, when the Defense Ministry ordered a pullout of troops from the right bank of the River Dnieper, where the city is located.

https://www.rt.com/russia/567896-kremlin-ukraine-occupied-territories/

@Northwest he must be talking about Kherson. It looks like they're gonna take it back. 

[علوي]

19 hours ago, Northwest said:

This isn’t the first such occasion: Putin himself conceded that signing the Minsk Agreements (2014–5) was an unenforced error on his part. The agreements were signed at a time when Russia could have easily crushed Ukraine, as former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted. Instead, the agreements allowed NATO to greatly strengthen Ukraine’s military and economy for nearly eight years.

I just watched this video, skip to 20:30 where he discusses this issue.

 

[Northwest]

17 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

That's news to me - I actually heard that Russia wasn't ready to launch an operation in Ukraine in 2014/5. Nevertheless, Merkel is true, it seems it was a mistake for Russia to wait 8 years and allow 14,000 people to be killed. I don't think this takes away from Russia's value, though, since Russia isn't alone in making mistakes, and their mistakes are dwarfed by the Americans' failure after 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan.

@-Rejector-

It is reasonably clear that Russia did intervene to prevent Donetsk and Lugansk from being captured by Ukraine. However, some of the pro-Novorossiya “activists” felt at the time that Russia should have annexed Donbas’ and staged a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, in 2014–5 few of the ethnic Russians in Donbas’ actually supported separatism, but instead preferred broad regional autonomy within Ukraine. In fact the Russian government wanted to use the Minsk Agreements to impose federalism on Ukraine. Without measures in place to disarm Ukraine and confront its Western handlers, a Russian annexation of Donbas’, as opposed to the defensive annexation of Crimea, would have actually served NATO’s interests, by providing a pretext to fully incorporate Ukraine into NATO:

Quote

“The existence of the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics in their current form, especially when a sluggish but no less bloody war continues there, it is naturally beneficial to the United States in the first place, only to them in fact, since this is the ulcer that corrodes Russia and Ukraine, continuing to play off the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, as part of a once united people. And even now I am sure that this is a single people,” said [hawkish pro-Novorossiya activist Igor Girkin–ed.] “Strelkov.”

–Google Translate from Russian

Under the circumstances it would have made sense for Russia either to a) seize all of Ukraine or b) sign Minsk I/II.

It is also true that Putin’s relationship with Chancellor Merkel was far better at the time than it was with any other Western head of state. After all, under Merkel Germany began constructing Nord Stream II and greatly expanded Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas. Putin may have calculated that Germany under Merkel would gradually act autonomously within NATO and become less subservient to the U.S. and U.K. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that Putin signed the Minsk Agreements as part of a broad strategy to pit Germany vs. the U.S. and U.K. The Americans and British, along with the Poles, were in fact the primary supporters of the anti-Russia coup in Kiev in 2014. Still, until 2017 the U.S. did not impose any sanctions on Germany over Nord Stream II.

[Northwest]

@-Rejector-

You may not like this, but it is the truth. Putin’s attempts to deter the West in Ukraine are clearly failing miserably:

Quote

Since Russia started its missile campaign against civilian infrastructure in October, the Pentagon has “revised its threat assessment of the war in Ukraine” including new judgments “about whether arms shipments to Kyiv might lead to a military confrontation between Russia and NATO,” The Times wrote adding that Washington is now likelier going to supply Kyiv with longer-range weapons.

Source

So at first the Pentagon was supposedly reluctant to support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, but due to Putin’s weak response now feels emboldened not only to openly back such strikes, but also to finally supply Ukraine with long-range rockets that could potentially target major Russian cities such as Moscow. If Russia were actually winning in Ukraine, surely the West would be less likely to contemplate or undertake such actions, would it not?

Also, inside Donbas’ and Russia many patriotic nationalists have long opposed Putin’s passivity toward Ukraine and its Western controllers. Back in 2014–5 credible figures such as Igor Girkin “Strelkov” opposed the Minsk Agreements and noted that Putin backed a Ukrainian oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, who criticised the armed, pro-Novorossiya militants. Akhmetov and Putin’s adviser Vladislav Surkov wanted to give Ukraine Donetsk for Minsk!

In fact, only the fact that a) most ordinary people in Donbas’—as opposed to the local and regional oligarchs—supported the armed, pro-Russia insurgency and b) Strelkov’s men showed up to defend Donetsk prevented this scenario from unfolding, ultimately forcing the Kremlin to “save face” by preventing the total defeat of the separatists before signing the ill-fated Minsk Agreements. But Putin and Co. still wanted a deal with the West.

[علوي]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:29 AM, Northwest said:

@-Rejector-

It is reasonably clear that Russia did intervene to prevent Donetsk and Lugansk from being captured by Ukraine. However, some of the pro-Novorossiya “activists” felt at the time that Russia should have annexed Donbas’ and staged a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, in 2014–5 few of the ethnic Russians in Donbas’ actually supported separatism, but instead preferred broad regional autonomy within Ukraine. In fact the Russian government wanted to use the Minsk Agreements to impose federalism on Ukraine. Without measures in place to disarm Ukraine and confront its Western handlers, a Russian annexation of Donbas’, as opposed to the defensive annexation of Crimea, would have actually served NATO’s interests, by providing a pretext to fully incorporate Ukraine into NATO:

–Google Translate from Russian

Under the circumstances it would have made sense for Russia either to a) seize all of Ukraine or b) sign Minsk I/II.

It is also true that Putin’s relationship with Chancellor Merkel was far better at the time than it was with any other Western head of state. After all, under Merkel Germany began constructing Nord Stream II and greatly expanded Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas. Putin may have calculated that Germany under Merkel would gradually act autonomously within NATO and become less subservient to the U.S. and U.K. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that Putin signed the Minsk Agreements as part of a broad strategy to pit Germany vs. the U.S. and U.K. The Americans and British, along with the Poles, were in fact the primary supporters of the anti-Russia coup in Kiev in 2014. Still, until 2017 the U.S. did not impose any sanctions on Germany over Nord Stream II.

I think even Putin feels regret about not going into Ukraine earlier, as he explained when he met with the mothers of the soldiers fighting in the Donbass.

Quote

The Donbass republics should probably have rejoined Russia sooner, Russian President Vladimir Putin...
...
“There might not have been so many casualties among civilians, there would not be so many children killed,” the Russian leader suggested.

Putin then goes on to say:

Quote

[B]ack in 2014, Russia did not have a full understanding of the situation in Donbass or of the true sentiments of the locals.

“[We] believed that we might still be able to reach an agreement and … reunify Donetsk and Lugansk with Ukraine within … the Minsk Agreements,” Putin noted, adding that Russia was “genuinely working towards that.” 

https://www.rt.com/russia/567195-putin-regret-donbass-ukraine/

I think the simple truth is that Russia was duped by NATO. In the same meeting, Putin points out:

Quote

In hindsight, we are all smart, of course, but we believed that we would manage to come to terms, and Lugansk and Donetsk would be able to reunify with Ukraine somehow under the agreements – the Minsk agreements...

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69935

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

@-Rejector-

You may not like this, but it is the truth. Putin’s attempts to deter the West in Ukraine are clearly failing miserably:

Quote

Since Russia started its missile campaign against civilian infrastructure in October, the Pentagon has “revised its threat assessment of the war in Ukraine” including new judgments “about whether arms shipments to Kyiv might lead to a military confrontation between Russia and NATO,” The Times wrote adding that Washington is now likelier going to supply Kyiv with longer-range weapons.

Source

So at first the Pentagon was supposedly reluctant to support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, but due to Putin’s weak response now feels emboldened not only to openly back such strikes, but also to finally supply Ukraine with long-range rockets that could potentially target major Russian cities such as Moscow. If Russia were actually winning in Ukraine, surely the West would be less likely to contemplate or undertake such actions, would it not?

Again, Russia's Special Military Operation (SMO) is different from an actual war. Russia is just trying to achieve its goal of demilitarisation. If it were to respond to these missile attacks in Russian territory prematurely, it would be not only that (premature) but would also be a waste of weapons. Nevertheless, Russia has responded by continuing its missile campaign against the electrical infrastructure of Ukraine. That said, I'm disappointed that Russia hasn't taken a stronger approach with regards to these strikes. But it doesn't mean Russia isn't winning.

When Russia says that it's fighting against NATO, it's true both metaphorically and literally. Metaphorically because someone has finally rejected Western hegemony. Literally because not only are there NATO mercenaries in Ukraine, but also a plethora of NATO weapons. These weapons have, since the beginning of the war, been destroyed by the Russians, many times even before deployment.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/us-weapon-stocks-ukraine/index.html

These new long-range missiles which might be sent to Ukraine will most likely have even less of a chance of being used, since Russia started its drone campaign across all of Ukraine. I haven't read too much about the long-distance missiles though, so I'm waiting to see more analysis. 

https://southfront.org/kiev-plays-dangerous-games/

Also see how Russia is changing its stance on nuclear weapons.

Amid war in Ukraine, Putin suggests changing Russia’s ‘no first use’ nuclear policy

Quote

Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that Moscow may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/12/10/694233/Russia-Putin-Nuclear-Strike-

Edited December 10, 2022 by -Rejector-

[علوي]

Has anyone else noticed the change in the Western narrative again?

At the beginning of the war, they were like "Russia is so brutal! We need to help Ukraine! Russia is killing innocent civilians!"

And then after that, while Russia was preserving its troops and waiting for Ukraine to waste theirs, the media was like "Look at Russia, their military is crap! They can't even beat Ukraine! They're so outdated and unprepared!"

And now that the Russians are taking over territory again, the media is back to "The Russians are so mean! We need to stop Putin the bully! He's killing innocent people!"

Ridiculous. 

[علوي]

"You're in a war with Russia, so we'll give you weapons, but you can't use them against Russia."

Quote

The US does not explicitly encourage Ukraine to hit targets deep within Russia, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Sunday. His statement runs counter to an anonymous Pentagon source, who on Friday reportedly told The Times that Kiev had in fact been given the green light to launch long-range strikes.

https://www.rt.com/russia/568063-us-ukraine-russia-strikes/

[علوي]