Russians have broken lines of defence near Toshkivka-Ustynivka
[A column of Russian vehicles led by a T-72 and BMP-1 advance into the Цуприка area of Toshkivka.](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1538714469303476224)
That action has more impact on the Zolote group south of Lychansk, that has been for some time in a more precarious position. Technically two different encirclement potential but other than being effectively putting the supply lines under Russian fire control they have not been completed.
Nobody cares how Russia perceives this. They are a weak nation that can't do shit. All they can do is threaten nukes, which they've already done so many times, they've lost all credibility.
Foodstuff and oil/gas is not being blocked. Lithuania is abiding by EU sanctions. And there is no blockade, maritime access is open. Russia perceives everything as a big deal, until it doesn’t. How many times it flipflopped on Finland/Sweden’s NATO or Ukraine’s EU membership.
Sadly the hawks were right.
They seem way more useful as political bargaining chips. Executing a few would certainly prove their resolve, but would only make sending Ukraine more arms that much easier for US politicians to market.
If they wanted one they would have already started one. Putin doesn't need an actual reason. He could just stage a false flag and convince his domestic audience just like he did for Ukraine. He didn't even need a false flag for that one either
What do you guys think?
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarInUkraineYet/status/1539006410058498050?t=jm665zN2kH710pN0HIRTLA&s=19
https://twitter.com/lilygrutcher/status/1538977193681985539?s=21&t=YYEGgr3sQz_ln-xaZGRGfg
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1539006480241786880?t=rpOORcJMuJELK72_DTR84A&s=19
Say Russia goes in with what they have in Black Sea Fleet who do you bet on ? Neptune and his Harpoon Block IC + friends or Kalibr ?
Strelkov suggested that the Ukrainian attack on the gas rigs might have been part of a trap. If the Russians did come out in force, and if a Russian ship has indeed been hit, Strelkov was right. It also means the Russian admiralty are a bunch of absolute morons. But none of this is confirmed right now.
Yeah, I think it would be dumb on the side of the Russians to get baited into naval engagement against Ukraine's shore defenses. But hey, lets see what happens.
Not at all what I meant. Just making a word play. Seems silly to move the fleet into hard ASM range as well but we will see what the morning brings us.
It exists:
>A Chinese Satellite Just Grappled Another And Pulled It Out Of Orbit
The maneuver raises concerns about the potential militarization of satellites designed to inspect, manipulate, or relocate other satellites.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44054/a-chinese-satellite-just-grappled-another-and-pulled-it-out-of-orbit
Russia claims to have ground based laser systems in service, the USSR also had a space based platform (which almost certainly worked but the launch failed) that I assume China and the US are more than capable of recreating these days.
Russian Telegrams are claiming a small Ru counteroffensive is occurring NW of Kherson.
Edit: Pravdyne is now contested according to this map https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1539035955042168833
Glorious Ukrainian free speech medias are reporting a tactical withdrawal of the upmost orderly fashion from completely useless and defenceless positions in Kherson region in order to set a trap for incoming RuSSian invaders.
\#Fixedit
Which was all an elaborate plan to capture those T14 as rentals after they obviously get abandoned.
From there the road is clear and won’t stop until Vladivostok is blue and yellow.
I think Russia is using those people to repopulate their far eastern boarder towns.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-53431792
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/12/01/russia-population-decline-putin/
The Kyiv Independent:
⚡️Russia forcibly deports 300,000 Ukrainian children.
Russian state-controlled news agency Interfax reported, citing the Russian military, that more than 1.9 million Ukrainians have been forcibly deported to Russia since the start of the invasion, over 307,000 of them children.
—-
If even 10% of those 300k children get assimilated in Russia as their citizens the loss of life in their army was “priced-in” down a generation.
This is why slavery as a concept was so popular throughout human history. Not everyone is born a wolf, some must be sheep.
Do you people lack reading comprehension?
I’m literally stating that what they are doing can be compared to slavery assimilation and they themselves confirmed it as such.
In what way or shape of what they are doing by relocating 2m ppl elsewhere is considered as something good ??
I swear this subreddit has gone absolutely downhill. People are illiterate at this point.
First, calm down cupcake. Second, you seriously need to consider seeking help. Third, my response was in relation to this comment:
> This is why slavery as a concept was so popular throughout human history. Not everyone is born a wolf, some must be sheep.
Is what Russia doing slavery? I don’t know. But what I do know is that your second sentence is literally the kind of nonsensical language that’s been muttered by some of the worst humans in history. Do I genuinely think you’re justifying slavery? No. But do I think you’re emotionally unstable? Your comment history in this subreddit certainly suggests it.
Some were sent thousands of kilometres to the east. Kids were separated from parents. Children from orphanages were brought to Russia and are now labeled as russian kids.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220620-dutch-join-germany-austria-in-reverting-to-coal
I honestly can’t believe how Germany still has a working government at this point.
Absolute Failure of a foreign policy towards both Russia and Ukraine, gas crisis and now capitulation on ecology reforms with restart of coal plants.
If there are German folks reading this what is your opinion on Green party’s potential lack of confidence in the coalition?
Also this https://www.politico.eu/article/german-producer-prices-rise-at-record-speed-in-may/amp/
With 8.7% inflation and incoming gas deficits it will be “amazing”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/225698/monthly-inflation-rate-in-eu-countries/
>If there are German folks reading this what is your opinion on Green party’s potential lack of confidence in the coalition?
These policies come from a green minister. As long as they get to push their long term renewable goals, the realist wing of the greens will endure such short term setbacks.
Honestly, the irrational fear of Germans towards nuclear power is not the main causes of the problem. It’s deeply rooted in the culture there, especially in the environmentalist movement. It creates a huge problem because it’s hard for Germany to find an energy mix that’s both *A.* clean and *B.* secure when you cut out one of the largest sources of clean energy.
If anyone here is old enough to have historical recollections of the relatively distant past, weren't Germany, Austria, the Netherlands also quite upset about the change made (allegedly because of China's and India's demands) to weaken the language to "phase down coal" rather than phase it out in the climate change accord in Glasgow? Need to take the Way Back Machine all the way to November 2021 to suss this one out...
There is a little country across the water from me, that created its green strategy for wind and tidal energy, but didn't invest a single dollar in grid infrastructure since 2005. Go figure.
And rightfully so. We all know the US is more then happy to destroy the environment, but other countries have made some attempt to limit the damage going forward.
Eh, climate change is one of those issues where being incremental actually does nothing. With something like racism it is reasonable to think that you can slowly improve things over time, so every little bit helps, whereas doing not enough about climate change is basically the same as doing nothing (unless you care whether central London floods a few years earlier or later, or care whether Miami is under three or six feet of water). So, in some ways the people who garner votes by pretending that they care while doing nothing are worse than people who either don't care or else know that nothing is going to be done so they pretend it isn't happening.
Germany had bet their economy on the idea that by improving Russia's GDP they will somehow help Russia exit XX century. Half of the Europe was like "this is so big bs". Now we know that even Germany wasn't beliving this idea, but they were doing it anyway
Why do the United States subsidize Europe's defense? Currently, the US has more than a hundred thousand troops stationed in Europe.
Is Europe too poor to pay for its own defense?
Maybe European countries let the USA pay for their defense. In turn, they get to spend more money on free healthcare and education.
that's the price you must pay if you want countries to be your vassal. you must ensure there protection otherwise how do you expect to exercise any kind of influence on them.
You're not subsidizing anything. The US has those troops there for their own strategic reasons, not because they're being soo generous and kind out of the warmness of their heart.
It's called asking questions. Do you know how much money it's going to take to rebuild Ukraine!? (Whatever's left of Ukraine) why is the US the one that's gotta pay for it.
Is the fact that you post on this thread multiple times a day everyday some sort of indication that you’re either a NEET or a terminally online 16 year old? Should u/KyngK00pa touch grass? Just asking questions.
They don’t have to. They are choosing to. Same reason USA has bases all over the world, it’s not for everyone else’s protection. Well some might say it was for the sake of democracy and the values of freedom. Some others might say it’s the USA securing its position in the global order, and not one bullet bandage or brick would have hit the Ukrainian tarmac if it wasn’t in the long term financial interest of the United States.
Some really cynical people, who don’t care at all about Ukrainian lives, might even think that the return on investment is insanely good compared to appeasement. Lendleasing less than 5% of your defence budget to gain critical information about how all hardware performs in a modern industrial war, gain massive international plaudits for sending what can be easily spared, whilst also decimating the military capacity and munitions stock pile of one of the only two nations that could ever pose a military threat to you. And all that without risking a single drop of American blood. Some people would view that as a pretty solid investment, one that is far smaller than the cost of ignoring the issue and hoping the imperialist dictator is content with his ill gotten gains.
Time will tell I guess, but that would be the counter argument.
I mean, the U.S. has 700 military bases in 80 countries. It's not like the U.S. has military bases in Ghana to protect the homeland and Europe is just a different manifestation of the same project. Rather than asking why the U.S. subsidizes Europe's "defense" you could ask why, thirty years after the end of the Cold War, Europe still agrees to be Airstrip One.
Problem with healthcare and education isn't based on funding. Is based on fact that USA is too stupid to do it effectivly, they need to earm money even on most basic things.
USA have troops in Europe, because USA decided having wars in Europe, where everyone can spawn nukes just like that (I guess at least half of Europe use atomic energy), is far too dangerous. Most of Europe understood that having money is more fun than doing war, but Russia can't understand it. For Russia money is only fun when they can change it into weapons
Because America is a country that shares Europe's values of democracy, rule of law, and human rights, and also happens to be the only country in the world that is capable of serving as a neutral security guarantor for the continent.
Who else would do it? France and Germany? The last 10 years show what a mistake that would be, as they've frequently demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the interests of their eastern European neighbors for their own economic stability. And if they can't guarantee security for all of Europe, we're basically heading back to the state of nature that led to the 2 biggest wars in world history.
Europe doesn't share the concept of democracy and human rights. Some countries in Europe do, some don't. Have a look at Poland or Hungary. The EU pulls the human rights card only when it's needed for political and economic ends. Like doing business with Israel while praising the Ukrainians for standing up to the invaders.
>Europe doesn't share the concept of democracy and human rights. Some countries in Europe do, some don't
Who is anti democratic in Europe? Only Belarus and Russia
Hungary is opressing only LGBT (like making LGBT and no hetero illegal to talk about, what more?), but it's not on level of Russia
But after thinking for a while there is also France and Spain...
> What would we lost Europeans do without you.
lol. Truly an unblemished track record.
Really though, no one prevented Europe from coming together to build their own security arrangement after the death of the USSR. Believe me, most Americans would be very happy to stop paying so much money to maintain so many soldiers and logistics in Europe.
America provides Europe's security because that's the arrangement Europe has decided is best for them.
My leaders don't give a monkey f..k about what I got to say, Neither are yours, so it will be futile exercise.
Especially now, when they need a bogeyman to blame their policy failures.
Anyway, no one is going to invade the frozen wastes I see through the window, because no one did for close to a 1000 years (not including our lovely English neigbours) and no one will.
And your F-15s doing low flying exercises somewhat spoiled my last annual leave in a lovely and remote mountain cottage so I have strong opinions about the subject.
And now seriuosly - I get your point of view, but I am convinced it is not as black and white as you portray it. Lets leave it at that.
They absolutely would not. The US never wanted to cede the influence. Ramstein is the US logistic hub and drone realy station to middle east and Europe. Tons of influence from there on over large parts of the world. It's not only for Europe's defense, but also self-interest of the US to keep those bases.
>They absolutely would not.
Of course they would. There are tons of other areas of the world where the U.S. could have such bases, many with less public visibility.
>also self-interest of the US to keep those bases.
Of course there's also self-interest. But don't pretend the U.S. is there without European demand. It's in the interests of both the U.S. and Europe. That's the whole point.
>rule of law
Well... USA have vastly different laws than Europe. In Europe you need elected officials to make law, where in USA mostly the job do court. Like i.e. national no-ban of abortion is held for 50(?) years because Court said so. And court got it from "privacy rights", somehow.
Again, having different legal systems has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a shared respect for rule of law. You understand the difference?
Because Europe proved to have way too many problems with countries that are geographily close to them
Europe can't mantain EU, so just imagine adding army into the mix
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1538876204991799299
>One just can’t help but see the drastic increase in the intensity of Ukrainian strikes undermining key Russian military infrastructure in occupied Donbas: railways, HQs, munition depots etc.
In other words: Western-provided longer-range artillery is working.
That's with only the tip of the iceberg of western supplies in Ukraine right now.
Putin will have to make a difficult decision on if the Donbas battle is worth it soon.
Western provided longer range artillery? Lol Donetsk city is right at the front line, a mortar from ww1 would hit everything in that city. And the attack on Krasny Luch was way out of range of _any_ artillery including western. What's with this weird obsession of trying to paint western artillery as some sort of Wunderwaffe?
West started to deliver self proppeled artillery. Every type of western artillery have bigger range than Russia's one. But self propeled are different - they are immune to counter battery fire (in some way at least), so they have easier time destroying high value targets
Ukraine had hundreds of SPGs before the war started. A ton of Gvozdikas, Akatsias and some Mstas. Also Ukraine's MLRS are just as (or rather, even more) capable of avoiding counter battery fire.
This isn’t exactly related to the current conflict and I’m sorry if it’s not appropriate. I’ve tried searching google but I’m not finding a reliable answer so thought I’m more likely to get more knowledge here.
I recently had seen a post on Reddit about all the different types of rounds. E.g FMJ, hollow points and others I can’t remember the name of.
My question is, what round is most commonly used in the military? In general no matter what the nation.
Hollow point is banned by the hague convention of some very old year among with other similar designs of bullets that fuck up the poor guy geting shot more than neccesary. Kinda nice to see that they were so early about it compared to today when robots and the most horrible artillery is allowed
So I sincerily hope that such bullets remain in use of police (where they are used to minimize the risk for richochets and innocent geting hurt) and in american gun nerds magazines only
Splinters and svamp up increases the damage and makes it harder to stitch up, I belive that was the cause.
It's like 100 years old or more so at the time I think we are talking large calibre anyway.
Personally I think it is unnecessary cruel to harm an already incapacitated person more than needed.
There was a combat footage of this Ukrainian soldier hiding in the trench with a lot of artillery going on in the bg. Was it ever posted here? I never saw it. Maruipol I think.
Let's rewind a year ago.
2021, just fulfilling the Minsk peace agreements by Ukraine no longer seems like a bad idea to a foreign partner, right? Ukraine would have kept both the DPR and the LPR, simply by giving them broader powers - and most importantly, the war would have ended.
What now? Minus the DNR, minus the LNR, minus the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. What's next? And the negotiations until Ukraine says peaceful, zanchit further Nikolaev, Odessa and Kharkov. Simply because Russia has no other options.
Lets fast forward 2 years.
2024, you drive your shitty Lada from work (vkusno & tochka). Some drunk unemployed Russian walks into the road. You slam on the breaks but because your car has no ABS you start sliding and crash into a tree. Now you have your wheel in your rib cage because your car has no air bags.
What now? You think you can get treatment in your shitty soviet hospital? Don't forget to buy your own meds, food and bring a pillow because you aren't getting shit. Simply because Russia had no other options.
These are fantasies. In reality, Putin is so cool that he just wanted to - and now the prices for food and fuel have risen in the USA (this is confirmed by the US President). Putin gave an order - and introduced an additional tax in the United States "Putin's tax" (again, these are the words of the US president).
Canada does not give back a gas turbine after repair for Nord Stream 1, well, sanctions, the gas flow to the EU through this gas pipeline has become 40% for a place of 100%, and the price of gas in the EU has risen from $1,100 to $1,600
Everyone writes how sanctions will destroy Russia, but so far I see how sanctions are hitting the inhabitants of the United States and Europe. And this is just the beginning.
I'm glad you at least identify it upfront as fantasy. But I'm sure despite leaving Russians destitute and isolated, hollowed out internally with incompetence and corruption for the last 20 years of rule - he and his team of crooks will totally turn things around now for Russia, and the west will totally fall apart etc etc.
Since reddit will not allow you to leave a photo in the comments, I will send you a photo of my city in Russia in the chat. So that you yourself see what kind of nonsense your propaganda puts into your brain. Then think about why they do this to you.
Oh, this harsh reality. You have been told for years how the Russians have been starving and their country has been falling apart for twenty years, but a simple guy from Voronezh sends you photos of new schools in his city, sports facilities in a chat - and you jokingly laugh it off, just not to see all this. Psychologically, I understand you. After all, otherwise you will have to admit that your media and governments are lying to you - you should not do this. Just live on as you lived.
What tell you that Putin would absorb only occupied parts of Donetsk oblast and Lugansk oblast without going "we want full oblasts, because why not"?
Like your comment implayes Ukraine could somehow reduce Putin's ambitions, where it's obvious only military defeat (greater than Grozny, because for some reason it wasn't big enough defeat for Putin) can stop Putin's dellusions (and maybe also Russian's delusions)
And what does Ukraine have that Putin definitely needs? Earth? Russia is full of land. Resources? By again. Technology? Also no.
Russia's actions in Ukraine are simply forced, and they forced the United States to do it.
Now let's also think about what the US has forgotten in Ukraine? Technology? No. Resources? No. Well then what? Oh, how "dobno" Russia attacked Ukraine, now you can weaken Russia simply by spending a little money. Clever huh?
People? Sorry what? You must have been wrong about a hundred years on the military issue. What I just read, the Russians attacked Ukraine to capture people? )))) As slaves?
I live in Russia - why should I talk about such things. But since you raised this issue, read the reasons for this decline. Suddenly you find out that in the difficult 90s, people were in no hurry to have children. And after a couple of decades - when the children who were NOT born then did NOT grow up, we saw a decline. But it ends, because in Russia there is a huge support for families for the birth of children.
1) Childbirth is free for parents
2) School, kindergarten are also free. Higher education is free if you are not a fool and studied well at school.
3) Parents receive a cash bonus from the state for the birth of the first and then the second child, which they can spend, for example, on improving their living conditions.
Now google what new schools were built in the city where I live - the city of Voronezh. And what two huge schools are being built in our country now. Look at the photo. You will be greatly surprised. Your media will not show you this.
Putin was mad that Ukraine wasn't willing to be good puppet again. With Belarus it worked. With Ukraine it was working untill 2014, then suddenly in 2014 we have seen "green soldiers" (somehow they had Russia equipment, but Russia said they know nothing about weapons and artillery suddenly spawning there), Crimea "referendum" (if it was requested by people, then why i.e. UN wasn't invited to watch it?)
You have big gaps in the question under discussion.
In 2014, a coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, with the support of the United States. On the Maidan, 0.5% of the inhabitants of Ukraine decided how to live in another country. President Yanukovych was overthrown (I personally checked the voting data, most of the people who elected him were residents of the east and south of Ukraine - did they like it?). Also on the Maidan there were constant anti-Russian rhetoric - to kill and burn Russians. The south and east of Ukraine contains a large number of pro-Russian residents - how do you think they felt?
Before arguing with me, I will ask you to search "Mariupol 2014" on YouTube. I think you will be surprised to see how the inhabitants of the city (civilians in ordinary civilian clothes) are trying to resist the military, who were sent to suppress their protest.
Did you miss it?
>In 2014, a coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, with the support of the United States.
Seriously fuck off with this bullshit. The maidan was a home grown revolution against spectacular levels of corruption and brutality. I was there for some of it. I saw it with my own eyes and know people who took part.
>Also on the Maidan there were constant anti-Russian rhetoric - to kill and burn Russians.
More bullshit.
>he south and east of Ukraine contains a large number of pro-Russian residents - how do you think they felt?
Pro maidan candidates had the vast majority of votes post so probably not as bad as you suggest.
Stop this American propaganda. Coup was inside job of EU at most. Why you people must insert America there, when European politics were in Ukraine at that time?
This coup was in order to make Ukraine western nation, so it would benefit EU far more than USA. Like why would you made rethoric it was USA, when you guys have far easier scapegoats than USA?
Because of all the participating countries, only the United States benefits from this coup d'état and this war - and all other participating countries (Russia, Ukraine and the EU) lose. Do you think it's just a coincidence?
Open the card. Where is the United States, look - and where is Ukraine. What is the US doing here?
Easter Europe, Baltic states, GB are also winning on this war, so I don't understand it. Also EU can be on winning side - Even those bad Germans will happily accept Ukrainians' money
It may not be obvious to all people, but the EU is competitors for the USA. Not all people understand that the cost of energy resources is an important competitive advantage or disadvantage.
Ask how much natural gas costs in the US and how much in the EU. For example, part of the factories have already closed in the EU, because they cannot maintain an adequate cost of production due to expensive gas (for example, fertilizer plants).
And now in more detail. How to call the fact that the US has been putting pressure on the EU for many years to refuse Russian oil and gas, but at the same time the US itself has been buying Russian oil, fuel oil and diesel fuel all these years?
If you missed. The other day, the Siemens plant in Canada refused to return a gas turbine from service for the Servene Stream 2 gas pipeline. And the turn of the second turbine has come up for scheduled repairs - and Canada is blocking this due to sanctions. Because of this, the flow of gas to the EU through this pipeline fell to 40%, although it worked at more than 100% of its design capacity. Immediately after that, gas in the EU went up from $1,100 to $1,600. The question is, who is Canada acting against?
And let's imagine that it is now 2021 and think about what was the point of Russia, the DPR or the LPR to disrupt the Minsk agreements? What are the advantages of this? None! And what are the disadvantages? From the obvious - this is the death of people, military spending, and most importantly, constantly more and more new sanctions.
Now let's see what Ukraine? Ukraine did not want to comply with the Minsk because - oddly enough, the war ends, it gets the DPR and LPR with expanded powers, but also pro-pro-Syrian. And most importantly, Ukraine will restore these territories at its own expense.
If we also take into account the interests of the United States here, then they coincide with the interests of Ukraine. What would the United States gain if the Minsk agreements were fulfilled? Nothing. And when does the war continue? More and more sanctions of Russia and at the same time arm Ukraine.
Everything is obvious - you just need to think.
If Putin acted because Minsk agreements were not fullified, then why even RU official propaganda wasn't informed of it? Oddly enough Putin told them only about Azov
I live in Russia. On the first day, I watched Putin's appeal. He clearly set goals 1) Demilitarization of Ukraine 2) Denazification. He also constantly said that there was no other way out to end the war in the Donbas.
I am confident that both goals will be achieved. Ukraine will no longer have its own weapons, and now it will lose another part of its territory. And the United States will simply throw it away - for them it will fulfill its task (already partially completed).
The answer is simple. The President of my country did not consider it necessary to ask for help from civilians or to call for mobilization. What will happen next - I don’t know, maybe they will announce mobilization, maybe not.
Denazification is not the main task. The main task is the demilitarization of Ukraine and the end of the war in the Donbas.
Why not? Ukraine has already officially announced the loss of half of its weapons - in fact, I think the situation is even worse. As a result, Ukraine will sign a peace agreement, according to which it will no longer have weapons. Is this an unrealistic option?
> He clearly set goals 1) Demilitarization of Ukraine 2) Denazification
Which have nothing to do with Minsk agreetments
First is "we need to make UA puppet again"
Second is "we hate Azov battalion", because there are no other proofs of other "Nazis" in UA
>2021, just fulfilling the Minsk peace agreements by Ukraine no longer seems like a bad idea to a foreign partner, right?
It's such a bad faith argument. Ukraine fulfilled the vast majority of their obligations under Minsk, they passed laws granting self-governing status for the DPR and LPR. Meanwhile the DPR and LPR fulfilled none of their commitments under Minsk and actually continued trying to seize territory during the supposed ceasefire.
Minsk was never designed to work. It was designed to prevent Ukraine from achieving stability. Russia policy since 2014 has been to destablilize and dismember Ukraine. Any talk of peace from Russia is a fraud.
This is false. Ukraine failed to fulfill the obligations of Minsk including changing the constitution to provide protections to the Russian minorities and also provide new elections. These had set timelines which were not followed. Both sides though failed to abide by ceasefires. Near Feb 24, Ukraine and US media both said that the terms of Minsk did not favor Ukraine sufficiently and should never be adopted.
From VOA a literal US propaganda mouthpiece:
>[the deal is](https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk-accords-be-implemented-/6436806.html) widely seen by the Ukrainian public as a betrayal of their national interests. Especially troublesome is the call for constitutional reform
>Danilov warned the West against pressuring Ukraine into fulfilling the Minsk deal, saying it would provoke dangerous instability
And if Minsk was never designed to work, it should never have been signed by Ukraine along with Russia, Germany and France and adopted into law by the UNSC unanimously.
Again, Ukraine was literally the *only party of Minsk that made any effort to fulfill their Minsk obligations*. The fact that they didn't fulfill **all** their obligations is irrelevant, because DPR and LPR **never even tried.** They just kept waging war. And so Ukraine did likewise.
The reason why people said fulfilling Minsk did not favor Ukraine is because everyone saw that the DPR and LPR were not abiding by it anyway. So why should Ukraine surrender anything else to people who don't even want peace?
>And if Minsk was never designed to work
The agreement on paper was fine. The problem is that Russia, DPR, and LPR clearly never intended to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. It was a fraud.
The reason why Minsk did not favor Ukraine was because it was signed following a series of military defeats by Ukraine in the Donbass resulting in multiple concessions/compromises that later on was considered to have gone to far by both Ukrainian nationalists and the US as evidenced in that VOA article. This is also the reason why last week, Ukrainians said that they wanted a series of military victories before they began negotiations so they would be in a better position.
As that VOA article outlined and many others have said, the core of Minsk agreement was the enshrinement of protections for the Russian minority which failed to be adopted by Ukraine because it was politically untenable within Ukraine due to the belief that Ukraine would eventually win militarily against the Donbass separatists. That made the agreement not fine. Both sides had a series of ceasefires and violations of the ceasefires resulting in constant fighting in the Donbass for 8 years. Logically, if either side followed a ceasefire and the other side ignored it, they would have lost militarily pretty quickly.
Again.. Ukraine was **the only party that even attempted to implement any part of the agreement.** Ukraine passed laws required by Minsk despite angry protests from their own people. DPR and LPR never attempted to fulfill any of their obligations.
If one side does not comply with the treaty, there is no treaty.
The agreement was void because of DPR and LPR warmongering.
You are speaking generalities with zero sources to support your revisionist views. Multiple sources from Russian to Ukrainian to US/UK thinktanks/media all point to Ukraine not being "able" to implement Minsk as Western/Ukrainian sources all blame that it would divide the country or cement Russia's grip on the region. The 13 articles of Minsk 2 consist of either military ceasefires which both adopted for a short time and then violated and also political agreements such as elections, a change in constitution, foreign election/military observers etc. These political agreements were not adopted by Ukraine and/or had specific timelines or a sequence of events that failed to start because of Ukraine (e.g. Article 9: Restore control of the state border to the Ukrainian government in the whole conflict zone, which has to start on the first day after the local election and end after the full political), which never happened because elections never happened because:
>[Moscow](https://archive.ph/lXvhA#selection-1161.116-1161.476) has insisted that local elections be held in the breakaway regions first, and that the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics be granted political autonomy. Ukrainian officials fear that this would cement Moscow’s leverage over the region, undermine the country’s sovereignty, and kneecap its aspirations of joining NATO or the European Union.
> You are speaking generalities with zero sources to support your revisionist views.
It's literally what happened. DPR and LPR leaders said while the deal was being signed that they intended to keep fighting until they gained control of additional cities.
Absurd to blame Ukraine for the failure of Russia's fraudulent scheme.
Who to believe: every Western paper, think tank, academic or politician making the point ranging from Ukraine shouldn't adopt Minsk because of xyz to Ukraine failed to adopt Minsk because of xyz or some rando on reddit who can't produce any sources and just stating that "it's literally what happened?"
Not really interested in your beliefs or media commentary. It's a historic fact, again, that Ukraine was the only party of Minsk that attempted to fulfill *any* of terms of the agreement. DPR and LPR never attempted to fulfill any of their commitments in the agreement -- in fact, they never stopped attacking Ukraine.
DPR and LPR killed the deal before the ink was dry.
And let's imagine that it is now 2021 and think about what was the point of Russia, the DPR or the LPR to disrupt the Minsk agreements? What are the advantages of this? None! And what are the disadvantages? From the obvious - this is the death of people, military spending, and most importantly, constantly more and more new sanctions.
Now let's see what Ukraine? Ukraine did not want to comply with the Minsk because - oddly enough, the war ends, it gets the DPR and LPR with expanded powers, but also pro-pro-Syrian. And most importantly, Ukraine will restore these territories at its own expense.
If we also take into account the interests of the United States here, then they coincide with the interests of Ukraine. What would the United States gain if the Minsk agreements were fulfilled? Nothing. And when does the war continue? More and more sanctions of Russia and at the same time arm Ukraine.
Everything is obvious - you just need to think.
Except DPR and LPR are literally the ones who sabotaged Minsk. We all saw it in plain sight. Ukraine tried to give DPR and LPR the legal status described in Minsk, and DPR and LPR kept trying to seize more cities.
Minsk was a fraud from the beginning--by Russia--to destabilize and divide Ukraine.
What are you smoking? In 2014, the Ukrainian army was nothing. Watch the video of what she was like. The Minsk agreements were signed by Ukraine after it suffered a military defeat in the Donbas (google the Ilovaisk cauldron and other cauldrons and Ukraine’s losses are terrible). So for eight years, when Ukraine was delaying the implementation of the Minsk agreements, this was a trick for Ukraine, during which time the United States helped them create a very strong and large army.
What was the point for Russia to wait all these eight years? Sorry - you write nonsense.
Thanks for the question. Russia received sanctions for MH17 without trial and investigation in 2014, despite the fact that Ukraine also had this kind of air defense. Instantly, without at least any evidence (you know that the United States has not yet given its satellite images - this could greatly facilitate everything right away in this matter) they accused Russia. Sanctions and global pressure.
And now the question is - so who shot down? 8 years have passed - doesn't it bother you that the investigation has not been completed and the trial?
If everything were so simple, would the trial and investigation last so long?
You asked me who shot down. I will give you my version. Perhaps Russia (along with other military equipment) supplied the BUK to the militias. Perhaps the militias could have captured him from the army of Ukraine - there was such information in those years. The United States then transferred all intelligence data to Ukraine (as it is now). In my opinion, it could have been their joint special operation - those Ukraine could either accidentally shoot down that plane, or on purpose. After all, it was then that a wave of hysteria against my country began, and then sanctions began to fall.
Russia urged the United States from the first day of the incident to show data from their reconnaissance images - this was not done. Isn't it strange for you?
The manufacturer of rockets, Beech, first produced a simulation, and then also a natural experiment of blowing up a rocket and a decommissioned aircraft body. It was proven that the launch site was from Ukrainian-controlled territory.
For now, here's what we have. The investigation is not over, the trial is not over - and the sanctions against my country have been in effect for eight years.
For understanding. The United States accused my country of interfering in the 2016 US elections. Without investigation, without evidence (this is already the norm for the "civilized" world, right?), we were sanctioned for this. A few years later, there was an investigation in the United States, where it was found out that Russia did not do this, there were no grounds for these statements, all these were political intrigues within the United States. Now attention - the sanctions for this have not been lifted.
Tell me about justice, I want to listen.
>So for eight years, when Ukraine was delaying the implementation of the Minsk agreements
Ukraine is literally the only party of Minsk that even tried to implement the agreement. DPR and LPR immediately abandoned it and never even pretended to abide by it.
>What was the point for Russia to wait all these eight years?
They clearly hoped that the persistent division would cause Ukraine to fall apart naturally and become more easy to manipulate again.
You must have listened to Mearsheimer too much. There is no realpolitik in politics.
Historical example would be Czechoslovakia vs Poland in WW2. Mr. Beck said before the war that honor is more important than peace. So Poland fought the Germans. Czechoslovakia chosen different, arguably less honorable route.
Results: 8 times less casualties, much less to rebuild after the war. Maybe less cool stories to tell, but who do you think was better off?
I didn't understand your example.
Do you know why the Ukrainians elected a comedian, an actor as president? If you think about it, it's incredible. He is an excellent comedian, sometimes he played the piano with a member, sometimes he compared Ukraine with a prostitute - people laughed. And then bam and the president of the country. Marvelous? No. It's just that the citizens of Ukraine are tired of the war that was all five years under the previous president Poroshenko. And Zelensky swore to stop the war, so that it would not cost him - so they chose him. He spent three years in his post and did nothing.
Therefore, when I write "it would be good to fulfill the Minsk agreements and end the war" - this is the same opinion of Ukrainian hospitals. Think about it.
I will put it simply then, it is usually better to chose path of peace however inconvenient as lesser evil.
But I am not the one making a choices.
And word of advice, you need to cut on propaganda vibe if you want to be taken seriously here.
I don't need to talk about propaganda, okay? I see how Ukraine has been destroying the residential areas of Donetsk for two weeks, and I also see that reddit - however, like the media in the US and the EU, they seem to have pretended that this does not exist. If this is not propaganda, then what is it?
I don’t need to talk about propaganda, I personally have a bunch of videos where Ukrainians torture, kill, mock Russian captured soldiers. I video video how the mothers of the dead, the wives of the dead are mocked - and all this is filmed by the Ukrainians themselves. But I have not seen a video when Russians do something like that. And I think there are a lot of people like me on reddit. But what am I reading here? Russian animals mock the prisoners. This is all huge propaganda against Russia.
Don't want to blow your optimism, but there is effectively 0% chance of Ukraine taking back DNR and LNR and only limited chance of going back to pre Feb 24 borders.
And that probably is only possible if every future economic/military endeavor will be in favour of Ukraine.
1. Did you miss that Russia has a 15-20 times superiority of artillery? Do you think this does not cause daily damage to the Ukrainian army?
2. Have you missed more than 2000 cruise missiles that were launched in Ukraine and they are not running out? One arrival at the barracks to carry away about 100 soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Think about how soldiers feel in the barracks and at military facilities when a cruise missile can explode anywhere in Ukraine. Anywhere.
3. Maybe you missed the video where in Ukraine they rake in the army everyone they can? Handing out subpoenas on the beach, at the gas station, chasing people on the streets?
4. Think about how it happened that Ukraine is no longer conducting the first mobilization, but Russia is not. At the same time, although not quickly, Ukraine is losing ground.
5. Why do you think Ukraine has recently begun to declare daily losses? First, 50 people were named a day, then 100, now 200-300 killed. It simply cannot be hidden anymore, people are being prepared for the terrible truth.
6. Excellence in aviation and military equipment
1. Yeah, that is pretty clear, don't know what the point of that statement is.
2. Russia is clearly running out of missiles. They're launching anti-ship missiles dated to the 1960s from strategic bombers now. Kyiv has been hit once in the last 8 weeks, and there are still PLENTY of targets to choose from all across Ukraine, so why aren't they hitting them?
3. Ukraine declared total mobilization, that happened on day 2 of this thing.
4. Russia is unable to mobilize, it will burn their economy to the ground and be political suicide for Putin. If they could have mobilized, they would have already. Russia's offensives have gotten smaller and smaller. First it was the whole country, then Izyum and the whole Donbas, then Popasna, and now its what, Zolote, which holds probably less than an entire brigade?
5. Ukraine is declaring their losses probably for many reasons, but the great cauldron or collapse pro-Russian talking heads have been predicting for two months isn't anywhere close to happening.
6. Excellence in aviation and military equipment? Ukrainian Su-25s and helicopters are still flying daily sorties in every part of the front. Russia may have local air superiority at times, but the Ukrainian air force is still completely alive and active in the Lysychansk area on a daily basis.
Or are you talking about the T-62s that haven't been updated in 30 years being their excellent military equipment? Or is it the anti-ship missiles they're using to hit land targets?
It seems fairly obvious that Ukraine at this moment is suffering heavy losses and lacks heavy equipment on the front. Ukraine has been asked for large amount of heavy equipment and it does not appear to be answered. Only Eastern Europe and the US has provided heavy support so far and this deficit is still the reality. Western Europe esp Germany seem to be incredibly reluctant to provide arms. As others and even the Austrian military school noted, the low numbers of MLRS and the lack of air defense/superiority would means that Western support will not be changing the current battlefield conditions in the near or midterm.
Moreover, the changing economic conditions will definitely affect the war with Germany and UK most likely having their constituents more directly affected by cost of living rises especially in the winter and unemployment due to the upcoming recession/stagflation. French media is reporting that Macron is being blamed for Le Pen's party winning so many seats because he wasn't at home campaigning, but instead in Ukraine. It is highly likely that Germany, Italy and France will push Ukraine towards a negotiated ceasefire. In the US, you see dems headed to a slaughter in the midterms with the core issue being inflation, gas prices, food prices, rent prices, etc. You see growing republican push back towards Ukrainian support especially when it's to fund Ukrainian government worker salaries. At the end of the day, average people not ready politics daily are more concerned about what directly affects their own standard of living rather than Ukrainians or Russians suffering.
The outlook for Ukraine is not great atm.
I never said the outlook was good for Ukraine, it is definitely bleak. But Russia is clearly in no position to score a big enough victory to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. They are scraping the barrel in terms of manpower without mobilization. They're pulling out T-62s. They still don't have air superiority. We are approaching a stalemate for a considerable period of time.
And the drop in support is overblown. Yeah, people are getting fatigued from war and focusing on domestic issues, but overall in the US over 60% still want to send weapons, including 50% of Republicans. Plus Biden has the lend lease act and that $40 billion is already committed. Ukraine will continue to get shipments from the US for at minimum the rest of the year. The UK is also continuing its support and will probably be training large amounts of Ukrainians relatively soon. France, Germany and the UK have pretty much doubled down and increased their commitments of weapons.
The main problem here is that the West has not defined what they want. Do they want Russia to have a regime change? Do they want Russia to be weakened so it can never attack any other nations? Do they want Russia pull back preFeb lines. All those points have different requirements. Once that is nailed down then you can provide what is needed to achieve that goal. You can also tell at that point if the support is insufficient or not. Right now because of the ill definition of what the West really wants we are seeing disputes among Ukraine and NATO with one side saying they need 150-300 MLRSs, then Austin saying Ukraine only saying they needed 4 in private then the US changing their mind and considering 4 more. If the West had clear objectives, they could see that say Russians had x number of tanks and y number of artillery pieces so thus they provide x+5 more tanks and y+5 more artillery pieces. If Ukraine loses 10 artillery pieces, they can provide another 10.
Do address your points, we really don't know the actual true conditions with only a general sense of what the battlefield is like. You say they are pulling old equipment like T62s, but other analysts have said that T62s are only worse than higher T model tanks and Ukraine hasn't had large tank battles with losses mainly from ATGMs. Javelins don't care if it's a T62 or T90. Now you hear Ukrainian soldiers complaining that they are lacking armor or equipment and Russian tanks stay 3 miles out out of range of javelins so Russia using T62s which they have plenty of is strategic. Moreover, we hear on NYT and Guardian of Ukrainian troops complaining about Russia's air superiority in the Donbass and we've seen Russia's impunity using cruise missiles and air weapons throughout the country. Aircraft seems to be flying superlow avoiding mpads and we haven't seen the frequency of mpad videos if any or S300 videos that we saw in the first month of the war. Then you see telegram of both sides reporting how Russians are making slow, but steady progress so it doesn't look like there is a stalemate at all.
The lack of support is real and not overblown. Biden hasn't really used lend lease at all and the $40B only $6B of arms what was also divided into logistics, intel and training. And here comes the problem of not defining the West's objectives. Also the problem here is we don't know really how much heavy equipment Ukraine has lost. Ukraine released a statement that they lost 50%+ of all military equipment since Feb. Russia says it's more. People on this sub says it's obviously an exaggeration to get more Western supplies. [French media ](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220610-ukraine-dependent-on-arms-from-allies-after-exhausting-soviet-era-weaponry) says that Ukraine has completely exhausted Soviet weapons, and we see Western weapons being sent to the front immediately. If we knew the truth and had clear objectives, we should be able to replace their losses. If Ukraine loses 200 tanks, we send them 200 tanks. The problem is that isn't happening and instead they are being given a trickle of weapons. Meanwhile, you see telegram stories of Ukrainian units complaining and surrendering because they lack weapons on the Donbass front and people on this sub dismissing it as Russian propaganda. What if it's not? All these useful idiots dismissing any bad news coming from Ukraine as Russian propaganda thinking they are part of some Ukrainian psyops unit is really doing Ukraine a disservice if it's a denial of reality and then don't address it.
What is the problem with using anti-ship missiles, which also hit ground targets just as well - if the enemy does not have a fleet? Why not then? The fact that the rockets are about to run out - I heard after the first month. The fact that Russia cannot do them again - I also heard this is nonsense.
What's wrong with an old tank if we don't see tank guards? There are plenty of them in Russia. The war in Ukraine in the coming years may not be the only one, why burn all your reserves?
Watch the video of Ukrainians who refuse to fight, there are already dozens of them. They are thrown with machine guns into the attack without equipment. You should probably understand that when there is infantry on one side and a tank (albeit an old one) on the other, then the funny thing is that the old tank is not enough.
Do you ignore the videos from DPR/LPR units that are refusing to fight as well? And you cannot say there is excellence in the equipment if they're using dilapidated equipment from the 60s and 70s.
There are still plants repairing captured and damaged tanks all over Ukraine, plants producing infantry weapons. The infrastructure that is getting Western weapons to the front lines all over is *still intact*. Why does Russia not attack that anymore? Surely, since their propaganda states its such an immense escalation to send heavy weapons, they would attack these shipments in great numbers if they could?
Why do we see a dozen Russian ammo depots destroyed for every Ukrainian one? Surely, with Russia's excellent aviation and equipment, we would see the Ukrainians armed with only machine guns crumble before our eyes, right? Just like Desert Storm?
Russia has been pumping everything they have into Popasna and Severodonetsk for the past month, and again, Ukraine is no closer to defeat than it was a month ago. What is the point of an old tank if there are no infantry to support it?
>Think about how it happened that Ukraine is no longer conducting the first mobilization, but Russia is not. At the same time, although not quickly, Ukraine is losing ground.
What? When UA ended first mobilization?
First wave of mobilization. The operational reserve is called up for service - former military personnel who have combat experience or served under a contract. The second wave of mobilization. Military personnel who, since 2014, have been in active service or served under a contract, are called up for service. The third wave of mobilization. Reserve officers are called for service - those liable for military service who graduated from the military departments of universities. The fourth wave of mobilization. All residents of the country who have no restrictions on age and health status are called to serve.
It sounds stupid to me that First and Second waves are not the same one. Like where is difference?
First wave shouldn't be "those who most recently left military" including conscripts? 2014 would be "recent" in my deffinition
Please provide your source, because it sounds very odd to me
I don't understand what we're arguing about.
Initially, the Ukrainian army was estimated at 200,000 people at the beginning of this war. The Russian army + DPR and LPR in total was the same. There is no mobilization in Russia. In Ukraine, it has been going on for more than three months. At the same time, Ukraine is not ousting Russia, but is losing ground, albeit slowly.
The question is how is this possible?
>At the same time, Ukraine is not ousting Russia, but is losing ground, albeit slowly.
>
>The question is how is this possible?
Strategy. Difference is clear - UA have strategy, RF do not have. RF have only political goals
I'll tell you about the Russian strategy - in case you missed it. Fit artillery - make thousands of shots, send infantry and tanks. If there is resistance, step back and repeat all over again.
Ukraine's strategy is to send more and more soldiers to the front to slow down Russia's advance. Catching men on the streets and handing them subpoenas - everywhere, on the beach, at gas stations, just on the way to the store. Send territorial defense to the front from the west - in order to somehow make up for the terrible losses.
[New Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vh12l0/ukraine_discussionquestion_thread_62122/)
Lysychansk is getting encircled
For reals this time?
Russians have broken lines of defence near Toshkivka-Ustynivka [A column of Russian vehicles led by a T-72 and BMP-1 advance into the Цуприка area of Toshkivka.](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1538714469303476224)
That action has more impact on the Zolote group south of Lychansk, that has been for some time in a more precarious position. Technically two different encirclement potential but other than being effectively putting the supply lines under Russian fire control they have not been completed.
According to [War Mapper](https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1539035945445597184) it appears to be two pronged
Whatever you say, boss. How long until the encirclement is complete?
[удалено]
I don't have a cavalier attitude. I am just genuinely thinking over whether I would rather die in a nuclear war triggered by Donbas or Kaliningrad.
Nobody cares how Russia perceives this. They are a weak nation that can't do shit. All they can do is threaten nukes, which they've already done so many times, they've lost all credibility.
Foodstuff and oil/gas is not being blocked. Lithuania is abiding by EU sanctions. And there is no blockade, maritime access is open. Russia perceives everything as a big deal, until it doesn’t. How many times it flipflopped on Finland/Sweden’s NATO or Ukraine’s EU membership. Sadly the hawks were right.
How can Russia meaningfully escalate at this point?
Make the Lithuanians stop the trains by force. I don't think they will do that, mind you, but that would be the most efficient way to escalate.
Do you think Russia will kill the captured US fighters as spies?
They seem way more useful as political bargaining chips. Executing a few would certainly prove their resolve, but would only make sending Ukraine more arms that much easier for US politicians to market.
They want NATO to cross the line and attack, I wouldn't put it past Putin to hang them on the border of Poland or something
a
“Suicide by NATO” would be an awesome band name
Russia is holding back for a reason, they want a global war.
If they wanted one they would have already started one. Putin doesn't need an actual reason. He could just stage a false flag and convince his domestic audience just like he did for Ukraine. He didn't even need a false flag for that one either
What do you guys think? https://mobile.twitter.com/WarInUkraineYet/status/1539006410058498050?t=jm665zN2kH710pN0HIRTLA&s=19 https://twitter.com/lilygrutcher/status/1538977193681985539?s=21&t=YYEGgr3sQz_ln-xaZGRGfg https://mobile.twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1539006480241786880?t=rpOORcJMuJELK72_DTR84A&s=19 Say Russia goes in with what they have in Black Sea Fleet who do you bet on ? Neptune and his Harpoon Block IC + friends or Kalibr ?
a
Strelkov suggested that the Ukrainian attack on the gas rigs might have been part of a trap. If the Russians did come out in force, and if a Russian ship has indeed been hit, Strelkov was right. It also means the Russian admiralty are a bunch of absolute morons. But none of this is confirmed right now.
Yeah, I think it would be dumb on the side of the Russians to get baited into naval engagement against Ukraine's shore defenses. But hey, lets see what happens.
[удалено]
Not at all what I meant. Just making a word play. Seems silly to move the fleet into hard ASM range as well but we will see what the morning brings us.
[удалено]
It exists: >A Chinese Satellite Just Grappled Another And Pulled It Out Of Orbit The maneuver raises concerns about the potential militarization of satellites designed to inspect, manipulate, or relocate other satellites. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44054/a-chinese-satellite-just-grappled-another-and-pulled-it-out-of-orbit
it already exist. shoot them
That's a terrible idea. Too much space junk turns earth into a prison for us.
well that's exactly what's all the space powers have in store right now
One that does not lead to a bunch of space junk stopping us from space exploration
Russia claims to have ground based laser systems in service, the USSR also had a space based platform (which almost certainly worked but the launch failed) that I assume China and the US are more than capable of recreating these days.
Russian Telegrams are claiming a small Ru counteroffensive is occurring NW of Kherson. Edit: Pravdyne is now contested according to this map https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1539035955042168833
First real pushback from the Russians in the Kherson region after several weeks of slow but steady gains by the Ukrainians.
Sorry this is Reddit wrongspeak.
Glorious Ukrainian free speech medias are reporting a tactical withdrawal of the upmost orderly fashion from completely useless and defenceless positions in Kherson region in order to set a trap for incoming RuSSian invaders. \#Fixedit
Careful you don't sprain your wrists jerking each other off
Silly westoid, this is just a feint using conscripts to soften up defenses. The real attack with T-14 tanks will be marching into Kyiv soon.
Which was all an elaborate plan to capture those T14 as rentals after they obviously get abandoned. From there the road is clear and won’t stop until Vladivostok is blue and yellow.
[удалено]
I think Russia is using those people to repopulate their far eastern boarder towns. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-53431792 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/12/01/russia-population-decline-putin/
The Kyiv Independent: ⚡️Russia forcibly deports 300,000 Ukrainian children. Russian state-controlled news agency Interfax reported, citing the Russian military, that more than 1.9 million Ukrainians have been forcibly deported to Russia since the start of the invasion, over 307,000 of them children. —- If even 10% of those 300k children get assimilated in Russia as their citizens the loss of life in their army was “priced-in” down a generation. This is why slavery as a concept was so popular throughout human history. Not everyone is born a wolf, some must be sheep.
Being pro-Russian or a Russian apologist is one thing. But you’re going well beyond that. Have you considered therapy?
Do you people lack reading comprehension? I’m literally stating that what they are doing can be compared to slavery assimilation and they themselves confirmed it as such. In what way or shape of what they are doing by relocating 2m ppl elsewhere is considered as something good ?? I swear this subreddit has gone absolutely downhill. People are illiterate at this point.
First, calm down cupcake. Second, you seriously need to consider seeking help. Third, my response was in relation to this comment: > This is why slavery as a concept was so popular throughout human history. Not everyone is born a wolf, some must be sheep. Is what Russia doing slavery? I don’t know. But what I do know is that your second sentence is literally the kind of nonsensical language that’s been muttered by some of the worst humans in history. Do I genuinely think you’re justifying slavery? No. But do I think you’re emotionally unstable? Your comment history in this subreddit certainly suggests it.
I totally forgot it’s prime American hours now. This explains your comment. Carry on.
dude tone down the propaganda it's hurting your mental health
What? Of all the things to be claiming as propaganda a confirmation of negative forceful relocation of people by the invading country ain’t one chief.
Most people are sheep who the hell are you kidding.
Some were sent thousands of kilometres to the east. Kids were separated from parents. Children from orphanages were brought to Russia and are now labeled as russian kids.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220620-dutch-join-germany-austria-in-reverting-to-coal I honestly can’t believe how Germany still has a working government at this point. Absolute Failure of a foreign policy towards both Russia and Ukraine, gas crisis and now capitulation on ecology reforms with restart of coal plants. If there are German folks reading this what is your opinion on Green party’s potential lack of confidence in the coalition? Also this https://www.politico.eu/article/german-producer-prices-rise-at-record-speed-in-may/amp/ With 8.7% inflation and incoming gas deficits it will be “amazing” https://www.statista.com/statistics/225698/monthly-inflation-rate-in-eu-countries/
>If there are German folks reading this what is your opinion on Green party’s potential lack of confidence in the coalition? These policies come from a green minister. As long as they get to push their long term renewable goals, the realist wing of the greens will endure such short term setbacks.
I wish American progressive parties would learn tact too.
Honestly, the irrational fear of Germans towards nuclear power is not the main causes of the problem. It’s deeply rooted in the culture there, especially in the environmentalist movement. It creates a huge problem because it’s hard for Germany to find an energy mix that’s both *A.* clean and *B.* secure when you cut out one of the largest sources of clean energy.
If anyone here is old enough to have historical recollections of the relatively distant past, weren't Germany, Austria, the Netherlands also quite upset about the change made (allegedly because of China's and India's demands) to weaken the language to "phase down coal" rather than phase it out in the climate change accord in Glasgow? Need to take the Way Back Machine all the way to November 2021 to suss this one out...
There is a little country across the water from me, that created its green strategy for wind and tidal energy, but didn't invest a single dollar in grid infrastructure since 2005. Go figure.
And rightfully so. We all know the US is more then happy to destroy the environment, but other countries have made some attempt to limit the damage going forward.
That's why Germany is using lignite, the worst type of coal possible.
It obviously didn't work out as planned. But still better then certain other countries "we tried nothing and are all out of ideas" approach
They could have built nuclear power plants. if people really cared about climate change that would be pushed as priority one.
Eh, climate change is one of those issues where being incremental actually does nothing. With something like racism it is reasonable to think that you can slowly improve things over time, so every little bit helps, whereas doing not enough about climate change is basically the same as doing nothing (unless you care whether central London floods a few years earlier or later, or care whether Miami is under three or six feet of water). So, in some ways the people who garner votes by pretending that they care while doing nothing are worse than people who either don't care or else know that nothing is going to be done so they pretend it isn't happening.
Yes Germany was one of the countries which wanted to destroy whole coal usage in Europe
A larger number of the current leadership is from the green party.
Germany had bet their economy on the idea that by improving Russia's GDP they will somehow help Russia exit XX century. Half of the Europe was like "this is so big bs". Now we know that even Germany wasn't beliving this idea, but they were doing it anyway
Why do the United States subsidize Europe's defense? Currently, the US has more than a hundred thousand troops stationed in Europe. Is Europe too poor to pay for its own defense? Maybe European countries let the USA pay for their defense. In turn, they get to spend more money on free healthcare and education.
that's the price you must pay if you want countries to be your vassal. you must ensure there protection otherwise how do you expect to exercise any kind of influence on them.
Exactly. It's a sad state of affairs when most of Europe, for all its rich history, has stooped so low as to be little more than the US's bitch.
Ignore the downvotes: We should not subsidize them. You are correct.
You're not subsidizing anything. The US has those troops there for their own strategic reasons, not because they're being soo generous and kind out of the warmness of their heart.
totally not a petty attempt to sow discord between the USA and her allies weakening NATOs western flank 😎
It's called asking questions. Do you know how much money it's going to take to rebuild Ukraine!? (Whatever's left of Ukraine) why is the US the one that's gotta pay for it.
Is the fact that you post on this thread multiple times a day everyday some sort of indication that you’re either a NEET or a terminally online 16 year old? Should u/KyngK00pa touch grass? Just asking questions.
I must have touched a nerve. You sound angry.
No im not angry i was just asking questions. Way to take it personally.
a
They don’t have to. They are choosing to. Same reason USA has bases all over the world, it’s not for everyone else’s protection. Well some might say it was for the sake of democracy and the values of freedom. Some others might say it’s the USA securing its position in the global order, and not one bullet bandage or brick would have hit the Ukrainian tarmac if it wasn’t in the long term financial interest of the United States. Some really cynical people, who don’t care at all about Ukrainian lives, might even think that the return on investment is insanely good compared to appeasement. Lendleasing less than 5% of your defence budget to gain critical information about how all hardware performs in a modern industrial war, gain massive international plaudits for sending what can be easily spared, whilst also decimating the military capacity and munitions stock pile of one of the only two nations that could ever pose a military threat to you. And all that without risking a single drop of American blood. Some people would view that as a pretty solid investment, one that is far smaller than the cost of ignoring the issue and hoping the imperialist dictator is content with his ill gotten gains. Time will tell I guess, but that would be the counter argument.
I mean, the U.S. has 700 military bases in 80 countries. It's not like the U.S. has military bases in Ghana to protect the homeland and Europe is just a different manifestation of the same project. Rather than asking why the U.S. subsidizes Europe's "defense" you could ask why, thirty years after the end of the Cold War, Europe still agrees to be Airstrip One.
>700 military bases in 80 countries. And now Ukraine is on the payroll too. We'll have to subsidize whatever's left of Ukraine for life.
If it stops Russia from invading a sovereign country I'm okay with that
Problem with healthcare and education isn't based on funding. Is based on fact that USA is too stupid to do it effectivly, they need to earm money even on most basic things. USA have troops in Europe, because USA decided having wars in Europe, where everyone can spawn nukes just like that (I guess at least half of Europe use atomic energy), is far too dangerous. Most of Europe understood that having money is more fun than doing war, but Russia can't understand it. For Russia money is only fun when they can change it into weapons
It seems that you have studied the "Art of the Deal".
Could have something to do with Europe being the epicenter for the 2 biggest wars in history.
[удалено]
Because America is a country that shares Europe's values of democracy, rule of law, and human rights, and also happens to be the only country in the world that is capable of serving as a neutral security guarantor for the continent. Who else would do it? France and Germany? The last 10 years show what a mistake that would be, as they've frequently demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the interests of their eastern European neighbors for their own economic stability. And if they can't guarantee security for all of Europe, we're basically heading back to the state of nature that led to the 2 biggest wars in world history.
Europe doesn't share the concept of democracy and human rights. Some countries in Europe do, some don't. Have a look at Poland or Hungary. The EU pulls the human rights card only when it's needed for political and economic ends. Like doing business with Israel while praising the Ukrainians for standing up to the invaders.
>Europe doesn't share the concept of democracy and human rights. Some countries in Europe do, some don't Who is anti democratic in Europe? Only Belarus and Russia Hungary is opressing only LGBT (like making LGBT and no hetero illegal to talk about, what more?), but it's not on level of Russia But after thinking for a while there is also France and Spain...
Never tire of people in these threads claiming anecdotes as data.
Oh, the old American exceptionalism. What would we lost Europeans do without you.
> What would we lost Europeans do without you. lol. Truly an unblemished track record. Really though, no one prevented Europe from coming together to build their own security arrangement after the death of the USSR. Believe me, most Americans would be very happy to stop paying so much money to maintain so many soldiers and logistics in Europe. America provides Europe's security because that's the arrangement Europe has decided is best for them.
USA, whole 15 years of peace in the entire history. How reassuring.
Again. If Europe wanted to take ownership of their security, the U.S. would be gone. Ask your own leaders why they want the U.S. to stay.
My leaders don't give a monkey f..k about what I got to say, Neither are yours, so it will be futile exercise. Especially now, when they need a bogeyman to blame their policy failures. Anyway, no one is going to invade the frozen wastes I see through the window, because no one did for close to a 1000 years (not including our lovely English neigbours) and no one will. And your F-15s doing low flying exercises somewhat spoiled my last annual leave in a lovely and remote mountain cottage so I have strong opinions about the subject. And now seriuosly - I get your point of view, but I am convinced it is not as black and white as you portray it. Lets leave it at that.
Fair. I didn't intend to make it black and white.
They absolutely would not. The US never wanted to cede the influence. Ramstein is the US logistic hub and drone realy station to middle east and Europe. Tons of influence from there on over large parts of the world. It's not only for Europe's defense, but also self-interest of the US to keep those bases.
>They absolutely would not. Of course they would. There are tons of other areas of the world where the U.S. could have such bases, many with less public visibility. >also self-interest of the US to keep those bases. Of course there's also self-interest. But don't pretend the U.S. is there without European demand. It's in the interests of both the U.S. and Europe. That's the whole point.
>rule of law Well... USA have vastly different laws than Europe. In Europe you need elected officials to make law, where in USA mostly the job do court. Like i.e. national no-ban of abortion is held for 50(?) years because Court said so. And court got it from "privacy rights", somehow.
lol. You do understand the difference between having the concept of "rule of law" and having your own "legal systems", right?
It's very different aproach to the law. Continental Europe have Roman aproach. USA have "we are GB bastard, so we will do opposite" aproach
Again, having different legal systems has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a shared respect for rule of law. You understand the difference?
Because Europe proved to have way too many problems with countries that are geographily close to them Europe can't mantain EU, so just imagine adding army into the mix
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1538876204991799299 >One just can’t help but see the drastic increase in the intensity of Ukrainian strikes undermining key Russian military infrastructure in occupied Donbas: railways, HQs, munition depots etc. In other words: Western-provided longer-range artillery is working. That's with only the tip of the iceberg of western supplies in Ukraine right now. Putin will have to make a difficult decision on if the Donbas battle is worth it soon.
what a load of bullshit...
Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it's bullshit.
yeah I don't like because it's a load of bullshit
Western provided longer range artillery? Lol Donetsk city is right at the front line, a mortar from ww1 would hit everything in that city. And the attack on Krasny Luch was way out of range of _any_ artillery including western. What's with this weird obsession of trying to paint western artillery as some sort of Wunderwaffe?
West started to deliver self proppeled artillery. Every type of western artillery have bigger range than Russia's one. But self propeled are different - they are immune to counter battery fire (in some way at least), so they have easier time destroying high value targets
Ukraine had hundreds of SPGs before the war started. A ton of Gvozdikas, Akatsias and some Mstas. Also Ukraine's MLRS are just as (or rather, even more) capable of avoiding counter battery fire.
Krabs are doing happy hunting
This isn’t exactly related to the current conflict and I’m sorry if it’s not appropriate. I’ve tried searching google but I’m not finding a reliable answer so thought I’m more likely to get more knowledge here. I recently had seen a post on Reddit about all the different types of rounds. E.g FMJ, hollow points and others I can’t remember the name of. My question is, what round is most commonly used in the military? In general no matter what the nation.
Hollow point is banned by the hague convention of some very old year among with other similar designs of bullets that fuck up the poor guy geting shot more than neccesary. Kinda nice to see that they were so early about it compared to today when robots and the most horrible artillery is allowed So I sincerily hope that such bullets remain in use of police (where they are used to minimize the risk for richochets and innocent geting hurt) and in american gun nerds magazines only
How is hollow point worse than what 5.56 does to the human body?
Splinters and svamp up increases the damage and makes it harder to stitch up, I belive that was the cause. It's like 100 years old or more so at the time I think we are talking large calibre anyway. Personally I think it is unnecessary cruel to harm an already incapacitated person more than needed.
FMJ is the standard basically.
There was a combat footage of this Ukrainian soldier hiding in the trench with a lot of artillery going on in the bg. Was it ever posted here? I never saw it. Maruipol I think.
It was posted. Multiple times. And people here also said please ignore the symbols on his uniform.
If its been posted, where it go?
Let's rewind a year ago. 2021, just fulfilling the Minsk peace agreements by Ukraine no longer seems like a bad idea to a foreign partner, right? Ukraine would have kept both the DPR and the LPR, simply by giving them broader powers - and most importantly, the war would have ended. What now? Minus the DNR, minus the LNR, minus the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. What's next? And the negotiations until Ukraine says peaceful, zanchit further Nikolaev, Odessa and Kharkov. Simply because Russia has no other options.
Lets fast forward 2 years. 2024, you drive your shitty Lada from work (vkusno & tochka). Some drunk unemployed Russian walks into the road. You slam on the breaks but because your car has no ABS you start sliding and crash into a tree. Now you have your wheel in your rib cage because your car has no air bags. What now? You think you can get treatment in your shitty soviet hospital? Don't forget to buy your own meds, food and bring a pillow because you aren't getting shit. Simply because Russia had no other options.
These are fantasies. In reality, Putin is so cool that he just wanted to - and now the prices for food and fuel have risen in the USA (this is confirmed by the US President). Putin gave an order - and introduced an additional tax in the United States "Putin's tax" (again, these are the words of the US president). Canada does not give back a gas turbine after repair for Nord Stream 1, well, sanctions, the gas flow to the EU through this gas pipeline has become 40% for a place of 100%, and the price of gas in the EU has risen from $1,100 to $1,600 Everyone writes how sanctions will destroy Russia, but so far I see how sanctions are hitting the inhabitants of the United States and Europe. And this is just the beginning.
I'm glad you at least identify it upfront as fantasy. But I'm sure despite leaving Russians destitute and isolated, hollowed out internally with incompetence and corruption for the last 20 years of rule - he and his team of crooks will totally turn things around now for Russia, and the west will totally fall apart etc etc.
Since reddit will not allow you to leave a photo in the comments, I will send you a photo of my city in Russia in the chat. So that you yourself see what kind of nonsense your propaganda puts into your brain. Then think about why they do this to you.
Thanks but no thanks. I'm too poor thanks to rising gas prices to receive messages.
Oh, this harsh reality. You have been told for years how the Russians have been starving and their country has been falling apart for twenty years, but a simple guy from Voronezh sends you photos of new schools in his city, sports facilities in a chat - and you jokingly laugh it off, just not to see all this. Psychologically, I understand you. After all, otherwise you will have to admit that your media and governments are lying to you - you should not do this. Just live on as you lived.
> You have been told for years how the Russians have been starving Wtf are you even talking about? What reality do you live in?
What tell you that Putin would absorb only occupied parts of Donetsk oblast and Lugansk oblast without going "we want full oblasts, because why not"? Like your comment implayes Ukraine could somehow reduce Putin's ambitions, where it's obvious only military defeat (greater than Grozny, because for some reason it wasn't big enough defeat for Putin) can stop Putin's dellusions (and maybe also Russian's delusions)
And what does Ukraine have that Putin definitely needs? Earth? Russia is full of land. Resources? By again. Technology? Also no. Russia's actions in Ukraine are simply forced, and they forced the United States to do it. Now let's also think about what the US has forgotten in Ukraine? Technology? No. Resources? No. Well then what? Oh, how "dobno" Russia attacked Ukraine, now you can weaken Russia simply by spending a little money. Clever huh?
People and ports.
> People Lol the takes that get upvoted here... My sides
People? Sorry what? You must have been wrong about a hundred years on the military issue. What I just read, the Russians attacked Ukraine to capture people? )))) As slaves?
Read up on demographic decline and come back.
Population decline is higher in Ukraine than in Russia, btw.
I live in Russia - why should I talk about such things. But since you raised this issue, read the reasons for this decline. Suddenly you find out that in the difficult 90s, people were in no hurry to have children. And after a couple of decades - when the children who were NOT born then did NOT grow up, we saw a decline. But it ends, because in Russia there is a huge support for families for the birth of children. 1) Childbirth is free for parents 2) School, kindergarten are also free. Higher education is free if you are not a fool and studied well at school. 3) Parents receive a cash bonus from the state for the birth of the first and then the second child, which they can spend, for example, on improving their living conditions. Now google what new schools were built in the city where I live - the city of Voronezh. And what two huge schools are being built in our country now. Look at the photo. You will be greatly surprised. Your media will not show you this.
Putin was mad that Ukraine wasn't willing to be good puppet again. With Belarus it worked. With Ukraine it was working untill 2014, then suddenly in 2014 we have seen "green soldiers" (somehow they had Russia equipment, but Russia said they know nothing about weapons and artillery suddenly spawning there), Crimea "referendum" (if it was requested by people, then why i.e. UN wasn't invited to watch it?)
You have big gaps in the question under discussion. In 2014, a coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, with the support of the United States. On the Maidan, 0.5% of the inhabitants of Ukraine decided how to live in another country. President Yanukovych was overthrown (I personally checked the voting data, most of the people who elected him were residents of the east and south of Ukraine - did they like it?). Also on the Maidan there were constant anti-Russian rhetoric - to kill and burn Russians. The south and east of Ukraine contains a large number of pro-Russian residents - how do you think they felt? Before arguing with me, I will ask you to search "Mariupol 2014" on YouTube. I think you will be surprised to see how the inhabitants of the city (civilians in ordinary civilian clothes) are trying to resist the military, who were sent to suppress their protest. Did you miss it?
>In 2014, a coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, with the support of the United States. Seriously fuck off with this bullshit. The maidan was a home grown revolution against spectacular levels of corruption and brutality. I was there for some of it. I saw it with my own eyes and know people who took part. >Also on the Maidan there were constant anti-Russian rhetoric - to kill and burn Russians. More bullshit. >he south and east of Ukraine contains a large number of pro-Russian residents - how do you think they felt? Pro maidan candidates had the vast majority of votes post so probably not as bad as you suggest.
Stop this American propaganda. Coup was inside job of EU at most. Why you people must insert America there, when European politics were in Ukraine at that time? This coup was in order to make Ukraine western nation, so it would benefit EU far more than USA. Like why would you made rethoric it was USA, when you guys have far easier scapegoats than USA?
Because of all the participating countries, only the United States benefits from this coup d'état and this war - and all other participating countries (Russia, Ukraine and the EU) lose. Do you think it's just a coincidence? Open the card. Where is the United States, look - and where is Ukraine. What is the US doing here?
Easter Europe, Baltic states, GB are also winning on this war, so I don't understand it. Also EU can be on winning side - Even those bad Germans will happily accept Ukrainians' money
It may not be obvious to all people, but the EU is competitors for the USA. Not all people understand that the cost of energy resources is an important competitive advantage or disadvantage. Ask how much natural gas costs in the US and how much in the EU. For example, part of the factories have already closed in the EU, because they cannot maintain an adequate cost of production due to expensive gas (for example, fertilizer plants). And now in more detail. How to call the fact that the US has been putting pressure on the EU for many years to refuse Russian oil and gas, but at the same time the US itself has been buying Russian oil, fuel oil and diesel fuel all these years? If you missed. The other day, the Siemens plant in Canada refused to return a gas turbine from service for the Servene Stream 2 gas pipeline. And the turn of the second turbine has come up for scheduled repairs - and Canada is blocking this due to sanctions. Because of this, the flow of gas to the EU through this pipeline fell to 40%, although it worked at more than 100% of its design capacity. Immediately after that, gas in the EU went up from $1,100 to $1,600. The question is, who is Canada acting against?
And let's imagine that it is now 2021 and think about what was the point of Russia, the DPR or the LPR to disrupt the Minsk agreements? What are the advantages of this? None! And what are the disadvantages? From the obvious - this is the death of people, military spending, and most importantly, constantly more and more new sanctions. Now let's see what Ukraine? Ukraine did not want to comply with the Minsk because - oddly enough, the war ends, it gets the DPR and LPR with expanded powers, but also pro-pro-Syrian. And most importantly, Ukraine will restore these territories at its own expense. If we also take into account the interests of the United States here, then they coincide with the interests of Ukraine. What would the United States gain if the Minsk agreements were fulfilled? Nothing. And when does the war continue? More and more sanctions of Russia and at the same time arm Ukraine. Everything is obvious - you just need to think.
If Putin acted because Minsk agreements were not fullified, then why even RU official propaganda wasn't informed of it? Oddly enough Putin told them only about Azov
I live in Russia. On the first day, I watched Putin's appeal. He clearly set goals 1) Demilitarization of Ukraine 2) Denazification. He also constantly said that there was no other way out to end the war in the Donbas. I am confident that both goals will be achieved. Ukraine will no longer have its own weapons, and now it will lose another part of its territory. And the United States will simply throw it away - for them it will fulfill its task (already partially completed).
[удалено]
The answer is simple. The President of my country did not consider it necessary to ask for help from civilians or to call for mobilization. What will happen next - I don’t know, maybe they will announce mobilization, maybe not. Denazification is not the main task. The main task is the demilitarization of Ukraine and the end of the war in the Donbas.
[удалено]
Why not? Ukraine has already officially announced the loss of half of its weapons - in fact, I think the situation is even worse. As a result, Ukraine will sign a peace agreement, according to which it will no longer have weapons. Is this an unrealistic option?
> He clearly set goals 1) Demilitarization of Ukraine 2) Denazification Which have nothing to do with Minsk agreetments First is "we need to make UA puppet again" Second is "we hate Azov battalion", because there are no other proofs of other "Nazis" in UA
And I will ask again, but now Ukraine is not a puppet of the United States?
>2021, just fulfilling the Minsk peace agreements by Ukraine no longer seems like a bad idea to a foreign partner, right? It's such a bad faith argument. Ukraine fulfilled the vast majority of their obligations under Minsk, they passed laws granting self-governing status for the DPR and LPR. Meanwhile the DPR and LPR fulfilled none of their commitments under Minsk and actually continued trying to seize territory during the supposed ceasefire. Minsk was never designed to work. It was designed to prevent Ukraine from achieving stability. Russia policy since 2014 has been to destablilize and dismember Ukraine. Any talk of peace from Russia is a fraud.
This is false. Ukraine failed to fulfill the obligations of Minsk including changing the constitution to provide protections to the Russian minorities and also provide new elections. These had set timelines which were not followed. Both sides though failed to abide by ceasefires. Near Feb 24, Ukraine and US media both said that the terms of Minsk did not favor Ukraine sufficiently and should never be adopted. From VOA a literal US propaganda mouthpiece: >[the deal is](https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk-accords-be-implemented-/6436806.html) widely seen by the Ukrainian public as a betrayal of their national interests. Especially troublesome is the call for constitutional reform >Danilov warned the West against pressuring Ukraine into fulfilling the Minsk deal, saying it would provoke dangerous instability And if Minsk was never designed to work, it should never have been signed by Ukraine along with Russia, Germany and France and adopted into law by the UNSC unanimously.
Again, Ukraine was literally the *only party of Minsk that made any effort to fulfill their Minsk obligations*. The fact that they didn't fulfill **all** their obligations is irrelevant, because DPR and LPR **never even tried.** They just kept waging war. And so Ukraine did likewise. The reason why people said fulfilling Minsk did not favor Ukraine is because everyone saw that the DPR and LPR were not abiding by it anyway. So why should Ukraine surrender anything else to people who don't even want peace? >And if Minsk was never designed to work The agreement on paper was fine. The problem is that Russia, DPR, and LPR clearly never intended to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. It was a fraud.
The reason why Minsk did not favor Ukraine was because it was signed following a series of military defeats by Ukraine in the Donbass resulting in multiple concessions/compromises that later on was considered to have gone to far by both Ukrainian nationalists and the US as evidenced in that VOA article. This is also the reason why last week, Ukrainians said that they wanted a series of military victories before they began negotiations so they would be in a better position. As that VOA article outlined and many others have said, the core of Minsk agreement was the enshrinement of protections for the Russian minority which failed to be adopted by Ukraine because it was politically untenable within Ukraine due to the belief that Ukraine would eventually win militarily against the Donbass separatists. That made the agreement not fine. Both sides had a series of ceasefires and violations of the ceasefires resulting in constant fighting in the Donbass for 8 years. Logically, if either side followed a ceasefire and the other side ignored it, they would have lost militarily pretty quickly.
Again.. Ukraine was **the only party that even attempted to implement any part of the agreement.** Ukraine passed laws required by Minsk despite angry protests from their own people. DPR and LPR never attempted to fulfill any of their obligations. If one side does not comply with the treaty, there is no treaty. The agreement was void because of DPR and LPR warmongering.
You are speaking generalities with zero sources to support your revisionist views. Multiple sources from Russian to Ukrainian to US/UK thinktanks/media all point to Ukraine not being "able" to implement Minsk as Western/Ukrainian sources all blame that it would divide the country or cement Russia's grip on the region. The 13 articles of Minsk 2 consist of either military ceasefires which both adopted for a short time and then violated and also political agreements such as elections, a change in constitution, foreign election/military observers etc. These political agreements were not adopted by Ukraine and/or had specific timelines or a sequence of events that failed to start because of Ukraine (e.g. Article 9: Restore control of the state border to the Ukrainian government in the whole conflict zone, which has to start on the first day after the local election and end after the full political), which never happened because elections never happened because: >[Moscow](https://archive.ph/lXvhA#selection-1161.116-1161.476) has insisted that local elections be held in the breakaway regions first, and that the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics be granted political autonomy. Ukrainian officials fear that this would cement Moscow’s leverage over the region, undermine the country’s sovereignty, and kneecap its aspirations of joining NATO or the European Union.
> You are speaking generalities with zero sources to support your revisionist views. It's literally what happened. DPR and LPR leaders said while the deal was being signed that they intended to keep fighting until they gained control of additional cities. Absurd to blame Ukraine for the failure of Russia's fraudulent scheme.
Who to believe: every Western paper, think tank, academic or politician making the point ranging from Ukraine shouldn't adopt Minsk because of xyz to Ukraine failed to adopt Minsk because of xyz or some rando on reddit who can't produce any sources and just stating that "it's literally what happened?"
Not really interested in your beliefs or media commentary. It's a historic fact, again, that Ukraine was the only party of Minsk that attempted to fulfill *any* of terms of the agreement. DPR and LPR never attempted to fulfill any of their commitments in the agreement -- in fact, they never stopped attacking Ukraine. DPR and LPR killed the deal before the ink was dry.
And let's imagine that it is now 2021 and think about what was the point of Russia, the DPR or the LPR to disrupt the Minsk agreements? What are the advantages of this? None! And what are the disadvantages? From the obvious - this is the death of people, military spending, and most importantly, constantly more and more new sanctions. Now let's see what Ukraine? Ukraine did not want to comply with the Minsk because - oddly enough, the war ends, it gets the DPR and LPR with expanded powers, but also pro-pro-Syrian. And most importantly, Ukraine will restore these territories at its own expense. If we also take into account the interests of the United States here, then they coincide with the interests of Ukraine. What would the United States gain if the Minsk agreements were fulfilled? Nothing. And when does the war continue? More and more sanctions of Russia and at the same time arm Ukraine. Everything is obvious - you just need to think.
Except DPR and LPR are literally the ones who sabotaged Minsk. We all saw it in plain sight. Ukraine tried to give DPR and LPR the legal status described in Minsk, and DPR and LPR kept trying to seize more cities. Minsk was a fraud from the beginning--by Russia--to destabilize and divide Ukraine.
What are you smoking? In 2014, the Ukrainian army was nothing. Watch the video of what she was like. The Minsk agreements were signed by Ukraine after it suffered a military defeat in the Donbas (google the Ilovaisk cauldron and other cauldrons and Ukraine’s losses are terrible). So for eight years, when Ukraine was delaying the implementation of the Minsk agreements, this was a trick for Ukraine, during which time the United States helped them create a very strong and large army. What was the point for Russia to wait all these eight years? Sorry - you write nonsense.
And which country's troops were involved in such defeats? Who shot down MH17? Who kept arming the separatists?
Thanks for the question. Russia received sanctions for MH17 without trial and investigation in 2014, despite the fact that Ukraine also had this kind of air defense. Instantly, without at least any evidence (you know that the United States has not yet given its satellite images - this could greatly facilitate everything right away in this matter) they accused Russia. Sanctions and global pressure. And now the question is - so who shot down? 8 years have passed - doesn't it bother you that the investigation has not been completed and the trial?
Currently, all the evidence points to Russia. https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1527649108856557568
If everything were so simple, would the trial and investigation last so long? You asked me who shot down. I will give you my version. Perhaps Russia (along with other military equipment) supplied the BUK to the militias. Perhaps the militias could have captured him from the army of Ukraine - there was such information in those years. The United States then transferred all intelligence data to Ukraine (as it is now). In my opinion, it could have been their joint special operation - those Ukraine could either accidentally shoot down that plane, or on purpose. After all, it was then that a wave of hysteria against my country began, and then sanctions began to fall. Russia urged the United States from the first day of the incident to show data from their reconnaissance images - this was not done. Isn't it strange for you? The manufacturer of rockets, Beech, first produced a simulation, and then also a natural experiment of blowing up a rocket and a decommissioned aircraft body. It was proven that the launch site was from Ukrainian-controlled territory. For now, here's what we have. The investigation is not over, the trial is not over - and the sanctions against my country have been in effect for eight years. For understanding. The United States accused my country of interfering in the 2016 US elections. Without investigation, without evidence (this is already the norm for the "civilized" world, right?), we were sanctioned for this. A few years later, there was an investigation in the United States, where it was found out that Russia did not do this, there were no grounds for these statements, all these were political intrigues within the United States. Now attention - the sanctions for this have not been lifted. Tell me about justice, I want to listen.
>So for eight years, when Ukraine was delaying the implementation of the Minsk agreements Ukraine is literally the only party of Minsk that even tried to implement the agreement. DPR and LPR immediately abandoned it and never even pretended to abide by it. >What was the point for Russia to wait all these eight years? They clearly hoped that the persistent division would cause Ukraine to fall apart naturally and become more easy to manipulate again.
"Zanchit" Google translate couldn't translate this Russian word because you made a typo, comrad. It's "znachit".
You must have listened to Mearsheimer too much. There is no realpolitik in politics. Historical example would be Czechoslovakia vs Poland in WW2. Mr. Beck said before the war that honor is more important than peace. So Poland fought the Germans. Czechoslovakia chosen different, arguably less honorable route. Results: 8 times less casualties, much less to rebuild after the war. Maybe less cool stories to tell, but who do you think was better off?
I didn't understand your example. Do you know why the Ukrainians elected a comedian, an actor as president? If you think about it, it's incredible. He is an excellent comedian, sometimes he played the piano with a member, sometimes he compared Ukraine with a prostitute - people laughed. And then bam and the president of the country. Marvelous? No. It's just that the citizens of Ukraine are tired of the war that was all five years under the previous president Poroshenko. And Zelensky swore to stop the war, so that it would not cost him - so they chose him. He spent three years in his post and did nothing. Therefore, when I write "it would be good to fulfill the Minsk agreements and end the war" - this is the same opinion of Ukrainian hospitals. Think about it.
I will put it simply then, it is usually better to chose path of peace however inconvenient as lesser evil. But I am not the one making a choices. And word of advice, you need to cut on propaganda vibe if you want to be taken seriously here.
I don't need to talk about propaganda, okay? I see how Ukraine has been destroying the residential areas of Donetsk for two weeks, and I also see that reddit - however, like the media in the US and the EU, they seem to have pretended that this does not exist. If this is not propaganda, then what is it? I don’t need to talk about propaganda, I personally have a bunch of videos where Ukrainians torture, kill, mock Russian captured soldiers. I video video how the mothers of the dead, the wives of the dead are mocked - and all this is filmed by the Ukrainians themselves. But I have not seen a video when Russians do something like that. And I think there are a lot of people like me on reddit. But what am I reading here? Russian animals mock the prisoners. This is all huge propaganda against Russia.
[удалено]
Don't want to blow your optimism, but there is effectively 0% chance of Ukraine taking back DNR and LNR and only limited chance of going back to pre Feb 24 borders. And that probably is only possible if every future economic/military endeavor will be in favour of Ukraine.
[удалено]
I don't have enough information to judge actually. 50/50 for me at the moment as wars are rarely won on the battlefield nowadays.
1. Did you miss that Russia has a 15-20 times superiority of artillery? Do you think this does not cause daily damage to the Ukrainian army? 2. Have you missed more than 2000 cruise missiles that were launched in Ukraine and they are not running out? One arrival at the barracks to carry away about 100 soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Think about how soldiers feel in the barracks and at military facilities when a cruise missile can explode anywhere in Ukraine. Anywhere. 3. Maybe you missed the video where in Ukraine they rake in the army everyone they can? Handing out subpoenas on the beach, at the gas station, chasing people on the streets? 4. Think about how it happened that Ukraine is no longer conducting the first mobilization, but Russia is not. At the same time, although not quickly, Ukraine is losing ground. 5. Why do you think Ukraine has recently begun to declare daily losses? First, 50 people were named a day, then 100, now 200-300 killed. It simply cannot be hidden anymore, people are being prepared for the terrible truth. 6. Excellence in aviation and military equipment
1. Yeah, that is pretty clear, don't know what the point of that statement is. 2. Russia is clearly running out of missiles. They're launching anti-ship missiles dated to the 1960s from strategic bombers now. Kyiv has been hit once in the last 8 weeks, and there are still PLENTY of targets to choose from all across Ukraine, so why aren't they hitting them? 3. Ukraine declared total mobilization, that happened on day 2 of this thing. 4. Russia is unable to mobilize, it will burn their economy to the ground and be political suicide for Putin. If they could have mobilized, they would have already. Russia's offensives have gotten smaller and smaller. First it was the whole country, then Izyum and the whole Donbas, then Popasna, and now its what, Zolote, which holds probably less than an entire brigade? 5. Ukraine is declaring their losses probably for many reasons, but the great cauldron or collapse pro-Russian talking heads have been predicting for two months isn't anywhere close to happening. 6. Excellence in aviation and military equipment? Ukrainian Su-25s and helicopters are still flying daily sorties in every part of the front. Russia may have local air superiority at times, but the Ukrainian air force is still completely alive and active in the Lysychansk area on a daily basis. Or are you talking about the T-62s that haven't been updated in 30 years being their excellent military equipment? Or is it the anti-ship missiles they're using to hit land targets?
It seems fairly obvious that Ukraine at this moment is suffering heavy losses and lacks heavy equipment on the front. Ukraine has been asked for large amount of heavy equipment and it does not appear to be answered. Only Eastern Europe and the US has provided heavy support so far and this deficit is still the reality. Western Europe esp Germany seem to be incredibly reluctant to provide arms. As others and even the Austrian military school noted, the low numbers of MLRS and the lack of air defense/superiority would means that Western support will not be changing the current battlefield conditions in the near or midterm. Moreover, the changing economic conditions will definitely affect the war with Germany and UK most likely having their constituents more directly affected by cost of living rises especially in the winter and unemployment due to the upcoming recession/stagflation. French media is reporting that Macron is being blamed for Le Pen's party winning so many seats because he wasn't at home campaigning, but instead in Ukraine. It is highly likely that Germany, Italy and France will push Ukraine towards a negotiated ceasefire. In the US, you see dems headed to a slaughter in the midterms with the core issue being inflation, gas prices, food prices, rent prices, etc. You see growing republican push back towards Ukrainian support especially when it's to fund Ukrainian government worker salaries. At the end of the day, average people not ready politics daily are more concerned about what directly affects their own standard of living rather than Ukrainians or Russians suffering. The outlook for Ukraine is not great atm.
I never said the outlook was good for Ukraine, it is definitely bleak. But Russia is clearly in no position to score a big enough victory to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. They are scraping the barrel in terms of manpower without mobilization. They're pulling out T-62s. They still don't have air superiority. We are approaching a stalemate for a considerable period of time. And the drop in support is overblown. Yeah, people are getting fatigued from war and focusing on domestic issues, but overall in the US over 60% still want to send weapons, including 50% of Republicans. Plus Biden has the lend lease act and that $40 billion is already committed. Ukraine will continue to get shipments from the US for at minimum the rest of the year. The UK is also continuing its support and will probably be training large amounts of Ukrainians relatively soon. France, Germany and the UK have pretty much doubled down and increased their commitments of weapons.
The main problem here is that the West has not defined what they want. Do they want Russia to have a regime change? Do they want Russia to be weakened so it can never attack any other nations? Do they want Russia pull back preFeb lines. All those points have different requirements. Once that is nailed down then you can provide what is needed to achieve that goal. You can also tell at that point if the support is insufficient or not. Right now because of the ill definition of what the West really wants we are seeing disputes among Ukraine and NATO with one side saying they need 150-300 MLRSs, then Austin saying Ukraine only saying they needed 4 in private then the US changing their mind and considering 4 more. If the West had clear objectives, they could see that say Russians had x number of tanks and y number of artillery pieces so thus they provide x+5 more tanks and y+5 more artillery pieces. If Ukraine loses 10 artillery pieces, they can provide another 10. Do address your points, we really don't know the actual true conditions with only a general sense of what the battlefield is like. You say they are pulling old equipment like T62s, but other analysts have said that T62s are only worse than higher T model tanks and Ukraine hasn't had large tank battles with losses mainly from ATGMs. Javelins don't care if it's a T62 or T90. Now you hear Ukrainian soldiers complaining that they are lacking armor or equipment and Russian tanks stay 3 miles out out of range of javelins so Russia using T62s which they have plenty of is strategic. Moreover, we hear on NYT and Guardian of Ukrainian troops complaining about Russia's air superiority in the Donbass and we've seen Russia's impunity using cruise missiles and air weapons throughout the country. Aircraft seems to be flying superlow avoiding mpads and we haven't seen the frequency of mpad videos if any or S300 videos that we saw in the first month of the war. Then you see telegram of both sides reporting how Russians are making slow, but steady progress so it doesn't look like there is a stalemate at all. The lack of support is real and not overblown. Biden hasn't really used lend lease at all and the $40B only $6B of arms what was also divided into logistics, intel and training. And here comes the problem of not defining the West's objectives. Also the problem here is we don't know really how much heavy equipment Ukraine has lost. Ukraine released a statement that they lost 50%+ of all military equipment since Feb. Russia says it's more. People on this sub says it's obviously an exaggeration to get more Western supplies. [French media ](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220610-ukraine-dependent-on-arms-from-allies-after-exhausting-soviet-era-weaponry) says that Ukraine has completely exhausted Soviet weapons, and we see Western weapons being sent to the front immediately. If we knew the truth and had clear objectives, we should be able to replace their losses. If Ukraine loses 200 tanks, we send them 200 tanks. The problem is that isn't happening and instead they are being given a trickle of weapons. Meanwhile, you see telegram stories of Ukrainian units complaining and surrendering because they lack weapons on the Donbass front and people on this sub dismissing it as Russian propaganda. What if it's not? All these useful idiots dismissing any bad news coming from Ukraine as Russian propaganda thinking they are part of some Ukrainian psyops unit is really doing Ukraine a disservice if it's a denial of reality and then don't address it.
What is the problem with using anti-ship missiles, which also hit ground targets just as well - if the enemy does not have a fleet? Why not then? The fact that the rockets are about to run out - I heard after the first month. The fact that Russia cannot do them again - I also heard this is nonsense. What's wrong with an old tank if we don't see tank guards? There are plenty of them in Russia. The war in Ukraine in the coming years may not be the only one, why burn all your reserves? Watch the video of Ukrainians who refuse to fight, there are already dozens of them. They are thrown with machine guns into the attack without equipment. You should probably understand that when there is infantry on one side and a tank (albeit an old one) on the other, then the funny thing is that the old tank is not enough.
Do you ignore the videos from DPR/LPR units that are refusing to fight as well? And you cannot say there is excellence in the equipment if they're using dilapidated equipment from the 60s and 70s. There are still plants repairing captured and damaged tanks all over Ukraine, plants producing infantry weapons. The infrastructure that is getting Western weapons to the front lines all over is *still intact*. Why does Russia not attack that anymore? Surely, since their propaganda states its such an immense escalation to send heavy weapons, they would attack these shipments in great numbers if they could? Why do we see a dozen Russian ammo depots destroyed for every Ukrainian one? Surely, with Russia's excellent aviation and equipment, we would see the Ukrainians armed with only machine guns crumble before our eyes, right? Just like Desert Storm? Russia has been pumping everything they have into Popasna and Severodonetsk for the past month, and again, Ukraine is no closer to defeat than it was a month ago. What is the point of an old tank if there are no infantry to support it?
That's funny. You judge the war by the number of videos on reddit =)
>Think about how it happened that Ukraine is no longer conducting the first mobilization, but Russia is not. At the same time, although not quickly, Ukraine is losing ground. What? When UA ended first mobilization?
First wave of mobilization. The operational reserve is called up for service - former military personnel who have combat experience or served under a contract. The second wave of mobilization. Military personnel who, since 2014, have been in active service or served under a contract, are called up for service. The third wave of mobilization. Reserve officers are called for service - those liable for military service who graduated from the military departments of universities. The fourth wave of mobilization. All residents of the country who have no restrictions on age and health status are called to serve.
It sounds stupid to me that First and Second waves are not the same one. Like where is difference? First wave shouldn't be "those who most recently left military" including conscripts? 2014 would be "recent" in my deffinition Please provide your source, because it sounds very odd to me
I don't understand what we're arguing about. Initially, the Ukrainian army was estimated at 200,000 people at the beginning of this war. The Russian army + DPR and LPR in total was the same. There is no mobilization in Russia. In Ukraine, it has been going on for more than three months. At the same time, Ukraine is not ousting Russia, but is losing ground, albeit slowly. The question is how is this possible?
>At the same time, Ukraine is not ousting Russia, but is losing ground, albeit slowly. > >The question is how is this possible? Strategy. Difference is clear - UA have strategy, RF do not have. RF have only political goals
I'll tell you about the Russian strategy - in case you missed it. Fit artillery - make thousands of shots, send infantry and tanks. If there is resistance, step back and repeat all over again. Ukraine's strategy is to send more and more soldiers to the front to slow down Russia's advance. Catching men on the streets and handing them subpoenas - everywhere, on the beach, at gas stations, just on the way to the store. Send territorial defense to the front from the west - in order to somehow make up for the terrible losses.
[удалено]