Kiev Is Burning

[DB]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:46 AM, ink said:

On the other hand, if you want to diversify your sources, you'd better make sure the new ones are by people who know what they're on about and not just a couple of tossers chatting bollocks on a random youtube channel.

Works all ways, of course. And it's almost impossible to judge the accuracy of "facts" purely using the internet as a basis.

It's entirely possible that the facts presented by the "110% conspiracy nuts" are accurate. Any conclusions they draw based on the workings of their own minds could still be 100% out.

As an example, Glenn may be 100% correct in that he reports what Tass has said casualties are. His assessment that what Tass says is true is suspect, and his house-of-cards conclusions based on that assessment tend, by cumulative error, to the absurd.

This topic is gradually being conditioned to accept that the Russians are inflicting huge casualties on the Ukrainians primarily because one person alone appears to have the time to post dozens of videos purporting to show successful strikes on Ukrainian, sorry <ahem> "NATO armed forces", whilst equivalent videos of the reverse of that medal are relatively scant.

Which is not to say that there aren't scads of videos showing many Russian vehicles and their crews being destroyed/killed, just that most of us aren't paid (directly or otherwise) to repost social media videos.

[bojan]

2 minutes ago, DB said:

...This topic is gradually being conditioned to accept that the Russians are inflicting huge casualties on the Ukrainians primarily because one person alone appears to have the time to post dozens of videos purporting to show successful strikes on Ukrainian, sorry <ahem> "NATO armed forces", whilst equivalent videos of the reverse of that medal are relatively scant.

??? It appears you have few "key players" of this thread on ignore...

Quote

...just that most of us aren't paid (directly or otherwise) to repost social media videos.

Who do you think is paid (directly or otherwise) to post any side's video on pretty obscure web forum?

[Strannik]

48 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never the less Bucha was seared into the Ukrainian psyche. I personally don’t think any peace plan acceptable to both sides was truly a possibility in March ‘22, but if there was a possibility Bucha laid it to rest.

Then following this logic the peace is impossible in future, which if course is false.

 Bucha was propagandized and used for the derailment, but the decision came from the outside.   Now, you can choose to not believe this - it's fine, faith always wins against facts

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

Then following this logic the peace is impossible in future, which if course is false.

Peace is possible when conditions sufficiently change. The success of the ZSU in the first month and the war crimes at Bucha ensured that conditions were not sufficient. The success at Kharkiv further postponed any possible peace. The lack of success of the Ukrainian offensive and current stalemate might produce peace talks, but I still think both sides are too far apart for it to be considered currently. But at some point both sides will come to some agreement, months or years from now.

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

 Bucha was propagandized and used for the derailment, but the decision came from the outside.   Now, you can choose to not believe this - it's fine, faith always wins against facts

What evidence do you have that Ukraine was somehow forced to not accept a peace that it wanted? If Zelensky wanted a peace deal, what power did The West have to stop him from accepting one?

Edited November 19, 2023 by Josh

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Glen's assumption was shared at least by some Rus in power and was supported by actual evidence

We know that Zelensky's character is of a type in which a solution by force to the rebel enclaves would be by far bar nothing the preferred choice.  We know that the Western powers had badly miscalculated the effects of sanctions, and as late as the recently failed Ukrainian offensive, that NATO officials have had a tendency to underestimate Russian resolve.  We know that the Russians made at the start of the war great progress in the north and south, but not in the Donbas, as if the bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the east, and therefore far beyond what was necessary for mere defense against the comparatively small rebel forces.   I don't believe Kyiv ever took the Minsk Accords as a serious option, so the Ukrainians must have had some plan to end the rebellion.  To my mind, it all points to a decision for an offensive, and judging from the scrap ever since, the Ukrainian army in February 2022 was 100% capable of ending the rebellion.

Josh's take is that Kyiv and Washington would not resolve on a unilateral military solution against the rebels.  But under international law, Ukraine, Zelensky, and Biden had every right to coordinate to see the Ukrainian army crush the rebels in an offensive.   AFAIK, it was all perfectly legal and coherent under the rules based order and international law.  There is no question that Kyiv had sovereignty over the territories that broke away under Russian direction and support.  

Neocons relish military solutions to problems.  It made legal and military sense for Ukraine to attack the rebels. So why would neocon style thinkers here assume that the Ukrainians were not going to do what they had every right to do?  Why would the Americans not encourage and support them in this, when under international law, they had every right to?  I think the answer is simple and rooted in the fundamental flaw in neocon doctrine; the enemy must always have the most evil motivations available, not the most likely.  In this case, if Kyiv intended to attack the rebels then this would explain the Russian reaction in a manner that is less than absolute evil, and it would fit well with Zelensky and Biden's known neocon instincts. 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by glenn239

[mkenny]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

If Zelensky wanted a peace deal, what power did The West have to stop him from accepting one?

Unlimited riches as he skims the aid?  A man who they judged (correctly)  would sacrifice his fellow citizens in return for  personal gain?

He was promised a cornucopia overflowing with  unicorns but sadly it didn't work out the way he planned.

Edited November 19, 2023 by mkenny

[glenn239]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

If Zelensky wanted a peace deal, what power did The West have to stop him from accepting one?

A peace deal would have made Zelensky instantly vulnerable to powerful forces in Ukraine that did not want a peace deal, and in those conditions, without strong American support, I doubt Zelensky can hope to stay in power.

[Roman Alymov]

18 hours ago, Strannik said:

Some peculiar tidbits like "we were making up to 74 shots daily in training [from Bushmaster]",   "but the tankers never fired from the "Leopard"! "Don't worry, they did in the T-72!"

On the ability to maneuver:  "And the situation was quite simple: ATGMs in every landing.  The Russians knew our routes of advance, and everything flew along these routes - the 152nd, 120th, and Grad.. So you are leaving, and where will you maneuver? Only back and forth because everything else is mined.  By us btw."

There is translation error here: the word "landing" here is obviously automatic translation of Riussan word "посадка" that do have "landing" as one of the meaning, but here it is just regional short form of "лесопосадка" ("forest plantation") that is usually used to refer to wind barrier tree lines in between fields. So the correct translation is "ATGM <positions> in every forrest belt" - nothing magic, quite normal situation Cold War-era armor was designed to operate in. 

    Re "The Russians knew our routes of advance" - again, no surprise here, as this fields only looks to be ideal for armor manuver - but in reality, both due to natural terrain dfeatures (small seasonal creeks, ponds, ravines, etc) and decades of post-WWII USSR melioration works, plus fortification efforts, advance routes are more or less predictable (at least, could be more or less counted). 

[Roman Alymov]

Another explanation of why entire elite of modern Russia is pro-Western by its nature (now from the point of Red-White debate):

"At an imaginary trial of imaginary, that is, long-dead communists, where, however, crimes that still have a destructive effect on Russia and its fate would be dealt with, there would be such a terrible evil: the destruction of social patterns.
The Bolsheviks liquidated all the models and standards of elitism in Russia.
Guards regiments, Cadet-Page corps, Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, the best gymnasiums, imperial orders, noble assemblies, and so on.
Why they did it is clear. They hated the elites, wanted to change everything, a new world, banned in Russia by ISIS, etc. It's not interesting.
And another thing is interesting (and very tragic).
As we know, nothing came out of their new world. All they have achieved in practice is that they "transported" peasants to cities (those who did not die on the way) by emergency and bloody methods over several decades, after which (and even faster than that) the same social hierarchy began to be recreated in the USSR, with officers and shoulder straps separated from the proletariat by bosses and separation of the chosen ones in the sense of apartments, cottages and everything else.
But! - it was a cheap hierarchy. They were new-made and rather poor examples of elitism.
Well, Ivan Ivanovich and his household got to black caviar, to a car with a driver and furniture with government tags, and by the end of the century - to big sports bags with dollars and gold neck chains, and then what? Anyway, he is not a chamberlain and the leader of the nobility, but a scoundrel, a greedy man, a bandit, a thief, an impostor, and, in fact, everything.
There are not many generations of elite behind him, and there are no places, institutions, institutes, awards, titles around him that he would be truly proud to join.
Well, this post-Soviet boss can't say: I'm sending the children to the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, where Pushkin himself studied, there's a continuous line of graduates since 1817, and here are their things, here is their memorial, a house temple, portraits of professors for two hundred years, it's certain!
There is no "certain". There is no lyceum. The Bolsheviks demolished everything.
True, there are the same goons and the greedy, who, of course, will organize a lyceum for you, and reward you, and even if they accept you into a Masonic lodge, there is no problem, but that's not it. Not elitist. It's too clear - and everything is new for them.
What does this greedy guy do then? - of course, he sends his children to a closed English private school.
There everything remained as it was. Well, with "sabotage", with "gender" recently, but it remains.
And in Russia, for him, there are simply no such values that would be worth his billions.
No symbolic capital has been accumulated. Centuries have not been lived in these or those walls. Everything has existed since 1992 - or, at the very best, since some 1938.
Thus, the sovchina, under the talk of the independence of the country, created for us a system of real colonialism, which is doomed to reproduce the elite, psychologically dependent on the West, since only there are those samples whose involvement would confirm its elite status.
A system where the "real values" is ". And here - only  "I made you out of what was available," eh, and alas.
Thanks to the Soviet government." ( https://t.me/russkiegramoty/31783 )

[Roman Alymov]

DIY memorial to crowdfunded UAZ van in StPete

Text reads

"I AM A MEDEVAC UAZ.

I LEFT FOR SVO IN MAY 2023 .

- I SAVED THE LIVES OF OUR FIGHTERS, BUT I WAS WOUNDED,

I have more than 100 fragments from a mine.

Fascists are hunting us.

I came back to tell about the war and ask for help.

At the front, ones like me are very much needed!!!

I COST ONLY 500-600 THOUSAND RUBLES.

AND THIS IS THE PRICE OF TENS AND HUNDREDS OF LIVES SAVED!!!"

 

[Roman Alymov]

Lancet (with automatic target detection on observation UAV, see green frames, and target lock on attack UAV) vs. SPG in underground cover

https://t.me/infomil_live/1746

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 

Josh's take is that Kyiv and Washington would not resolve on a unilateral military solution against the rebels.  But under international law, Ukraine, Zelensky, and Biden had every right to coordinate to see the Ukrainian army crush the rebels in an offensive.   AFAIK, it was all perfectly legal and coherent under the rules based order and international law.  There is no question that Kyiv had sovereignty over the territories that broke away under Russian direction and support.  

 

 

My take is that there is no evidence such an action was going to occur. The Ukrainian build up could have easily been a reaction to the Russian build up from the year before the invasion. I also see no reason why Ukraine would involve the US or need US permission nor do I think the Biden administration had any interest in this war: it did everything it could to prevent it while simultaneously expecting a quick Russian success, just like everyone else. It is possible Ukraine was going to strike the separatists, but I’ve seen no compelling evidence of such, and the Russians had numerous political and military options that could have precluded such an attack well short of total war.

The fact is that the Russians wanted this war.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, mkenny said:

Unlimited riches as he skims the aid?  A man who they judged (correctly)  would sacrifice his fellow citizens in return for  personal gain?

He was promised a cornucopia overflowing with  unicorns but sadly it didn't work out the way he planned.

Ah, so you think the US bribed Zelensky to keep the war going? And the fact that the Russians insisted on disarmament of the ZSU had nothing to do with the agreement not being accepted?

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

A peace deal would have made Zelensky instantly vulnerable to powerful forces in Ukraine that did not want a peace deal, and in those conditions, without strong American support, I doubt Zelensky can hope to stay in power.

What good would US support be if there wasn’t a war anymore? What form would this support take such that the pro war faction would be overturned? How would this benefit the US, given that the Russians had already been repelled well short of a NATO border and taken tremendous casualties already?

Edited November 19, 2023 by Josh

[mkenny]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

. I also see no reason why Ukraine would involve the US or need US permission nor do I think the Biden administration had any interest in this war: it did everything it could to prevent it.......................

This is the fundamental problem. 'The West' wants to pretend this all started in Feb 2022 and  they had 'no idea' that Russia would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.  

[mkenny]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

Ah, so you think the US bribed Zelensky to keep the war going? 

Bribed him directly or told him of the  riches he would accumulate indirectly  if he became a proxy. You decide which best suits your sensibilities. 

I think Zelensky needs to look at the promises the USA made to its previous stooges to see how foolish he is to  take their  pledges at face value. 

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

Bribed him directly or told him of the  riches he would accumulate indirectly  if he became a proxy. You decide which best suits your sensibilities. 

I think Zelensky needs to look at the promises the USA made to its previous stooges to see how foolish he is to  take their  pledges at face value. 

Z was given a choice: to be made a hero with the full Western support and likely personal security and future lifestyle guarantees or be left  without any kind of security/economic assistance in a country that would be pissed of at him for not heeding the war warning and getting to the point that war had to happen (from one part of population) and settling for Donetsk/Lugntsk loss + neutrality  from the other part, the one with guns and German WW2 cosplayer tendencies. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

This is the fundamental problem. 'The West' wants to pretend this all started in Feb 2022 and  they had 'no idea' that Russia would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.  

Was Ukraine about to join NATO? Is it something you seriously thought was possible in Feb 2022?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

Bribed him directly or told him of the  riches he would accumulate indirectly  if he became a proxy. You decide which best suits your sensibilities. 

I think Zelensky needs to look at the promises the USA made to its previous stooges to see how foolish he is to  take their  pledges at face value. 

So you are not going to address the fact that the Russian peace demand was basically Ukraine making itself defenseless, and that maybe that had some bearing on the plan not being further explored?

[Josh]

20 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Z was given a choice: to be made a hero with the full Western support and likely personal security and future lifestyle guarantees or be left  without any kind of security/economic assistance in a country that would be pissed of at him for not heeding the war warning and getting to the point that war had to happen (from one part of population) and settling for Donetsk/Lugntsk loss + neutrality  from the other part, the one with guns and German WW2 cosplayer tendencies. 

I don't exclude the possibility, but everything about the Russian negotiation position seemed easy to dismiss from the get go as well. So I would need some hard evidence that Z was bribed or coerced. I think the Biden administration had already achieved its goals beyond its wildest dreams by late March, so it is hard to see why they would suddenly pull a 180 and decide they wanted to support a grinding war that they had been attempting to circumvent and make Europe take seriously for nearly six months at that point.

Let us not forget that Russia had already dumped most of the equipment for the invasion in the region a full year before. You can argue that previous NATO decisions set up the war perhaps, but it seems like no one in NATO had any desire for the war to start and much anything to gain by perpetuating it. It was a Russian instigated war that they refused to end without unreasonable concessions to Ukraine's security, just weeks after they made it clear that Ukraine would need all the military force it could muster to try to maintain its security. Quelle surprise that the Ukrainians were in no mood to disarm themselves for phase 3 of the war.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Josh

[DB]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

??? It appears you have few "key players" of this thread on ignore...

Who do you think is paid (directly or otherwise) to post any side's video on pretty obscure web forum?

Anyone who posts during work hours.

[mkenny]

57 minutes ago, Josh said:

Was Ukraine about to join NATO? Is it something you seriously thought was possible in Feb 2022?

It was the inexorable aim  of western machinations. 

[mkenny]

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

So you are not going to address the fact that the Russian peace demand was basically Ukraine making itself defenseless, and that maybe that had some bearing on the plan not being further explored?

Winners dictate the terms. Like Cuba Ukraine was/is not  complete master of its own destiny.

[Josh]

13 minutes ago, mkenny said:

It was the inexorable aim  of western machinations. 

Just like Georgia?

There was no way that Ukraine was going to be allowed into NATO. Even if the US governement wanted that end state, which I assure you they do not, there would be vetos from numerous members. Pre war (and likely perhaps still) even western European nations like France and German would never have allowed it. Add to that places like Hungary, Turkey, and now Slovakia.

If you think Ukraine was ever going to be allowed NATO, you have either have no understanding of Western geopolitical trends or how NATO membership occurs. Certainly Russia was aware however that it wasn't a remote possibility, even if you were not.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Josh

[Josh]

11 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Winners dictate the terms. Like Cuba Ukraine was/is not  complete master of its own destiny.

To the extent land has changed hands since March 2022, it is firmly in Ukraine's favor. Russia is no longer on the other side of the Dnieper and largely ejected from the Kharkiv oblast. So even if the current situation is a stalemate, accepting peace in March 2022 would have benefitted the Russians far, far more than Ukraine. So peace one month on would have benefitted Russia to the extreme; pity they didn't soften their position and take the opportunity before they lost it for the next couple years.