Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[BADecker]

This is direct evidence against Ukraine. Maybe you, in contrast, have direct evidence against Russia, in addition to unfounded accusations? No, you don't have them, and no one has them, otherwise they would have been circulated by all Western media. There is no evidence that Russia did it and there is no motive for Russia to do it. The best argument against Russia is that if there had been no invasion at all, then the dam would have been intact. This is a ridiculous argument.

A himars hit that occurred more than 6 months ago is not a direct evidence against Ukraine. You don't seem to know what a direct evidence is, so I'll help you with that.
When someone gets murdered and that person was attacked some time before, this is not direct evidence against that former attacker. The fact that he tried to do it a year before doesn't mean he did it again and succeeded. A direct evidence would be if you had a murder weapon with his fingerprints or you'd found victims blood on his clothes.

That hit in 2022, or any other existing plans for it did not blow up the dam. Planted explosive devices did. Ukraine doesn't have a single missile capable of such destruction. It would require multiple hits to level the dam and there's evidence for a single explosion.

Even one test hit and a frank admission of it is much more than zero.

It used to be direct evidence and now it's more than zero. Your confidence seems to be decreasing with time.
Again, a test hit 6 months ago is not an evidence against Ukraine.

Thanks for showing us how 9/11 was an inside demolition job.

[1714833119]

1714833119

[1714833119]

1714833119

[be.open]

This is direct evidence against Ukraine. Maybe you, in contrast, have direct evidence against Russia, in addition to unfounded accusations? No, you don't have them, and no one has them, otherwise they would have been circulated by all Western media. There is no evidence that Russia did it and there is no motive for Russia to do it. The best argument against Russia is that if there had been no invasion at all, then the dam would have been intact. This is a ridiculous argument.

A himars hit that occurred more than 6 months ago is not a direct evidence against Ukraine. You don't seem to know what a direct evidence is, so I'll help you with that.
When someone gets murdered and that person was attacked some time before, this is not direct evidence against that former attacker. The fact that he tried to do it a year before doesn't mean he did it again and succeeded. A direct evidence would be if you had a murder weapon with his fingerprints or you'd found victims blood on his clothes.

That hit in 2022, or any other existing plans for it did not blow up the dam. Planted explosive devices did. Ukraine doesn't have a single missile capable of such destruction. It would require multiple hits to level the dam and there's evidence for a single explosion.

Even one test hit and a frank admission of it is much more than zero.

It used to be direct evidence and now it's more than zero. Your confidence seems to be decreasing with time.
Again, a test hit 6 months ago is not an evidence against Ukraine.

Maybe you will provide this evidence, if it really exists? I could only find an article in the New York Times subtitled "U.S. spy agencies still do not have any solid evidence to determine who caused the destruction, the senior administration official said". There is also a report in a Norwegian source stating that an explosion with a magnitude between 1 and 2 was recorded, and updating from below that "Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam". That is, there were not one but several explosions? In any case, none of the sources indicate that Russia did it.

ps Video of collecting trophies in the Zaporozhye direction. In the frame, the American Bradley A2 with a running engine and the German Leopard 2A6 also seem to be in quite good condition. I think this technique will be towed to the rear for a detailed study.

[paxmao]

This is direct evidence against Ukraine. Maybe you, in contrast, have direct evidence against Russia, in addition to unfounded accusations? No, you don't have them, and no one has them, otherwise they would have been circulated by all Western media. There is no evidence that Russia did it and there is no motive for Russia to do it. The best argument against Russia is that if there had been no invasion at all, then the dam would have been intact. This is a ridiculous argument.

A himars hit that occurred more than 6 months ago is not a direct evidence against Ukraine. You don't seem to know what a direct evidence is, so I'll help you with that.
When someone gets murdered and that person was attacked some time before, this is not direct evidence against that former attacker. The fact that he tried to do it a year before doesn't mean he did it again and succeeded. A direct evidence would be if you had a murder weapon with his fingerprints or you'd found victims blood on his clothes.

That hit in 2022, or any other existing plans for it did not blow up the dam. Planted explosive devices did. Ukraine doesn't have a single missile capable of such destruction. It would require multiple hits to level the dam and there's evidence for a single explosion.

Even one test hit and a frank admission of it is much more than zero.

It used to be direct evidence and now it's more than zero. Your confidence seems to be decreasing with time.
Again, a test hit 6 months ago is not an evidence against Ukraine.

Maybe you will provide this evidence, if it really exists? I could only find an article in the New York Times subtitled "U.S. spy agencies still do not have any solid evidence to determine who caused the destruction, the senior administration official said". There is also a report in a Norwegian source stating that an explosion with a magnitude between 1 and 2 was recorded, and updating from below that "Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam". That is, there were not one but several explosions? In any case, none of the sources indicate that Russia did it.

ps Video of collecting trophies in the Zaporozhye direction. In the frame, the American Bradley A2 with a running engine and the German Leopard 2A6 also seem to be in quite good condition. I think this technique will be towed to the rear for a detailed study.

Oh, a Bradley destroyed... oh well, I think the US has over 6000 of these, kind of leftovers from here and there. They are very likely to be replaced... over and over.

The footage I have seen from the dam, looks 1 explosion, looks internal and looks clearly intentioned to cause "the right damage" which, in the short term is favourable to the RF because they can concentrate forces in Zapo. Looks like a cat, meows like a cat and catches mice... Nothing 100%, but...

[be.open]

Oh, a Bradley destroyed... oh well, I think the US has over 6000 of these, kind of leftovers from here and there. They are very likely to be replaced... over and over.

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield. But the main problem of Ukraine now imo is not in this. The Offensive Guard, trained at NATO's European training grounds, has a serious defect in the NATO training format itself. I'm not sure if my English is good enough to accurately articulate this idea, but I'll try. What Western instructors are so proud of, and what is called a "mission command" in Western military science, has played a cruel joke on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The offensive guard was trained according to the tactics of the work of special forces units, which operate autonomously in small groups. Otherwise, NATO instructors simply do not know how to train soldiers. And as a result, all attempts at a large-scale offensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine so far look extremely uncoordinated.

I have already said and I will repeat again - the most critical problem of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not armored vehicles and not the number of personnel, but heavy losses in sergeants and junior officers, which cannot be quickly replenished and compensated neither by mass mobilization, nor by the supply of Western weapons.

[cornhodlr]

Oh, a Bradley destroyed... oh well, I think the US has over 6000 of these, kind of leftovers from here and there. They are very likely to be replaced... over and over.

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield. But the main problem of Ukraine now imo is not in this. The Offensive Guard, trained at NATO's European training grounds, has a serious defect in the NATO training format itself. I'm not sure if my English is good enough to accurately articulate this idea, but I'll try. What Western instructors are so proud of, and what is called a "mission command" in Western military science, has played a cruel joke on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The offensive guard was trained according to the tactics of the work of special forces units, which operate autonomously in small groups. Otherwise, NATO instructors simply do not know how to train soldiers. And as a result, all attempts at a large-scale offensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine so far look extremely uncoordinated.

I have already said and I will repeat again - the most critical problem of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not armored vehicles and not the number of personnel, but heavy losses in sergeants and junior officers, which cannot be quickly replenished and compensated neither by mass mobilization, nor by the supply of Western weapons.

If some nato nations put their own soldiers into Ukraine independently,how do you think Russia would respond?I doubt this would happen but politicans in some countries can be unpredictable but I would like to know the opinion of a Russian person.
Also in your opinion do you think this war could escalate into a nuclear confrontation and what might be the cause of such an escalation?

[suchmoon]

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield.

Riiiiiight. So how come Putin's glorious armed forces using the best-in-the-world soviet military equipment couldn't defeat Ukrainian forces that had very little Western equipment at the beginning, and still can't defeat Ukrainians with more Western equipment (albeit inferior if we were to believe your story). Something not adding up.

[BADecker]

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield.

Riiiiiight. So how come Putin's glorious armed forces using the best-in-the-world soviet military equipment couldn't defeat Ukrainian forces that had very little Western equipment at the beginning, and still can't defeat Ukrainians with more Western equipment (albeit inferior if we were to believe your story). Something not adding up.

In the beginning, it wasn't Russia's goal to defeat. They were simply attempting to bring freedom to Russians and Ukrainians in the Donbas area and other nearby areas. Russia wasn't against the Ukrainian people freely making up their own mind. What they were against was the Ukrainian government using military means to destroy the freedom of the people, many of whom were Russians.

Now that the US has made a big deal about conquering Russia through Ukraine, things have changed. But one of the major things that has not changed is that Russia still doesn't want to do more than bring peace by taking out the evil Ukrainian government and military.

The point is, if both militaries killed each other off 1 person to 1 person, the Ukraine military would be long gone, and the land would be free to Russian takeover. As it is, in general, it's 6 or 7 Ukrainian soldiers (or whomever else they are getting from Nato) that are dying for every 1 Russian soldier.

[be.open]

If some nato nations put their own soldiers into Ukraine independently,how do you think Russia would respond?I doubt this would happen but politicans in some countries can be unpredictable but I would like to know the opinion of a Russian person.

Personally, I do not see any big and fundamental difference between the supply of military equipment and intelligence by NATO countries and the direct deployment of troops. Trying to distance yourself from participating in the conflict is laughable if your reconnaissance drone is coordinating your maritime drones and they are attacking a Russian warship in the Black Sea. The only difference between a NATO-Russia proxy conflict and a direct NATO-Russia conflict is that instead of NATO soldiers, Ukrainian soldiers are dying.

It is surprising to me why at least 10% of all NATO military assistance to Ukraine does not go in the form of direct targeted cash assistance to finance the Foreign Legion operating on the side of Ukraine. With better funding, which Ukraine obviously cannot afford, instead of the current 10-15 thousand bayonets, there could be 100-150 thousand of them and this would be a much more serious force.

Also in your opinion do you think this war could escalate into a nuclear confrontation and what might be the cause of such an escalation?

Yep. The potential for non-nuclear escalation in the supply of arms is almost exhausted, even the supply of a hundred or two F16 fighters, which Ukraine so dreams of, will not noticeably change the current balance of power and it is not in favor of Ukraine. Then either peace talks on Russia's terms, or the entry of a NATO peacekeeping contingent with its subsequent defeat, or an exchange of nuclear strikes between the US, UK and Russia, I think everyone will get it. But let's not get too ahead of ourselves, Ukraine still has a chance to prove itself in the counteroffensive.

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield.

Riiiiiight. So how come Putin's glorious armed forces using the best-in-the-world soviet military equipment couldn't defeat Ukrainian forces that had very little Western equipment at the beginning, and still can't defeat Ukrainians with more Western equipment (albeit inferior if we were to believe your story). Something not adding up.

It is not surprising that Ukrainians are much better at handling Soviet-style tanks than unusual Western tanks after express courses to study them. Most of the burned Leopards in the Zaporizhia direction did not even have time to fire a single shot.

[coolcoinz]

ps Video of collecting trophies in the Zaporozhye direction. In the frame, the American Bradley A2 with a running engine and the German Leopard 2A6 also seem to be in quite good condition. I think this technique will be towed to the rear for a detailed study.

Nice, good for you.

Anyway, here's a video showing how Ukrainians are flushing rats from under a tank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlE8g-hJlfM

even the supply of a hundred or two F16 fighters, which Ukraine so dreams of, will not noticeably change the current balance of power and it is not in favor of Ukraine.

200 fighter jets would not change anything? Since the beginning of the war Russia has lost over 300 planes. Obviously if Ukraine were to get 200 it would have complete air superiority, provided they'd have enough pilots to fly them.

[be.open]

even the supply of a hundred or two F16 fighters, which Ukraine so dreams of, will not noticeably change the current balance of power and it is not in favor of Ukraine.

200 fighter jets would not change anything? Since the beginning of the war Russia has lost over 300 planes. Obviously if Ukraine were to get 200 it would have complete air superiority, provided they'd have enough pilots to fly them.

If.

Ukraine is asking the West for F16, because it is experiencing a dramatic shortage of front-line air defense, and the West has nothing special to offer on this request. I repeat once again, Ukraine is going to use F16 fighters not for their intended purpose, but as mobile air defense, because they do not have an effective antidote against planning bombs. Using things for other purposes is rarely a good idea.

Russia does not have serious problems with front-line air defense, so all F16s delivered to Ukraine (especially under the control of poorly trained pilots) will simply be shot down.

[LTU_btc]

Maybe you will provide this evidence, if it really exists? I could only find an article in the New York Times subtitled "U.S. spy agencies still do not have any solid evidence to determine who caused the destruction, the senior administration official said". There is also a report in a Norwegian source stating that an explosion with a magnitude between 1 and 2 was recorded, and updating from below that "Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam". That is, there were not one but several explosions? In any case, none of the sources indicate that Russia did it.

I love your cherry picking when you quote only these articles that fits your narrative. Why not initial US intelligence stance that Russia is responsible for it
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/06/07/US-intelligence-indicates-Russia-being-responsible-for-Ukraine-dam-attack-Report
Or Rishi Sunak saying that was Russia's new low:
https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-blasts-russias-new-low-ukraine-dam-explosion/
Finally, this messages from 205th separate motorized rifle brigade means nothing and it's not evidence against Russia:
https://t.me/mototroopers_205/1033

ps Video of collecting trophies in the Zaporozhye direction. In the frame, the American Bradley A2 with a running engine and the German Leopard 2A6 also seem to be in quite good condition. I think this technique will be towed to the rear for a detailed study.

Propaganda works well. If you will show damaged, destroyed or captured Leopard's and Bradley's from different angles, it will make image that Russia destroyed much more equipment than they actually did:
https://twitter.com/neythomas/status/1668576158533709827
Also, not everything what is shown in all these videos is complete destruction. At least part of Leopard's is getting evacuated from front line and will be rep[aired:
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1668623359301783553

[coolcoinz]

If.

Yes, if. You started to speculate here that it would not change a thing. The thing is, it would.
They aren't probably going to get this much but it would make a difference and I hope they will get it and push Russians outside their borders.
If Ukraine were to do enough damage to make them run back to Russia I'm sure it would make life easier for everybody, even the average Russian who goes to work and watches TV every day hoping for the war to finally end. Since Putin doesn't want to end it, somebody else has to end it for him.

I love your cherry picking when you quote only these articles that fits your narrative. Why not initial US intelligence stance that Russia is responsible for it
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/06/07/US-intelligence-indicates-Russia-being-responsible-for-Ukraine-dam-attack-Report
Or Rishi Sunak saying that was Russia's new low:
https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-blasts-russias-new-low-ukraine-dam-explosion/
Finally, this messages from 205th separate motorized rifle brigade means nothing and it's not evidence against Russia:
https://t.me/mototroopers_205/1033

I'll tell you how Russians will react to this:
First link is US, so it's a lie because US is clearly anti-Russian, so it's fake news.
The second link is from another NATO country so obviously they will blame Russia because they're on Ukraine's side.
In the third link they're saying destroying a dam was a mistake, but maybe they mean a Ukrainian mistake
Still no evidence against Russia.

[be.open]

I love your cherry picking when you quote only these articles that fits your narrative. Why not initial US intelligence stance that Russia is responsible for it
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/06/07/US-intelligence-indicates-Russia-being-responsible-for-Ukraine-dam-attack-Report
Or Rishi Sunak saying that was Russia's new low:
https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-blasts-russias-new-low-ukraine-dam-explosion/
Finally, this messages from 205th separate motorized rifle brigade means nothing and it's not evidence against Russia:
https://t.me/mototroopers_205/1033

I'll tell you how Russians will react to this:
First link is US, so it's a lie because US is clearly anti-Russian, so it's fake news.
The second link is from another NATO country so obviously they will blame Russia because they're on Ukraine's side.
In the third link they're saying destroying a dam was a mistake, but maybe they mean a Ukrainian mistake
Still no evidence against Russia.

I see you guys are doing pretty well without me.

Russia was also groundlessly blamed for the explosions of the Nord Streams, and now it seems that the main version of the accusation is that Ukraine and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny are to blame for everything. And the CIA, they say, knew everything and tried to prevent the attack, but could not. At this rate, Ukraine will soon become synonymous with a terrorist state.

[be.open]

If.

Yes, if. You started to speculate here that it would not change a thing. The thing is, it would.
They aren't probably going to get this much but it would make a difference and I hope they will get it and push Russians outside their borders.

I don't understand the reasons for this massive admiration of Ukrainians for Western weapons, it looks like a cargo cult. The F16 fighters are an approximate analogue of the MiG-29 fighters, of which Ukraine had noticeably more than the wildest expectations for the supply of F16, and most of them have already been spent. To prepare a pilot for F16 from scratch is a task for several years of training, it is possible to retrain with the MiG-29 in a few months, but does Ukraine even have so many horseless pilots? Recently, there were reports on the network about the pilot of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Major Vladislav Savelyev, who died in early June, who studied in the United States for two years and died in the first sortie.

Russian air defense is initially tuned to larger objects such as aircraft. Therefore, it may have some difficulties with intercepting small drones, Himars missiles or low-flying Storm Shadow missiles, but Ukrainian aircraft are shot down with enviable regularity, and if this does not happen every day, it is only because Ukraine has few aircraft in principle.

If Ukraine were to do enough damage to make them run back to Russia I'm sure it would make life easier for everybody, even the average Russian who goes to work and watches TV every day hoping for the war to finally end. Since Putin doesn't want to end it, somebody else has to end it for him.

LOL what? The special operation in Ukraine does not interfere with the ordinary Russian at all. People here live as usual and do not wake up every night from air raid alerts. I think the majority of the townsfolk, with the possible exception of residents of the Crimea, Belgorod and Kursk regions, just do not follow the events in Ukraine too much. Almost a year and a half is too long to focus on one topic. But on the other hand, the overwhelming majority understand that the defeat of Russia will turn into a catastrophe and only await victory.

[tvbcof]

Looks like the 'greatest counter-offensive' has become the 'most humiliating counter-offensive'.  In most places what's left of the Ukrainians didn't get through the forward lines and not even close to the actual defensive belts.  And they lost another huge crop of soldiers and a bunch of the Western weapons to boot.  Thankfully the DU contamination of the farmlands will be more contained to a relatively narrow strip.

The Russians set a lot of traps some of which got tripped as I've come to expect, and the effects were impressive.  Have the Russians done the same amongst the more fortified defensive belts farther back?  I would expect so.  I would expect that Russia would fall back to the first defensive belt for no other reason than to not let the work on their various traps go to waste.  At least if they are confident that they can mostly pick off the NATO systems which are spreading DU contamination early.

Seems like it is effective technique to send high ranking generals, including Grasimov himself, to the operational areas.  Working with the higher level staff is a good way for the more junior officers to get noticed so I'm guessing that everyone is really trying as hard as they can.  Plus it has a good effect on morale of the whole military.  The down-side is that one can get killed as happened to a high ranking general recently.

I am highly confident that if I were a conscripted Ukrainian I would immediately recognize that the cause of my grief was a flood of NATO gear and I would be at least passively trying to get rid of the 30% or so which got through the corruption and on to the front lines.  I sometimes get the feeling like that may be what we are seeing at the present time.

Also we are seeing more mass surrenders which is also a good sign and long overdue.  We saw it early on, then not so much for a year or so.  I don't have a real strong hypothesis about why, but a few include:  1) Even when the Nazi's had free reign before the SMO, there were serving soldiers who were dis-satisfied.  They left the ranks, and 2) the ZioNazi SS commissars and so-called 'nationalists' upped their game and became even more brutal.  Although I've not heard of it, I would expect that they are exacting retribution against the family members of POW's back home since that a common tactic of these classes of scumbags.

More and more Ukraine's options shrink until pure terrorism is the only option left to them.  We'll just have to see how far NATO can push them in this direction.  Alas, it could be quite a ways farther since they have broad support in such methods from the entire 'Collective West' not the least of which being the financial and media power-houses.

[be.open]

Looks like the 'greatest counter-offensive' has become the 'most humiliating counter-offensive'.  In most places what's left of the Ukrainians didn't get through the forward lines and not even close to the actual defensive belts.  And they lost another huge crop of soldiers and a bunch of the Western weapons to boot.  Thankfully the DU contamination of the farmlands will be more contained to a relatively narrow strip.

The Russians set a lot of traps some of which got tripped as I've come to expect, and the effects were impressive.  Have the Russians done the same amongst the more fortified defensive belts farther back?  I would expect so.  I would expect that Russia would fall back to the first defensive belt for no other reason than to not let the work on their various traps go to waste.  At least if they are confident that they can mostly pick off the NATO systems which are spreading DU contamination early.

Seems like it is effective technique to send high ranking generals, including Grasimov himself, to the operational areas.  Working with the higher level staff is a good way for the more junior officers to get noticed so I'm guessing that everyone is really trying as hard as they can.  Plus it has a good effect on morale of the whole military.  The down-side is that one can get killed as happened to a high ranking general recently.

I am highly confident that if I were a conscripted Ukrainian I would immediately recognize that the cause of my grief was a flood of NATO gear and I would be at least passively trying to get rid of the 30% or so which got through the corruption and on to the front lines.  I sometimes get the feeling like that may be what we are seeing at the present time.

Also we are seeing more mass surrenders which is also a good sign and long overdue.  We saw it early on, then not so much for a year or so.  I don't have a real strong hypothesis about why, but a few include:  1) Even when the Nazi's had free reign before the SMO, there were serving soldiers who were dis-satisfied.  They left the ranks, and 2) the ZioNazi SS commissars and so-called 'nationalists' upped their game and became even more brutal.  Although I've not heard of it, I would expect that they are exacting retribution against the family members of POW's back home since that a common tactic of these classes of scumbags.

More and more Ukraine's options shrink until pure terrorism is the only option left to them.  We'll just have to see how far NATO can push them in this direction.  Alas, it could be quite a ways farther since they have broad support in such methods from the entire 'Collective West' not the least of which being the financial and media power-houses.

It is already clear that the first stage of the Ukrainian counter-offensive has completely failed, but let's not jump to conclusions. Plan A and even plan B did not work, but what if the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine still has a trump card up its sleeve in the form of plan C? After all, we have not yet seen a single British Challenger 2 tank on the battlefield and at least three-quarters of the Western-trained Offensive Guards have not been involved. What if my assumptions about the inherent defect in the training of NATO instructors are not true and the lack of coordination is primarily due to the effective work of Russian electronic warfare? In addition to Bradley, to compensate for losses, the US emergency aid package presented by Blinken also includes secure communications. I also saw fresh announcements of urgent deliveries from Europe of minesweepers to replace those lost in the first days of the counteroffensive and a large number of air defense missiles. It seems that this is exactly what the Armed Forces of Ukraine need now, if not to break through the Surovikin line, then at least get closer to it and organize concentrated pressure. Let's see.

[cornhodlr]

If some nato nations put their own soldiers into Ukraine independently,how do you think Russia would respond?I doubt this would happen but politicans in some countries can be unpredictable but I would like to know the opinion of a Russian person.

Personally, I do not see any big and fundamental difference between the supply of military equipment and intelligence by NATO countries and the direct deployment of troops. Trying to distance yourself from participating in the conflict is laughable if your reconnaissance drone is coordinating your maritime drones and they are attacking a Russian warship in the Black Sea. The only difference between a NATO-Russia proxy conflict and a direct NATO-Russia conflict is that instead of NATO soldiers, Ukrainian soldiers are dying.

It is surprising to me why at least 10% of all NATO military assistance to Ukraine does not go in the form of direct targeted cash assistance to finance the Foreign Legion operating on the side of Ukraine. With better funding, which Ukraine obviously cannot afford, instead of the current 10-15 thousand bayonets, there could be 100-150 thousand of them and this would be a much more serious force.

Also in your opinion do you think this war could escalate into a nuclear confrontation and what might be the cause of such an escalation?

Yep. The potential for non-nuclear escalation in the supply of arms is almost exhausted, even the supply of a hundred or two F16 fighters, which Ukraine so dreams of, will not noticeably change the current balance of power and it is not in favor of Ukraine. Then either peace talks on Russia's terms, or the entry of a NATO peacekeeping contingent with its subsequent defeat, or an exchange of nuclear strikes between the US, UK and Russia, I think everyone will get it. But let's not get too ahead of ourselves, Ukraine still has a chance to prove itself in the counteroffensive.

Thank you for your reply and it is helpful to know the viewpoint from both sides of the issue.I hope some agreement can be reached soon because with both parties not willing to compromise on their own terms for an agreement it looks unlikely there will be peace in the very near future.It is worrying for global citizenry who have no say whatsoever in the decisions their politicans make when those politicans seem to be detached form reality and only follow rhetoric in many instances.War is bad for everyone and the casualties are are mainly those who have no say in the matter.It is not a terrible grief to see those who enjoy combat and warfare to fall on the battlefield but a very sad affair to see conscripted citizens from both sides be forced into a bloodbath not to mention all the civilians and infrastructure,wildlife,environment and habitat caught up in this abomination.

[be.open]

Thank you for your reply and it is helpful to know the viewpoint from both sides of the issue.I hope some agreement can be reached soon because with both parties not willing to compromise on their own terms for an agreement it looks unlikely there will be peace in the very near future.It is worrying for global citizenry who have no say whatsoever in the decisions their politicans make when those politicans seem to be detached form reality and only follow rhetoric in many instances.War is bad for everyone and the casualties are are mainly those who have no say in the matter.It is not a terrible grief to see those who enjoy combat and warfare to fall on the battlefield but a very sad affair to see conscripted citizens from both sides be forced into a bloodbath not to mention all the civilians and infrastructure,wildlife,environment and habitat caught up in this abomination.

I think that there are good chances for the conflict to end in 2023, perhaps in the fall or towards the end of the year, maybe at the beginning of 2024. Because in January next year the active phase of the US election campaign will begin, and it is extremely unprofitable for Biden to reach the finish line of the election campaign racing with the unfinished conflict in Ukraine. And by and large, it doesn’t matter to him whether Ukraine wins or not, even the loss of Ukraine is better than the continuation of the conflict before the elections. Why am I talking about the United States - because without the active support of the United States, the ability of Ukraine to continue to conduct active hostilities will be calculated in a couple of months, if not a couple of days.

Of course, Ukraine will not accept its defeat and will continue to resist in a guerrilla-terrorist format, but this is no longer a task for the regular army, but for special services and law enforcement agencies.

[swogerino]

Thank you for your reply and it is helpful to know the viewpoint from both sides of the issue.I hope some agreement can be reached soon because with both parties not willing to compromise on their own terms for an agreement it looks unlikely there will be peace in the very near future.It is worrying for global citizenry who have no say whatsoever in the decisions their politicans make when those politicans seem to be detached form reality and only follow rhetoric in many instances.War is bad for everyone and the casualties are are mainly those who have no say in the matter.It is not a terrible grief to see those who enjoy combat and warfare to fall on the battlefield but a very sad affair to see conscripted citizens from both sides be forced into a bloodbath not to mention all the civilians and infrastructure,wildlife,environment and habitat caught up in this abomination.

I think that there are good chances for the conflict to end in 2023, perhaps in the fall or towards the end of the year, maybe at the beginning of 2024. Because in January next year the active phase of the US election campaign will begin, and it is extremely unprofitable for Biden to reach the finish line of the election campaign racing with the unfinished conflict in Ukraine. And by and large, it doesn’t matter to him whether Ukraine wins or not, even the loss of Ukraine is better than the continuation of the conflict before the elections. Why am I talking about the United States - because without the active support of the United States, the ability of Ukraine to continue to conduct active hostilities will be calculated in a couple of months, if not a couple of days.

Of course, Ukraine will not accept its defeat and will continue to resist in a guerrilla-terrorist format, but this is no longer a task for the regular army, but for special services and law enforcement agencies.

Well when you are over optimistic it is normal to write these things,by the way how do you welcome African delegation who tomorrow will be in Russia with Kalibr 47 missiles who luckily got all shot down by Patriot air defense systems?
You have a strange way of welcoming guests there in Russia and for me this is enough to never set foot there even when the regime of Putin will be changed and there will be again the normal Russia running business as usual.

As for Biden don't worry he has over 75% support for supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes as Ukraine is fighting for democracy against autocratic regime that Putin has put Russia in these last couple of years.

[paxmao]

Thank you for your reply and it is helpful to know the viewpoint from both sides of the issue.I hope some agreement can be reached soon because with both parties not willing to compromise on their own terms for an agreement it looks unlikely there will be peace in the very near future.It is worrying for global citizenry who have no say whatsoever in the decisions their politicans make when those politicans seem to be detached form reality and only follow rhetoric in many instances.War is bad for everyone and the casualties are are mainly those who have no say in the matter.It is not a terrible grief to see those who enjoy combat and warfare to fall on the battlefield but a very sad affair to see conscripted citizens from both sides be forced into a bloodbath not to mention all the civilians and infrastructure,wildlife,environment and habitat caught up in this abomination.

I think that there are good chances for the conflict to end in 2023, perhaps in the fall or towards the end of the year, maybe at the beginning of 2024. Because in January next year the active phase of the US election campaign will begin, and it is extremely unprofitable for Biden to reach the finish line of the election campaign racing with the unfinished conflict in Ukraine. And by and large, it doesn’t matter to him whether Ukraine wins or not, even the loss of Ukraine is better than the continuation of the conflict before the elections. Why am I talking about the United States - because without the active support of the United States, the ability of Ukraine to continue to conduct active hostilities will be calculated in a couple of months, if not a couple of days.

Of course, Ukraine will not accept its defeat and will continue to resist in a guerrilla-terrorist format, but this is no longer a task for the regular army, but for special services and law enforcement agencies.

Nice tale. It is much more unprofitable to finish the conflict without a victory. US not liking war loosers when paying big tax for having the biggest and possibly the best military at least in terms of capability.

But there is a clear risk of the Republicans wanting to false-end this conflict a then having to pay again the price of a cold war during the next decade. It would be pretty much in the line of the international gaffes of Trump (like fucking the pacific trade agreement, fucking the Iran non-proliferation deal, leaving top-secrets in the hallway...). But de Santis or others are unlikely to know much better either.

However, if they make the White House, they would have access to the information and perhaps see things differently, who knows. IMO Trump is pretty much a Russian agent.