Ukraine

[wilts rover]

ISW: Russia likely relocating ammunition, other materiel from Belarusian storage bases.

The Institute for the Study of War said on Oct. 11 that open-sourced data supports Ukraine's military reports that Russia is loading trains with weapons, equipment, ammunition, and other unspecified materiel from Belarus to relocate to areas of engagement further south and east.

The experts think such activity is "incompatible with setting conditions for a large-scale Russian or Belarusian ground attack" against Ukraine from Belarus.

So exactly the opposite to what BRR told us (again). Unless Belarussian troops are going to 'invade the west' barehanded with no-back-up?

That's what happens when you get fiction for your information rather than fact.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580030159108788225

[wilts rover]

Zelensky could have avoided this.

Zelensky could have avoided this only by prostrating himself and his country at the feet of a fascist despot.

He could have avoided this in the same way that Britain could have avoided WWII, by doing what Hitler wanted.

Which is exactly what the Putin appeasers (many of whom have received a lot of money from Putin to be his propoganists in the west for many years - and see that source of wealth floating away) want. And if they are the people who you get your information from...

You don't appease facist dictators. History tells us they are never satisfied - however much terror, horror and cruelty they are allowed to impose on innocent people - they always come back for more. Always.

[Bristol Red Rover]

ISW: Russia likely relocating ammunition, other materiel from Belarusian storage bases.

The Institute for the Study of War said on Oct. 11 that open-sourced data supports Ukraine's military reports that Russia is loading trains with weapons, equipment, ammunition, and other unspecified materiel from Belarus to relocate to areas of engagement further south and east.

The experts think such activity is "incompatible with setting conditions for a large-scale Russian or Belarusian ground attack" against Ukraine from Belarus.

So exactly the opposite to what BRR told us (again). Unless Belarussian troops are going to 'invade the west' barehanded with no-back-up?

That's what happens when you get fiction for your information rather than fact.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580030159108788225

So desperate to prove you are right? You make it personal is a playground way (yeah, back at ya if you wanna go that way), when surely the adult side of discussion here is about trying to understand the truth of what's going on through the massive fog of propaganda on both sides.

Anyway, tell me, where was I wrong? And where was I right? Where were you right? WHere were you wrong?

My view (actually just my view, not from anywhere else) on the Belarusian border still stands. It makes sense to tie up Ukraine troops there. It makes no sense for Belarus to get involved directly. As far as I understand, there are Russians training in Belarus.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR-English translation:

"As far as I am aware" = "According to the Russian propaganda that I've read and uncritically assimilated".

[Bristol Red Rover]

Zelensky could have avoided this.

Zelensky could have avoided this only by prostrating himself and his country at the feet of a fascist despot.

He could have avoided this in the same way that Britain could have avoided WWII, by doing what Hitler wanted.

Which is exactly what the Putin appeasers (many of whom have received a lot of money from Putin to be his propoganists in the west for many years - and see that source of wealth floating away) want. And if they are the people who you get your information from...

You don't appease facist dictators. History tells us they are never satisfied - however much terror, horror and cruelty they are allowed to impose on innocent people - they always come back for more. Always.

Are you suggesting NATO, US, UK, EU don't have a very expensive bill for propaganda?

Yes, Russia as a country is run on a more overt gangster format than the US, UK etc. Russia is close to fascist, but to sling that term around as you are is buying into propaganda and effectively demeaning what is actually fascist. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Post-Soviet_Russia for starters.

And then look at how elites exert control in other nations under the guise of democracy. The US is a prime example where it is the dollar that rules, not the people. The UK is not so far behind otheriwse why would the Tories be in control implementing the policies they do that cynically benefit those that are at the top of the pile? Even a Labour victory is dependent on buying into those same policies. It's all about elites maintaining control, many ways for that to happen and most have the baseline of us v them. Star Wars and Star Trek do the same. It's all gangsterism.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR-English translation:

"As far as I am aware" = "According to the Russian propaganda that I've read and uncritically assimilated".

BS.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Zelensky could have avoided this.

Zelensky could have avoided this only by prostrating himself and his country at the feet of a fascist despot.

He could have avoided this in the same way that Britain could have avoided WWII, by doing what Hitler wanted.

Tired same old. What's your solution? Not that I expect a clear response.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR-English translation:

"As far as I am aware" = "According to the Russian propaganda that I've read and uncritically assimilated".

BS.

Yep my mistake!

"As far as I am aware"="BS".

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST regurgitates the western propaganda endlessly with as much clue as to how to get to the endgame of it as the US, UK etc. ie he supports death of hundreds of thousands by continued pouring in of arms.

[scawsby steve]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

[wilts rover]

ISW: Russia likely relocating ammunition, other materiel from Belarusian storage bases.

The Institute for the Study of War said on Oct. 11 that open-sourced data supports Ukraine's military reports that Russia is loading trains with weapons, equipment, ammunition, and other unspecified materiel from Belarus to relocate to areas of engagement further south and east.

The experts think such activity is "incompatible with setting conditions for a large-scale Russian or Belarusian ground attack" against Ukraine from Belarus.

So exactly the opposite to what BRR told us (again). Unless Belarussian troops are going to 'invade the west' barehanded with no-back-up?

That's what happens when you get fiction for your information rather than fact.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1580030159108788225

So desperate to prove you are right? You make it personal is a playground way (yeah, back at ya if you wanna go that way), when surely the adult side of discussion here is about trying to understand the truth of what's going on through the massive fog of propaganda on both sides.

Anyway, tell me, where was I wrong? And where was I right? Where were you right? WHere were you wrong?

My view (actually just my view, not from anywhere else) on the Belarusian border still stands. It makes sense to tie up Ukraine troops there. It makes no sense for Belarus to get involved directly. As far as I understand, there are Russians training in Belarus.

Because your view is not based on evidence. There are, and have not been for months, any preparations for troop movements in Belarus. You can speculate all you like - until the spy satellites see convoys gathering and logistic centres being formed - there will be no invasion from Belarus - as you have been telling us.

Speculate all you like. But unless you have evidence for that speculation be prepared to be shot down when you issue it in public.

[Bristol Red Rover]

"There are, and have not been for months" - okay.... 

You shoot me down like a Patriot headng to the moon as the drone he was sent after chugs past and hits it's target. Anyway, enough of future projections 

I said the intent was for giving Ukraine the insecurity and thus tying up some of its forces on the Belarus border. I don't expect for one minute that they will invade. How much is Ukraine prepared to gamble? Maybe less so when there are Russian troops in Belarus training.

Now, tell me again how I'm saying there will be an invasion from Belarus?

[SydneyRover]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

putin can't win Steve, he cannot be allowed to beat the Ukraine and he cannot defeat NATO.

[drfchound]

So, how does the war come to an end then.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

putin can't win Steve, he cannot be allowed to beat the Ukraine and he cannot defeat NATO.

Putin personally cannot lose, neither can Russia. So what's your take on how it can play out?

[SydneyRover]

It won't be by rounding up known sympathisers and using them as a bargaining chip as putin only gives a shit about himself.

[drfchound]

So you are telling us how it wont end but not offering anything to say how it will end.

[wilts rover]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

putin can't win Steve, he cannot be allowed to beat the Ukraine and he cannot defeat NATO.

Putin personally cannot lose, neither can Russia. So what's your take on how it can play out?

There will be a peace conference and national borders will be agreed and ratified by both sides.

Where those borders will be will no likely depend on where the respective armies are at the time. Who will be leading the Russian side is debatable because Putin doesn't want peace - he wants to destroy Ukraine.

[glosterred]

The recent vote in the UN on Territorial integrity for Ukraine tells a very interesting story when you look at those who voted against it or who abstained.

[Bristol Red Rover]

There will be a peace conference and national borders will be agreed and ratified by both sides.

Where those borders will be will no likely depend on where the respective armies are at the time. Who will be leading the Russian side is debatable because Putin doesn't want peace - he wants to destroy Ukraine.

No, Russia wants to destroy the Ukraine military capability, plus push back borders to where it feels safe, which is potentially as far as Poland and Hungary, although quite possibly further east would be easier to fully assimilate given the greater anti Russian feelings the further west you go. NATO's position of accepting Ukraine means the border is ever pushed West, though only max to Poland and Hungary.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the NATO moves to include Ukraine are responsible for all this, and to go further back, the loose agreement of NATO being restricted to East Germany at the point of German reunification which came before the dissolution of the Soviet Union should have been made more definite. That is the fault of Gorbachev and the chaotic Soviet Union as was. That this didn't include the Warsaw Pact countries was slack to the extreme, though was implicitly in the spirit of what was agreed. I understand NATO walking over this, but that they did, and that is undoubtedly agressive despite the Orwellian "we're just a defensive organisation" mantra.

Whether or not you agree with the facts above as being relevant within the parameters of causality in the war, it is how the Russians see it. Therefore, without any Ukraine military victory, and realistically that ain't gonna happen without NATO countries risking amrmageddon, any peace agreement would be something that Russia can feel safe about.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"No, Russia wants to destroy the Ukraine military capability"

Which of course is why they use an air-to-ship missile to destroy a shopping centre and why they use ballistic missiles to hit traffic junctions in the Kyiv rush hour.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that the NATO moves to include Ukraine are responsible for all this, and to go further back, the loose agreement of NATO being restricted to East Germany at the point of German reunification which came before the dissolution of the Soviet Union should have been made more definite."

Translation: Countries in Europe shouldn't be allowed to determine their own foreign policy, because we mustn't upset the 50 year out of date way that Russia views itself as a Great Power.

[Bristol Red Rover]

"No, Russia wants to destroy the Ukraine military capability"

Which of course is why they use an air-to-ship missile to destroy a shopping centre and why they use ballistic missiles to hit traffic junctions in the Kyiv rush hour.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that the NATO moves to include Ukraine are responsible for all this, and to go further back, the loose agreement of NATO being restricted to East Germany at the point of German reunification which came before the dissolution of the Soviet Union should have been made more definite."

Translation: Countries in Europe shouldn't be allowed to determine their own foreign policy, because we mustn't upset the 50 year out of date way that Russia views itself as a Great Power.

You haven't seen any destruction of any Ukraine military. Might explain your ungrounded take on all this.

Your second point displays naiivity at best, but moreso, plain unrealism.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Textbook BRR. When faced with an argument that doesn't fit what you want to believe, throw out criticism like chaff.

Stick to the point. YOU claim that Russia's strategy us to destroy Ukraine's military fighting capability. If that's what you believe, YOU explain how that squares with using £1m+ missiles to attack civilian settings.

No bluster. No deviation from point. Explain that and then we can have a grown up discussion.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

Here's a Yale Prof of the History of War giving his take on how this could well end.

https://t.co/n1bYhCZBFv

tl:dr? Those who say either Putin gets what he wants or it's Armageddon time are massively underestimating other ways this could end.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Textbook BRR. When faced with an argument that doesn't fit what you want to believe, throw out criticism like chaff.

Stick to the point. YOU claim that Russia's strategy us to destroy Ukraine's military fighting capability. If that's what you believe, YOU explain how that squares with using £1m+ missiles to attack civilian settings.

No bluster. No deviation from point. Explain that and then we can have a grown up discussion.

You're digging a bonkers hole here. Have you not seen the destruction of Ukraine military at all? Or do you want to zoom in with your blinkers to a few missiles that missed, and only the Russian ones that is. You're getting ever further up the bloody tree here.

How many Ukraine tanks and other armoured vehicles have gone? How many troops? It is being systematically destroyed and the increase in effort hasn't begun to appear yet.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I've asked this question over and over again without a logical reply.

Apart from the Apocalypse, what is the endgame in all this? Putin defeated and slinking off into the sunset?

I doubt it.

Here's a Yale Prof of the History of War giving his take on how this could well end.

https://t.co/n1bYhCZBFv

tl:dr? Those who say either Putin gets what he wants or it's Armageddon time are massively underestimating other ways this could end.

His language is that of the US military, clearly as onside with that as Kwateng is with Liz Truss. If the US command are still thinking of this kind of scenario, it's not good for Ukraine, but then they don't give a flying cowpat about Ukraine.

He uses Vietnam, Afghanistan as examples of why thetre won't be a nuke war. He's plain stupid with that. How about if Mexico aligns with China and China proposes to to plant nukes on their soil, and then the US invades Mexico (which it most definitelly would) but China supplies Mexico with arms and troops to the point where the US is getting stuck in the mud.... how close would we be then? I would trust the US far less than Russia in that situation.

However, the issue of nukes is being emphasised by the West not Russia. It's about fear unifying people. That along with the much referred to on here Russian invasions of Poland and so on.

I read the first part, then started to skim as he is banging out the same old US/NATO line about Russia. Given everything, are you saying you agree with this? What is your expected endgame scenario?

To be clear, I'm not saying this can't happen, but it's far far more in the fairy tale heads of the US military than in the likelihood of manifesting.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Textbook BRR. When faced with an argument that doesn't fit what you want to believe, throw out criticism like chaff.

Stick to the point. YOU claim that Russia's strategy us to destroy Ukraine's military fighting capability. If that's what you believe, YOU explain how that squares with using £1m+ missiles to attack civilian settings.

No bluster. No deviation from point. Explain that and then we can have a grown up discussion.

You're digging a bonkers hole here. Have you not seen the destruction of Ukraine military at all? Or do you want to zoom in with your blinkers to a few missiles that missed, and only the Russian ones that is. You're getting ever further up the bloody tree here.

How many Ukraine tanks and other armoured vehicles have gone? How many troops? It is being systematically destroyed and the increase in effort hasn't begun to appear yet.

You're struggling here BRR aren't you? Let me simplify it for you.

YOU made a claim that simply doesn't mesh with the evidence. So I asked you to reflect on that. I didn't ask you to comment on what I had or had not seen, or what I do or do not believe.

I don't get why that is so difficult for you to engage with.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Textbook BRR. When faced with an argument that doesn't fit what you want to believe, throw out criticism like chaff.

Stick to the point. YOU claim that Russia's strategy us to destroy Ukraine's military fighting capability. If that's what you believe, YOU explain how that squares with using £1m+ missiles to attack civilian settings.

No bluster. No deviation from point. Explain that and then we can have a grown up discussion.

You're digging a bonkers hole here. Have you not seen the destruction of Ukraine military at all? Or do you want to zoom in with your blinkers to a few missiles that missed, and only the Russian ones that is. You're getting ever further up the bloody tree here.

How many Ukraine tanks and other armoured vehicles have gone? How many troops? It is being systematically destroyed and the increase in effort hasn't begun to appear yet.

You're struggling here BRR aren't you? Let me simplify it for you.

YOU made a claim that simply doesn't mesh with the evidence. So I asked you to reflect on that. I didn't ask you to comment on what I had or had not seen, or what I do or do not believe.

I don't get why that is so difficult for you to engage with.

Are you wanting me to say, yes a few missiles missed their target? I already said that. Be clear.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. We're getting somewhere.

What military target was close to the kid's playpark in Kyiv?

What target was close to the shopping centre in Kremenchuk?

Do you have any reflections on the "missing of targets" with the use in densely built up urban areas of weapons that have, at best, an accuracy of +/-100m?

And when you've stopped for a minute to consider those points, perhaps you can tell us if you truly believe that Russia is trying to destroy Ukraine's military, rather than trying to terrorise and attack its civilians?

[Dutch Uncle]

There will be a peace conference and national borders will be agreed and ratified by both sides.

Where those borders will be will no likely depend on where the respective armies are at the time. Who will be leading the Russian side is debatable because Putin doesn't want peace - he wants to destroy Ukraine.

No, Russia wants to destroy the Ukraine military capability, plus push back borders to where it feels safe, which is potentially as far as Poland and Hungary, although quite possibly further east would be easier to fully assimilate given the greater anti Russian feelings the further west you go. NATO's position of accepting Ukraine means the border is ever pushed West, though only max to Poland and Hungary.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the NATO moves to include Ukraine are responsible for all this, and to go further back, the loose agreement of NATO being restricted to East Germany at the point of German reunification which came before the dissolution of the Soviet Union should have been made more definite. That is the fault of Gorbachev and the chaotic Soviet Union as was. That this didn't include the Warsaw Pact countries was slack to the extreme, though was implicitly in the spirit of what was agreed. I understand NATO walking over this, but that they did, and that is undoubtedly agressive despite the Orwellian "we're just a defensive organisation" mantra.

Whether or not you agree with the facts above as being relevant within the parameters of causality in the war, it is how the Russians see it. Therefore, without any Ukraine military victory, and realistically that ain't gonna happen without NATO countries risking amrmageddon, any peace agreement would be something that Russia can feel safe about.

Sorry but again I am going to take great exception to the point highlighted for the same reason I have given before. Please again do not mistake the NATO Organisation headed by Stoltenberg with all the NATO Member nations with their often diverging agendas.

NATO the organisation is absolutely a Defensive Alliance by charter and reality. Some NATO nations are often held back in their more aggressive intentions by the requirement of a unanimous vote for NATO to act, and those nations often act unilaterally, or within an ad-hoc 'coalition of the willing'.

To suggest otherwise is to insult some very fine NATO leaders, including the great Manfred Woerner and also George Robertson who typified the real NATO when he said: 

In September 2022, during the 7th month of the Ukraine War, interviewed by Channel 4 about his nine meetings with Vladimir Putin, Robertson said, "At the first meeting (in Moscow) Vladimir Putin clearly said, 'I WANT RUSSIA TO BE PART OF WESTERN EUROPE...at the 2nd meeting (in Brussels) he said..'WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO INVITE RUSSIA TO JOIN NATO?'...I started to sort of reach out and engage them in so many activities that they basically couldn't fight with us.. but after I left NATO (in Dec 2003), the American administration, the Bush administration (during their own illegal war on Iraq opposed by Putin), lost any interest basically in doing business with Russia, they saw it as a threat..they didn't really want to make it part of the overall partnership. I think we missed an opportunity at that time because I think it's what he (Putin) wanted, and we could have grabbed hold of him!"   

May I ask you to direct your criticism at the appropriate targets.

Edit: For clarification, it may just be careless use of terminology on your part, so if you were to say 'some in the west are not entirely defensive then I would not disagree (see Robertson above). But please do not tar the NATO organisation itself with the same brush.