Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Xpartan]

Nothing personal, but I think you are generally too optimistic that the war's outcome will provide a great victory for the Ukraine. I think there is enough uncertainty in this war and any war for that matter to make all predictions specious.

I think many have painted a picture the war is an existential battle for the Ukraine that can be resolved with great satisfaction and achievement. It has also been said Putin himself could very well be in an existential fight over the Ukraine. That sounds like the recipe for a long, grinding war.

What's the best outcome Ukraine "wins small" and the war ends this year or they fight a five year conflict to achieve something possibly more or possibly not? It's not an easy question to answer in my opinion.

Having said that, yes it would be great if Putin felt his world closing in, walks into his office, shuts the door and ingests a cyanide pill.

I agree that it's going to be "a long, grinding war" but you seem to presume that Ukraine somehow has a power to stop it. It doesn't.

[PedroMorales]

quack quack.

The first post is a question on S Korea, the 2nd is some useless be s on England and the rest are praising Nazis who are getting their asses handed to them in Ukraine.

[Elvis 2008]

https://medium.com/@grantpiperwritin...g-b58872a19bef

[Jmsuttr]

The author of this thread makes a persuasive (IMO) case that, while Severodonetsk (Donbas) is getting most of the attention, the battle for the Kherson region in the South is more strategically important. It's a short and easy read, with some informative maps.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...202452995.html

[Jmsuttr]

Nothing personal, but I think you are generally too optimistic that the war's outcome will provide a great victory for the Ukraine. I think there is enough uncertainty in this war and any war for that matter to make all predictions specious.

I think many have painted a picture the war is an existential battle for the Ukraine that can be resolved with great satisfaction and achievement. It has also been said Putin himself could very well be in an existential fight over the Ukraine. That sounds like the recipe for a long, grinding war.

What's the best outcome Ukraine "wins small" and the war ends this year or they fight a five year conflict to achieve something possibly more or possibly not? It's not an easy question to answer in my opinion.

Having said that, yes it would be great if Putin felt his world closing in, walks into his office, shuts the door and ingests a cyanide pill.

While I'm absolutely pro-Ukraine in sentiment, I've done my best to focus on what's actually happening, not on what "should" happen or even what I want to happen. If you can indicate the post, or posts, of mine in which I cross the line into prediction territory, please share.

It seems to me that I'm the loudest voice in this forum shouting that predictions are a fool's errand, as this war is unique in many aspects and there are too many variables, known and unknown. In fact, that's the very criticism I level against your article, is it not?

My personal feelings aside, any optimism I've expressed is generally based on optimistic developments, such as arms commitments and other support measures for Ukraine, or the recent granting of EU candidate status. Any such developments that help Ukraine sustain their war effort are positive things, and I'm not shy about pointing them out.

If, however, support for Ukraine started to fade, or other developments with long-term negative implications occurred, I would discuss those honestly. To this point I would assert that the weight of the evidence leans in a positive direction for Ukraine. And, as I've also posted numerous times, I do my best to focus on the tides, rather than waves or ripples.

That's not to say I have any clue as to how things will turn out. If I discuss the possibility of a humiliating Russia defeat, I do so as only one of several scenarios. The reason that particular scenario is often discussed is primarily because Putin foolishly set the bar too high. If he had gone directly for the limited goal of Luhansk and Donetsk, that would have been more reasonably achievable. But, by going for Kyiv itself, and "denazifying" all of Ukraine, he's made a problem for himself (with his own people) if he can't deliver. That's why I've posited that there are no real-world winnable scenarios for Russia, because:

1. If Russia conquers all of Ukraine, it will be faced with the prospect of trying to subdue and hold a country that hates it deeply. Europe, the US, and most of rest of the world would likely continue the same, or increased, sanctions regime, which is a recipe for continued isolation and tension.

2. If Russia conquers some of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk, Odessa, etc.), then it becomes a kind of subset of Scenario #1, with the exception that the part of Ukraine not conquered would be actively and strenuously resisting Russia.

3. Russia conquers no significant new territory in Ukraine. So, whether the boundaries are exactly the same as before Feb 24th, or substantially so, it's clear to the non-propagandized world that the invasion has failed. And, within Russia, the potential for dissatisfaction with Putin would rise significantly. This, for all intents and purposes would be the "humiliating defeat" scenario.

4. A continuation of the current war-of-attrition, with give and take on both sides. If that were to happen, neither side could claim victory and it would become (even more so than now) a battle of will and resources.

But please note that discussing these scenarios, and examining factors that might make them more (or less) likely, isn't the same as predicting which one will actually happen. What I care most about are the facts on the ground. And, depending on those facts, it may be possible to extrapolate trends that point in one direction or another. As with all things, however, tomorrow's set of facts can change. Which is why I value accurate and knowledgeable observers more than I do analysts and pundits.

P.S. If you have an outcome that isn't one of the four listed above, or a subset of them, I'd love to hear it.

[Jmsuttr]

Of the USMC (America's equivalent of the Waffen SS) becomes the third American mercenary to be captured by Russian peace keepers in Ukraine. Capt. Kurpasi, from Wilmington, North Carolina, should know that the Geneva Convention does not apply to mercenaries. He is fair game.

No more killing Iraqi kids or Ukrainian Russian speakers for him https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/16/p...ine/index.html.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-for-ukraine

"I made compromises with myself for a long time. But on the 24 February (the day Russia launched its invasion), any talk of compromise became impossible," he said. "I could not be part of this crime".

"Artyom (not his real name), another member of the unit, said he joined "because it was the only chance to get rid of this regime" and had been engaged in opposition politics in Russia before leaving the country in 2020. He said he moved to Ukraine shortly before the war, sensing an imminent Russian attack. "I love my motherland," he said. "I wish it didn't have to come to this, but we have to end this system. I hope I can return home after the war".

These are Russians with a soul and conscience, noble Russians resisting the evil dictator. Each orc they kill helps to prevent another Bucha, another Irpin, another Mariupol massacre, another kidnapped child being sent off to Russia.

May their aim be true and their weapons swift to mete out justice to the criminal invaders.

[Jmsuttr]

And the Ukrainian Parliament, who will take over? Who will do the snapchat videos when this dead man walking gets his desserts? If Russia was the USA, Zelensky would have been fried months ago. Is Russia just keeping this fool on ice? Would it help if the Nazis just took front stage in Kiev?

It's my guess that, if you talk to many Russians off the record, you'd likely get an earful of how humiliating it is that the "powerful Russian military" has been stymied, and forced back from Kyiv. And right along with that is the fact that Zelensky is STILL in power and going strong. What happened to the "denazification" goal? It's utterly failed and Putin can't credibly claim otherwise as long as Kyiv's govt continues.

To add insult to injury, Zelensky is welcoming significant heads of state to Kyiv (France, Germany, Italy, UK, Poland, Romania, etc.) while the only people who visit Russia are Putin-puppets like Lukashenko, or fellow terrorists-in-arms Taliban mullahs.

And even the President of Kazakhstan, with Putin present, called out Russian propaganda and spit directly in the eye of the Kremlin. I'll make a separate post about that, but Putin must be seething at the blatant disrespect shown at his own conference.

But here's the real question: Who takes over when Putin's uncontrollable tremors, and other serious health conditions, can no longer be covered for? With the Russian military being stretched thin, will Lukashenko make a play? Isn't it interesting that Belarus has avoided putting their military at risk in Ukraine? Even a little bit of research will show that Lukashenko is a highly capable schemer, and that his clown act is only for show.

So, when Putin (naturally or otherwise) kicks the bucket, things could get very interesting.

[WyattEarp]

Your bashing seems to be all over the place!!

PM is kitchen-sinking (as in everything but the kitchen sink). Impassioned and often illogical partisans bombard forums with any argument they can muster whether it remotely fits the circumstances or not. Sometimes they reveal their motives. Sometimes they do not. They have not really processed the concept of more is not necessarily better. In many instances, their position is untenable. The only thing left is to throw everything and anything out there to defend their point of view.

[WyattEarp]

Too many articles verge on the brink of hubris, in that they cherry-pick the variables they claim are significant, while side-stepping or ignoring those that are inconvenient or non-supportive of their thesis.

I'm much more receptive to authors who focus on what's actually happening than I am to those who come up with some kind of construct about how, in their opinion, things could play out. When I read the latter kind of article, I usually spot some assumption they're making which, if things happen differently, substantially undercuts their thesis. And, at that point, I lose interest because they continue writing in a confident voice when they should (IMO) be writing with more humility and admitting how much they don't know, and which assumptions might not hold.

At this point, I'm pretty much done with so-called experts (see my post in the Kyiv main thread) because so many have been so profoundly wrong (and so few admit that fact). What I look for are accurate observations about what's happening right now, as I think such observations hold more promise for extrapolating towards the future. So, when I read an article that doesn't seem to fully embrace or understand what's happening on the battlefield at this very moment, I'm frankly not that interested. I'm happy to trade a pound of "experts" for an ounce of accurate observers.

Nothing personal, but I think you are generally too optimistic that the war's outcome will provide a great victory for the Ukraine. I think there is enough uncertainty in this war and any war for that matter to make all predictions specious.

I think many have painted a picture the war is an existential battle for the Ukraine that can be resolved with great satisfaction and achievement. It has also been said Putin himself could very well be in an existential fight over the Ukraine. That sounds like the recipe for a long, grinding war.

What's the best outcome Ukraine "wins small" and the war ends this year or they fight a five year conflict to achieve something possibly more or possibly not? It's not an easy question to answer in my opinion.

Having said that, yes it would be great if Putin felt his world closing in, walks into his office, shuts the door and ingests a cyanide pill.

[Jojosun]

That is really low. Israelis, most of whom have Ukrainian roots, words cannot describe. I

Your bashing seems to be all over the place!!

The man from Odessa, Jabotinsky with his brand of Zionism, based on claiming all of the land including Jordan, is not really majority opinion in Israel. More support for it for reasons of their own, is to be found among White American Evangelicals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_la...without_a_land#text=%22%20 A%20 land%20 without%20 a%20 people%20 for%20 a,historicity%20 and%20 significance%20 are%20 a%20 matter%20 of%20 contention.

Jewish Ukrainians who fled Putin's war in their thousands found homes in Germany. "Many Jewish Ukrainian refugees – no one know how many, but it is certainly thousands. Are choosing to come to Germany. Why? They are looking for quiet and Israel is seen as being dangerous. In addition, Germany has committed significant resources to help: https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-706446.

[Jmsuttr]

Gerasimov's trip to the front lines was a disaster, Shoigu (who isn't a real General) is now a hollow figurehead, and the newest revelation is that Dvornikov is an incompetent drunk!

https://odessa-journal.com/bellingca...ral-dvornikov/

No wonder the Orc-Generals are dropping like fetid flies. The vaunted Russian military machine turns out to be held together with chewing gum and baling wire. Except that some corrupt General sold the wire, replaced it with twine, and then swapped the chewing gum for gooey piles of shit! No wonder the wheels are falling off. Way to go, Vlad!

[Jmsuttr]

I didn't really take it as that. I think the authors were trying to raise the real possibility that the war might not resolve a lot. I also have thought about how wars achieve complete resolution (many don't) and thought the authors' statement below was insightful.

"The hypothesis that Russia's full-scale defeat would excise the cancer of imperialism from the Russian leadership and body politic rests on a clumsy analogy to Germany's unconditional surrender in World War II, and stems from a desire not just to end this war but to foreclose the possibility of Russia starting any future war in Europe. It is an intoxicating vision, but one unconnected to reality."

I'm sure the authors considered Putin dying, incapacitated or being deposed. It would seem to me to be a risky proposition to continue fighting and forgoing negotiations on this hope alone. Putin's departure by one means or another could possibly bring an ideal conclusion of the war, but it is also predicated on other things happening after his removal.

As far as "Russia suffers a humiliating defeat", I don't see that happening on the battlefield. Without NATO support for the Ukraine attacking Russian targets, I think a grinding stalemate inside the Ukraine is far more likely. So in my opinion, the humiliating Russian defeat only comes about with regime change and capitulation. This gets back to my point do you continue fighting and forgoing negotiations on the premise that Putin is close to being removed one way or another.

In the likely responses to follow, I would not impose too much argumentative meaning to my raising the issue of negotiations. One in disagreement can chastise the idea of negotiations, but there are many matters that need to be resolved to end the conflict. Those who think that the Ukrainians will drive the Russians out of the Ukraine indefinitely including Crimea and possibly incite a regime change in Russia clearly would find much to disagree with my post.

Too many articles verge on the brink of hubris, in that they cherry-pick the variables they claim are significant, while side-stepping or ignoring those that are inconvenient or non-supportive of their thesis.

I'm much more receptive to authors who focus on what's actually happening than I am to those who come up with some kind of construct about how, in their opinion, things could play out. When I read the latter kind of article, I usually spot some assumption they're making which, if things happen differently, substantially undercuts their thesis. And, at that point, I lose interest because they continue writing in a confident voice when they should (IMO) be writing with more humility and admitting how much they don't know, and which assumptions might not hold.

At this point, I'm pretty much done with so-called experts (see my post in the Kyiv main thread) because so many have been so profoundly wrong (and so few admit that fact). What I look for are accurate observations about what's happening right now, as I think such observations hold more promise for extrapolating towards the future. So, when I read an article that doesn't seem to fully embrace or understand what's happening on the battlefield at this very moment, I'm frankly not that interested. I'm happy to trade a pound of "experts" for an ounce of accurate observers.

[PedroMorales]

Of the USMC (America's equivalent of the Waffen SS) becomes the third American mercenary to be captured by Russian peace keepers in Ukraine. Capt. Kurpasi, from Wilmington, North Carolina, should know that the Geneva Convention does not apply to mercenaries. He is fair game.

No more killing Iraqi kids or Ukrainian Russian speakers for him https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/16/p...ine/index.html.

[PedroMorales]

And the Ukrainian Parliament, who will take over? Who will do the snapchat videos when this dead man walking gets his desserts? If Russia was the USA, Zelensky would have been fried months ago. Is Russia just keeping this fool on ice? Would it help if the Nazis just took front stage in Kiev?

[PedroMorales]

To be one today is more like being an Isreali in 2022.

That is really low. Israelis, most of whom have Ukrainian roots, words cannot describe. I was watching a video of the captured US bio weapons guy (the whitey caught alongside the Viet). Seemed in good spirits. Hope he rats out Hunter Biden.

Just watching those fkers now around the Damascus gate. Though some Americans may have redeeming features (Lot and salt), they haven one. Day after day.