Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Jmsuttr]

I'm guessing you are here to try to persuade others that the Ukraine War is a cause we must commit to resolutely.

You guess wrong. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I post facts and analyses I think are interesting and relevant and people are free to decide for themselves. Similarly, when people post narrative and opinion, dressed up as fact, I'm happy to point out facts that burst that bubble.

Either way, I frankly don't give a fuck what they believe, because the war will play out how it plays out. Oh, but I do enjoy making fun of the Putin FanBoy clique. That doesn't mean I'm trying to persuade them either, because they're immune to fact.

However, I don't see you persuading. Instead, you are shouting down on someone who has been in mostly support of your posts. No one has to be in 100% agreement with your perspective to show loyalty to the Ukrainian cause.

I don't give a fuck what you think. Especially now that you've conclusively demonstrated yourself to be morally impaired. Whether you're a moral cripple, or a moral coward, you'll have to decide for yourself. And others can read each and every moral challenge that was placed before you, and render their own judgments on your repeated evasions. I'm not trying to convince them either, the posts speak for themselves.

I do think you take it too personally. So what?

No problem. I do think you can go fuck yourself. So what?

I don't want to here aggressive retorts that I don't care about the Russian atrocities. Or the the old social media standby "you're not answering my question" repeatedly to establish dominance over someone and the thread.

If you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. If YOU hadn't taken it upon yourself to play the role of "school marm," lecturing me about how I should "feel," there would have been no retort. Oh, and if this is too aggressive for you, I suggest you either drag your pussy-ass somewhere else, or maybe just STFU instead of presuming to lecture others.

BTW, you'd actually be more believable if you dropped any pretense at caring, since it's glaringly obvious you don't. Someone who at least is honest about their moral indifference is better than someone who expresses pseudo-concern.

I would dial it down a bit. Maybe quite a bit. Let some opinions breathe without feeling compelled to suffocate anyone whose opinion doesn't conform to yours.

Once again, go fuck yourself. Since you've conclusively shown yourself to be a moral pygmy, pretending to care (in the oh-so-comfortable abstract), why should your second attempt at lecturing meet with anything less than the same contempt merited by the first?

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is the same hand full of people shouting at each other day-in and day-out on an "anonymous fuckboard."

In case you haven't noticed, I much prefer HONEST exchanges, even if they involve shouting, over the kind of mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded, piss-ant contributions you offer.

I'm perfectly able to deal with robust debate, even if it crosses into shouting and nastiness. And that's because I'm confident in my ability to construct sound arguments that are based on facts and evidence.

But, when someone presumes to tell me how I should feel, especially when that person has put his moral impairment on full display, then the shotgun gets loaded and the volume gets turned up. Don't like it? Tough shit. When you choose to start something, completely unsolicited and uncalled for, you choose to reap what you've sown.

BTW, I'm more than primed for another round, are you? If you think you've seen aggressive and enraged, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[WyattEarp]

Nice seeing you put Wyatt on the spot for the third time, but this "abstract" "generalized" "realpolitik" softcore isolationism occasionally seasoned with sympathy for Russian propaganda is all we've gotten from Wyatt for the last 14 months, and with little consideration to the unfolding narrative. If you've read one of his posts you've read them all, thus for the most part I've stopped reading them.

I'll add that with someone like Elvis it's direct. You know exactly what you are getting and where's he coming from. Wyatt's ad nauseam and disingenuous pseudo-intellectualism though is especially nauseating.

And yes, the Russians are war criminals. Their actions should invoke an emotional reaction from anyone with a moral conscience. Fact is though that many on the planet do not have one. Life is only viewed and lived with the aim of what pleasures they can personally get out of it. It's thus very easy and perfectly natural for them to operate in the abstract when it comes to the tribulations of other people.

Apparently Paulie, it is lost on you that you are in the International Sex Guide website on a thread called Stupid Shit in Kyiv calling another participant a pseudo-intellectual. JM seems to have self-awareness that we are on a sex forum. I believe he called it an "anonymous fuckboard".

Part of the reason the various "Stupid Shit" threads were created here was the moderators were tired of having to moderate the hyperaggressive pundits and self-proclaimed experts that routinely turn up on ISG to tell everyone how everything works and how they should think. I am doing neither. I have given my opinion on how the war might end. I just don't see how it ends in the nice, neat resolution that some others believe.

If it helps you understand the world better to divide everybody into two opposing camps with strict lines, you do what you got to do. Most Americans are pragmatic about the Ukraine war. Hope for the best, but prepare for something less might be a good way to put it. As far as this thread, I'm perfectly comfortable disagreeing with Elvis, ignoring the Russophiles and challenging JM on occasion all in a civil manner.

If you believe that the Ukrainians will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders including out of Crimea and the conflict will mostly be over. That is just an opinion. It could play out that way. I have simply offered an opinion, consistently I might add, that is questioning the ability to achieve an ideal outcome. That doesn't mean I don't support the Ukrainians.

You should be telling us your opinion on how the war ends. Basically, you have to write an ending. While the collapse of the Putin regime has been discussed, that is neither a political resolution the Ukrainians or the West directly control nor one they can depend on. So let's skip the personal targeting and discuss the war's progress and end.

[Jmsuttr]

Elvis, I think the next 2-4 weeks are crucial for Ukraine military. If they can somehow mount spring offensive, (I have my doubts), they might have a chance.

The 2-4 week timeline is reasonable, although weather is an important factor, as I mentioned in my response to Elvis, and that's beyond anyone's control. The last thing Ukraine will want is to start an offensive and get (literally) bogged down.

And I have no doubt that Ukraine will launch an offensive. They've announced it, and everyone (internally and externally) expects it. In anticipation they've been training troops and accumulating resources so, given the circumstances, inaction would understandably be viewed as failure.

To what degree that offensive succeeds is a different matter. That remains to be seen, although it's relevant to point out that Ukraine has demonstrated an ability to surprise.

They have to gain some momentum quickly or they will be wiped out.

Really? What's your definition of momentum? And what evidence can you present that Russia's military currently has the capacity to do any "wiping" out? With the exception of perhaps Bakhmut, which has turned into a meat-grinder attritional battle, Russia has either been going backwards or remained static. If you have sources to back up your assessment that Russia retains significant "wiped out" capability, kindly share some links.

Time will tell, but the media is starting to change their tune that maybe Ukraine military is starting to lose.

Which media, specifically? And are these fact-based stories or opinion pieces? The latter, as I've repeatedly pointed out, have mostly been wrong and are a dime a dozen.

I think we will have our answer the first week in June maybe sooner.

Again, weather-dependent but not an unreasonable timeline.

Maybe, Biden and the allies will come to there senses at start a road to piece, but there are no signs of this happening, they just keep doubling down.

The definition of peace depends on who you ask. For Russia, it means "Give us what we want, all or a significant part of Ukraine." For Ukraine it means reclaiming their 1991 borders and gaining assurances (via NATO membership or otherwise) that future aggression by Russia will be deterred. Those positions are poles apart, neither side shows any inclination to negotiate, and neither side's allies show either the ability or inclination to push either party to the negotiating table.

Among the Western allies, there are strong voices who view the conflict as being a) a continuation of Russia's 2014 aggression; b) more than simply a dispute between two states; c) likely to raise the threat level in Europe if Russian aggression is rewarded. Among those voices are (at a minimum) the Baltics, Poland, and the Nordics. And those views are so strongly held that they can't and won't be disregarded by larger allies.

Also, as far as doubling-down is concerned, it's actually quite a rational strategy if you believe you hold a winning hand. Whether or not that's the case will only be known with the benefit of hindsight.

[WyattEarp]

No, the "heated" part of the exchange started with you presuming to tell me that I was taking things too personally. And that led me to challenge you, repeatedly and directly, to take that geopolitical stick out of your ass and respond to Russia's atrocities on a strictly personal and moral plane. I even provided you with an example of a particularly heinous act, the cold-blooded shooting of a young girl in the head, in hopes of knocking you out of your detached, navel-gazing mode.

Even now, after a cursory acknowledgement of Russian atrocities, presented as though you're viewing them through a long-distance, indifferent lens, you rush to take refuge under your abstract geopolitical comfort blanket. I guess that stick up your ass must be surgically attached, huh?

Oh, and if you're wondering why I edited out all the ancillary geopolitical BS you posted, you'll find the answer in the paragraph below. I used it in my response to Elvis but it's equally applicable here.

I'm guessing you are here to try to persuade others that the Ukraine War is a cause we must commit to resolutely. However, I don't see you persuading. Instead, you are shouting down on someone who has been in mostly support of your posts. No one has to be in 100% agreement with your perspective to show loyalty to the Ukrainian cause.

I do think you take it too personally. So what? I don't want to here aggressive retorts that I don't care about the Russian atrocities. Or the the old social media standby "you're not answering my question" repeatedly to establish dominance over someone and the thread.

If you want to be effective at delivering your message, I would dial it down a bit. Maybe quite a bit. Let some opinions breathe without feeling compelled to suffocate anyone whose opinion doesn't conform to yours. In case you haven't noticed, this thread is the same hand full of people shouting at each other day-in and day-out on an "anonymous fuckboard."

[VinDici]

Orc having an opinion on press freedom.

Tell us again how someone is allowed to freely express their opinion when there are muscovites around?

[DramaFree11]

My point in showing this was that if you look at both sides there is an issue with munitions. The key to me is if the West continues to supply Ukraine. I think JM has the idea that the West's goal was Ukrainian victory but I think it really was to weaken Russia. Hell, the Dems are still convinced that Putin was responsible for Trump and the 2016 victory. Yeah, Russia has North Korea, and North Korea buys from China so while the Chinese say they are not helping Russia too much, this could be a way around that.

Yeah, that Atlantic article is terribly wishful thinking IMO and love that pic of the ladies. LOL.

This is just my opinion but the Western nations seem to be getting a bit desperate:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...tucker-carlson

Both Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shortly before firing Fox News' anti-war host Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly asked why the United States is sending vast resources to one of the most historically corrupt nations on the planet while neglecting its own citizens.

I think Carlson had a good point. We are on the verge of a debt crisis, and I am still not seeing much value for the USA in this war.

And this: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ki...-bakhmut-alone.

In a Monday press briefing National Security Council spokesman John Kirby issued a surprisingly high estimate of Russian casualties which he said took place since December fighting in the contested Donetsk city of Bakhmut.

He said Russian forces have suffered over 100,000 total casualties. Including about 20,000 soldiers killed in combat and another 80,000 wounded.

End of link. To me, that number just sounds like total bullshit.

And this: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...ensive-delayed.

So Kirby paints a picture of a teetering Russian army, and still there's no counteroffensive on the horizon. "But for the moment, they are barely moving forward, stalled not by ferocious Russian attacks, but by an enemy no less tenacious: the viscous central Ukrainian mud," The New York Times wrote Monday. A Ukrainian officer interviewed by the Times acknowledged that "Until the weather improves, there will be no counteroffensive. " This is because: "the vehicles will get stuck and then what will we do if the shooting starts?

The report further describes why Ukraine is holding off in saying, "Deep and black, with a consistency similar to a mixture of cookie dough and wet cement, the spring mud is one obstacle that the Ukrainian military, for all its ingenuity, finds difficult to overcome. " Further "It jams weapons and steals the boots from soldiers' feet. Wheels and treads spin and spin, only digging military vehicles deeper into the mire. ".

My comment: This mud is an excuse. It has been known about forever.

Last week, NATO's top commander, US Army General Christopher Cavoli stated that the Russian army operating in Ukraine is larger than when the Kremlin launched its special military operation and the Ukrainians "have to be better than the Russian force they will face" and decide when and where they will strike.

Cavoli said Russia has strategic depth in manpower and has only lost one warship and about 80 fighters and tactical bombers in an air fleet numbering about 1,000 so far. The general gently contradicted Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chief of General Staff Gen. Mark Milley who have been propagating that Russia is on the brink of defeat.

Gen. Cavoli's testimony came soon after the leaked Pentagon documents recently, which has presented a grim picture of the state of Kiev's military preparedness and the Biden Administration's lack of confidence in the Zelensky regime.

The former CIA analyst Ray McGovern told China's CGTN, "I believe it could be that some senior policymakers in the Pentagon at the highest reaches of the Department of Defense have decided, 'You know, it's a fool's errand in Ukraine. Maybe, we got to get out the truth. Maybe, we got to expose people like Joint Chief of Staff Milley and Secretary Austin for the lies they have told about Ukrainian progress and Russians being just pulverised. And, maybe, that will stop this widening of the war. ' ".

The well-known former CIA analyst Larry Johnson shares the same view. He wrote: "This looks like a controlled, directed leak. The leaked material is not random intelligence material. It is designed to tell several stories. The most prominent is the deterioration of Ukrainian capabilities and the major obstacles confronting the United States and the rest of NATO in supplying badly needed air defence, artillery shells, artillery pieces and tanks. In other words, Ukraine is going to crash and burn. ".

End of link. Zero hedge is unabashedly pro-Russia and pro-Putin but they are giving another side of things we are not seeing. People can take these articles for what they want, but I do not trust Miley and Austin for shit.

My reading of this mixed bag of information is things are going really badly for Ukraine. It is just my opinion, but I think the guys pushing the Ukraine can win narrative are getting desperate and are flat out lying now. I could be wrong, but that is my take.

Elvis, I think the next 2-4 weeks are crucial for Ukraine military. If they can somehow mount spring offensive, (I have my doubts), they might have a chance. They have to gain some momentum quickly or they will be wiped out. Time will tell, but the media is starting to change their tune that maybe Ukraine military is starting to lose. I think we will have our answer the first week in June maybe sooner.

Maybe, Biden and the allies will come to there senses at start a road to piece, but there are no signs of this happening, they just keep doubling down.

[Jmsuttr]

When a majority of Russians hear of Putin the image of a pathetic loser comes to mind. Pathetic post-Soviet losers, like Putin, Yeltsin, and Medvedev, are characters in a series of comic books by the Russian author Havuhadinov.

Of course, we can debate if tossing one pathetic loser is enough to suppress a platoon on a hectare, or whether two or three are needed. Pulverizing every last Orc is a goal of this war. The West of course will supply until one moment it is going to shove it up Putin's ass. This type of support is laudable and inevitably will end in Russia's ignominy. The sooner the gang at the scene in Moscow will follow the fate of the current government of North Korea the better.

Couldn't agree more! Keep these nuggets coming!

[Questner]

When a majority of Russians hear of (Tucker) Carlson the image of Karlsson-on-the-Roof comes to mind. Karlsson is a character in a series of children's books by the Swedish author Astrid Lindgren.

Of course, we can debate if 150 of 152 mm artillery shells is enough to suppress a platoon on a hectare. Pulverizing everything is not a goal of this war. The West of course will supply until one moment it is going to stop. This type of support is unconscionable and inevitably will end in ignominy. The sooner the gang at the scene in Kiev will follow the fate of the former government of South Vietnam the better.

[Jmsuttr]

Our heated exchange started with a discussion about Crimea as a must-have Ukrainian objective and Crimea's ties to Russia or lack thereof.

No, the "heated" part of the exchange started with you presuming to tell me that I was taking things too personally. And that led me to challenge you, repeatedly and directly, to take that geopolitical stick out of your ass and respond to Russia's atrocities on a strictly personal and moral plane. I even provided you with an example of a particularly heinous act, the cold-blooded shooting of a young girl in the head, in hopes of knocking you out of your detached, navel-gazing mode.

Even now, after a cursory acknowledgement of Russian atrocities, presented as though you're viewing them through a long-distance, indifferent lens, you rush to take refuge under your abstract geopolitical comfort blanket. I guess that stick up your ass must be surgically attached, huh?

Oh, and if you're wondering why I edited out all the ancillary geopolitical BS you posted, you'll find the answer in the paragraph below. I used it in my response to Elvis but it's equally applicable here.

"I don't give a fuck about the West's agenda. I back Ukraine because they're defending themselves against aggression, and the right of self-defense is a moral absolute. And I oppose Russia because they are the aggressor. And, building on that latter fact, I DESPISE Putin and his Orcs because they're pursuing their aggression in a depraved, atrocity-laden way. If I merely opposed them, I would simply wish for them to fail and leave Ukraine. But, because I despise and hate them for the cruelties and atrocities they've committed, my wish for every perpetrator is that they die horribly (at least as horribly as their victims) and burn in lowest circle of hell".

That's it in a nutshell, 100% morality and 0% geopolitics. Any questions?

[DramaFree11]

According to CNN:

I have to side with the Kremlin here although for a reason they wouldn't like.

There is no way the Russians would only suffer 1 death for every 4 wounded. Yes, those are the "normal" proportions for "normal" modern warfare, but this war is anything but normal. Their wounded do not get pulled from the battlefield unless they can walk or crawl. They're left to die in agony that may last for days. The Russians aren't interested in pulling the wounded who couldn't be sent back to the meatgrinder. The medics too are doing everything they can to avoid risking their own lives pulling the wounded under the enemy fire.

And then, there are commanders who simply shoot their wounded who can't move.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ps-reveal.html

The level of cynicism and callousness toward their own comrades is almost unimaginable, but it is what it is.

Not a "schadenfreude" on my part. If the Russian casualties amount to 100,000, it means at least half of them are dead. It's a simple logic.

You guys have to stop reading and watching CNN. When is the last time they have told the truth about anything.

[Jmsuttr]

My point in showing this was that if you look at both sides there is an issue with munitions. The key to me is if the West continues to supply Ukraine. I think JM has the idea that the West's goal was Ukrainian victory but I think it really was to weaken Russia. Hell, the Dems are still convinced that Putin was responsible for Trump and the 2016 victory. Yeah, Russia has North Korea, and North Korea buys from China so while the Chinese say they are not helping Russia too much, this could be a way around that.

Yeah, that Atlantic article is terribly wishful thinking IMO and love that pic of the ladies. LOL.

This is just my opinion but the Western nations seem to be getting a bit desperate:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...tucker-carlson

Both Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shortly before firing Fox News' anti-war host Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly asked why the United States is sending vast resources to one of the most historically corrupt nations on the planet while neglecting its own citizens.

I think Carlson had a good point. We are on the verge of a debt crisis, and I am still not seeing much value for the USA in this war.

And this: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ki...-bakhmut-alone.

In a Monday press briefing National Security Council spokesman John Kirby issued a surprisingly high estimate of Russian casualties which he said took place since December fighting in the contested Donetsk city of Bakhmut.

And, when it comes to opinion, there's no way to say 100% whether it's right or wrong. Actually, let me qualify that a bit. You can judge opinions using 20-20 hindsight, but upcoming events are a different matter. A good track record is a positive thing, but it's no guarantee that future predictions will be correct. And a bad track record is a negative thing, but it's no guarantee that future predictions will be wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, unless and until what they "think" and "predict" is reflected in facts on the ground, all that opinion = exactly zero. And aggregating opinion on top of opinion doesn't change that calculus.

And it's also fair to point out how many of the pundits you cite are pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine, or both. Larry Johnson, for example, has a track record of appearing on Russian and Chinese propaganda outlets. He's entitled to his opinion but it's worth observing that he's arguably not exactly a neutral observer.

That's not to say there aren't a number of pro-Ukraine analysts and pundits, such as retired generals Ben Hodges and Mark Hertling. And, while their military expertise is head and shoulders above most, that's still no guarantee.

All the focus on opinion is completely wrongheaded, IMO (pun intended), as the war will be decided on the battlefield. And I'll take an ounce of factual info over a ton of opinion any day.

P.S. About mud being an excuse, if you follow any of the channels that show video of areas near the frontlines, you'd see the reality of the rasputitsa. There's a reason this season has a specific name. It was a factor in WW-II campaigns and weather has always been a key factor in battle. Assuming a Ukrainian offensive would rely heavily on the use of tanks and vehicles, they'd be foolish to attack prematurely. Bottom line, you don't know, I don't know, and opinions are a dime a dozen.

P. P.S. Your opinion as to what I think is even less relevant than all the BS above. I don't give a fuck about the West's agenda. I back Ukraine because they're defending themselves against aggression, and the right of self-defense is a moral absolute. And I oppose Russia because they are the aggressor. And, building on that latter fact, I DESPISE Putin and his Orcs because they're pursuing their aggression in a depraved, atrocity-laden way. If I merely opposed them, I would simply wish for them to fail and leave Ukraine. But, because I despise and hate them for the cruelties and atrocities they've committed, my wish for every perpetrator is that they die horribly (at least as horribly as their victims) and burn in lowest circle of hell. Is that clear enough for you?

[WyattEarp]

Can you find the frankness needed to answer a simple question with an equally simple answer? Fuck the war, in its generalized and abstract sense, and fuck Realpolitik and similar issues. So, let's try this again. Will the third time be a charm, or a strikeout?

"Here's a video interview of a Wagner mercenary who has returned to Russia from fighting in Ukraine. In the interview, he states (among other disclosures) that he was given explicit orders to kill civilians, including children. In one graphic passage, he talks about shooting a girl who was about 5 or 6 years of age. He killed her with a shot to the head.

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/statu...13152414732288

Here's my challenge to you: Can you describe, in a simple single sentence, your reaction as a moral being to this (IMO) quintessential example of evil?

Please don't do yourself a disservice by engaging in some (for this particular moral issue) detached pundit-style discussion of a geopolitical or policy topic. It's a simple question that begs an equally simple answer"..

JM, I answered your question. I didn't waver or equivocate. The Russian atrocities are disgusting and should be punished to the extent possible. I appreciate your impassioned support and belief in the Ukraine. I'm not challenging the Ukraine's right to their pre-2014 borders.

Our heated exchange started with a discussion about Crimea as a must-have Ukrainian objective and Crimea's ties to Russia or lack thereof. The fact that I see discussions all over the internet on the Crimea means that opinions are forming on the peninsula being a key Ukrainian objective.

Here's an interesting passage from Politico to give context:

"And this time, more western policy-makers — providing the arms, the financing and the diplomatic support necessary for Ukraine to finally achieve its goal of retaking "every inch" of Russian-occupied Ukraine — are increasingly along for the ride. "No matter what the Ukrainians decide about Crimea in terms of where they choose to fight. Ukraine is not going to be safe unless Crimea is at a minimum, at a minimum, demilitarized," undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland recently said. Or as Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh announced last month, the USA Will back Ukraine's efforts to reclaim the peninsula it first lost nearly a decade ago. ".

I will say this again. I don't care who tries to twist it or attack me. A political settlement as opposed to a sweeping military victory will likely be necessary to end the hostilities. You have mentioned the collapse of the Putin regime as a result of Ukrainian battlefield successes. This too is really a political solution. While we can all hope, it's also not something to count on as the impetus for terminating the war.

(Sorry for my delay in responding. I've been busy and I wanted to try to respond thoughtfully without trying to raise the heat unnecessarily.).

[Xpartan]

According to CNN:

Russia has suffered more than 100,000 casualties since December, including over 20,000 dead, according to White House estimates. The Kremlin has rejected the numbers.

I have to side with the Kremlin here although for a reason they wouldn't like.

There is no way the Russians would only suffer 1 death for every 4 wounded. Yes, those are the "normal" proportions for "normal" modern warfare, but this war is anything but normal. Their wounded do not get pulled from the battlefield unless they can walk or crawl. They're left to die in agony that may last for days. The Russians aren't interested in pulling the wounded who couldn't be sent back to the meatgrinder. The medics too are doing everything they can to avoid risking their own lives pulling the wounded under the enemy fire.

And then, there are commanders who simply shoot their wounded who can't move.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ps-reveal.html

The level of cynicism and callousness toward their own comrades is almost unimaginable, but it is what it is.

Not a "schadenfreude" on my part. If the Russian casualties amount to 100,000, it means at least half of them are dead. It's a simple logic.

[VinDici]

Orc grunting noises

Seems that people take war crimes seriously, the one painting the walls will be Putin.

[Elvis 2008]

We have enough ammo to bury everyone and everything several times in a row plus a bit more. All the goals of the SMO are going to be achieved. Yes, there are and there were cases of mismanagement. With some brief interruptions mismanagement is a historical constant. It only leads to ingenuity and new levels of freedom to operate fast when needed. Don't forget we have a border and a railway into NK and have secured the military and technical agreement with PRC, an unprecedented one which has been in waiting for the long 45 years, and which can backstop any military effort. The sanctions only propel the economy forward.

My point in showing this was that if you look at both sides there is an issue with munitions. The key to me is if the West continues to supply Ukraine. I think JM has the idea that the West's goal was Ukrainian victory but I think it really was to weaken Russia. Hell, the Dems are still convinced that Putin was responsible for Trump and the 2016 victory. Yeah, Russia has North Korea, and North Korea buys from China so while the Chinese say they are not helping Russia too much, this could be a way around that.

Yeah, that Atlantic article is terribly wishful thinking IMO and love that pic of the ladies. LOL.

This is just my opinion but the Western nations seem to be getting a bit desperate:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...tucker-carlson

Both Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shortly before firing Fox News' anti-war host Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly asked why the United States is sending vast resources to one of the most historically corrupt nations on the planet while neglecting its own citizens.

I think Carlson had a good point. We are on the verge of a debt crisis, and I am still not seeing much value for the USA in this war.

And this: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ki...-bakhmut-alone.

In a Monday press briefing National Security Council spokesman John Kirby issued a surprisingly high estimate of Russian casualties which he said took place since December fighting in the contested Donetsk city of Bakhmut.

He said Russian forces have suffered over 100,000 total casualties. Including about 20,000 soldiers killed in combat and another 80,000 wounded.

End of link. To me, that number just sounds like total bullshit.

And this: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...ensive-delayed.

So Kirby paints a picture of a teetering Russian army, and still there's no counteroffensive on the horizon. "But for the moment, they are barely moving forward, stalled not by ferocious Russian attacks, but by an enemy no less tenacious: the viscous central Ukrainian mud," The New York Times wrote Monday. A Ukrainian officer interviewed by the Times acknowledged that "Until the weather improves, there will be no counteroffensive. " This is because: "the vehicles will get stuck and then what will we do if the shooting starts?

The report further describes why Ukraine is holding off in saying, "Deep and black, with a consistency similar to a mixture of cookie dough and wet cement, the spring mud is one obstacle that the Ukrainian military, for all its ingenuity, finds difficult to overcome. " Further "It jams weapons and steals the boots from soldiers' feet. Wheels and treads spin and spin, only digging military vehicles deeper into the mire. ".

My comment: This mud is an excuse. It has been known about forever.

Last week, NATO's top commander, US Army General Christopher Cavoli stated that the Russian army operating in Ukraine is larger than when the Kremlin launched its special military operation and the Ukrainians "have to be better than the Russian force they will face" and decide when and where they will strike.

Cavoli said Russia has strategic depth in manpower and has only lost one warship and about 80 fighters and tactical bombers in an air fleet numbering about 1,000 so far. The general gently contradicted Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chief of General Staff Gen. Mark Milley who have been propagating that Russia is on the brink of defeat.

Gen. Cavoli's testimony came soon after the leaked Pentagon documents recently, which has presented a grim picture of the state of Kiev's military preparedness and the Biden Administration's lack of confidence in the Zelensky regime.

The former CIA analyst Ray McGovern told China's CGTN, "I believe it could be that some senior policymakers in the Pentagon at the highest reaches of the Department of Defense have decided, 'You know, it's a fool's errand in Ukraine. Maybe, we got to get out the truth. Maybe, we got to expose people like Joint Chief of Staff Milley and Secretary Austin for the lies they have told about Ukrainian progress and Russians being just pulverised. And, maybe, that will stop this widening of the war. ' ".

The well-known former CIA analyst Larry Johnson shares the same view. He wrote: "This looks like a controlled, directed leak. The leaked material is not random intelligence material. It is designed to tell several stories. The most prominent is the deterioration of Ukrainian capabilities and the major obstacles confronting the United States and the rest of NATO in supplying badly needed air defence, artillery shells, artillery pieces and tanks. In other words, Ukraine is going to crash and burn. ".

End of link. Zero hedge is unabashedly pro-Russia and pro-Putin but they are giving another side of things we are not seeing. People can take these articles for what they want, but I do not trust Miley and Austin for shit.

My reading of this mixed bag of information is things are going really badly for Ukraine. It is just my opinion, but I think the guys pushing the Ukraine can win narrative are getting desperate and are flat out lying now. I could be wrong, but that is my take.