Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Paulie97]

I'm just repeating what the western mainstream media and europeans have said. The whole non sense that Russians are running out of missiles, drones, they are using parts out of washing machines, you name it. So tell me, are the Russians stupid, weak, running out of ammo, getting defeated or are they actually such badasses that they will conquer all of Ukraine and then go after Eastern Europe and the Baltics?

That's precisely your false dilemma as you leave out a third option. Russia can at present be a grinding, attritional force that holds territory without being either stupid or unstoppable, and that's precisely what the evidence shows.

My rebuttals are a few posts back, two separate posts. Other than to admit Putin is a dictator, you haven't answered a single one.

And I'm still waiting on your point by point reply to my Mendel rebuttal. You after all reposted her article so you should welcome the challenge.

Here's my response to the Iuliia Mendel article recently posted by Questner. It's linked again above.

[The Cane]

Why did you add in the 'Islamist' before Iran? Racist much?

It's not a race. Nor is Judaism for that matter. They are religions.

[Blood Red]

Since almost 5 years, Putin showed to the world and Russians how he failed to defeat so courageous Ukrainians, despite Russian meat for his war, same than Trump failed versus Islamist Iran.

Why did you add in the 'Islamist' before Iran? Racist much?

[Blood Red]

MP Skorokhod proposed amending the Constitution and abandoning Ukraine's NATO affiliation.

Member of Parliament Anna Skorokhod submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada to amend the Constitution to enshrine Ukraine's neutral status.

The document appeared on the parliament's website.

"Consolidating Ukraine's neutral status, which consists of guarantees of non-entry into any military alliance and confirmation of the absence of any desire to commit aggression against any country," the proposed amendment states.

Of the Ukrainian Constitution's policies for joining NATO and the European Union established during Petro Poroshenko's presidency, Skorokhod proposes retaining only the EU aspirations, removing any mention of the North Atlantic Alliance.

It should be noted that Ukraine's neutral status is one of the Russian Federation's demands within the framework of a peaceful settlement.

The main reason for this tragic war was the USA and the west pushing NATO into Ukraine. Putin warned that this was the brightest of red lines as far back as 2008, if not even before that. Georgia tried the same foolish move and look how that ended for them in 2008. The collective west took Ukraine down the primrose path. They are pure evil. As long as it's Ukrainians dying, they are okay as long as Russia bleeds. Monsters I swear.

[Blood Red]

While debate over Putin's long range aspirations remains open, no one serious argues that Russia is currently out to annex all of Ukraine. The claim is he wants to subjugate it, which he's clear about with his "demilitarization" demand. He's already taken nineteen percent. And a wounded Russia is still dangerous. That's why the Baltics worry. Cyber attacks, sabotage, assassinations, GPS jamming, and disinformation. That's the toolkit with no invasion required.

And your paragraph about the shovels and collapsed Russian economy is a straw man caricature, while your "which is it?" is a false dilemma.

I'm just repeating what the western mainstream media and europeans have said. The whole non sense that Russians are running out of missiles, drones, they are using parts out of washing machines, you name it. So tell me, are the Russians stupid, weak, running out of ammo, getting defeated or are they actually such badasses that they will conquer all of Ukraine and then go after Eastern Europe and the Baltics?

No one serious argues that Russia is currently capable of conquering it's former allies, nor are they claiming that the Russian economy has collapsed.

Good, so we are on the same page here. Please tell that to some of the silly folks on here, like this Siroja individual.

These are more examples as to why few here waste time with you. You substitute hostility for substance, calling Zelensky a clown while silent about the fact that Putin is a dictator and murderer that kills and imprisons dissent.

When have I ever said Putin isn't a dictator? He is. And Zelensky is a corrupt clown.

You usually just ignore the points of your opponents, but when you decide to try and tackle them you twist them first. Objective readers on the thread can clearly see that you are losing big.


For any interested in the current state of the decidedly strained Russian economy, here's a paragraph from my Mendel rebuttal, that BR has thus far chosen to completely avoid.

It was you that ignored all of my previous posts because you couldn't address anything I posted and resorted to selective quoting.

[Blood Red]

You failed miserably to answer my post and had to resort to selective quoting. I gave you a chance for a serious debate but clearly you are not up for it and weaseled out.

[Questner]

MP Skorokhod proposed amending the Constitution and abandoning Ukraine's NATO affiliation.

Member of Parliament Anna Skorokhod submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada to amend the Constitution to enshrine Ukraine's neutral status.

The document appeared on the parliament's website.

"Consolidating Ukraine's neutral status, which consists of guarantees of non-entry into any military alliance and confirmation of the absence of any desire to commit aggression against any country," the proposed amendment states.

Of the Ukrainian Constitution's policies for joining NATO and the European Union established during Petro Poroshenko's presidency, Skorokhod proposes retaining only the EU aspirations, removing any mention of the North Atlantic Alliance.

It should be noted that Ukraine's neutral status is one of the Russian Federation's demands within the framework of a peaceful settlement.

[Paulie97]

That is a lie fed to you by the pathetic fake western media you follow. Putin has never ever said he wants to conquer all of Ukraine. Pay attention, he's having a hell of a time trying to conquer 4 oblasts and it's been almost 5 years now. You really think he can conquer all of Ukraine, especially western Ukraine that is so hostile to Russia? So use your brain please.

Also, I love how the collective west wants it both ways. On one end they say Russia is weak, it's losing, they are fighting with shovels, they are getting beat, their economy is in collapse, that Ukraine is winning, blah blah.

Then they tell us that Putin will conquer all of Ukraine and go after the baltic states and eastern european countries next.

So which is it? This shit is hilarious, you can't make it up.

While debate over Putin's long range aspirations remains open, no one serious argues that Russia is currently out to annex all of Ukraine. The claim is he wants to subjugate it, which he's clear about with his "demilitarization" demand. He's already taken nineteen percent. And a wounded Russia is still dangerous. That's why the Baltics worry. Cyber attacks, sabotage, assassinations, GPS jamming, and disinformation. That's the toolkit with no invasion required.

And your paragraph about the shovels and collapsed Russian economy is a straw man caricature, while your "which is it?" is a false dilemma. No one serious argues that Russia is currently capable of conquering it's former allies, nor are they claiming that the Russian economy has collapsed. These are more examples as to why few here waste time with you. You substitute hostility for substance, calling Zelensky a clown while silent about the fact that Putin is a dictator and murderer that kills and imprisons dissent. You usually just ignore the points of your opponents, but when you decide to try and tackle them you twist them first. Objective readers on the thread can clearly see that you are losing big.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...rawman-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../False-Dilemma

For any interested in the current state of the decidedly strained Russian economy, here's a paragraph from my Mendel rebuttal, that BR has thus far chosen to completely avoid.

The numbers she leans on in her economy paragraph are already stale. Russia's military spending hit a record forty-four percent of the federal budget in the first half of twenty twenty-six over ten point seven trillion rubles, roughly one hundred twenty-five billion dollars. That's more than half of every ruble the government collects. The deficit has already blown past the full-year target. Regions are slashing signing bonuses and, in places like Yakutia, freezing payments to soldiers outright because the money ran out. This isn't a stronger fiscal position. It's a war economy eating itself. Growth has collapsed to under one percent, inflation is still biting, and the civilian sector is being hollowed out to feed the front. Ukraine's debt is high, but it's mostly concessional aid from allies who have a reason to keep it solvent. Russia's "strength" is extraction oil revenue, forced labor, and a shrinking workforce with no off-ramp. She's comparing a country fighting for survival to one that chose this war and is now paying for it by cannibalizing its own budget.

[Sirioja]

Since almost 5 years, Putin showed to the world and Russians how he failed to defeat so courageous Ukrainians, despite Russian meat for his war, same than Trump failed versus Islamist Iran.

[Paulie97]

Ukraine will die as a nation.

This isn't an argument, it's a prediction, and it's the same thesis as the Mendel article you posted. I rebutted that article here. It's post number 4522.

Here's my response to the Iuliia Mendel article

I challenged you to respond to this rebuttal point by point but you haven't done so. That's a pattern with you, ignore all rebuttals then resurface later recycling the same predictions and fallacious arguments. I again challenge you to go answer it point by point, while the audience can see your refusal.

The weight of military analysis believes Ukraine is in a good position to survive as a nation, by forcing terms that preserve their sovereignty. The West has far greater economic depth than Russia, and Russia's economy is straining under sanctions and labor shortages. Here's some of the war math that I posted in my rebuttal to Mendel. There's some overlap with some content from my prior post to you, but you ignored it.

Her casualty math has some accuracy but is incomplete. That while she's recycling the same Russian talking point that's been wrong since 2022, that Ukraine's been running out of men, while the front is still holding. Ukraine's pool of conscription-age men is small around four million in the territory it still holds and Russia's is roughly ten times larger. But attrition is not a pure headcount contest. Ukraine has been inflicting disproportionate losses with drones, long-range strikes, and cheaper systems. Russian casualties have run two to three times higher than Ukraine's for most of the war, and in early twenty twenty-six the ratio climbed towards eight to one in some estimates. Russia is also struggling to replace its own losses at the same rate. She's calling for surrender at the exact moment the attrition is working against the side she wants to surrender to.

It's worth noting that giving into Russia's current demands is tantamount to national suicide, thus 77% of Ukrainians want to fight on if the alternative is to give into Russia's maximalist position. That's their decision. That's in fact the thesis of my rebuttal to Mendel that you choose to ignore.

On your angle that NATO is forcing itself on Central and Eastern Europe, I've answered you on that more times than I can count. Here's the most recent. Of course you ignored the post, then took a month to reappear again. It's post number 4467.

The "not one inch eastward" assurance was verbal, limited to East Germany during unification talks, and never written into the Two Plus Four Treaty or any binding agreement. Also cut the spin BS. Many former Eastern Block countries freely and gleefully expanded into NATO because they reject your way of life.

You've also been rebutted from here to Sunday when you call the 2014 removal of Yanukovych a "coup. " And it's the same, you ran off then came back much later repeating the same rebutted claim over again. It's post number 4459.

Yanukovych fled Kyiv after signing an EU deal for early elections. Parliament, including members of his own party, voted three hundred twenty-eight to zero to remove him the next day because he'd abandoned his post. That's not a coup, it's what happens when a president runs away.

Below in the only new material in your post, new to me that is so I'll answer it. Though I believe some others here have addressed it before.

I'm not justifying the Russian demands. But the fact remains, Putin tried very hard to avoid full scale war. This started in 2014. How many Minsk accords did we have? It's well known now that the Europeans and Russians were playing for time to get better armed for the full scale war that did eventually start in 2022. This is all on record. Angela Merkel admitted it.

This is a war that should have never happened, and it wouldn't have had the collective west not pushed NATO down Ukraine's throat. Ukraine as a neutral state was at peace. And look at it now.

If Minsk was a delay tactic, both sides used it. Merkel's 2022 Der Spiegel interview said the agreements gave Ukraine time to become stronger — that's not the same as admitting a plot to start a war. And Russia spent those same eight years building up its own forces, militarizing Crimea, and training the Donbas proxies.

On 'Putin tried hard to avoid full-scale war' — in December 2021 he handed Biden draft treaties demanding a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO, plus a rollback of NATO forces in Eastern Europe. That's not avoiding war, that's issuing an ultimatum with a hundred thousand troops already massed on the border. And the demand was structurally impossible — NATO membership requires unanimous consent from all thirty members, and no US president can unilaterally amend the NATO charter. He set a condition he knew couldn't be met, then treated the refusal as provocation.

And NATO wasn't shoved down Ukraine's throat. Ukraine repealed its non-alignment law in 2014,303-8, and by February 2022 polling showed about sixty percent of Ukrainians supported joining. That's a sovereign country's choice, not Western coercion.

Your claim to not have a horse in this race is equally disingenuous while you claim that Alexi Navalny died of natural causes. It's also clear that regardless of your agenda, you aren't interested in debating in good faith.

[Sirioja]

That is a lie fed to you by the pathetic fake western media you follow. Putin has never ever said he wants to conquer all of Ukraine. Pay attention, he's having a hell of a time trying to conquer 4 oblasts and it's been almost 5 years now. You really think he can conquer all of Ukraine, especially western Ukraine that is so hostile to Russia? So use your brain please.

Also, I love how the collective west wants it both ways. On one end they say Russia is weak, it's losing, they are fighting with shovels, they are getting beat, their economy is in collapse, that Ukraine is winning, blah blah.

Then they tell us that Putin will conquer all of Ukraine and go after the baltic states and eastern european countries next..

Yes, use your brain if You have. Putin is a liar who didn't respect what he signed for Crimea. When he was a nothing in KGB behind the wall, but he dreams of ex USSR again, this is the real truth, when he fuck elections in Georgia, Moldavia, Romania and attack Leipzig in ex DDR where he worked.

[Blood Red]

Putin wants whole Ukraine, after Crimea, and even more, trying to fuck elections abroad, dreaming of back to ex USSR.

That is a lie fed to you by the pathetic fake western media you follow. Putin has never ever said he wants to conquer all of Ukraine. Pay attention, he's having a hell of a time trying to conquer 4 oblasts and it's been almost 5 years now. You really think he can conquer all of Ukraine, especially western Ukraine that is so hostile to Russia? So use your brain please.

Also, I love how the collective west wants it both ways. On one end they say Russia is weak, it's losing, they are fighting with shovels, they are getting beat, their economy is in collapse, that Ukraine is winning, blah blah.

Then they tell us that Putin will conquer all of Ukraine and go after the baltic states and eastern european countries next.

So which is it? This shit is hilarious, you can't make it up.

[Blood Red]

Ukraine's solution is to survive hold the line, keep the economy running, and make every kilometer cost Russia more than it's worth. That's not a slogan, it's what the numbers show: near-zero net Russian gains since March, and Ukraine retook about eight hundred square kilometers this year while Russia took nine hundred. And Ukraine's long range drone campaign has repeatedly hit Russian refineries and logistics, adding real economic costs beyond the front lines. Making every kilometer cost more isn't just about the trenches, it's hitting Russia's war economy directly.

You're basically saying what the Europeans are saying. Fight until the last Ukrainian so it makes Russia bleed as much as possible. No doubt, Russia is bleeding. But Ukraine will die as a nation. This reminds me what Biden's defense secretary said a while after the Russian invasion in 2022. He said the purpose of supporting Ukraine was to make sure Russia pays a heavy price and is not able to do this again. Basically, he said the same thing as you, to make Russia bleed. He said nothing about Ukraine winning. So going back to what I said earlier, no doubt Russia will bleed but Ukraine will become a dysfunctional rump state with Russia winning an ugly victory. If you are okay with Ukraine paying that price, which you clearly are, all the power to you. But let me ask you this: are you Ukrainian? Or just a European? If either. Just wondering. I'm not a Russian or even a European. I have no horse in this race. I have actually met more Ukrainians than Russians and found them to be very nice people.

On winning no, not in the sense of retaking every inch. But Russia isn't winning either. Its theory of victory was that slow advances would collapse Ukraine's defenses, and that theory is failing. So the realistic endgame is a frozen line or a negotiated settlement, not a Russian flag over Kyiv.

Do you have any battlefield experience? Clearly not. This is a war of attrition. Do you know what matters in a war of attrition? I can go into detail if you like. Fact of the matter is, Ukraine cannot and will not win this war. Russia will win in the end. They will see this to the very end, no matter what the cost. And the result will be an ugly Russian victory, Ukraine losing more men and territory and getting completely destroyed.

And I agree with your last para. This will end not with a peace treaty, but a frozen conflict. Russia will take more territory and at some point, the guns will fall silent. All the cities that are currently being fought over (Sloviansk, Kramatorsks, etc), they will all be destroyed. Ukraine will never take back Crimea or any of the territories that Russia has captured.

On NATO no, not anytime soon. Even Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former top commander, said this summer that Ukraine will never join. Zelensky has already offered to drop the bid in exchange for legally binding security guarantees from the US and Europe. That's the actual state of play.

Back to you, if Russia wanted peace, why does Lavrov's list still demand recognition of annexed territory Russia doesn't even fully control? Considering the same why do they insist that Ukraine reduce it's military to levels where it cannot defend itself? That's handing Putin the keys while hoping he doesn't come back for the furniture.

Fact: Ukraine will never ever join NATO. This not anytime soon is BS. Mark my words. And Zaluzhnyi is correct here. And you also admit that the drugged out clown as offered to drop the bid. So I ask, WTF was all this for? Why was neutrality so bad? And how did this all start? It didn't start on Feb 2022. It started in 2014 with the western backed coup against the elected government in Ukraine.

If that hadn't happened, Crimea would still be with Ukraine. All of Ukranian territory would be intact. So was neutrality so bad?

As for your questions, you know what the Russian conditions are, they haven't changed since the SMO started. They want a Ukrainian withdrawal from the territories they have annexed. You know the other conditions: denazification, demilitarization, etc.

I'm not justifying the Russian demands. But the fact remains, Putin tried very hard to avoid full scale war. This started in 2014. How many Minsk accords did we have? It's well known now that the Europeans and Russians were playing for time to get better armed for the full scale war that did eventually start in 2022. This is all on record. Angela Merkel admitted it.

This is a war that should have never happened, and it wouldn't have had the collective west not pushed NATO down Ukraine's throat. Ukraine as a neutral state was at peace. And look at it now.

[Sirioja]

Ukraine's solution is to survive hold the line, keep the economy running, and make every kilometer cost Russia more than it's worth. That's not a slogan, it's what the numbers show: near-zero net Russian gains since March, and Ukraine retook about eight hundred square kilometers this year while Russia took nine hundred. And Ukraine's long range drone campaign has repeatedly hit Russian refineries and logistics, adding real economic costs beyond the front lines. Making every kilometer cost more isn't just about the trenches, it's hitting Russia's war economy directly.

On winning no, not in the sense of retaking every inch. But Russia isn't winning either. Its theory of victory was that slow advances would collapse Ukraine's defenses, and that theory is failing. So the realistic endgame is a frozen line or a negotiated settlement, not a Russian flag over Kyiv.

On NATO no, not anytime soon. Even Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former top commander, said this summer that Ukraine will never join. Zelensky has already offered to drop the bid in exchange for legally binding security guarantees from the US and Europe. That's the actual state of play..

Putin wants whole Ukraine, after Crimea, and even more, trying to fuck elections abroad, dreaming of back to ex USSR.

[Paulie97]

What is your solution? Do you think Ukraine can win? Do you think Ukraine will ever join NATO?

Ukraine's solution is to survive — hold the line, keep the economy running, and make every kilometer cost Russia more than it's worth. That's not a slogan, it's what the numbers show: near-zero net Russian gains since March, and Ukraine retook about eight hundred square kilometers this year while Russia took nine hundred. And Ukraine's long range drone campaign has repeatedly hit Russian refineries and logistics, adding real economic costs beyond the front lines. Making every kilometer cost more isn't just about the trenches, it's hitting Russia's war economy directly.

On winning — no, not in the sense of retaking every inch. But Russia isn't winning either. Its theory of victory was that slow advances would collapse Ukraine's defenses, and that theory is failing. So the realistic endgame is a frozen line or a negotiated settlement, not a Russian flag over Kyiv.

On NATO — no, not anytime soon. Even Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former top commander, said this summer that Ukraine will never join. Zelensky has already offered to drop the bid in exchange for legally binding security guarantees from the US and Europe. That's the actual state of play.

Back to you, if Russia wanted peace, why does Lavrov's list still demand recognition of annexed territory Russia doesn't even fully control? Considering the same why do they insist that Ukraine reduce it's military to levels where it cannot defend itself? That's handing Putin the keys while hoping he doesn't come back for the furniture.