[Rich]

What's amazing is the lack of self consciousness of the Liberal. So in 1956 the Liberal finds he suddenly cares so deeply about the Hungarian. Suddenly in 1956 the Liberal cares desperately about the Hungrians right to self determination. What???

You've just fought two world wars against Hungary. The Liberals say remember Churchill. Yes I do remember Churchill. I remember Chuchill in 1914 was gung ho for war against Austria Hungary. Even before Germany invaded Belgium, Churchill wanted to join the Franco Russian alliance. When Churchill looked at the map of Russia in 1914, big as Russia was, it wasn't big enough for Churchill. In 1914 Churchill wanted to see Tsarist Russia's power, influence and domination expanded further.

I also remember the Battle of the Somme, although Churchill was out of government at that point. Unlike the Liberals, I remember what a large part of the point of the Battle of the Somme was. I remember that the purpose was to tie down as much of the Germany army as possible to allow the Russians to invade and occupy Hungary. I remember how at the end of World War the allies carved up Hungarian lands, leaving huge numbers of Hungarians trapped in other countries.

Remember Churchill the Liberals say. I remember that Winston Churchill was one of Denikin's most ardent supporters. What I don't remember is Churchill showing the slightest concern for Ukrainian independence. In the second World War we fought against against Hungary. And oh yes I remember Churchill. I remember how Churchill prioritised aiding the Soviet Union so that they could conquer Hungary. Although it was FDR who insisted on the unconditional surrender of Hungary and the other Axis powers. FDR could have landed troops in the Balkans, he could have tried to liberate the 'Balkans from both Nazi and Communist domination, but FDR couldn't give toss about the freedom of the Balkan countries or Hungary. Luckily Churchill negotiated Greece for the West. If it had been left to that Commie fellow travler FDR, he's probably have let Stalin have Greece as well.

Oh yes in 1956, the Liberal suddenly cared so deeply about Hungarians. Hungarians remained the West's favourites throughout the fifties and sixties, widely praised for its market reforms. But now we've come full circle. When Hungary asserts its independence against the Liberal elite its another matter. No the Liberals don't want independence and national self assertion from Hungary now. No now they want complete subjugation.

[noemon]

Washington has fondly hoped that it could bring about regime change in Russia. Now it seems even more likely that there will be regime change, but not in Russia --in Kiev.

The catalyst for regime change in Kiev is the bloody and now ended battle over Avdiivka.

Thanks for reading Weapons and Strategy! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Avdiivka is very close to Donetsk city, the capital area of the Donbas region. Donetsk is about halfway between Mariupol on the Sea of Azov and Luhansk in the north. Both Donetsk and Luhansk are regions (oblasts) in eastern Ukraine with mostly Russian-speaking populations. Both Donetsk and Luhansk, along with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, were annexed by the Russians in September 2022.


Russian soldiers hold annexation documents ready for signature, September 30, 2022 Annexations included Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts
The recent battle over Avdiivka has gone on for four months, but since January the Russians began wearing down the Ukrainian defenders of the city. The Russian operation included attacks from the north, some of it focused on a huge Coke-making plant; and from the South in multiple thrusts on the city’s flanks. By the end of the first week of February the Russian armed forces had cut the city into two, and were steadily advancing while pounding the city with artillery and FAB bombs. These are high explosive bombs of different sizes (FAB-500, FAB-1500) where the number is the bomb size in kilograms.


Avdiivka coke plant
Avdiivka was highly fortified and a difficult target for the Russian army. The Russians focused on flank attacks that eventually squeezed off resupply of weapons and food and made rotation of forces difficult. By the last week of the battle the roads in and out of the city were under Russian fire control.

Zelensky staked his reputation on Avdiivka and wanted it held at all costs. He fired his overall commander Valerii Zaluzhny, who saw Avdiivka as a lost cause. Zaluzhny wanted to pull Ukrainian forces back from the existing line of contact and move them into defensible fortifications that could protect Kiev and other important cities.


Zelensky takes a selfie at Avdiivka on December 29, 2023. This area was captured by Russian troops in mid-February, 2024
Enter Syrsky, who had been ground commander under Zaluzhny and was now put in charge of all Ukrainian military forces. Syrsky is the same guy whose tactics led to the collapse of Bakhmut and very heavy casualties, earning that city the name of "meat grinder."

Syrsky immediately called up three or four brigades to save Avdiivka from collapse. But his planned rescue operation almost immediately got into serious trouble.

Some of Syrsky's brigades were being assembled and organized in a small town around 15 kilometers from Avdiivka, called Selydove. The Russians discovered the Ukrainian army operations in Selydove and attacked with Iskander missiles and cluster weapons. According to Russian sources on various blogs (Telegram, X, for example), the Russian attack all but wiped out an entire brigade with heavy Ukrainian casualties.


A destroyed building in Selydove. Was it a hospital or a barracks, or both?
Ukraine's propaganda mill went into high gear, alleging the Russian attack was aimed at a hospital's maternity ward in Selydov. But the reality was that Ukraine lost around 1,000 to 1,500 soldiers. Most western news sources parroted the Ukrainian line.


Russian airstrikes hit a hospital according to the region’s governor
Zelensky was on his way to the Munich Security Conference where he got a standing ovation. Before he left Kiev he ordered Syrsky to stop the Russians from taking Avdiivka.


Zelensky speaks at Munich Security Conference
Syrsky committed the 3rd Brigade to the fight for the city. The 3rd Separate Assault Brigade which, in reality is the reformed Azov Brigade. The Azov brigade is the backbone of Zelensky's ultra nationalist support in Ukraine. If any organization in Ukraine fits Putin's description of Ukrainian Nazis, the 3rd Brigade is the premier example. Zelensky's political power depends on the Ukrainian military, and in particular the ultra-nationalists.


‘Azov’ far-right activists shout slogans during the march. Thousands of Ukrainian servicemen and volunteers took part in the March of patriots marking the Volunteer Day honouring soldiers who joined the Ukrainian Army during a military conflict in eastern Ukraine. (Photo by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket )
The 3rd Brigade did not perform as advertised. When its units got into Avdiivka, coming in from the north, they found the situation dire. By that time there were around 4,500 Ukrainian soldiers in the northern parts of the city, mostly holed up in the Coke Plant. Another 3,500 were in the center of the city verging on the southern town’s districts and an old abandoned airfield.

The 3rd Brigade disobeyed orders and ran out of the town, countermanding Syrsky and Zelensky's explicit orders. Above all, Zelensky did not want to get embarrassed while he was at the Munich conference exactly while he was running around trying to get more ammunition for "the cause." Some from the 3rd Brigade surrendered to the Russians.


Ukrainian troops surrendering
This is what triggered Syrsky to signal a retreat and abandon Avdiivka. That retreat was a significant blow to Zelensky's prestige and, apparently, there were angry phone calls from Munich to Syrsky. But Syrsky had little choice, other than to openly surrender. Instead he announced a "new" strategy, precisely what Zaluzhny had previously recommended.

Syrsky interview by German TV outlet ZDF a few days before he ordered Avdiivka abandoned
The loss of Avdiivka leaves Zelensky in a bad situation. He has all but lost his most ardent supporters in the Army, has humiliated his former commander Zaluzhny and replaced him with Syrsky who has a reputation as a loser. He has lost face with the Europeans, and probably with the United States, although it is hard to tell for sure.

Zelensky counters by saying Ukraine will get Avdiivka back “absolutely.”

Washington does not want a deal with the Russians. All its focus has been on handing Russia multiple defeats, squeezing the Russians dry, and replacing its leader, Putin. Biden's "team" also can't stomach the idea that the Ukrainians might make a deal with Russia and undermine "the policy."

Most of the central elements of Washington's policy have failed. Excessive sanctions did not break the Russian economy but succeeded in driving the Russians in a wholly new direction, embracing China and India and BRICS. US technology did not turn the tide of war in Ukraine’s favor. Not talking to the Russians helped solidify the Russian view that Washington and NATO were the enemy, intensifying their already stressed view that they had been lied to over the years about NATO expansion. While the US and Europe either could not, or would not, revitalize their defense industrial base, the Russians did so, with a vengeance. Meanwhile the US and Europe are standing by for the war to end and hundreds of billions are sunk into rebuilding Ukraine, which is less and less likely to happen under US and European auspices.

The bottom line is Zelensky's regime is tottering. Because of Zelensky's martial law based regime, there will be no elections and no open political process. But anger in the army is growing, and sooner or later they will choose a leader, most likely Zaluzhny.

There will be regime change in Kiev, coming soon.

Stephen Bryen is a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. Bryen writes for Asia Times, American Thinker, Epoch Times, Newsweek, Washington Times, the Jewish Policy Center and others.

[JohnRawls]

??

Not sure where you got this but this is total nonsense and factually wrong on many points. I don't even know where to start actually nor can I be bothered. Seems to be a Russian propaganda peace honestly.

[noemon]

Not sure where you got this but this is total nonsense and factually wrong on many points. I don't even know where to start actually nor can I be bothered. Seems to be a Russian propaganda peace honestly.

Stephen Bryen is a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. Bryen writes for Asia Times, American Thinker, Epoch Times, Newsweek, Washington Times, the Jewish Policy Center and others.

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/aut ... hen-bryen/

Stephen Bryen is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. He has held senior positions in the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill and as the President of a large multinational defense and technology company.

Dr. Bryen has 50 years of experience in government and industry. He has served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the Executive Director of a grassroots political organization, as the head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

John, wake up and smell the coffee, your propaganda is so ridiculous that it is no longer matching with the west.

[JohnRawls]

Stephen Bryen is a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. Bryen writes for Asia Times, American Thinker, Epoch Times, Newsweek, Washington Times, the Jewish Policy Center and others.

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/aut ... hen-bryen/



John, wake up and smell the coffee, your propaganda is so ridiculous that it is no longer matching with the west.

Okay, does that mean all he writes is correct or sane? Does it mean that he isn't a paid shill at times? We had Pulitzer prize winners here saying that Norwegian blew up Nord stream with the assistance from US, you are so easy to trick honestly.

I will explain why this is a propaganda piece for you only one time, since it is getting tedious and what is wrong with it.

1) This article has the classical structure for a Russian propaganda article that starts with Washington and then basically says Ukraine bad or Zelensky bad or Azov "Far Right" leading to how bad they are and Ukraine and then ending again with Washington miscalculated, Russia winning bla bla bla. If this wasn't a giant red flag for you then I am not sure how much of a red flag you want. It has it all: Washington, Zelensky bad, Ukraine loosing, Azov "far right nazis" the only thing it is missing is "warm water ports" and "Zelenskies cocaine".

2) Factually it is just wrong:
The catalyst for regime change in Kiev is the bloody and now ended battle over Avdiivka. - Avdiivka wasn't bloody for Ukranians, they suffered relatively very minor losses for themselves and how much they inflicated to the Russians. The only fuck up is that they pulled out a bit late and some wounded didn't get evacuated from the former Anti-air base near Avdiivka. Russians executed most of the wounded because of it although they had an agreement with the Ukranians that they will not do it.

Avdiivka was highly fortified and a difficult target for the Russian army. The Russians focused on flank attacks that eventually squeezed off resupply of weapons and food and made rotation of forces difficult. By the last week of the battle the roads in and out of the city were under Russian fire control. - Russians were attacking the flanks then doing frontal assults for 2 months day after day. This ain't a smart operation but a dumb human wave tactic basically with loads of armor and people lost. Even Russian Murz who commited suicide recently because of Avdiivka said as such. And Murz was a 2014 Donbas veteran and seperatist from the Russian side.

Zelensky staked his reputation on Avdiivka and wanted it held at all costs. He fired his overall commander Valerii Zaluzhny, who saw Avdiivka as a lost cause. Zaluzhny wanted to pull Ukrainian forces back from the existing line of contact and move them into defensible fortifications that could protect Kiev and other important cities. - Zelensky didn't state his reputation on Avdiivka. Nobody really cares about Avdiivka or Bakhmut in the greater scheme of things because they hold no strategic purpose. It is another no-name city/village/point in Ukraine where the fighting is ongoing. Zelensky comes to many places on the front. The whole idea that Avdiivka matters or Bakhmut matters in insane. Before Ukranians left Bakhmut they created fortified positions behind Bakhmut and same thing goes for Avdiivka. Ukranians actually learned after Bakhmut not to fight too long under such conditions. So next month its gonna be Kupyansk or Robotino etc. All those places literally strategically don't matter and are basically 0.001% of Ukranian territory. War is not going to end because either Ukraine or Russia takes them and then does nothing. Even more so if you loose 16-20 thousand troops for that 0.001% territory in 6 months.

Syrsky immediately called up three or four brigades to save Avdiivka from collapse. But his planned rescue operation almost immediately got into serious trouble. - There was no indication that Ukraine wanted to fight for the city. 99% of pictures and videos of the brigade indicate that it was summoned to fight rearguard action while Avdiivka evacuated with only minor presence or help in the city. And they did good a rearguard for evacuation.

Some of Syrsky's brigades were being assembled and organized in a small town around 15 kilometers from Avdiivka, called Selydove. The Russians discovered the Ukrainian army operations in Selydove and attacked with Iskander missiles and cluster weapons. According to Russian sources on various blogs (Telegram, X, for example), the Russian attack all but wiped out an entire brigade with heavy Ukrainian casualties. - Okay, another Russian propaganda point of Iskanders this, Kalibrs that. How do you even wipe out a brigade with ballistic missiles only? Did they line up on a podium and cluster in one place or something? This is not doable by any standards with jsut cruise missiles against a brigade. Total BS.

Zelensky speaks at Munich Security Conference
Syrsky committed the 3rd Brigade to the fight for the city. The 3rd Separate Assault Brigade which, in reality is the reformed Azov Brigade. The Azov brigade is the backbone of Zelensky's ultra nationalist support in Ukraine. If any organization in Ukraine fits Putin's description of Ukrainian Nazis, the 3rd Brigade is the premier example. Zelensky's political power depends on the Ukrainian military, and in particular the ultra-nationalists.


‘Azov’ far-right activists shout slogans during the march. Thousands of Ukrainian servicemen and volunteers took part in the March of patriots marking the Volunteer Day honouring soldiers who joined the Ukrainian Army during a military conflict in eastern Ukraine. (Photo by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket )
The 3rd Brigade did not perform as advertised. When its units got into Avdiivka, coming in from the north, they found the situation dire. By that time there were around 4,500 Ukrainian soldiers in the northern parts of the city, mostly holed up in the Coke Plant. Another 3,500 were in the center of the city verging on the southern town’s districts and an old abandoned airfield.

The 3rd Brigade disobeyed orders and ran out of the town, countermanding Syrsky and Zelensky's explicit orders. Above all, Zelensky did not want to get embarrassed while he was at the Munich conference exactly while he was running around trying to get more ammunition for "the cause." Some from the 3rd Brigade surrendered to the Russians. - Azov is Azov and 3rd Brigade is 3rd Brigade. Again, Russian agitprop mostly with the far right nazi bullshit and brigade disobeying orders. They were fighting read guard action by all indications and Avdiivka is evacuated now with the small hiccup i mentioned at the start. THey didn't disobey any orders, they were mostly not even in the city. It is idiotic to think that a whole brigade will be pushed in to the semi-surrounded city to do what exactly? They whole objective was to fight on the flanks outside the city while Avdiivka evacuated and this is what they essentially did.

The bottom line is Zelensky's regime is tottering. Because of Zelensky's martial law based regime, there will be no elections and no open political process. But anger in the army is growing, and sooner or later they will choose a leader, most likely Zaluzhny. - Polls in Ukraine indicate that Ukranian resolve is actually hardening against RUssia. They went from 71% in 2022 of people that voted to fight for how many years needed as long as Russia is defeated and independence is preserved to 73-74% in 2024 for that. Check any poll. Zelenskies popularity is still around 75%, year it is lower than his 91% after the "I need ammo, not a ride" but he is still overall popular and +55-60% between his favour/disfavour ratings etc. Nobody is going to overthrow Zelensky considering that he is respected by the army for actually standing and fighting and not running.

The only point this whole article might have is that Zaluzhny got fired and we don't know why. May be because he didn't cooperate with Zelensky very well and a lot of things indicate to that. Military leadership is SUBORDINATE to civilian leadership in democratic countries. So for all intents and purposes if Syrski is more subordinate then he is a better choice.

[JohnRawls]

Stephen Bryen is a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. Bryen writes for Asia Times, American Thinker, Epoch Times, Newsweek, Washington Times, the Jewish Policy Center and others.

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/aut ... hen-bryen/



John, wake up and smell the coffee, your propaganda is so ridiculous that it is no longer matching with the west.

Actually Sirsky vs Zaluzhny argument needs elaboration:

1) Zaluzhny vs Sirsky argument predates Avdiivka big time and linking it to Avdiivka is kinda silly. The news that Zaluzhny is getting replaced have been floating around for 3-5 months now and even before that but those don't count.

2) Most people don't realise it but Sirsky is actually NATO candidate but his not as popular with Ukranian troops as Zaluzhny.

3) Sirsky is not a nobody, he is after all the father of the Kharkiv offensive. While also being the person who stood for sitting in Bakhmut under fire to inflict severe casualties on the Russians.

4) Sirsky is liked and supported more by Nato/Eu/US mainly because he has a lot of experience cooperating with them before the war. Also he didn't agree with Zaluzhny idea durring the offensive of distributing the force and argued for the NATO approach. Overall Zaluzhny plan lead to way less casualties but didn't go anywhere. NATO estimates and wargames showed that the brigades would suffer 40-50% casualties but they would reach the Sea. Obviously Zaluzhny chickened out of it and suffered way less casualties and didn't reach the Sea. This seems to be the main reason for his firing. (This is speculative though because there can be many other reasons)

[noemon]

Biden’s emerging new Ukraine policy

Failed US policy to date based on gross exaggeration of American firepower and misguided wishful thinking Russia would eventually back down

By STEPHEN BRYEN
FEBRUARY 5, 2024

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Joe Biden share a private moment. Image: X Screengrab / CNN

The Biden administration wants the Ukraine war to continue at least until after US presidential elections in November but there is a lurking danger that won’t be possible, especially if Russia mounts a really big offensive. For that reason, there is a new emerging plan, one that is not in writing but seen in politics.

An example: When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky decided to fire armed forces commander Valerii Zaluzhny, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, who is directly responsible for US and NATO Ukraine policy, rushed to Kiev.

There are no photo ops with Nuland and Zelensky. She briefed the press standing outside in front of a hastily assembled table with some microphones on it.

Why did Nuland run to Kiev? Almost certainly the White House told her to get herself over there immediately in case things went south in Kiev. There was apparently real worry that Zaluzhny might turn the army around and use it to go after Zelensky.

So far, Zaluzhny has not made a move. He still can, of course, so one supposes that Nuland was in Kiev to talk more to Zaluzhny than to Zelensky. There is no public record of any meeting but it would seem that her job was to calm Zaluzhny down and offer him incentives to behave.

Washington is saying nothing officially about the changing of the military guard in Kiev. The White House says it is an “internal Ukrainian” issue, not one Washington would have anything to say about.

Certainly, this is pure nonsense. Washington has been manipulating Ukraine’s internal politics since before 2014, and Nuland was the sparkplug to get what Washington wanted.

Nor was there any surprise about cashiering Zaluzhny. Someone has to take the blame for the failure of Kiev’s so-called counteroffensive and the waste of billions of dollars in US equipment and supplies.

It also isn’t a surprise that things are getting worse now, as Ukraine will soon face the loss of Avdiivka and the Russian army, newly refurbished, will push toward the Dnieper River, aiming at Kiev.

As has been noted now ad nauseum, Kiev’s manpower situation is dire and its lack of weapons means it is limited in what it can hope to do. But the real kicker is that Kiev’s mounting casualties, more than 1,000 per week, are hitting hard on the public perception that the war has gone wrong.

To pull men and women into the army Kiev resorts to rough, unpopular measures, including threats and intimidation. Going to the front untrained is seen more and more as a certain death sentence (which it is).

Zelensky won’t negotiate with Russia because Washington is opposed to any negotiation, seeing it as a potential defeat for NATO. The result would be unnerving NATO and truncating Washington’s leadership of the alliance.

Politically, Zelensky is more and more aligned with Kraken and other military formations who are extremely anti-Russian (and anti a lot of other things). The Russians regard them as fascists and Nazis.

But how can Kiev hold on if Russia actually mounts a major new military action in Ukraine?

An offensive is likely mostly because Putin needs one to cement his next term as president. Elections are scheduled for March 17, and Putin’s reelection is likely because he has suppressed any real opposition. But even so, Putin needs a boost from the Russian public and a celebratory election would count for a lot.

This puts Kiev in a terrible bind. Once there is a real Russian breakthrough across the current line of contact, sending Ukrainian forces reeling backward, it will be nearly impossible for the Zelensky government to survive in Kiev.

Under such circumstances, there are already indications of planning to move the Ukrainian government westward, probably to Lviv (Lvov), which is near the Polish border. The Poles are already saying they might use their nearby air defenses to protect Lviv.

Why would they say this? The reason is that they are preparing a plan to hold off the Russians by use of Polish Patriot and other air defenses, and even to send Polish brigades reinforced by other NATO assets. The British are already preparing public opinion and openly talking about sending their Special Forces to Ukraine’s rescue.

Anyone who looks at a map must realize that the only way NATO can “invade” or “support” a Zelensky government is if it is done close to the border with Poland.

That’s far enough away from Russian missiles that it will be difficult for Russia to deal with that area, unless of course there is either a de facto or de jure breakup of Ukraine in which the western part stays somewhat independent while the rest is subject to whatever arrangements the Russians decide to impose.

Nothing will happen if the Russians stay with the plodding, slow grind-up of Ukraine’s army. But, as noted above, the Ukraine war is reaching an inflection point for both military and political reasons.

Shifting the Ukraine government to Lviv and gaining support from Poland and the UK (no others are likely to contribute anything) would buy time for Biden, although the end result either will be a war in part of Europe (Poland, the Baltic states) or a stalemate that Russia and NATO accept.

Biden gets off the hook for the time being if this scenario plays out but even in the medium term it is a strategic disaster. Biden, of course, is mindful he does not need and cannot survive another Afghanistan-like disaster.

British enthusiasm for war owes to pressure from Washington. It is well to remember that the British military is an unholy, underfunded and undermanned mess. The British forces lack materials, lift and cover to do much of anything, and it is foolish to think the Russians won’t retaliate.

That leaves the impression that British enthusiasm for war is simply fake news, intended to scare the Russians somehow. Most of Washington’s Ukraine policy has been based on the exaggeration of the value of American weapons and coordination capabilities, and on wishful thinking that Russia would back out of the conflict.


Any look at Russian history, dating back to Napoleon, should have suggested that Russia wasn’t going to back down. Moreover, taking into account British bombast, one is reminded of the outcome of the charge of the Light Brigade. Will we see another Balaclava in Ukraine?

Nuland has created a disaster with the full backing of the Biden-Obama team. As, so far, there is no counterweight in the United States or among the NATO states, the disaster will roll on. Washington will continue to risk a war in Europe, even a nuclear war, to try and salvage the disaster of its own making.

Washington and Nuland are effectively trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Zaluzhny Out, Oleksandr Syrskyi In
What's Next in Ukraine

STEPHEN BRYEN
8 FEB 2024
Volodymyr Zelensky has finally been successful in firing General Valerii Zaluzhny. This time, according to reporting coming from Kiev, Zaluzhny has accepted the order and has thanked Ukrainians for their sacrifice. Zelensky will now fire most of the top brass in the army aligned with Zaluzhny. Choosing Syrskyi is somewhat of a risk, because Syrskyi and Zaluzhny are friends.


A photograph released by Ukrainian Presidential press service last July showing Gen. Valery Zaluzhny during a ceremony marking the 30th anniversary of Ukrainian independence.Credit...

On the other hand, Syrskyi is not known for achieving victories. He is an older (58 years), plodding general who now commands the ground troops. It is the ground troops who are losing along the line of contact.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has appointed Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
No one can say for sure what Zelensky will accomplish. Kiev is blaming the failed offensive on Zaluzhny and he was getting ready to blame him also for the fall of Avdiivka (that will happen soon).

Exactly how a new team can make any difference is hard to say. Zelensky fired Zaluzhny so he could call the shots on the battlefield.

Zelensky has no military background. Before running for President he was a TV comedian.

Washington at first did not approve dumping Zaluzhny, regarding him (as do the Russians) as a competent and serious military leader. Firing Zaluzhny is, in US terms, the same as firing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lurking in the background is Kiev’s new draconian conscription law, which has now passed the first reading in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. Next week the Rada will have its second reading and the bill will be sent to Zelensky for signature.

Zaluzhny refused to back the conscription law, and he likewise refused to go to the Rada to push them into passing it.

Aside from those who have left the country (the borders are now closed to draft age men). the new law will impact either the Ukrainian elites or the children of the elites. This is likely to cause considerable blowback on Kiev. Reportedly some of the Rada members already have left or are planning to leave the country. Presumably they also will want to protect their families. If Zelensky actually imposed real sanctions on the elites, he may find the length of his presidency dramatically shortened.

Elites in Ukraine also face other challenges. The lack of billions of dollars from NATO countries means salaries, pensions, and benefits won’t be paid to government workers or to the military. While the EU is getting ready to shovel some funds to Ukraine (over the next four years), the EU needs to find the money and levy appropriations on its members. As Shakespeare put it, there lies the rub (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 3, Scene 1, Lines 62-70).

The US is also “trending” toward some sort of authorization in the Senate for Ukraine, but whether it goes through both houses is still uncertain. It may be Congress will drag approval out, waiting to see how things unfold in Ukraine.

On the battlefront the Russians continue to gain ground and throw back Ukrainian counter attacks. Avdiivka is almost split in half, and Ukrainian strongholds in the city, especially in high rise areas, are being booby trapped by Ukrainian soldiers before they pull out. The city is strategically important because it is so close to Donetsk, and beyond Avdiivka there are not many defenses in place. There is also the chance Russia will launch a larger scale offensive, probably in the Kharkiv direction. Reportedly there are 40,000 new Russian troops formed up for what might best be called a mini-offensive.

Alternatively, the Russians may decide to drive toward Kiev. They have already increased rocket attacks that include Kiev, and if the Ukrainian army starts to fold then the Russians will throw more troops into the fight aimed at Kiev.

Zaluzhny may beat them to it. He will be hearing a lot of offers to take over the country. Syrskyi is unlikely to want to defend Zelensky, and some of the specialist brigades (Azov, Kraken) are likely to be tied up in the Kharkiv direction. The Russians have also started specifically targeting them, seeking to weaken these units before any new offensive.

There are lots of rumblings in Kiev. Politicians who have been quiet during the war are now saying they could replace Zelensky. The Kiev mayor, Vitali Klitschko, has accused Zelensky of being an authoritarian. Other Ukrainian personalities, Yulia Tymoshenko for example, are starting to act like presidential candidates, even though martial law is projected to again be extended by Zelensky.

Washington now knows that the very best that can be hoped for is that the war continues and the Russians fail to consolidate their territorial gains. But this is rather illusory an outlook as the Russians are not paying a high price to sit back and let things drift. In fact, Russian leaders are starting to act as if they smell blood.

Biden may have to face either the collapse of Ukraine as it is defeated by Russia or, possibly, a replacement government friendly to Moscow.

In Europe there is talk about sending in troops to save Ukraine. Looked at from a purely operational standpoint, sending European brigades to fight is almost impossible because the brigades are located too far away to be of any use. In any case, this is mostly desperation talk, not reality. Retired Polish generals, and some British, are pushing the idea of a military bailout. But, as serious people in Europe know, NATO has neither the tanks and armor, ammunition, or even troops to carry any operation off that would last for more than a few days. NATO could try to punish Russia with airpower, but Russia has good air defenses and a capable air force, therefore there is no guarantee of success and many chances for Russian retaliation against NATO bases, even NATO cities. If the US, with airpower, is finding it hard to stop third-rate low tech adversaries in Iraq and Syria, on what basis would the US and NATO think they can prevail against a near-peer?

Washington and the other NATO players should be thinking about finding a way out, since pushing arms to the Ukrainians may not work, especially if there isn’t anyone to shoot the guns.

[ingliz]

brigades would suffer 40-50% casualties

A 20–30% casualty rate is often used for declaring a unit ‘combat ineffective.’ Combat-ineffective soldiers tend to retreat or surrender.



.

[litwin]

A 20–30% casualty rate is often used for declaring a unit ‘combat ineffective.’ Combat-ineffective soldiers tend to retreat or surrender.



.

are you on shapiro - salavyov or morz ´s side ?

PS

[noemon]

I will explain why this is a propaganda piece for you only one time, since it is getting tedious and what is wrong with it.

John, between me, Dr Stephen Bryen and yourself, you are the tedious propagandist and not a very good one at that either.

1) "Bakhmut doesn't matter, Avdiivka doesn't matter." Ukraine loses its important strategic fortresses, "it just doesn't matter." "There was no indication Ukraine wanted to fight for Avdiivka". There is nothing that can be said to people like yourself. You just live in an alternative dimension.

2) "See the Ukrainian polls" for Zelensky's popularity => "Zaluzhny not a threat to Zelensky" Another unfounded assertion even if one were to go by Zelensky's "polls". Whether these pro-war polls are supportive of Zelensky or Zaluzhny is another TBD matter also. Totally and wholly irrelevant as such.

3) Azov are not "nazis, cowards or the nazi backbone of Zelensky's regime". They just non-coward but succesful nazis who happen to be popular due to the war. Another non-substantial irrelevancy that you believe has heft. Zelensky relies on their support for his survival.

4) It is fairly evident why Zaluzhny was sacked, he disagreed with Zelensky on Avdiivka and wanted to retreat from there before incurring massive losses(Zelensky opted for massive losses instead because well he isn't a military person but a comedian and probably because his ultra-nationalist circle was overcome by delusion) and he also disagreed with Zelensky on the draft, at a when point Ukranian draft services are already doing the internet rounds for their violent and underhanded methods to send untrained young men into the Gates of Hell.

5) It has become fairly evident that Zelensky is no longer fighting for Ukraine but to maintain his own position and the martial law he has imposed. Delusion has taken over already.

6) Ukraine has no chance of taking Russian territory and has very little chance of keeping Ukrainian territory.


---------------------


You have all been proven panegyrically wrong, you should have called for peace with Russia when Ukraine even had a semblance of a capable military back in the summer and even earlier since before the fall of Bakhmut.

As the war drags on, one will start thinking whether the western doctrine has switched from "fight down to the last Ukrainian" to "fight until Russia conquers all of Ukraine so we don't get the bill for its rebuilding". Make it a Russian [economy] problem.

[Rugoz]

Not sure where you got this but this is total nonsense and factually wrong on many points.

All one really has to read is this part:

"There will be regime change in Kiev, coming soon."

Which is a highly speculative opinion at best.

That's not journalism.

[JohnRawls]

John, between me, Dr Stephen Bryen and yourself, you are the tedious propagandist and not a very good one at that either.

1) "Bakhmut doesn't matter, Avdiivka doesn't matter." Ukraine loses its important strategic fortresses, "it just doesn't matter." "There was no indication Ukraine wanted to fight for Avdiivka". There is nothing that can be said to people like yourself. You just live in an alternative dimension.

2) "See the Ukrainian polls" for Zelensky's popularity => "Zaluzhny not a threat to Zelensky" Another unfounded assertion even if one were to go by Zelensky's "polls". Whether these pro-war polls are supportive of Zelensky or Zaluzhny is another TBD matter also. Totally and wholly irrelevant as such.

3) Azov are not "nazis, cowards or the nazi backbone of Zelensky's regime". They just non-coward but succesful nazis who happen to be popular due to the war. Another non-substantial irrelevancy that you believe has heft. Zelensky relies on their support for his survival.

4) It is fairly evident why Zaluzhny was sacked, he disagreed with Zelensky on Avdiivka and wanted to retreat from there before incurring massive losses(Zelensky opted for massive losses instead because well he isn't a military person but a comedian and probably because his ultra-nationalist circle was overcome by delusion) and he also disagreed with Zelensky on the draft, at a when point Ukranian draft services are already doing the internet rounds for their violent and underhanded methods to send untrained young men into the Gates of Hell.

5) It has become fairly evident that Zelensky is no longer fighting for Ukraine but to maintain his own position and the martial law he has imposed. Delusion has taken over already.

6) Ukraine has no chance of taking Russian territory and has very little chance of keeping Ukrainian territory.


---------------------


You have all been proven panegyrically wrong, you should have called for peace with Russia when Ukraine even had a semblance of a capable military back in the summer and even earlier since before the fall of Bakhmut.

As the war drags on, one will start thinking whether the western doctrine has switched from "fight down to the last Ukrainian" to "fight until Russia conquers all of Ukraine so we don't get the bill for its rebuilding".

I am tired of explaining and arguing in circles, time to call you out then seriously.

Prove it, all what you said, go for it.

1)Explain why Avdiivka and Bakhmut are strategically important? You call them fortresses but realistically nothing changed after they were taken and nothing moved forward. Defensive position are set up everywhere and Bakhmut and Avdiivka took half a year to a year to take depending on how you count. Do you seriously believe nobody set up defensive positions right after it? Do you even think? What exactly changes STRATEGICALLY after Bakhmut was taken or Avdiivka? What changes operationally? The only change is minor tactical change of positions right now.

2) Prove it, why is Zaluzhny a threat to Zelensky. Every poll that I have seen has Zelensky way more support than anybody else in the country, he is the elected leader compared to Zaluzhny being a General and non-elected, Zelensky has the Rada behind him for the most of it, Zaluzhny does not. How exactly is Zaluzhny gonna topple Zelensky if the Army supports Zelensky even if Zaluzhny might not like him?

3) Zelensky does not rely on Nazis for his support, he is overwhelmingly positive in all polls with the Ukranian people. Proove how he relies on Azov to keep his hold on power please.

4) Zaluzhny was sacked but there are many reasons as I said and his replacement is a NATO candidate basically. Zaluzhny was sacked for many reasons probably, be it the failure of offensive and his role in it which there was his role. There is no "What IF" in history but NATO advised different methods and different tactics, scenarios showed 40-50% casualties but reaching the Sea but Zaluzhny took way less casualties and didn't reach the Sea. We won't find out for now if NATO was right about it. Same goes for his other disagreements with the political leadership. The problem here is that political leadership overrides military leadership and is de juro and facto their boss. So it is hardly unreasonable for a General to get fired if he doesn't listen to political leadership in a democratic country.

5) Prove it? Did Vietnam fight for its independence or for some communist leader and visa versa? Where is the line here? This is your subjective opinion at best. Actually, this is rather hard to prove because all here will go in to subjective realm.

6) Your perspective again. Situation in Russia is not good either. They report GDP growth on paper but in reality if you dig in the data, there is no growth besides the military sector and supporting sectors that produce metal and other things for the war. All of that is investment. This is malinvestment 101 and all that is coming from the stability fund and devaluation of the ruble and more taxes and higher inflation and so on. They just killed Navalny because they were afraid of him. The sanctions are also biting more and we managed to cut off almost all of the Greek black tanker fleet and major banks from doing business with Russia including the Chinese banks. Out of the latest developments not even including the new sanctions that will come after Navalnies death.

Russia hit its outmost limit on military production and they can't really expand more since that requires people, factories, machinery all of which they can't get and don't have any more. Only half of the liquid stability reserves remain which is in gold and Yuan. We are slowly bleeding RUssia of economic and manpower resources and the longer this goes on, the better for Europe and Ukraine. On the other hand, Europe can keep this fight indefinately since we do not need to invest 1/3rd to 1/4th of the budget in to military production to pump the gdp numbers and to actually be able to fight.

So tell me, how are we loosing? How is Russia going to win this? There is no way that Russia can win this by the looks of it since they are already at their maximum while US support has been temporarily cut off by the Republicans. And still, only they can do is take Avdiivka in like 6 months without that support. What is going to happen when in 2024 and 2025 we will severely increase production? Don't forget US is doing the same even if support is not coming right now and even if Trump wins, he would still love a Victory in Ukraine under his rule so the support will flood from the stockpiling for that many months.

So no, we are gonna destroy Russia both economically and militarily eventually. It is just a matter of time for us. I don't like that more Ukranians will die because of this but ultimately it is their fight for their independence and they will continue fighting because of it. All polls indicate that they don't care how many years it takes as long as Russia is defeated and the territories are taken back. Be it 1-2-3-4-5-6-10 years. There is 75% support for fighting this war longer than 2+ years if needed to win according to the last numbers.

[litwin]

[JohnRawls]

A 20–30% casualty rate is often used for declaring a unit ‘combat ineffective.’ Combat-ineffective soldiers tend to retreat or surrender.



.

Ingliz, i know the studies and those are usually NATO standards for removal from combat and movement to rear for R and R. Reality is though different and majority of Soviet Units durring Operation Bakration were 40% depleted before they stopped before Berlin. They didn't loose though and the operation was a success.

[noemon]

I am tired of explaining and arguing in circles, time to call you out then seriously.

My responses to your ridiculous statements are not the ones in question but your ridiculous statements are in question.

1)Explain why Avdiivka and Bakhmut are strategically important? You call them fortresses but realistically nothing changed after they were taken and nothing moved forward. Defensive position are set up everywhere and Bakhmut and Avdiivka took half a year to a year to take depending on how you count. Do you seriously believe nobody set up defensive positions right after it? Do you even think? What exactly changes STRATEGICALLY after Bakhmut was taken or Avdiivka? What changes operationally? The only change is minor tactical change of positions right now.

1) Explain why Avdiivka and Bakhmut are NOT strategically important? This statement can only be identified as retarded and as sour grapes. Most intensive fighting has been conducted on them 2 and they have been described as 'Ukrainian military fortresses' by Zelensky himself as well as others in the west.

2) Prove it, why is Zaluzhny a threat to Zelensky. Every poll that I have seen has Zelensky way more support than anybody else in the country, he is the elected leader compared to Zaluzhny being a General and non-elected, Zelensky has the Rada behind him for the most of it, Zaluzhny does not. How exactly is Zaluzhny gonna topple Zelensky if the Army supports Zelensky even if Zaluzhny might not like him?

a) Zaluzhny only has to order the army to follow his orders instead of Sirsky's and that's done. "Constitutions and elections" hardly ever matter in Ukraine. Yanukovych was toppled unconstitutionally but you don't see you crying rivers over it.

b) Besides I'm not the one claiming it. So again your nonsense remains a strawman.

c) Your original argument was that Zelensky has popular support, your argument is unqualified and you have not determined whether that support also applies to Zaluzhny. So from wherever we grab it, your posturing remains erroneous even if we follow your argument.

3) Zelensky does not rely on Nazis for his support, he is overwhelmingly positive in all polls with the Ukranian people. Proove how he relies on Azov to keep his hold on power please.

A dictatorial regime that came to power unconstitutionally and which has suspended the opposition and elections as one with a "proven democratic backing".

You can't really make this up or say these kinds of things with a straight face.

4) Zaluzhny was sacked but there are many reasons as I said and his replacement is a NATO candidate basically. Zaluzhny was sacked for many reasons probably, be it the failure of offensive and his role in it which there was his role. There is no "What IF" in history but NATO advised different methods and different tactics, scenarios showed 40-50% casualties but reaching the Sea but Zaluzhny took way less casualties and didn't reach the Sea. We won't find out for now if NATO was right about it. Same goes for his other disagreements with the political leadership. The problem here is that political leadership overrides military leadership and is de juro and facto their boss. So it is hardly unreasonable for a General to get fired if he doesn't listen to political leadership in a democratic country.

Yawn, Ukraine is not a "democratic country". Another bunch of bla bla just to stick 'democratic country' somewhere in there.

5) Prove it?

If Zelensky was fighting for his country and countrymen, he would have evacuated "unimportant"(according to you) Avdiivka a long time ago. But do not let the facts get in the way of your propaganda [for the retarded] John.

6) Your perspective again. Situation in Russia is not good either. They report GDP growth on paper but in reality if you dig in the data, there is no growth besides the military sector and supporting sectors that produce metal and other things for the war. All of that is investment. This is malinvestment 101 and all that is coming from the stability fund and devaluation of the ruble and more taxes and higher inflation and so on. They just killed Navalny because they were afraid of him. The sanctions are also biting more and we managed to cut off almost all of the Greek black tanker fleet and major banks from doing business with Russia including the Chinese banks. Out of the latest developments not even including the new sanctions that will come after Navalnies death.

Russia hit its outmost limit on military production and they can't really expand more since that requires people, factories, machinery all of which they can't get and don't have any more. Only half of the liquid stability reserves remain which is in gold and Yuan. We are slowly bleeding RUssia of economic and manpower resources and the longer this goes on, the better for Europe and Ukraine. On the other hand, Europe can keep this fight indefinately since we do not need to invest 1/3rd to 1/4th of the budget in to military production to pump the gdp numbers and to actually be able to fight.

So tell me, how are we loosing? How is Russia going to win this? There is no way that Russia can win this by the looks of it since they are already at their maximum while US support has been temporarily cut off by the Republicans. And still, only they can do is take Avdiivka in like 6 months without that support. What is going to happen when in 2024 and 2025 we will severely increase production? Don't forget US is doing the same even if support is not coming right now and even if Trump wins, he would still love a Victory in Ukraine under his rule so the support will flood from the stockpiling for that many months.

So no, we are gonna destroy Russia both economically and militarily eventually. It is just a matter of time for us. I don't like that more Ukranians will die because of this but ultimately it is their fight for their independence and they will continue fighting because of it. All polls indicate that they don't care how many years it takes as long as Russia is defeated and the territories are taken back. Be it 1-2-3-4-5-6-10 years. There is 75% support for fighting this war longer than 2+ years if needed to win according to the last numbers.

There is no point in talking to people as delusional as you John. You openly dismiss real hard facts as "things on paper" and make up your own alternative reality instead. You start from the hypothesis, "the sky is not blue" and any evidence pointing that it is you dismiss as tings on paper. So no point.

You are now defending the sanctions regime which has only backfired on the west. You talk of 'Greek dark tanker fleet', some 8 private ships that were carrying little oil legally as per EU sanctions sold at a minimum price, while totally ignoring that NATO's Turkey has not imposed any sanctions on Russia and is widely open for business on Russian trade, energy, nuclear energy reactors and so much more.

You also totally ignore that the Russian economy has totally withstood the sanctions that have hurt the western economies more than they have hurt Russia. They have brought de-dollarisation a few decades forward in the global economy. Meanwhile neither the Russian economy, nor its military production, nor its military operations at the front are struggling. She is the one moving forward.

On the other camp, everything is moving backwards, economies, military production and military operations at the front.

Somehow this basic reality escapes you totally. The sad part is that you believe that the Ukrainians owe you their lives.

[JohnRawls]

My responses to your ridiculous statements are not the ones in question but your ridiculous statements are in question.



1) Explain why Avdiivka and Bakhmut are NOT strategically important? This statement can only be identified as retarded and as sour grapes. Most intensive fighting has been conducted on them 2 and they have been described as 'Ukrainian military fortresses' by Zelensky himself as well as others in the west.



a) Zaluzhny only has to order the army to follow his orders instead of Sirsky's and that's done. "Constitutions and elections" hardly ever matter in Ukraine. Yanukovych was toppled unconstitutionally but you don't see you crying rivers over it.

b) Besides I'm not the one claiming it. So again your nonsense remains a strawman.

c) Your original argument was that Zelensky has popular support, your argument is unqualified and you have not determined whether that support also applies to Zaluzhny. So from wherever we grab it, your posturing remains erroneous even if we follow your argument.



A dictatorial regime that came to power unconstitutionally and which has suspended the opposition and elections as one with a "proven democratic backing".

You can't really make this up or say these kinds of things with a straight face.



Yawn, Ukraine is not a "democratic country". Another bunch of bla bla just to stick 'democratic country' somewhere in there.



If Zelensky was fighting for his country and countrymen, he would have evacuated "unimportant"(according to you) Avdiivka a long time ago. But do not let the facts get in the way of your propaganda [for the retarded] John.



There is no point in talking to people as delusional as you John. You openly dismiss real hard facts as "things on paper" and make up your own alternative reality instead. You start from the hypothesis, "the sky is not blue" and any evidence pointing that it is you dismiss as tings on paper. So no point.

You are now defending the sanctions regime which has only backfired on the west. You talk of 'Greek dark tanker fleet', some 8 private ships that were carrying little oil legally as per EU sanctions sold at a minimum price, while totally ignoring that NATO's Turkey has not imposed any sanctions on Russia and is widely open for business on Russian trade, energy, nuclear energy reactors and so much more.

You also totally ignore that the Russian economy has totally withstood the sanctions that have hurt the western economies more than they have hurt Russia. They have brought de-dollarisation a few decades forward in the global economy. Meanwhile neither the Russian economy, nor its military production, nor its military operations at the front are struggling. She is the one moving forward.

On the other camp, everything is moving backwards, economies, military production and military operations at the front.

Somehow this basic reality escapes you totally. The sad part is that you believe that the Ukrainians owe you their lives.

1) Why should I prove a negative? Time is already showing that your argument is useless in this regard since both Bakhmut and Avdiivka they are standing still. So much for the "Fortress" conquest after which there is straight away another fortress? So what is the point of loosing 4-5 Afghanistan war worth of soldiers for 0.001% of Ukranian territory after which you do nothing? We both know the frontline hasn't budged for the whole year+ in any meaningful way. Not even close to Operative successes that both Ukraine had in Kharkiv or Kherson which also were not strategically relevant, may be moral wise but that is a dubious argument.

2) Yeah, you have a pretty naive understanding of how these things work. That is some arm-chair coup attempts that is never gonna work in real life especially with the current conditions.

3 and 4) Ukraine has part of its constitution that they can't have elections during a war so unless Ukraine wants to overwrite the constitution then there ain't gonna be elections for now. You kinda don't mention this fact or don't know about this. Like literally who talks about the subject must mention this and explain. So calling Zelensky undemocratic because of this is stupid, he is literally following what the constitution says and that is why there is no protest since people know it is there. But having said that, you neatly ignore the fact that all polls show Zelensky is 75% popular and will win any contest against anybody literally right now. There is nobody close to him. Also for your coup point, Zaluzhny is also not close to Zelensky nor does he have a party or people to put in Rada etc.

The rest is just your subjective opinion which is wrong in MY opinion. Sanctions are working, Russian army is slowly being grinded down. I wish things would work faster but they are not. Russian dark tanker fleet was around 150-200 ships majority of which were Greek 50-70% while rest registrations were others. We have cut them off from that for now to a large degree. You can't dispute this since the Data can be checked.

[Rich]

I thought as we're approaching the two year anniversary of the start of the SMO, I'd look back at some of what was said back then.
2022 Feb 21st Monday 15:12 The Thread begins.
2022 Feb 24th Thursday The SMO begins
2022 Feb 27th Sunday 20:19 The thread had reached page 34 when I made my first post.

Over and over I keep hearing these so called experts say that Putin hasn't succeeded in any of his major objectives. Are these people retarded? Are they just ignorant? Or are they just bare faced liars hoping to deceive the general public for some unclear purpose? As far as I can make out the Russian armed forces took control of the North Crimean Canal within hours of the start of "The military Operation, certainly with in the first couple of days.

Now I don't know how sane or how mad Putin is? Maybe Putin really does want a Puppet dictatorship ruling over the whole of Ukraine. But his actions are also consistent with much more limited objectives. If you have limited objectives it is very important in warfare for your enemy to not know what your limited objectives are? The purpose of the attack on Kiev may just be to pull forces away from the south and East and disrupt command control and logistics.

Prior to his recent military build up Putin was in a bad position, which was likely to deteriorate over the coming years. Part of the reason he ended up there was his lack of aggression in 2014. In my opinion he tried to e too clever by half. He should have secured the Crimean land bridge and water supplies in 2014. He also shouldn't have allowed the rebels in Donbas and Luhansk to be pushed back and for so much of the infrastructure of the regions to be destroyed. it should be pretty basic warfare strategy, but when fighting wars do try and make sure the fighting, and certainly any prolonged fighting doesn't take place on territories you want to include in your homeland.

What's so interesting is how early the western media started pushing this thoroughly dishonest and delusional narrative. The western propaganda campaign has been brilliant. What was so brilliant was how the Liberals and Biden's government in particular used a truth to sell us the big lie. The Biden administration told us the truth, that the invasion was going to happen. The big lie was that the Russian military should have been able to roll up Ukraine.

I can't find an exact figure for the size of the Axis forces assigned to invade Ukraine in 1941, but I think it was something like 1.9 million. We're talking something like 10 times the 190 thousand that the Russians invaded with in 2022. What's more in 1941, even these vast forces weren't enough and the Axis had to pull down a large part of Army Group Centre's armoured forces. In 2022 the Ukrainians were rapidly able to mobilise the reserves, this meant than rather than the text book 3: 1 numerical superiority the Russians were fighting at more like 1: 4, 1: 4.5.

Partisan forces became a significant problem for the Axis. However despite western Liberal propaganda the Russians in 2022 were never going to used the level of terror used by the Nazis and the Romanians in the 1941. If you not prepared or don't wish to use extreme levels of terror, then you need to use more troops in rear areas for insurgency suppression, a lot more. In Britain we know this well. The enormous number of forces we had to use on suppression of the Provisional IRA or the trouble we had in the Boer war. This of course was one of the major failings of the Schliefen plan, it failed to provide the forces necessary for insurgency suppression behind the front lines.

Now yes its possible to use superiority in armour, mechanised forces, artillery, in the air and at sea to compensate for overall force size, but at the end of the day the Russian force size in 2022 was totally inadequate. This was combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the officer corps. never mind the rankers didn't know they were attacking until the last minute. What was so remarkable about 2022, was not the failures of the Russians, but their successes. What was so shocking about the Ukrainians was the cowardice and incompetence that led to them losing the Crimean Isthmus.

[noemon]

1) Why should I prove a negative? Time is already showing that your argument is useless in this regard since both Bakhmut and Avdiivka they are standing still. So much for the "Fortress" conquest after which there is straight away another fortress? So what is the point of loosing 4-5 Afghanistan war worth of soldiers for 0.001% of Ukranian territory after which you do nothing? We both know the frontline hasn't budged for the whole year+ in any meaningful way. Not even close to Operative successes that both Ukraine had in Kharkiv or Kherson which also were not strategically relevant, may be moral wise but that is a dubious argument.

1) You should prove your claim that "Avdiivka and Bakhmut" are nothing, if you want to be taken seriously.
2) Zelensky called them "fortresses". Heavy fighting transpired and lots of human capital spent to take over these Ukrainian military installations. It doesn't take 2 brains to understand the significance of both. They have been preventing Russian advances as any advance could easily be cut off from the rear.
3) The Russians are still consolidating their gains and rationally do not advance forward without first doing that to ensure their rear. Evidently, Russia would not advance forward while Avdiivka & Bakhmut were being held by Ukraine. Now they have cleared their path forward, they will move in that direction once they have consolidated. So your argument about "time" is ridiculous. The frontline has budged in a big way as both Ukrainian Fortresses have fallen after very intensive fighting.
4) Your "Afghanistan claims" are both unqualified and ridiculous.

2) Yeah, you have a pretty naive understanding of how these things work. That is some arm-chair coup attempts that is never gonna work in real life especially with the current conditions.

You 're projecting.

3 and 4) Ukraine has part of its constitution that they can't have elections during a war so unless Ukraine wants to overwrite the constitution then there ain't gonna be elections for now.

Fake news. The Ukraine Constitution does not forbid elections during wartime.

You kinda don't mention this fact or don't know about this. Like literally who talks about the subject must mention this and explain. So calling Zelensky undemocratic because of this is stupid, he is literally following what the constitution says and that is why there is no protest since people know it is there. But having said that, you neatly ignore the fact that all polls show Zelensky is 75% popular and will win any contest against anybody literally right now. There is nobody close to him. Also for your coup point, Zaluzhny is also not close to Zelensky nor does he have a party or people to put in Rada etc.

Zelensky just keeps extending martial law banning all opposition. A Democrat he is not.

The rest is just your subjective opinion which is wrong in MY opinion. Sanctions are working, Russian army is slowly being grinded down. I wish things would work faster but they are not.

This is just your subjective opinion which is totally worthless.

Russian dark tanker fleet was around 150-200 ships majority of which were Greek 50-70% while rest registrations were others. We have cut them off from that for now to a large degree. You can't dispute this since the Data can be checked.

A lot to unwrap.

1) You have not cut anything off from Russia. The ban does not apply to petrol purchased at or below the minimum cap. The few Greek shipping companies that still engaged in this trade have simply abandoned this market due to political pressure but at the same time Turkish companies have picked up the slack while Russia has exponentially increased its own fleet by many orders higher to cover the shortfall thus servicing its needs mostly in house and still legally.

The EU has prohibited EU vessels from transporting Russian crude oil and petroleum products to third countries. It has also prohibited the related provision of technical assistance, brokering services or financing or financial assistance. This ban does not apply if the crude oil or petroleum products are purchased at or below the oil price cap.

2) The Greek oil "shipping" of Russian crude oil was always peanuts, compared to the multi-billion worth of trade going through Turkey, which I'm guessing that's what this argument serves, to hide Turkey's lack of sanctions behind a few private Greek tankers operating legally within the price cap of the sanction. You should be able to comprehend the level of stupid here. Greece the country, has full sanctions against Russia, Turkey does not.

It's funny that you believe these tribal tactics show anything other than your own desperation.

3) Russian Oil Rosneft announces 47% jump in net profits for 2023.

[late]

What was so brilliant was how the Liberals and Biden's government in particular used a truth to sell us the big lie. The Biden administration told us the truth, that the invasion was going to happen. The big lie was that the Russian military should have been able to roll up Ukraine.

You get so much wrong.

If the Soviet army had rolled into Ukraine, they would have taken the country. We knew Putin had spent a lot on the military. The intel assessment was that the Russian military was formidable.

Pretty much everyone thought along those lines.

Ukraine hadn't had a military for very long, and it was untested. The Russian military had rolled over Crimea, and a few other places.

So let's talk about what was different. Russia moves supplies by rail. The country is too poor, and too big, to have an extensive road network. They also don't have the kind of air supply capability America has. It's very limited.

When the invasion started, there was a cyberattack that stopped the trains cold. It was said that local hackers did it. I doubt that very much. I think it was a Western country, maybe America, maybe Poland, perhaps a joint operation. In any case, it was damn clever.

That exposed other weaknesses in the supply chain. Like old food.

Point is, Ukraine had help. Ukraine had also been getting limited amounts of military hardware, mostly old stuff.

The differential we thought was there, wasn't as big as we thought.

Several months later, Peter Zeihan was saying this was still Putin's war to lose. Russia had more people, and a huge supply of weapons and ammo. While Ukraine had fought brilliantly, but it was still a little guy fighting a big bully.

None of this is secret, most of it you saw in the news. Yet you keep going off half assed.

Why??

[JohnRawls]

1) You should prove your claim that "Avdiivka and Bakhmut" are nothing, if you want to be taken seriously.
2) Zelensky called them "fortresses". Heavy fighting transpired and lots of human capital spent to take over these Ukrainian military installations. It doesn't take 2 brains to understand the significance of both. They have been preventing Russian advances as any advance could easily be cut off from the rear.
3) The Russians are still consolidating their gains and rationally do not advance forward without first doing that to ensure their rear. Evidently, Russia would not advance forward while Avdiivka & Bakhmut were being held by Ukraine. Now they have cleared their path forward, they will move in that direction once they have consolidated. So your argument about "time" is ridiculous. The frontline has budged in a big way as both Ukrainian Fortresses have fallen after very intensive fighting.
4) Your "Afghanistan claims" are both unqualified and ridiculous.



You 're projecting.



Fake news. The Ukraine Constitution does not forbid elections during wartime.



Zelensky just keeps extending martial law banning all opposition. A Democrat he is not.



This is just your subjective opinion which is totally worthless.



A lot to unwrap.

1) You have not cut anything off from Russia. The ban does not apply to petrol purchased at or below the minimum cap. The few Greek shipping companies that still engaged in this trade have simply abandoned this market due to political pressure but at the same time Turkish companies have picked up the slack while Russia has exponentially increased its own fleet by many orders higher to cover the shortfall thus servicing its needs mostly in house and still legally.



2) The Greek oil "shipping" of Russian crude oil was always peanuts, compared to the multi-billion worth of trade going through Turkey, which I'm guessing that's what this argument serves, to hide Turkey's lack of sanctions behind a few private Greek tankers operating legally within the price cap of the sanction. You should be able to comprehend the level of stupid here. Greece the country, has full sanctions against Russia, Turkey does not.

It's funny that you believe these tribal tactics show anything other than your own desperation.

3) Russian Oil Rosneft announces 47% jump in net profits for 2023.

Elections and full-scale war are incompatible. Holding elections during a full-scale war is extremely dangerous. It can lead to the loss of legitimacy for both the electoral process and elected bodies, potentially undermining the state as a whole. During a full-scale war, a state cannot guarantee an environment where electoral process participants can freely and fully express their views and will, where military and voters abroad can meaningfully participate, and where a competitive and vibrant political environment exists, especially against the backdrop of narrowing rights and freedoms under martial law.

Ukraine is a democratic state with a vibrant civil society that fought for its right to vote and to influence decision-making. Ukraine’s society has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to hold peaceful protests, oppose election fraudsters, and curb past oppressive governments’ attempts to build autocracy at home. We did so through the Orange Revolution (2004) and the Revolution of Dignity (2013-2014). After 2014, national elections in Ukraine were deemed democratic, free, and fair by domestic and international observation missions. It is the citizens of Ukraine that are the basis of its resistance to external threats and resistance to the full-scale Russian invasion.

Ukrainian society is sensitive to double standards. It has fought and is still fighting for its beliefs. The price of this struggle is the lives of both military and civilians. Lives that we lose every day. Without pauses or rest. Ukrainians cannot be accused of fear or unwillingness to take responsibility for the fate of their country. Therefore, our true partners must now hear the opinions of its citizens.

Elections cannot be held during war because:

Elections alone do not equal democracy; voting for the sake of voting is not a measure of a nation’s democracy. If competitive political competition cannot be assured during war, then elections will certainly not be free. Elections are not just about a day of voting, instead, they involve loud and bitter arguments between different camps about the best program for a country’s development. Such conversations can be extremely heated and frank, but this is the only way to ensure a true democratic process. In Russia and Belarus, voting is formally taking place, and some operational exercises carried out by these two have even been called "elections" by international observation missions in the past, but there is no democracy there. This process of decay has been slow, yet its undeniable components are the absence of choices and the imitation of voting. Double standards and adjustable values in the way these regimes were viewed and approached have actually prompted them to act with impunity and ferocity. This is a lesson that we must learn.
It is prohibited to hold elections under martial law. Article 83(4) of the Constitution of Ukraine explicitly bans the tenure termination for the Ukrainian members of parliament (MPs) while martial law is in effect and extends the Parliament’s authority until a new assembly is elected after the war. Our Constitution states: "In the event that the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its authority is extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency." Moreover, our laws, which shall have full legitimacy and must be observed by all, and not selectively, explicitly prohibit holding any elections, including presidential ones, in wartime. Under our laws, all authorities have full authority and legitimacy to continue their work and be as united as possible in this difficult period for our nation. These legal principles fully align with principles followed by other democratic nations. Any amendments to legislation aimed at making wartime elections formally "legal" would contradict the spirit of the Constitution and international standards.
Holding elections during war can undermine national unity. If elections are held during wartime, we can anticipate a massive disinformation campaign spread by Russians in Ukraine and around the world, calling into question the credibility of election administrators and contenders. It would aim to delegitimize the process and its outcomes. Society would become split around the fact that real heroes are fighting and risking their lives in a time of war, while politicians are fighting one another in a cynical power struggle. Members of the military and volunteers would likely not be able to participate in the process as voters and candidates given that they are at the moment defending us. This might cause internal confrontations and disagreements. Ukrainian citizens living abroad may be unable to fully exercise their right to vote or stand in elections. This will detract from their ability to make a meaningful contribution to Ukraine’s post-war recovery and growth and can catalyze a split between those who are abroad and in Ukraine.
Martial law, by design, restricts rights and freedoms, while elections require their expansion and protection. These two modes are incompatible. According to Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine, certain restrictions on rights and freedoms may be imposed under martial law, making it impossible to fully ensure freedom of speech and press during the war, a prerequisite for free and fair elections. In wartime, the entire system of state power, local self-government, and society should be focused on security and defense, and this requires resources: people, finances, and time for preparation. The main resource in war is the total mobilization of citizens and trust between the state and the public. The common interest is victory, and political battles should be postponed until peacetime. In times of war, the state and society have one priority – to survive and resist the inhumane Russian regime.
Ukraine will face extreme security and operational challenges that cannot be addressed through any legislative amendments: destroyed infrastructure; the virtual impossibility of guaranteeing full security of all electoral process participants; the need to ensure the right to vote for more than seven million citizens displaced abroad and within the country and more than one million military personnel; complexity of involving the police, part of Ukraine’s Defense Forces, in safeguarding elections in wartime, to mention just a few. Since ~20% of our country's territory is occupied or is a place of hostilities, another ~20% is within immediate reach of artillery, and with missiles and drones regularly launched throughout the country, this will create unprecedented and unjustified risks. Ukraine, a state where human life and health are defined as the highest social values, cannot risk the lives of millions of its citizens when Russia is deliberately launching missile attacks and brutally killing civilians across the country. A possible massive missile attack on the day of voting would make it impossible for citizens to access polling stations and ultimately disrupt the process. The inability to guarantee the final outcome of the elections is a convenient tool for political pressure by the aggressor state. We should also not forget about the inability of people with disabilities, including veterans who were disabled during the war, to cast their votes in conditions of this kind.
Ukrainians support extending the term of office of elected authorities until the end of the war. A number of recent nationally representative surveys clearly indicate that the people of Ukraine support extending the term of the parliament, despite current dissatisfaction with this and other institutions, and support holding elections after the war ends.
Post-war elections in Ukraine will be costly due to the consequences of the Russian war. In wartime, however, such costs are unjustified and cynical, as Ukraine is still fighting for its existence and requires more weapons and ammunition, hospital equipment, and humanitarian aid.

No doubt, elections in Ukraine should take place – but only after the war is over and Ukraine has won, and security and other conditions are in place to organize such elections in a free, fair, democratic and accessible manner. Moreover, the presidential and parliamentary elections should be separated in time, otherwise we will not even have a formal system of checks and balances between the branches of government. Parliamentary elections should not become the appendix of a full-fledged presidential election process, while the election of the president should be a conscious vote.

In view of the above, to ensure genuine democracy in Ukraine further advanced, we call for:

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – not to take such a dangerous and ill-advised step as holding elections during the war, but instead, to urgently launch full-fledged expert work on overcoming challenges of post-war elections; to develop the necessary draft laws in advance based on an inclusive process; and, to ensure the principle of legal certainty. In this way, Ukraine can reaffirm its deep commitment to democracy, including by resuming the broader electoral reform process that is currently on hold;
Political parties – to work on democratization and development of their own organizations; not to polarize public sentiment for political purposes; and, to focus on reforms and strategies to restore post-war Ukraine as a democratic and developed modern state;
Ukraine’s international partners – to increase comprehensive support in the military, humanitarian and economic sectors so that the war ends in the shortest possible time with Ukraine’s victory, thus enabling Ukraine to conduct truly democratic elections.
We invite everyone interested to publicly support this statement and stop manipulations around the topic of holding elections in Ukraine during the war.