Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
When Vladimir Putin sent up to 200,000 soldiers into Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he wrongly assumed he could sweep into the capital, Kyiv, in a matter of days and depose the government.
After a series of humiliating retreats, his initial invasion plan has clearly failed... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
If Russia had wanted to take Ukraine, it would have done a shock and awe campaign the way the U. S. did in Iraq. That's not what happened, though, partially because Russia wanted to avoid civilian casualties
Russia's original incursion was limited to Crimea and the Donbas region after the people of those areas asked for help and voted in referendums to be part of Russia. They did so because of Ukrainian policies of terror and brutality.
Ukraine had been relentlessly bombing civilian areas in Donbas and terrorizing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers since 2014. It still is. I know people who can personally attest to that. Just look what happened in Odessa.
Plus, there was no way that Russia was going to relinquish it's naval base in Sevastopol.
I disagree with the narrative of plucky Ukraine successfully defending its homeland against the evil the Russian aggressor. I tend to agree with the assessments of Douglas Macgregor and others who say that Ukraine has suffered tremendous attrition of personnel and equipment on the battlefield and that its air defenses are all but destroyed.
Russia had been trying to negotiate a peaceful agreement since 2014. But the U. S. blocked every effort. Finally, in 2022, Russia realized that it had no choice but to show that it was serious. And even then, the purpose was to force a peaceful agreement to protect its border. But the psychopaths in charge of U. S. foreign policy press on. Their motive is to attack Russia at the expense of the Ukrainian people. Plus, those who have been vacuuming up land and resources, engaging in human trafficking, and building experimental chemical and biological facilities are terrified of losing their free reign in Ukraine.
It's too bad that more people aren't aware of the history of Ukraine, especially since 2014. Instead, they rely upon western "news reports" for their information.
With regard to the Western mainstream media, the question is when since the 1990s have they ever told the truth? They’re so bad now that they run stories “according to unnamed intelligence officials” without corroboration, as if the CIA has ever told the truth. Last month, British media claimed that Russian forces were out of ammo and were using shovels. Not just any shovel, but traditional shovels used by Russian peasants. If that’s true, get me a Russian shovel!
That said, I have watched a wide range of sources about this war closely and the Russians are clearly winning, hands down. The sanctions war backfired and is leading to dedollarization, the deindustrialization of Germany, massive inflation, and supply chain issues in the West. All of these consequences were entirely foreseeable but our lamebrained elites (Clear them out!) pushed forward with the war and sabotaged the peace agreement that was mediated in Istanbul nonetheless. NATO weapons and ammo stockpiles are drawn down to dangerously low levels, especially in Eastern Europe. Surovikin’s strategy of digging in to stable, easily defended lines and using the 10:1 Russian advantage in artillery power to “grind down” the Ukrainian forces is working brilliantly.
Opinion
16Opinion
Western media completely ignores it any time Ukraine loses ground, and strictly reports on their victories (which are sometimes out of date), while it has very much been a back and forth on the ground. It isn't necessarily false reporting, but lying through omission has created a false belief that Ukraine is cleaning Russia's clock and about to invade Moscow. The other problem is that casualty numbers are wildly inaccurate and basically just estimations, some of which are inflated for propaganda reasons. The propaganda being put out by both sides is hilariously over the top, yet some soldiers I served with years ago who should know better believe it anyway. The most likely losses reflect that Ukraine is taking about 11 casualties for every ~15 Russian casualties, with about half in both being KIA. This is pretty consistent with what's typical when two near-peer conventional armies fight each other, and the invading force takes higher (~50%) losses.
A war of attrition greatly favors Russia in the long run, mainly due to population and resources. In the west, we view resorting to drafting poorly trained conscripts and throwing them into the fight as an act of desperation, but Russia works somewhat in reverse on this: when they took unexpected and embarrassing losses in what they thought would be an easy takeover, they pulled back their "professionals" and sent in the conscripts and mercenaries to act as cannon fodder, and to probe Ukrainian positions to hit with artillery. The more serious forces kept in reserve are mainly to contain the Ukrainians in the meantime. It's a faster-paced evolution of what they did in WW2. Russia's economy has also endured over a year of war relatively unscathed despite Europe's fake boycott of Russian energy. It's fake because they're still buying Russian oil and gas, and just using other countries like India as a middleman for that transaction, and paying extra (hurting themselves) over it. The issue Ukraine is having is that they can't economically sustain themselves, and somewhere between 70-80% of their war effort is being funded by the US and UK. I'm not sure about the UK, but half or more of the money the US sends over magically disappears and ends up in the pockets of corrupt European and American, and possibly Chinese politicians and NGOs, which implies that the war is valuable and supported by those governments for reasons other than simply weakening Russia, as the west claims.
No one because that's not the premise of any of them. They all want attention and therefore the idea is to tell a good story not the truth. The first thing that is lost in a war is the truth because no party has an interest to make itself look bad. Modern journalism is interested in storytelling because that's what makes the money.
That's the case for journalist as for streamers on YouTube. I think it's important to listen to both sides not because of what they say but because of what they don't say. Since both sides only tell what makes them look good.
To me the conflict has come to a point especially since it's the first conflict that is fought not only on the battle ground but also on social media that I would say the proper question to ask now is who's losing less. From my point of view both have gotten a strong damage. Since Ukraine's economy is destroyed and is completely depending on foreign money, a lot of people mainly young people have left the country and they probably won't come back if Russia takes over. The infrastructure is destroyed and will need a lot of money to be repaired. Also it will take time to find all weapons especially mines and granates that lay around but haven't exploded yet. Russia on the other side has the NATO come closer to their border with Finland and Sweden also joining NATO and the perspective that Ukraine could join the EU. The NATO got united and strengthened by the conflict and Russia lost partners for their oil and gas in Europe. Sure they now export to China and India but probably less and cheaper since both countries are less than dependent on Russia than for example Germany and Austria were. Also the conflict is still going without a real perspective of a peace any time soon. I would therefore say there is no winner in that.
Ukraine is winning. In a war, the side who started it needs to end it where as the side who is defending simply needs to keep existing. The fact that this war is not over, and does not appear to be ending anytime soon, is a clear victory for Ukraine.
It is important to remember that it was Russia that started this war. That meant that they looked at Ukraine and their own forces and thought that they could achieve a victory. Otherwise they would not have started the war. The fact that this war is still going on right now means that Russia was wrong in their assessment.
As such there is a fairly easy, if simplified way you can look at this situation. Russia is only winning if it is obvious that they are making clear and rapid progress. Think of it as something along the lines of the first few days of this war. If it grinds down to a stalemate such as currently or if Russia is losing decisively then Ukraine is winning.
Simply just holding is enough for Ukraine to win because there will come a time when Russia will have to sue for peace because they are the aggressors which means that Ukraine can then state their demands. Of course it would not be an unconditional defeat if it comes from a stalemate but it would still be a peace on Ukraines terms and a victory for them.
I could go into more details but I limited myself to just talking about obvious signs that anyone can see.
As for Gerald Celenta and Douglas MacGregor? If you dont want to attribute malice to them, as in they are maliciously lying to you then the only answer to why they are so incredibly wrong is that they dont know what they are talking about, and in fact, might be very very dumb. I dont even feel like I need to refute them directly, whats the point? This war will go on at least one more year no matter what happens and time will prove me correct while showing that Gerald Celenta and Douglas MacGregor are just categorically wrong.
Neither are winning. The US government is winning.
If you ever want to know what happened or why it happened you have to look at the end result and how in benefited the goals of the US government and industrial military complex?
A general example of this is back during the Trump administration when in Europe Trump said that Germany should be buying their oil/gas from the US not Russia as they are allies, Germany needs to committ more to NATO, Europe needs to contribute more to NATO and its own defence, NATO members need to buy US arms like the F35. Now that's not Trump's policy, Trump was voicing in public US policy and diplomatic efforts in Europe, he shouldn't have been doing that instead he should have played his role like Biden, Obama, Clinton and Bush did and this kind of stuff I'd the reason he was ousted as president. Any in 2023 what Trump had stated is all coming true thanks to the war in Ukraine as well as the US military is bring given a blank check book to replace all cold war era equipment and designs with all new stuff.
Neither are close to their exclaimed military goals. I also saw a comment on here I can’t stating Russia would have won the war in two days, but I can’t find it now. Huge exaggeration. With modern technology and number of combatants, it would still be a while. If you take away NATO’s support for Ukraine, take away Wagner.
Wagner is one of two things: A PMC group based in Russia, assisting Russia, but claiming to not be actual Russian forces. Or an extension of Russian forces that can be denied by the government.
Russia is also not alone. Syria, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and others are providing support.
Neither are right, but both are making profits selling arms to Ukraine, while stealing from Russia.
Also, you need to remember that this is the world vs Russia - But Russia is still in the fight. They talk shit about "Ukraine" did this or that, when in fact it's Western backed kit or squads who have.
If it was just Ukraine and Russia, then Russia would have won in the second day.
Wars are like pregnancies and baseball games.
They ain't over until they're over.
Therefore, who is "winning" is irrelevant. Who wins is not.
Well, let's keep in mind that Ukraine is "winning" because of NATO assistance. However, talks are likely to happen by fall. Henry Kissinger predicted China will get involved leading to talks.
www.newsweek.com/kissinger-predicts-china-involvement-will-lead-ukraine-peace-talks-1798917
I watched this segment on Henry Kissinger on CBS Sunday Morning this past weekend.
www.cbsnews.com/video/henry-kissinger-at-100/
@abc3643
No, that is incorrect. USA has a public library for its military which includes field manuals to do pretty much anything from building a house to, in this case, occupy a nation. Using this field manual as a reference then Russia simply does not have the quantity of troops to successfully occupy Ukraine and this manual in particular is working on the assumption that the resistance to the occupation is fairly low, which it definitely is not in Ukraine.
In other words, even if you used magic to remove all of Ukraines military and to allow Russia to fully occupy the country they simply do not have the troops to do so successfully and would start suffer losses akin to what USA has experienced in the middle east, if not worse.
War is generally the easy part where as the occupation is the hard part. As USA has demonstrated they can turn most countries into parking but they struggle to actually achieve anything beyond that. This is important because this was actually Ukraines original strategy which they were trained for by countries like USA. In the event of a Russian invasion the regular army was supposed to put up a token defense while Ukraine established and built their resistance units before the regular units pulled back and "disappeared" as they too intermingled into the population to join the resistance.
It goes without saying that this did not happen, but its important to realize that this is the actual difficult part that Russia will have to overcome if they are to actually secure "victory". From the Russian point of view, the invasion is the easy part and they are unable to even win that phase of the conquest.
Having seen the Russian performance in this war I do not think anyone can make an argument for them actually being able to conquer Ukraine even if Ukraine did not receive any outside help. Best case scenario (for the Russians), they might be able to win militarily but they would definitely lose the occupation regardless and that initial win is also very suspect. While modern ATGMs and tanks and everything else is certainly very helpful its not like Ukraine did not have large stockpiles of weapons and if its just about digging a trench and holding off a Russian advance then readily available basic weapons would be sufficient unless Russia really steps it up from now on which I dont think they can.
@Soteris Sure, I'll make that argument.
Without western help, Ukraine would be using almost exclusively Soviet-era weapons - weapons the Russians made. So, they would have run out of ammunition and spare parts for their Soviet weapons. That means it would have been a war of attrition and the Russians could have won that.
When you were born and the Soviet Union ended, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. They shouldn't have done that but, at the same time, Ukraine, having been part of the Soviet Union, wasn't in an adversarial stance with Russia at the time. And the West probably was happy that Ukraine gave up those weapons because the less people with nukes, the safer the world becomes.
No they would not. Ukraine has a massive weapons stockpile, although it is old. If they just need rifles and such then they got that covered. Furthermore, Ukraine has a very large native arms manufacturing which includes a decent ATGM and such which could fill their intimidate need at least to the point of achieving a stalemate. If its just an infantry force then Ukraine can support one alongside a limited number of artillery. Their infrastructure for things such as aircraft and tanks however is limited after it got demolished early in the war.
This force would obviously not be ideal but so far I have not really seen Russia being able to breach properly entrenched basic infantry. The key factor in this regard is not that Ukraine has amazing infantry but that Russia has woefully weak assaulting power. The production would also only increase after the war started. Making simple weapons is easy enough so aside from needing a bit of time to set up they will have all the guns and ammo they want.
Ukraine has done way better than anyone thoughts so far. But in order to win they will need to inflict eight to one casualties. And the Russians are throwing another 2 million people at the problem this year. Ukraine has better equipment and better training, but not by a long shot.
It's a toss up
Ukraine's become Russia's Vietnam. Simply based on size they should have won in days. Worse still Russia's military capabilities have been laid bare to the world which might lead some to think it's worth taking a pop directly at Russia (I would if I was china).
The simple fact the west still thinks pouring expensive supplies into Ukraine is worth it suggests to me they're winning.
Russia does not have the manpower to occupy the nation. China and India just voted for a UN resolution that references the aggression by Russia. Finland has joined NATO. Sweden has voted to do the same. I do not see that as winning.
Ukraine is in ruins. I do not see that as winning, either.
I b et Russia is winning. Biden says we will be there for as long as it takes. I bet America will be bankrupt long before that.
u This video (the part about the tanks) should tell you everything about the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jj2YRCa-MDs
Russia has proven their military is 💩 Not sure whose currently "winning" but Russia ends up losing.
Taking a country over is extremely difficult next to impossible especially with modern-day warfare and technology.
in a war, no one is winning
We will just have to wait for the victory I guess
If that happened wouldn't that make the whole war pointless considering they are fighting to be their own country?
It is all in how you look at it. Ukraine is winning back some of its territory but Russia still has some of it too.
No one wins in war countless dead of what . Hope 🙏 🇺🇦🇺🇦 win tho
Russia has already lost, it's just looking for better ways to screw itself
Only a fool would believe ukraine is winning
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions