Perhaps you are intentionally avoiding the "well equipped" part. And I assume there's a reason for that...

Teslag said:

---

Perhaps you are intentionally avoiding the "well equipped" part. And I assume there's a reason for that...

---

Yes, that's called ignoring your strawman. Speaking more generally about the difficulty of maintaining the appearances when trying to spin/sell propaganda, this has been incredible to watch you juggle.

Actually it's not. It goes back to the core premise of Russia's inability to mount an offensive. A successful offensive, as Russia has witnessed (but not learned), requires bodies, equipment, and coordination. Russia has bodies at every corner of its nation. That is not in dispute and never was. Some in reserve, some in defense, some in garrison. But few and far between with the type of equipment necessary, in the numbers that matter. And we have seen their coordination and logistics in offensives. That hasn't changed.

So again, with what?

Teslag said:

---

Actually it's not. It goes back to the core premise of Russia's inability to mount an offensive. A successful offensive, as Russia has witnessed (but not learned), requires bodies, equipment, and coordination. Russia has bodies at every corner of its nation. That is not in dispute and never was. Some in reserve, some in defense, some in garrison. But few and far between with the type of equipment necessary, in the numbers that matter. And we have seen their coordination and logistics in offensives. That hasn't changed.

So again, with what?

---

My favorite part about this post is that if you apply it to the Uke, the spring counter offensive suddenly becomes a myth again: it is a list of things that never happened.

My second favorite part about this post is your "nuh uh" at the front.

With that, when are you going to source the idea that most units inside Russia are ill equipped? Maybe
with anything other than Ukrainian propaganda? This whole exchange started because I asked you for actual evidence. Two pages later you've linked nothing

ETA: reminder: what Russia can do is different from what Russia has done.

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me bro?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me comrade bro?

---

Dah, you will speak appropriately or meet puneeshment!

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me bro?

---

As opposed to assertion that Russia is so well equipped they are putting T-54's, T-60's, etc back in service just for fun?

fka ftc said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me comrade bro?

---

Dah, you will speak appropriately or meet puneeshment!

---

Remember folks, this poster loathes snarky comments.

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me comrade bro?

---

Dah, you will speak appropriately or meet puneeshment!

---

Remember folks, this poster loathes snarky comments.

---

Remember folks, in the last few posts I have provided quite a bit of relevant information.

On the other hand, you continue to engage in disingenuous discussion and derailment. So I decided to add in some SNL level humor.

There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out Russia's complete inability to mount an offensive. Then again, I could be wrong and Russia wouldn't be struggling to take an uninhabited village of 9,000 people as their first offensive achievement in almost two years.

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Ukrainian counter offensive wasn't a myth, it simply failed to do anything noteworthy this summer. And here we are, in a stalemate.

---

so the source is trust me comrade bro?

---

Dah, you will speak appropriately or meet puneeshment!

---

Remember folks, this poster loathes snarky comments.

---

Remember folks, in the last few posts I have provided quite a bit of relevant information.

On the other hand, you continue to engage in disingenuous discussion and derailment. So I decided to add in some SNL level humor.

---

Its stalemate with Russia occupying part of Ukraine. Russian victory by any sensible metric. Spin class starts in 3, 2, 1..

Russia didn't want "part" of Ukraine. And they sure didn't want Ukraine in NATO, which is at this point inevitable.

Teslag said:

---

Russia didn't want "part" of Ukraine. And they sure didn't want Ukraine in NATO, which is at this point inevitable.

---

Correct, they wanted denazify it. They get closer with each dead Nazi.

Has Kiev, Odessa, Dnipro and Kharkiv, (Ukraine's 4 largest cities comprising almost 7 million people) been "denazified"?

Teslag said:

---

Has Kiev, Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kherson been "denazified"?

---

I think so, but maybe not entirely? I saw pictures of Nazi's stacked like sand bags in Kherson last year

Any dead Nazi is a good Nazi. At least we agree on that.

If Russia is victorious why are they still fighting?

Teslag said:

---

If Russia is victorious why are they still fighting?

---

You mean occupying?

Biolabs?

This could go on a long time until Putin is taken out

Why are they no longer occupying Kherson and Kharkiv? Why did Russia lose 28,000 square miles of the 40,000 square miles they gained from February 2022 to March 2022?

Teslag said:

---

Why are they no longer occupying Kherson and Kharkiv? Why did Russia lose 28,000 square miles of the 40,000 square miles they gained from February 2022 to March 2022?

---

For the same reason. Ukraine is no longer occupying Crimea

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Why are they no longer occupying Kherson and Kharkiv? Why did Russia lose 28,000 square miles of the 40,000 square miles they gained from February 2022 to March 2022?

---

For the same reason. Ukraine is no longer occupying Crimea

---

I was hoping you'd bring up Crimea. Prior to 2022, Russia controlled approximately 16,000 square miles of Ukraine, which included Crimea. At the height of their recent invasion they held 62,000 square miles of Ukraine. Since March of 2022 that amount has dwindled to about 28,000 square miles.

So Russia has sacrificed all they have for...


a complete "victory" of an additional 12,000 square miles? I guess Putin remains a master strategist.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Why are they no longer occupying Kherson and Kharkiv? Why did Russia lose 28,000 square miles of the 40,000 square miles they gained from February 2022 to March 2022?

---

For the same reason. Ukraine is no longer occupying Crimea

---

so Russia has sacrificed all they have for...

---

But as we already established, the source behind this claim does not exist. Still waiting on your link?

Or when Z said "as long as it takes" did he mean as long as it takes to lose a little less?

You want a link to current lines and how they have moved? That isn't exactly a state secret...

Teslag said:

---

You want a link to current lines and how they have moved? That isn't exactly a state secret...

---

No. We're still waiting on you to prove that 100% of the Russian Army ("all they have") was used in Ukraine?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

You want a link to current lines and how they have moved? That isn't exactly a state secret...

---

No. We're still waiting on you to prove that 100% of the Russian Army ("all they have") was used in Ukraine?

---

You want me to provide a link to back up a claim that I never made? That's a new one.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

You want a link to current lines and how they have moved? That isn't exactly a state secret...

---

No. We're still waiting on you to prove that 100% of the Russian Army ("all they have") was used in Ukraine?

---

You want me to provide a link to back up a claim that I never made? That's a new one.

---

"All they have" is 100%. Are you trolling or drinking? Or did you say the quiet part out loud (again)

I think any reasonable person would realize that "all they have" in the context of that sentence is referring to their losses in this war.

Teslag said:

---

I think any reasonable person would realize that "all they have" in the context of that sentence is referring to their losses in this war.

---

We don't have to opine on reasonableness when we can extract the grammatical meaning. You have an edit button if you need it. I suspect this is a slip.

Ukraine war latest: Military scales down some operations over foreign aid shortageshttps://t.co/4j4ZQ0G5Wq

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) December 18, 2023

Well, yeah. Foreign 'aid' and domestic canon fodder are both running a bit low. Strange that it is at the same time as Biden is being pushed to resign/out the door for re-election next year. Coincidence, surely.

🇷🇺🇺🇦 During the battles in Marinka, Russian soldiers were exchanging fire with the enemy and suddenly shouts of “OUR OWN!” came from the basement.

And then these “friends” started yelling “palyanitsa”, for which they received several grenades inside

Ukrainian, give up - contact… pic.twitter.com/NohkKtZPXT

— SIMPLICIUS The Thinker Ѱ (@simpatico771) December 18, 2023

Up early retweeting pro-hamas accounts I see? You couldn't' t someone better to advocate your positions? I mean I get this guy says things you like for clicks, but "simplicious" is literally one of the worst accounts on twitter.

⚡️🇮🇱IDF Terror Forces' Humvee destroyed by ATGM pic.twitter.com/LMgZg0FYMK

— SIMPLICIUS The Thinker Ѱ (@simpatico771) December 18, 2023

Quote:

---

"There will be unpopular decisions. I do not deny that we can get to the point of mobilizing women. If it is needed for defense, then it is necessary for defense. There must be a statement - friends, we are either losing the war, or we need to accept the difficult decision to mobilize women."

This opinion was expressed by Verkhovna Rada deputy from the "Voice" party Inna Sovsun, quoted by UNIAN

---

Ukraine has a civil rights problem (reference article from FP is very good, supportive of Putin's point about Ukraine's abuse of Russians domestically:

Quote:

---

Ukrainians across the political spectrumformer officials, political allies to the current administration, longtime critics, and western Ukrainian intellectualsamong themare questioning the long-term social merits of wartime policies that effectively relegate Russian speakers to permanent second-class status. It should be noted that almost all of these critics reside in Ukraine and are fiercely supportive of Ukrainian independence. But they worry that the government is squandering its chance to forge a durable post-invasion social consensus by adopting policies that will alienate, criminalize, or deport a significant portion of the country's population.

The debate over Ukraine's freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and minority rightsabout which very little is known in the Westreveals that even if Ukraine manages to win the war, it still has a long way to go in becoming a truly open and pluralistic society.

….

The vast majority of Russophile Ukrainians refuse to categorize themselves as a minority. They see themselves simply as Ukrainians citizens, and as such, they argue, they have a constitutional right to speak any language and espouse any religion or culture that they wish, not just the ones endorsed by the state. But Ukrainian law does not recognize Russians as indigenous to Ukraine, or even as a minority within Ukraine. They therefore have no claim to legal protection of their cultural heritage and language, a direct contradiction of Article 10 of the Ukrainian constitution.

In a now-infamous survey taken just six months before the Russian invasion, more than 40 percent of Ukrainians nationwide (and nearly two-thirds in the east and south), agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people." Surveys taken since then show that this figure has fallen sharply, though even now, political analyst Kost Bondarenko estimates that at least 8 to 10 percent of Ukrainians can be considered "pro-Russian."

This precipitous drop has encouraged Ukraine's more nationalistic lawmakers to think of new ways to transform these problematic citizens into proper Ukrainians, particularly in terms of language. A 2021 law fines the use of Russian in the service sector, while other laws have targeted Russian-language media, books, films, and music, even when they are produced in Ukraine. One way or another, according to Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, "the Russian language must completely disappear from our territory, it being an aspect of hostile propaganda and the brainwashing of our population."

The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that whereas in May 2022, only 8 percent of Ukrainians said they saw evidence of systematic discrimination against Russian speakers, in its latest September 2023 survey, that number had risen to 45 percent. The ongoing legal crusade, however, isn't reflective of how language functions in the country; today, only 14 percent of Ukrainians prefer to speak only in Ukrainian. An August 2023 survey found that 18.3 percent of Ukrainians still want Russian to be an official language. In the eastern regions under Ukrainian control, this figure rises to 36.4 percent.

---

I think it goes without saying that Ukraine is just socially, demographically, and politically unable to support/sustain itself in any theoretical post-war nation-state sort of way.

Irish PM pranked by Russians into discussion where he admits…Ukraine won't be joining EU anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Ukraine becoming a full-fledged member of the European Union anytime soon is "not very likely," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said in an interview with Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus posted on Tuesday.

His comments came after the European Council decided last week to open accession talks with Ukraine despite opposition from several member nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, who have argued that Kiev is "absolutely unprepared to open the negotiations."

In a video posted on Tuesday, the Russian duo, posing as African officials, asked the Irish leader about Kiev's potential membership in the EU. Varadkar stated that although his country has supported the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine and accepting it as a candidate nation, he stressed that such talks "tend to take a long time."

---

A Russian take on 2024 in Ukraine and specifically American meddling in Ukraine;

Quote:

---

Politicians with extensive connections in Western countries such as boxing legend Vitaly Klitschko have also spoken out against Zelensky. How can such internal opposition influence how the West views the Ukrainian president?

The West has always perceived Ukraine as a critical geopolitical project targeted against Russia. The US directly intervenes whenever there is an internal crisis in Ukraine, acting solely on the principles of political expediency. And they have always managed to stabilize the situation.

We may remember the very beginning of the conflict in Donbass. At that time, contradictions arose between former President Pyotr Poroshenko and the now-imprisoned oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, who considered Dnepropetrovsk Region to be his power base and was preparing to turn it into a separate 'principality'.

But then, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt met with Kolomoisky, set certain conditions that the oligarch (who had tons of money in the West) simply could not refuse, and the conflict quickly settled down. Before that, the US had settled conflicts between Euromaidan leaders, including Klitschko.
Ukraine is an essential project for the US, and the Americans cannot allow the Ukrainian authorities to get into a brawl, as is their habit. So, Washington will intervene directly when the current situation goes off course.

The US authorities know Ukraine's internal politics well; they have no illusions about the people they're dealing with.

Do you think the US will be able to keep the situation under control?

Surely, we cannot exclude 'black swan' events. There may be failures at the front, conflicts beyond the front lines, and internal issues in the US where the presidential elections are approaching and the attention the current president can devote to Kiev is limited. But I believe it is more likely that the US will keep the situation in Ukraine under control.

Regarding whether [Zelensky's] image will be affected in the eyes of the political decision-makers, there is no image. The US is fully aware that all political figures in Ukraine are either corrupt or have major business interests. They are divided into two categories: People who can achieve results despite their corrupt backgrounds, and those who cannot. As long as Ukraine can still function, the US will continue to work with those who can achieve certain results.

Based on some reliable sources, we know that Zelensky has both loyal generals in the AFU (such as Aleksandr Sirsky) and those who he clearly doesn't like (such as Zaluzhny).

The president is trying to work directly with the military commanders that he sympathizes with, sometimes bypassing the commander-in-chief. Most likely, this harms the process of managing troops, and at some point, the US may have to intervene and resolve this conflict.

The row has been brewing for a long time. The intervention of Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage in military matters has always resulted in increased bloodshed and, above all, more casualties on the Ukrainian side (who suffered heavier losses than the Russian side).

The Ukrainian president gave the order to hold the defense of fortress cities even though the AFU was encircled and in a hopeless situation, and their lines of communication were under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. Such was the situation in Artyomovsk (also known as Bakhmut) for many weeks.
Apparently, Zelensky also intervened in other combat operations through which he wanted to achieve some political effect, resulting in huge losses.

If Zelensky continues interfering in military matters, the consequences can be twofold. Firstly, this will accelerate Ukraine's ultimate defeat on the battlefield, and secondly, there will be many casualties that could have been avoided.

Zelensky is the typical negative example of a political leader trying to interfere in military matters.

---

Quote:

---

Zelensky is the typical negative example of a political leader trying to interfere in military matters.

---

As opposed to Putin, who assassinated the leader of the PMC that has had Russia's only success in 18 months?