UFA refusing orders: Mutiny.

Quote:

---

Ukrainian servicemen are increasingly refusing to follow orders and fleeing their positions, accusing their leadership of assigning them suicide missions, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Monday, citing several Ukrainian officers.

The outlet claimed that soldiers from four brigades fighting near the besieged settlement of Kurakhovo in Russia's Donetsk People's Republic have claimed that "the future of the war is bleak for their interests because there are not enough replacements."

---

Quote:

---

A source within Russia's security services has also confirmed to the TASS news agency that Ukraine's 116th TRO brigade had indeed been transferred to participate in the Kursk incursion as punishment for its mutiny. According to a source cited by the outlet, Kiev was trying to "somehow correct the situation in Kursk Region at the expense of the already demoralized Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers."

Alexander also told El Pais that there had been a high-profile case earlier this month where 100 soldiers of the 123rd TRO Brigade abandoned their positions near Ugledar several days before the city was captured by Russian forces. The officer explained that they did this to "announce that without sufficient training and weapons they were being assigned to a suicidal defense," according to El Pais.

Moscow has long characterized the hostilities in Ukraine as a US-initiated proxy war against Russia in which Ukrainian soldiers were being expended as "cannon fodder" with the complicity of their government.

---

Mark Sledoba is good in this piece around 36 minutes in as to how it will end (or not), concern about Ukraine isn't even in the top 50 issues among US voters (cited from yougov poll, fwiw), 59 minutes some jokes about Ukraine winning.


Again I don't really put any stock/import into the Nork troop rumors/claims/worries or whatever you want to call it. Even if they are there/in Russia (or DPR), they are pretty irrelevant.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how you read his boast about getting/making nukes if not admitted to Nato means he doesn't want nukes, but to each his own. His 'victory plan' is one designed specifically to continue the war/provoke Russia as much as possible.

---

Considering your sources, I can see why you would take his words differently than what he actually said. I'll choose to believe him when he says "I don't want nukes." Which seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It's also strange that your interpretation of a country wanting to join a defensive alliance that would prevent them from getting invaded again is somehow pursuing a forever war. But again, considering your sources it's not surprising.

Ya, the idea that because someone refuses to unconditionally surrender to an occupying force means they are a war monger is one of the most puzzling things I have ever read.

Excellent Cato piece about a post-Nato future with some history/context to Ukraine/Trump/Biden as well: (Very long, excerpt only below):

Quote:

---

None of this passed unnoticed at the time. "We're going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians' throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they'll get used to it"that was how the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman later characterized the Clinton administration's approach to the issue.66 The phrasing was somewhat exaggerated, since the Clinton people wanted to make what they were dishing out as easy to swallow as possible, but Friedman was clearly on to something. Clinton's defense secretary, William Perry, remembered the response he got from other officials when he had argued that Russia would be alienated by a rapid enlargement of NATO: "Who cares what they think? They're a third-rate power."67 Even years later, key US officials took the view that Russia was too weak to stand up to America. Remarks that Biden, then serving as vice president, made in a 2009 interview with the Wall Street Journal were particularly striking. The gist of what he had to say was summed up in the headline of the front-page story that reported his comments: "Biden Says Weakened Russia Will Bend to US."68
Those attitudes were bound to have a major impact on Russia's relations with the Western world in general and the United States in particular, and the effect was by no means positive. William Burnsformer ambassador to Russia and current director of the CIAwas well aware, looking back in 2019, of how profoundly the NATO enlargement policy had poisoned relations between Russia and the West. Russian leaders were convinced, he said, that in expanding NATO the West was taking advantage of their country's weakness. They believed the promises Baker had made in 1990 were being violated; and that belief, in Burns's view, was not unwarranted. The Russians had taken Baker "at his word" and now felt betrayed, Burns said; their resentment, their disillusionment, their sense of grievanceall that left "a mark on Russia's relations with the West that would linger for decades."69 Burns thought that "if you wanted to understand the grievances, mistrust, and smoldering aggressiveness of Putin's Russia," you first had "to appreciate the sense of humiliation, wounded pride, and disorder that was often inescapable in Yeltsin's"and he clearly believed that sense of humiliation had a good deal to do with the way Russia had been treated by the United States and its allies.70
Many other writers have made much the same point. For example, Stephen Kotkin, professor emeritus of history at Princeton and one of America's most distinguished students of Russian affairs, referred in his review of Talbott's memoir to "one of the main overall consequences of the Clintonites' Russian policy: the successful inculcation of deep anti-American sentiment."71 Clinton himself could tell, looking at the crowds during a visit to St. Petersburg in 1996, that "there was a lot of alienation, a lot of anti-American feeling there. A lot of those people were giving me the finger."72 He also understood that the Americans were in some measure responsible for the way Russian feelings had shifted: "We keep telling Ol' Boris," Clinton said, "'Okay, now here's what you've got to do nexthere's some more **** for your face.'"

---

Quote:

---

So, is there life after NATO? Of course there is. The world will not end if the United States withdraws from the alliance. The Europeans, with a combined GDP (by some estimates) roughly five times as large as Russia's, are certainly capable of defending themselves, and if America withdrew, they would have little choice but to work out some system for doing so. But how well the transition to a European defense system would be managedassuming there will be a transitionis very much an open question. The time to start thinking about it is now.

---

Brussels Signal: Germany and France lack a strategic brain on Ukraine…and here comes Trump.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't understand how you read his boast about getting/making nukes if not admitted to Nato means he doesn't want nukes, but to each his own. His 'victory plan' is one designed specifically to continue the war/provoke Russia as much as possible.

---

Considering your sources, I can see why you would take his words differently than what he actually said. I'll choose to believe him when he says "I don't want nukes." Which seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It's also strange that your interpretation of a country wanting to join a defensive alliance that would prevent them from getting invaded again is somehow pursuing a forever war. But again, considering your sources it's not surprising.

---

It really isn't that cut and dry. And I'll repost the full quote since you're misquoting him.
"There are two choices. Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, or we should be part of some kind of alliance, and apart from NATO, we do not know any functioning alliances today. We want to choose NATO, not nuclear weapons."

Sounds like he doesn't want nuclear weapons then. Cool. Thanks for posting.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't understand how you read his boast about getting/making nukes if not admitted to Nato means he doesn't want nukes, but to each his own. His 'victory plan' is one designed specifically to continue the war/provoke Russia as much as possible.

---

Considering your sources, I can see why you would take his words differently than what he actually said. I'll choose to believe him when he says "I don't want nukes." Which seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It's also strange that your interpretation of a country wanting to join a defensive alliance that would prevent them from getting invaded again is somehow pursuing a forever war. But again, considering your sources it's not surprising.

---

It really isn't that cut and dry. And I'll repost the full quote since you're misquoting him.
"There are two choices. Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, or we should be part of some kind of alliance, and apart from NATO, we do not know any functioning alliances today. We want to choose NATO, not nuclear weapons."

---

Agreed. They want to join NATO to stop Russia from attacking them in the future and don't want nuclear weapons. Also known as "I don't want nukes."

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't understand how you read his boast about getting/making nukes if not admitted to Nato means he doesn't want nukes, but to each his own. His 'victory plan' is one designed specifically to continue the war/provoke Russia as much as possible.

---

Considering your sources, I can see why you would take his words differently than what he actually said. I'll choose to believe him when he says "I don't want nukes." Which seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It's also strange that your interpretation of a country wanting to join a defensive alliance that would prevent them from getting invaded again is somehow pursuing a forever war. But again, considering your sources it's not surprising.

---

It really isn't that cut and dry. And I'll repost the full quote since you're misquoting him.
"There are two choices. Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, or we should be part of some kind of alliance, and apart from NATO, we do not know any functioning alliances today. We want to choose NATO, not nuclear weapons."

---

Agreed. They want to join NATO to stop Russia from attacking them in the future and don't want nuclear weapons. Also known as "I don't want nukes."

---

That is an unreasonable interpretation of what is actually an ultimatum. And you're still using quotation marks incorrectly.

Give me chicken or give me steak. And I'd rather have chicken.

"He doesn't even want steak"

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Give me chicken or give me steak. And I'd rather have chicken.

"He doesn't even want steak"

---

Close. But more like "My options are chicken or steak. And I don't want steak."

I'm going to say that person doesn't want steak.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Give me chicken or give me steak. And I'd rather have chicken.

"He doesn't even want steak"

---

Close. But more like "My options are chicken or steak. And I don't want steak."

I'm going to say that person doesn't want steak.

---

You're still applying the analogy using the quote you made up.

"We want to choose chicken, not steak" is a more direct comparison to what he actually said, and a it is a much weaker condemnation of steak than what you're pretending he said.

Its fair to admit Z would prefer to be admitted to Nato, but I think its wrong to pretend he wouldn't doesn't want Nukes.

I have set this vid at a the point where he discusses the '600K Russian loses vs the 30 K for Ukraine.
(This guy is not a Russia mill blogger by any means. And he even mentions that)

That is absolute BS, It is mind boggling BS. They are saying that for every Uke loss they are taking out 20 Russians. Sure, OK, Yea!

Talking about propaganda. Geez.

Ukraine is losing and is losing badly despite the Bag Dad Bob level of BS coming out of Ukraine and the MIC and Neo cons.

This is the truth, it does not make my pro Putin. It just the truth

If Ukraine is losing badly why can't Russia take more than a few specks on the map? They assaulted Adviika this time last year. They are just a little bit away from there now. What's the hold up?

They have acquired 19% of "Ukraine">

And they are steadily grinding away and taking more.

But when you just believe all the Uke and MIC propaganda and say everyone else is a Russian millblogger, Cognitive dissonance is a logical consequence. LOL

They've gained 19% since when?

As I have said redundantly, you are ignorant of being intentionally obtuse concerning Russian warfare history.

They are doing what I said they would do, they are in no big hurry. They can just keep the grind on. Russian will win a war of attrition and they is need to hurry. Just keep the steady pressure on.

As I have said all along, with NATO or US physical involvement, Ukraine is toast. Simple.

And that is exactly what our noble Pres of Ukraine is desperate to obtain.

Funny, Ukrainian conscripts are for life,

The deserting issue has become so bad that the Uke Parliament passed a low giving clemency for first timers IF they go back to the front.

Like they did in Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

Funny, Ukrainian conscripts are for life,

---

Technically so are Russia's…

Trump will stop the war in one day!

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

Like us?

Totally different situation. But you be you.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny, Ukrainian conscripts are for life,

---

Technically so are Russia's…

---

No they are not, total situation from Uke again, but you be you.

OPAG said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

Like us?

Totally different situation. But you be you.

---

I was told that Russia doesn't stop till they win. They folded in Afghanistan.

OPAG said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Funny, Ukrainian conscripts are for life,

---

Technically so are Russia's…

---

No they are not, total situation from Uke again, but you be you.

---

Well, if your lifetime only lasts a few months on the battlefield then what would you call it?

“According to Mr Budanov, a contingent of 2,600 [North Korean troops] is due to be transferred to battle in the Russian region of Kursk by the end of October…

A senior Ukrainian official says Russia’s next objective might be an advance on the city of Zaporizhia... The same… pic.twitter.com/nriycw6FDd

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) October 24, 2024

Not interested: at least 7 countries.

Belgium, Slovenia and Spain are among seven NATO countries reluctant to grant Ukraine an invitation to join NATO, Politico reported on Oct. 23, citing four anonymous U.S. and NATO officials and diplomats.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) October 24, 2024

Apparently UFA pulled out of Selydove:

Oh so what you’re telling me is that Russia doesn’t want to destroy Ukraine and the cities that have been ruined are the result of mutual combat and decisions made by Ukrainian command?

Neat.

Anyway the Russian flag was raised in Selydove. pic.twitter.com/VX1bT5L12x

— ayden (@squatsons) October 23, 2024

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

What does this have to do with Ukraine? That was a Soviet regime that was broke after pouring resources into Vietnam for 10+ years and 60+ years of communist policy.

MJ20/20 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

What does this have to do with Ukraine? That was a Soviet regime that was broke after pouring resources into Vietnam for 10+ years and 60+ years of communist policy.

---

He claimed that history has shown Russia will fight and throw resources infinitely in a war until they win.

Afghanistan has shown that simply isn't true. In fact, there's no history of Russia doing this at all in modern combat.

Good points:

Seriously, this sounds great but can you explain withnan example? And what is a kotel?

— krungthepbystander (@seeingkrungthep) October 24, 2024

Sorry, I mean Russia's battlefield-shaping ops for attrition of their enemy. A kotel (3-sided cauldron/kessel) is also often termed a 'fire bag'

Even these admission charts by Kiev's DeepState/CopeState show how ongoing RF front advances bring AFU pockets under direct and… pic.twitter.com/5Xbzel8wXP

— Matt Davies (@MNormanDavies) October 24, 2024

Teslag said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

Like us?

Totally different situation. But you be you.

---

I was told that Russia doesn't stop till they win. They folded in Afghanistan.

---

As did we! LOL Also Vietnam.

I never said the Russians didn't quit or were never defeated. That's you putting words in my mouth. Nice attempt at a distraction, another bunny trail. FAIL

However, when it comes to defending their own turf, that is different. As is historically proven over and over again. When Russia is invaded by the west, (and in their mind the West not keeping it's word about the expansion of NATO, especially into what they - not without merit consider their foundational homeland - which they most definitely consider Ukraine) they have never lost and they have always lost early given ground, and then adjust and come back and win.

They are a very tough people. You greatly underestimate them in every way, just like everyone else from the west who has sought to invade and conquer them has over the last number of centuries.

And yet you consider Ukraine noble. Nonsense.

It's no different then when we had a group of states seek to succeed from the Union, A war was fought over that, Lincoln was considered a tyrant ( and not with out merit as he continually set a precedent of taking executive power that was not granted him by the Constitution).

Bottom line, this scenario is Russia's hometurf, They are undefeated here, when invaded.

Just read an article. Families of N Korean deserters will most likely be punished severely by sending them to prison camps and forced to into hard labor or face executions. Perhaps the Russians should adopt this strategy as well.

Genghis Khan invaded Russia with success.

Teslag said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Like they did in Afghanistan?

---

What does this have to do with Ukraine? That was a Soviet regime that was broke after pouring resources into Vietnam for 10+ years and 60+ years of communist policy.

---

He claimed that history has shown Russia will fight and throw resources infinitely in a war until they win.

Afghanistan has shown that simply isn't true. In fact, there's no history of Russia doing this at all in modern combat.

---

Russia is literally doing it right now. I'd say that the last year+ is a prime example of Russia living up to their history in modern combat. But I'm paying attention.

Quote:

---

However, when it comes to defending their own turf, that is different.

---

But they aren't defending their own turf. They are invading a sovereign nation, and murdering and raping its people. And it's not being fought with brave people of Russia, but rather prisoners, conscripts, and now North Koreans

Russia lost the Crimean War. Not relevant to today but as long as we're trying to form an argument based on centuries old conflicts, let's at least get it right.

Quote:

---

Bottom line, this scenario is Russia's hometurf, They are undefeated here, when invaded.

---

Again, they are invading a sovereign nation that they themselves formally recognized as an independent nation 32 years ago. A nation that voted for that independence by 90% I might add.

That is not the west. LOL and that is long time ago. And the hoards of Islam were quite successful invading the west as well. And they are in someway being successful now. We, the USA are being successfully invaded as well. LOL

Any way here is the reality. I am not pro Russian, or Putin neither am I pro west or Uke. I am pro truth!

Furthermore, I am not disposed to be pro any culture or ethnic group either, even my own. I am simply not prejudiced. So, therefore I am able to look at things through an unbiased lens.

The vast majority of times in our nations history we have IMHO, been on the 'right side' on the conflicts we have been in, But that all ended with Kissinger changing our entire foreign policy to be about what was considered to be in the best interest of the US - American hegemony, regardless if it was in right in the best interest of the local population. Since then we have made enemies all over the place so much that almost 50% of the world is forming a coalition against us. That's not a good thing IMHO.

Ukraine is as corrupt a western/cabal proxy state as any in our history. I have no interest in sending any of our money or blood to help them.