This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Long AP story built on intercepted calls of Russians. Being a mobilized soldier is the worst, apparently.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-...cepted-audio-d2418788051731a32689feb821cd29ec
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-...cepted-audio-d2418788051731a32689feb821cd29ec
Russia is gonna Russia. Kind of their MO historically.
Cool video from the earlier drone attacks on Russia.
The 60 Minutes segment is gut wrenching. This thread provides one perspective of the war, but seeing the trauma inflicted on the wives and children left behind by the Russian invasion is emotionally tough.
If you aren't watching, or don't want to find it on line later, it's about a non profit that takes surviving family members to Austria and provides counseling to the wives, and gets everyone out on a mountain to scale a 10,000 foot peak. Teaching them to conquer their fear and grief.
The American co-founder is a combat veteran who led Marines in combat in Fallujah, and is conquering his own fear and grief. Up the mountain went a Navy SEAL who lost both legs in Afghanistan in 2009.
The foundation is called Mountain Seed Foundation. Their website is currently unavailable. Hopefully that's because this show produced a lot of hits from people trying to donate.
Performance artists like J.D. Vance and Matt Gaetz should be tied to a chair and be forced to watch this show.
If you aren't watching, or don't want to find it on line later, it's about a non profit that takes surviving family members to Austria and provides counseling to the wives, and gets everyone out on a mountain to scale a 10,000 foot peak. Teaching them to conquer their fear and grief.
The American co-founder is a combat veteran who led Marines in combat in Fallujah, and is conquering his own fear and grief. Up the mountain went a Navy SEAL who lost both legs in Afghanistan in 2009.
The foundation is called Mountain Seed Foundation. Their website is currently unavailable. Hopefully that's because this show produced a lot of hits from people trying to donate.
Performance artists like J.D. Vance and Matt Gaetz should be tied to a chair and be forced to watch this show.
CBS article on the episode. I assume the episode will be up on You Tube, or on the 60 Minutes site soon.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climbing-camp-widows-children-60-minutes/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climbing-camp-widows-children-60-minutes/
Really a good segment. I guess it has been kind of easy to not experience the trauma experienced by those in this conflict on all sides from a safe distance. Kudos to this and similar foundations for helping anyone they can reach.
Stalemate best describes the state of war in Ukraine
By providing Kyiv with tangible security guarantees, Moscow would be made to understand it will never determine Ukraine’s future.Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.”
As Russia’s war on Ukraine rages on, neither country is likely to achieve a breakthrough this year — or even next. But that doesn’t mean it will be over soon. Moscow and Kyiv aren’t interested in negotiating an end to the war, or even settling for a frozen conflict.
The fighting is bound to continue for a long time.
This means the reality of the current stalemate must now inform the West’s strategy toward the conflict. And rather than counting on Ukraine to regain most or all its territory through military means, focus must shift to securing Ukraine’s future in the West.
Over the past 11 months, during which both Russia and Ukraine launched major offensives, little more than 500 square miles of territory has changed hands — that’s less than one-fifth of 1 percent of Ukraine’s territory.
Debates are now brewing about why this has happened and who’s at fault. Ukraine’s commander in chief, General Valery Zalushny, suggests current technology favors the defense: “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,” he said recently.
Without a big leap in technology, “there will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough,” he added.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, argues it’s much too early to reach such a conclusion. Fearing the onset of fatalism, the Ukrainian leader rebuked his commander, and his office accused Zalushny of “easing the work of the aggressor.”
Some of the country’s strongest supporters blame the West — and especially the administration of United States President Joe Biden — for not providing Ukraine with the kind and quantity of weapons it needs to win, echoing frequent statements by Zelenskyy and others.
Meanwhile, American military officials and analysts I have spoken to lay the blame on Ukrainian tactics and political decisions, which have made achieving a military breakthrough more difficult.
They fault two critical decisions for this: First, they insist that if Ukraine had massed its armored forces more effectively, it could have broken through the surprisingly dense minefields — even though initial casualties were high when forces tried to breach them. But instead, Ukraine withdrew its forces and resorted to large-scale artillery and missile strikes against Russian defense, making little headway on the ground and depleting sparse ammunition supplies.
Equally problematic, U.S. critics argue, was the decision to try and breach Russia’s defenses at multiple points, rather than concentrating forces for a single decisive breakthrough. For example, Zelenskyy and other officials insisted on trying to recapture the town of Bakhmut, which Russia had conquered after months of bloody fighting. Even today, Ukraine deploys more forces in and around Bakhmut than any other point along the front line.
In all likelihood, all these explanations bare some truth. Washington should have sent more advanced capabilities sooner; technology likely does favor the defense on this battlefield; and Ukraine’s military and political leaders made judgements about where and how to fight, which made success less likely. History will be the ultimate judge of each justification.
For now, though, it’s important to recognize that even the current stalemate can still lead to ultimate defeat. Ukraine’s capacity to hold off Russia crucially depends on continued — and sustained — support from the U.S. and its European allies. A steady flow of weapons, ammunition, intelligence and training are all vital for Ukraine to hold the line.
This is why those who argue that the stalemate makes additional aid futile are wrong. Russia’s economy has been placed on a war footing, and its defense industry has benefited from the support of China and others in overcoming Western sanctions. It will be able to churn out weapons and manpower at a steady pace for as long as necessary, while Ukraine, on its own, can’t match either.
But even with continued Western military support to Ukraine, Moscow still has time on its side. It will try to outwait both Ukraine and those aiding it. Thus, it’s imperative the U.S. and its allies convince Russia that this isn’t actually the case.
And the best way to do this is to offer Ukraine a credible security guarantee, which makes clear to Moscow it will never be able to conquer the rest of the country. NATO leaders have already affirmed that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.” But not only are they divided over the wisdom and timing of offering the country membership, it will also likely take years to move the process forward — as Sweden is now finding out.
Washington and key European allies should therefore consider providing Ukraine — or at least the territory it now controls — with an immediate and binding bilateral security guarantee to bridge the gap. That’s similar to the step they took after inviting Finland and Sweden to join NATO in 2022.
Such a guarantee could take a variety of forms — though it would likely fall short of the explicit guarantee enshrined in NATO’s Article 5 to regard an “armed attack against one as an armed attack against all.” For example, in the 1950s, the U.S. negotiated several bilateral security agreements with countries in Asia, which stated that in case of an armed attack, “it would act to meet the common danger” — but left the details unspecified.
The point of such an agreement would be to reassure Kyiv and, importantly, signal to Moscow that Ukraine’s security is of lasting importance to the U.S. and its allies.
The war in Ukraine is more about the country’s political future than about territory. And by providing Ukraine with tangible security guarantees, Russia would be made to understand it will never have a voice in determining Ukraine’s future.
Stalemate best describes the state of war in Ukraine
By providing Kyiv with tangible security guarantees, Moscow would be made to understand it will never determine Ukraine’s future.
Looks like may be earlier this fall.
"Destruction of the Russian column in the Bakhmut direction"
As I have repeatedly said, the Japanese should take advantage of the situation. Russia has stripped it's Far East units of equipment. Time for a few stray fishing boats to land on the Kuril Islands.
Maybe China decides Russia doesn't need that corridor to North Korea? What's Putin going to do about it?
NATO poses zero threat to Russia unless they attack a NATO country.
Always been the case....
I think it has been awhile since we have seen the crazy propaganda show.
It might be time for the people of Kaliningrad to examine their roots and decide if they want to be a Russian satellite, or join Europe.
Kind of just kidding.
Kind of just kidding.
Ukraine-Russia war: First US Abrams tank seen on battleground
An American-made Abrams tank has been seen on the front-line in Ukraine for the first time, images circulated from Ukraine suggest.
Photos emerged on social media of four Ukrainian soldiers appearing to pose on top of an Abrams painted in green camouflage.
The US delivered 31 M1A1 Abrams to Kyiv in September but they have not been seen in action yet, with lighter Western-donated Bradleys and Leopards being used more often instead.
Ukrainian soldiers have been trained by the US Army to operate the Abrams, which were used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan.
More of the tanks are likely being held back until weather conditions improve, analysts say.
Ukraine has not commented on the photo.
www.telegraph.co.uk
An American-made Abrams tank has been seen on the front-line in Ukraine for the first time, images circulated from Ukraine suggest.
Photos emerged on social media of four Ukrainian soldiers appearing to pose on top of an Abrams painted in green camouflage.
The US delivered 31 M1A1 Abrams to Kyiv in September but they have not been seen in action yet, with lighter Western-donated Bradleys and Leopards being used more often instead.
Ukrainian soldiers have been trained by the US Army to operate the Abrams, which were used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan.
More of the tanks are likely being held back until weather conditions improve, analysts say.
Ukraine has not commented on the photo.
Ukraine-Russia war: First US Abrams tank seen on battleground
An American-made Abrams tank has been seen on the front-line in Ukraine for the first time, images circulated from Ukraine suggest.
www.telegraph.co.uk
What could a nuclear power do if invaded?
Maybe the Japanese have special insight.
Watching idiots plead for WW3 in real time is crazy.
31 Abrams... Why? We could have 300 delivered or in the pipeline by now.
Before NATO was used to partition Yugoslavia with bombs, I would have agreed.
Then it was used to help jihadists overthrow the Libyan government.
The idea that NATO troops parked in Ukraine or Georgia could be called upon to fulfill the dubious 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) for some muslim separatists that are getting the Slav boot like they were in Kosovo isn't far-fetched.
An average of 931 a day means almost 28,000 in a month. I wish they could keep that up for a long time. Difficult for Russia to keep up with that.
An average of 931 a day means almost 28,000 in a month. I wish they could keep that up for a long time. Difficult for Russia to keep up with that.
Wonder if they will be willing to risk the wrath of the people to fully mobilize for what is actually a war of aggression. Maybe it depends on how many believe the Russian propaganda of Nazis next door. I suspect many Russians just pretending to believe so they do not get in trouble.
NATO has never attacked Russia. Unless Russia attacks a NATO country they're GTG.
It's a red herring used by Putin and his apologists.
NATO never attacked Yugoslavia, until they did.
NATO never attacked Libya, until they did.
Yugoslavia and Libya didn't attack NATO, so why weren't they 'GTG'?
Because they didn't have nukes
NATO hasn't attacked Russia in it's 70+ year history. Pretty long track record.
During most of that history Russia had a buffer between it and NATO.Because they didn't have nukes
NATO hasn't attacked Russia in it's 70+ year history. Pretty long track record.
But we've spent the last 25 years whittling that down (with the predicted results).
They seem dead set on keeping one in the form of Ukraine, pardon the pun.
It also appears that Obama was right, and Russia maintains 'escalatory dominance' over Ukraine, because we're not drafting people to go in there.
I wonder how different the final peace deal looks from what was on the table in March of 2022, or Minsk II.
Aside from the 10s of thousands of corpses and destruction.
