There are other assessments out there too:This is the key takeaway.
This is why the Tucker interview.
This is why the mass influence operation to stop the Ukraine Aid spending bill.
This is why China is chirping at the UN.
Russia cannot sustain this war. They are losing. Badly. And they know it.
They already raided the prisons. They already raided the poors in the countryside.
Now it is taking a toll on the commoners & middle-upper class. Fewer doctors, fewer police. Less security. More volatile inside Russia. It will get to the point of becoming a powder keg.
They desperately need a cease fire. Do not give it to them.
Weapons production delays continue in the West. Currently, orders placed for 155 mm shells take one to two years to be delivered. Adding to Kiev’s problems is a severe troops shortage. President Zelensky appears unable to address the manpower shortage as Ukrainians are beginning to protest future conscription programs."Extensive Western weapons aid would be needed for Ukrainian forces to be able to defend themselves and regain the initiative in the conflict."
Oh, I'll take what the murderous thug with a history of misdirection says with a grain of salt.
Beat me to it, Canada made a strong move here. They've done good work in assisting with the training of Ukrainian pilots, and it isn't simply the jets, it's the long tail of maintenance and support that keeps those jets in the air that's going to matter.
What an authoritative door slam by the woman who runs the GOP. It would be laughable if she wasn't so ignorant and powerful. She has no understanding of world history, or an understanding of American interests.
He hadn't been seen alive since last September and an Ukrainian attack on a Crimean base.
And/or the attack hitting its targets.
You understand the term "propaganda"?
You understand the term "propaganda"?
Biden wants a strong NATO and you think Putin desires that?
JFC for posting that bullshit.
You're better than this.
He was a brave guy. Sad to hear that he is gone…
He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.He was a brave guy. Sad to hear that he is gone…
Natty Light never takes a day off!He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.
link
As one might expect, we questioned them about the remarks Navalny made on Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd rhetorical question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” It was clear that his political position on Crimea was that it should “remain part of Russia”.
...
Hence, it was not unreasonable to imagine at that time that any regime change in Russia, if it were to happen, would be led by Navalny. That is why we wanted to know what Ukraine should expect from “the wonderful Russia of the future”, as Navalny likes to call post-Putin Russia.
The Navalnists responded that under a democratically elected government, Moscow would keep Crimea despite the fact that the annexation was illegal. That is because their policies would have to reflect the will of the Russian people and the overwhelming majority of Russians wanted Crimea to be within Russian borders.
...
Navalny, as Ukrainians and liberal Russians remember well, vehemently supported the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and even used derogatory, dehumanising terms to refer to the Georgian people. Several years later, he would apologise for the terms he used, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.
Navalny was nominally against the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but his “anti-war” position was underpinned by economic, rather than moral, considerations: “Russia can ill afford waging the war”. That position expectedly did not entail any empathy towards the Ukrainian people – something that was also reflected in his use of ethnic slurs against them.
He was a brave guy. Sad to hear that he is gone…
I didn’t post that he was a “good guy”. He was brave as heck for returning to Russia after being poisoned.He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.
link
As one might expect, we questioned them about the remarks Navalny made on Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd rhetorical question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” It was clear that his political position on Crimea was that it should “remain part of Russia”.
...
Hence, it was not unreasonable to imagine at that time that any regime change in Russia, if it were to happen, would be led by Navalny. That is why we wanted to know what Ukraine should expect from “the wonderful Russia of the future”, as Navalny likes to call post-Putin Russia.
The Navalnists responded that under a democratically elected government, Moscow would keep Crimea despite the fact that the annexation was illegal. That is because their policies would have to reflect the will of the Russian people and the overwhelming majority of Russians wanted Crimea to be within Russian borders.
...
Navalny, as Ukrainians and liberal Russians remember well, vehemently supported the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and even used derogatory, dehumanising terms to refer to the Georgian people. Several years later, he would apologise for the terms he used, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.
Navalny was nominally against the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but his “anti-war” position was underpinned by economic, rather than moral, considerations: “Russia can ill afford waging the war”. That position expectedly did not entail any empathy towards the Ukrainian people – something that was also reflected in his use of ethnic slurs against them.