So you don't understand what I wrote, even with that nice breakdown. — Christoffer

What's there not to understand?

What strawman?

Or to just undermine the propaganda so that Russia's actions cannot be justified by them through lies. — Christoffer

Yes.

As I said, the mere existence of that possibility as a motive cannot stand as evidence that it is, in fact, a motive on any given occasion.

Russia also has the capacity to build the Death Star and also maybe sharks with lazers so be careful.

What's there not to understand?

What strawman? — boethius

Because you still retain that I view the intel as true and therefore...

When what I said was that Iinterpret events and structure a likely future outcome based on current events being in line with how previous events played out.

Those are two different things and if you interpret what I wrote with the first one over and over, regardless of my attempts of explaining myself in detail you strawman my argument as being about "true intel". You simply can't seem to understand the difference and I'm beginning to believe that you are just not capable of doing so.

Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. — Christoffer

Let's see how my own personal intel plays out shall we? My network of sources tell me that Russia is likely to use weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. Let's just see over the next few hours if my intel leak proved true. Remember you heard it here first.

Because you still retain that I view the intel as true and therefore... — Christoffer

... This is literally what you say:

There's also an inductive argument to be made. What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly. — Christoffer

That US "leaked intel" has been correct so far, nothing clandestine about it at all, and therefore trustworthy going forward.

So trustworthy that we can be certain that what Nuland, a top US official, is saying publicly in can be dismissed offhand, that we literally don't even know what "lab" means in the context.

Sure, trust to the "leaked info", maybe it's true. Maybe Nuland has literally been replaced with a Russian robot that US intel is dismantling as we speak to show the world that Russian treachery knows no bounds.

No one here seems to be saying they know the real truth of the critical things under discussion (except for you maybe).

For example, I explain at some length that the military situation on the ground we can't really evaluate with much confidence about the real state of things. It's possible Russian troops are at super low moral, logistics in chaos, and their lines are about to collapse. I'm not denying that maybe the Western media narrative is 100% true, even the strange spinning of Nuland's statements could be "true" that by "lab" she literally meant a Quiznos, as lab could mean anything, and the "bio labs" are just their kitchens "Boldly Building a Better Sandwich" and if the Russians get their hands on these better sandwiches: oh boy, moral problems solved, boldness achieved, victory at hand, strategic disaster.

For you see, a sandwich is made of biological material and building a better sandwich implies some sort of biological laboratory to conduct this important research. And what can sandwiches do in the hands of the enemy? Fuel the Russian war machine.

Nuland's just saying a completely banal description of a situation you'll find among any freedom loving population that appreciates a good sandwich. How can we prove otherwise?

Russia also has the capacity to build the Death Star and also maybe sharks with lazers so be careful. — StreetlightX

Yep. And to think they'd be so aggressive after the US promised to conduct it's future proxy wars using nothing but a strongly worded leafleting campaign.

As I said, the mere existence of that possibility as a motive cannot stand as evidence that it is, in fact, a motive on any given occasion. — Isaac

But nothing has been proven otherwise or even remotely been argued in any inductive form to support those hidden interests, so you're just doing circular reasoning based on your predetermined contempt of the west and the US. In your eyes, everything is about something else than what it likely is about.

It can also be as simple as these people actually wanting to fight against Russia since they are killing civilians and breaking international law. They want to undermine the lies so that Russia cannot justify what they're doing. Just like when a prosecutor strategizes to show that the killer is lying, in order not to let the killer control the narrative that could free him. The prosecutor, the legal system etc. have no real political reason to either convict or free the killer, but people in such power can absolutely act purely for moral reasons. It's like you assume that because people are politicians or working for the government, then they are no longer moral human beings. You continuously argue with the assumption that everyone has an agenda that does not care for human lives, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a play of power. And yes, much of it is, but much of it can also be an unintentional side effect. Everyone now sees an opening to go against Russia and Putin, but they can very well act to resolve the conflict to the best of their ability, which is hard with a fucking lunatic like Putin doing this invasion, as we've seen with peace talks not resolving and refugee corridors being bombarded by the Russian army.

Let's see how my own personal intel plays out shall we? My network of sources tell me that Russia is likely to use weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. Let's just see over the next few hours if my intel leak proved true. Remember you heard it here first. — Isaac

This is called a straw man ...having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

And that's why it's impossible to discuss with you.

But nothing has been proven otherwise — Christoffer

Of course. The question is why we should take your default position and have to prove otherwise rather than take our preferred default position and ask you to prove otherwise.

you're just doing circular reasoning based on your predetermined contempt of the west and the US. — Christoffer

Well, it's not circular but yes, it's based on my predetermined contempt of the west and the US, I've made no secret about that. What I'm disputing is your ludicrous claim that your position is somehow devoid of such political bias. My default position in issues of uncertainty is to assume malicious intent in terms of financial gain for powerful (mostly US based) interests. Are you suggesting that's an unreasonable default position, that there hasn't been an unbroken history of such institutions doing exactly that?

It can also be as simple as these people actually wanting to fight against Russia since they are killing civilians and breaking international law. — Christoffer

It can be, but you'd need some precedent to justify assuming that as your default position. Where can you point to in past US foreign affairs where the goal has been clearly humanitarian with no financial or political gain? Because without a strong history of such actions your 'could be' is just wishful thinking.

This is called a straw man

[url=http://]having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[/url]
— Christoffer

No, its called a joke...

joke (jōk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank:

No, its called a joke... — Isaac

Ah, the usual "it's a joke" as soon as fallacies are called out. You do understand that jokes in a line of arguments without jokes, without anything indicating it a joke (like an emoji) just reads out as you being severely mentally challenged for the level of discussion in here?

So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events. — Christoffer

Let me see if I understand you here.

Russia forms a narrative around labs. OK.

The West leaks intel ... no this is not leaked intel, this is an assumption or a prediction that Russia might use chemical weapons. We have no idea if that is leaked intel or simply a statement designed for a purpose. Is that correct?

What plausible even chain?

You are saying there is a pattern here? OK so we see a pattern, and you think it is likely.

Making claims of chemical attacks seems to be a long standing ploy that the US uses against its adversaries, for example Syria. I have no way of knowing if it is true or false, so based on the pattern of falsifications that accompany war, I have to assume it is probably false.

If you do that in Russia you get sent to prison. It's not even comparable. — Christoffer

And if you do it in the West you get attacked by the media and by the brainwashed mobs in the streets.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point is that your statement "the Russians establish a narrative and then they act" (a) does not prove anything and (b) it isn’t an argument given that everyone is doing it not just the Russians.

Even the Western media, the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, etc. has pointed out that Western platforms like Twitter and Facebook are full of fake news:

Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC

So, basically, it is nonsense to claim otherwise.

Are you still blaming Ukraine for this invasion? Like... you are unable to understand page after page of counter arguments to this? — Christoffer

You mean page after page of spam from the Finnish outback? :grin:

Why don't you read people's posts before "commenting" on them??? I never said Ukraine is to be blamed for the invasion. Ukraine is to be blamed for not meeting Russia's demands to stay out of NATO and for putting its own population in danger. But the real culprits are NATO and the EU, i.e., America and its European puppets!

Förstår du det inte?

What is the way out? Zelensky has to be in a position where he can be excused for agreeing to a ceasefire: maybe half the country destroyed and he is surrounded. Neither can Putin get out of this easily: he has to have a way to call a victory. Each leader has to retain support from his country at the end of this. Exit strategy I think it is called, both have to have one.

Interesting article in the Jacobin on the exact argument being made here - the misguided, dangerous promotion of continued war.

Perversely, it’s the people most eager to consign the people of Ukraine to years, possibly decades, of this hell who will most loudly tell you how much their hearts bleed for them. — https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/03/ukraine-afghanistan-quagmire-far-right-global-economy-climate-disaster

The whole article is well worth a read

Does anyone here trust the US Governments official pronouncements or are these to be met with skepticism? — FreeEmotion

Met with skepticism? With a former lawyer like Biden and tech oligarchs in charge, the best bet is to completely ignore them. Except, perhaps, to have a laugh .... :smile:

I put my nukes on high alert so I can bomb you a little faster than I ordinarily would.

Just so you know. You're on notice. I might also take your weapons grade anthrax and blow it on you.

Im afraid I have no idea what any of that was supposed to mean but...

...how very drole/apposite/insightful/admonishing [delete as appropriate]

Does anyone here trust the US Governments official pronouncements or are these to be met with skepticism? — FreeEmotion

Depends. If it's Trump, it's probably a lie.

Im afraid I have no idea what any of that was supposed to mean but... — Isaac

That's it! I'm laying seige!

Zelensky has dug himself into a hole (or grave). My guess is that he was prompted by his oligarch masters (Kolomoisky & Co) to stand up to Russia in the hope that the US and UK, who have been arming and training his people, and maybe Israel, would come to his rescue. Obviously, he has miscalculated badly. Now he is likely to lose half of his country to Russia and he will have the death of thousands of Ukrainian civilians on his conscience.

Anyway, here’s more info on Zelensky's boss Kolomoisky who is so dodgy that even America had to kick him out:

Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky fostered strong reputations as corporate raiders in the mid-2000s, becoming notorious for a series of hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers Ukrainian style, that is, which often included the active involvement of Privat’s quasi-military teams. These schemes included, among others, a literal raid on the Kremenchuk steel plant in 2006, in which hundreds of hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws forcibly took over the plant.
Privat Group has been involved in several court cases and arbitration proceedings in the US, UK, and Sweden. In 2009, a US court made clear its distrust of Privat representatives: “the Court has become increasingly skeptical of these gentleman [at Privat] and the credibility of their statements.”

An Injection Of Rule Of Law For Ukrainian Business? Oligarch's Lawsuit Could Help Improve The Culture Of Business Dealings In The Post Soviet Space – Forbes

According to The Times, Kolomoisky’s private militia is one of Ukraine’s most powerful military groups:

In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mr. Kolomoisky played a positive role for Ukraine in financing one of the largest and most effective paramilitary units fighting the Russian military intervention, at a time when the regular army was in shambles. Mr. Kolomoisky’s militia, Dnipro, held a section of the battle front west of the city of Donetsk.

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch - New York Times

According to the Pandora Papers:

Zelensky and his television production partners were beneficiaries of a web of offshore firms that allegedly received $41 million in funds from Kolomoisky’s Privatbank

And The Times:

Mr. Kolomoisky’s television station supported Mr. Zelensky in the 2019 presidential election … Mr. Zelensky’s spokeswoman published an article saying he plans to diminish the role of the oligarchs in Ukraine’s politics. But that is no simple matter. Mr. Kolomoisky controls a faction in Mr. Zelensky’s political party, the Servant of the People, without which the party would not have a majority in Parliament ….

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky - The New York Times

Shouldn't the West start imposing sanctions on all Ukrainian oligarchs? Or are mobsters OK as long as they're on NATO's side? :smile:

This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government. — Christoffer

The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. Actually the Soviet leaders could make a controlled crash without everything going to hell as in the case of Yugoslavia. It would be like the Governors of the States that make up the United State would meet and agree "Yeah, let's get rid of this whole Federal thing." Now we are having those wars. Let's hope that we don't end up with Russian Civil War 2.

Yet the classic imperialism that Putin is so dearly advocating will only end if the country experiences and absolute catastrophy. This hopefully might happen.


But then again, who knows what the future will bring us.

Zelensky has dug himself into a hole (or grave). My guess is that he was prompted by his oligarch masters (Kolomoisky & Co) to stand up to Russia in the hope that the US and UK, who have been arming and training his people, and maybe Israel, would come to his rescue. Obviously, he has miscalculated badly. Now he is likely to lose half of his country to Russia and he will have the death of thousands of Ukrainian civilians on his conscience. — Apollodorus

I'm pretty confident Israel wouldn't show up and fight for Ukraine.

However, I completely agree that the play was to hold out as long as possible, focus on social media without any military plan, and try to corner NATO on social media into intervening.

It's really unclear to me how Zelensky could have sat down and rationally worked out such a plan. In addition, his US supporters were pretty open about the goal to arm an insurgency ... which takes as given losing the conventional battle.

I also completely agree that as soon as the war ends (or even sooner), as @Isaac put it, the idea Ukraine has essentially been "beautified" and can face no criticism of anything and any kind whatsoever, will evaporate and there will be some pretty hard questions for both Ukrainians and the EU on how and why this happened and wasn't stopped sooner (of course, maybe Putin's bad faith and accepting Russia's offer would be "appeasement" but you need to accept a reasonable offer first to credibly accuse someone of bad faith).

And if you do it in the West you get attacked by the media and by the brainwashed mobs in the streets. — Apollodorus

Still doesn't prevent you like going to prison does or that police comes to your home because of something you wrote online. When did you get attacked in the streets by a mob? And attacked by media, how do they "attack"?

In a free nation, your arguments get counter-arguments, which doesn't equal active censorship or getting actually beaten by the government.

Ukraine is to be blamed for not meeting Russia's demands to stay out of NATO and for putting its own population in danger. — Apollodorus

This is actively blaming them for not bending over for Russian control. As stated many times, Nato is not an offensive alliance, they do not attack unless being attacked. So joining Nato would never be a risk to the population. What Ukraine wants to do is up to them. To say that Ukraine is to blame for the actions Russia takes against them because Ukraine thought about their own security is fucking disgusting.

Russia is to blame here, pure and simple, it's entirely Russia's act to invade, to kill civilians etc. There's no grey area in this matter, there's no security risk to Russia if Ukraine joined Nato. People need to understand that the only reason Putin is against Nato expansion is that it blocks the restoration of the borders of the old Russian empire. Russia can't invade a Nato nation because of the consequences it would entail, so the only way to restore some of the old Russian empire borders is to invade before that happens. This is why the invasion is taking place. This is why Putin won't retreat because he knows that after such a retreat he would lose Ukraine to Nato, and after that, it would be impossible to invade again. Instead of making up some geopolitical nonsense speculation, look at what actually exists as information, like the leaked propaganda document aimed for after the invasion was supposed to be over. It's clear what the end game is here and it falls in line with why Putin is willing to risk Russia's economy and international reputation. No other end game makes sense in the context of this war and how Putin is treating it. The only question is if he will be able to finish the war before someone finishes him. Because a failure in Ukraine means a failure to restore the old empire and forever makes it impossible to reclaim it.

The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. — ssu

No, but there have been revolutions before. If the Ukraine war fails, either utterly or as an ongoing failure of never-ending war, it will either lead to a revolution or a collapse like the Soviet collapse. The third option would be a retreat and Russia isolated, economy down the drain with a people suffering under the extreme totalitarian regime of Putin, more like North Korea than how Russia was before or even now.

To continue my military analysis of what's going on.

So far the Aljezera map seems to be most accurate and useful (with distinctions of zones and operations).



So, if this map is accurate, Russian Southern forces have broken into basically open country side that is the center of Ukraine. This is the archetypal and infamous flat plane through which armies can easily invade.

Equipment, supplies and soldiers can easily be brought into their naval base in Crimea, and there's no further built urban environments that are difficult to fight through (such as is seen on the North-West front).

If Ukrainian forces dig in to the front of a salient, Russian forces can just flank and pincer around it, and in flat open territory like this I do not see how Ukrainians could build and defend a line hundred or two hundred kilometres against armor maneuvers.

If the logistics are now in place to simply roll North, then retreats from Eastern positions are not losses, but simply represent the Ukrainian forces there having no where to go and are stuck there anyways now and so Russians can just withdraw; Russia has no strategically important positions in East Ukraine.

In understanding these maps and what they represent, it's important to keep in mind that you don't go and dig in as close to the enemy as possible, you generally go and contest an area with suppressive fire and dig in behind that and once the defensive line is formed the skirmishing forces withdraw. There's a big difference between a tactical withdrawal to a defensive line and losing a skirmish, and breaking through a defensive line, and these maps don't tell us the state of defenses on either the Russian or Ukrainian side. Likewise, a maneuver through an areas does not mean there is any intention to hold it ... could be just a maneuver through an area to get somewhere else or to get the enemy to commit forces to an area that is unimportant. However, since the strategically important pincers on each side of Kiev and the pincer coming up from the South seem pretty stable they maybe well defended.

The indication a pincer movement fails is usually the counter tactic of cutting through the pincer and isolating the advanced forces succeeds, which we have yet to see against any of the main pincers and salients of Russian forces. For me, it's difficult to imagine the basis of statements in the media such as literally "Ukraine: Demoralised & incompetent, Putin’s army is doomed | Taras Kuzio interview" from the telegraph, without seeing any Russian salients actually getting cutoff, isolated and dispatched with.

As stated many times, Nato is not an offensive alliance, they do not attack unless being attacked. — Christoffer

As stated many times, that claim has long been debunked and exposed as a lie. NATO does attack anytime it serves US interests to attack, as in Serbia where it bombed a country that had no issue with NATO, America, or its British Poodle:

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

The Clinton administration and NATO officials were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbs. The media watchdog group Accuracy in Media charged the alliance with distorting the situation in Kosovo and lying about the number of civilian deaths in order to justify US involvement in the conflict

So, America manufactures a false narrative and then acts on that narrative to attack any country it pleases.

See also the case of Iraq, etc.

And, of course, under the NATO Treaty, the only event that justifies a NATO military response is if a country attacks or prepares to attack a NATO member. At no point did Serbia attack or threaten NATO members.

It follows that NATO is NOT a purely "defensive" alliance .... :lol:

Yes. IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations.

Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest.

Yes. IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations. — Apollodorus

I wouldn't agree that's the best solution, considering that it seems it was possible to not have a war at all.

But it does seem to me Russia can militarily achieve this result.

However, the EU could certainly negotiate a better result for Ukrainians, but so far has chosen not to.

Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest. — Apollodorus

Governments come and go.

:smile:

It's really unclear to me how Zelensky could have sat down and rationally worked out such a plan. In addition, his US supporters were pretty open about the goal to arm an insurgency ... which takes as given losing the conventional battle. — boethius

That's the big question. Zelensky is a professional TV actor (comedian, to be more precise) with no experience of politics or statesmanship whatsoever. He entered politics in 2018, ran for president in 2019 in a virtual election campaign using social media channels and YouTube clips, and with the backing of the same oligarchs who financed him and his party, and "won" the election.

Even now, there is no evidence that he understands international relations. He obviously lives in a media bubble and acts as advised by his oligarch bosses and foreign powers (US & UK). If Zelensky isn't a puppet, I don't know who is ....