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

The local National Defense University publishes a map with the assumed units in both sides. Unfortunately in Finnish. This picture of the situation in 10.3.2022 in the evening:


Interestingly it shows 16 Ukrainian brigades. The red round ones are the Donbas voluntary units. More "volunteers" are coming from the Middle East to fight on the Russian side, whereas some estimates put the size of the volunteers in the Western side at 20 000. What is notable that you have "international brigades" just like in the Spanish Civil War.

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

"Best solution" considering the current situation on the ground. I'm pretty confident the Russians can take the eastern half and make the Dnieper their border. Ukraine would still have Odessa for access to the Black Sea, after which all it needs to do is to stay out of NATO.

Unfortunately, the US and UK don't want that, because their true objective is to expand NATO, i.e., "their" territory into Ukraine and beyond. Clearly, this is unacceptable to Russia. IMO NATO should stop expanding and America should get out of Europe.

"Best solution" considering the current situation on the ground. — Apollodorus

At the moment, at least nominally, Russia is still offering to end the war if Crimea annexation is recognized, the Eastern breakaway regions independence is recognized and Ukraine commits to remaining neutral.

This offer seems more fair to Ukrainians than losing half the country.

The "pincer" from the south is two battalions; it's not going to cross hundreds of miles without a significantly larger force/logistic elements moving up to supply it. They are moving a battalion tactical group up behind it, likely due to the stalled movement. It's been trying to force crossings on the Southern Bug to move west, not driving towards Kyiv. Odessa is the likely target, and based on the size of the advance, it is intended as a supporting element for an amphibious assault since it's inadequate to take Mykolayiv, let alone Odessa.

This offer seems more fair to Ukrainians than losing half the country. — boethius

True. But there is no sign of US-UK agreeing to this, and that's because they want NATO and the EU to keep expanding all the way to Siberia after which China will be next on America's NWO agenda ....

The local National Defense University publishes a map with assumed units. Unfortunately in Finnish. This picture of the situation in 10.3.2022 in the evening: — ssu

This map is way more informative, thanks for posting.

If the Russians have been basically just keeping the Ukraine forces in the East to setup this moment ... seems to me there's no a race in time against the pincers closing for all those brigades to the East of the pincers to retreat West.

Militarily speaking, Ukraine has been in a double bind: If they retreat to the West, then Russian forces advance unopposed to the Dnieper river and have a big strategic victory and "map momentum", the narrative that their losing somehow completely falls apart. If they don't retreat, then 14 out of 16 brigades of the map you posted risk being cutoff from external resupply and nearly the entire professional army cutoff and then both the East and West may fall militarily.

That Russia is starting to disengage the most Eastern fronts, for me anyways, indicates that trying up those forces no longer has any strategic need as they have no where productive to go.

The "pincer" from the south is two battalions; it's not going to cross hundreds of miles without a significantly larger force/logistic elements moving up to supply it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's why I mention the naval base in Crimea which can easily bring in supply, heavy armor and additional troops.

They have been holding the territory North of Crimea and the crossings at Kherson since early in the war, so even if they only have two battalions there now, what actually matters for a push north is setting up the logistics chain and forward operating bases to be able to resupply and refuel a breakout maneuver. Russians can also then bomb every bridge along the Dnieper they don't control, and mess up critical junctions and roads, to further slow any retreat West as the pincers close, which may explain why we are now seeing air strikes in Dnipro.

The Russians have also been sorting out logistics and digging in on their salient West of Kiev, once it is out of urban areas it too can do a breakout maneuver towards the south.

The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them. — boethius

Interestingly, the WHO has advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's labs to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population:

Exclusive-WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread - Reuters

So, maybe they know something that the public aren't being told about ....

It's been trying to force crossings on the Southern Bug to move west, not driving towards Kyiv. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To setup the breakout maneuver to push North, you'd definitely want to first push West to push out to protect forward operating bases, and to just fortify your flank generally speaking, while also tying up troops to your West which is not your priority. Of course, Russians will also want to go encircle Odessa as well, so these plans aren't exclusive.

From Kherson to Zhytomyr (town West of Kiev) is 8 and half hour drive according to g-maps.

If Russians simply poor in armor (tanks APC's and armored artillery) to rapidly close the pincers going through flat open terrain, it could be done in a day or two (facing light opposition). Of course, the logistics need to be setup to resupply the pincers, and once established it's only a couple of days to poor in more infantry to dig in on the entire pincer formation. Since there's the river to the east, which can be difficult to cross if key bridges are bombed, the pincer formation may only be realistically assaulted from the West, where there are few Ukrainian battalions, certainly very few professional soldiers.

As stated many times, that claim has long been debunked and exposed as a lie. NATO does attack anytime it serves US interests — Apollodorus

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians

Yeah, because no one in the US has any interest in stopping that. NATO can act offensively if the UN supports it. The UN didn't officially support it but didn't condemn it either. The decision was taken by council, meaning it wasn't the US who did it, it was a decision by everyone with the justification of stopping genocide, which it actually did. The criticism against this went to the Hague and reports by Amnesty, while the outcome of the Hague court ruled against it being a war crime (article 9) and investigation into Nato did not conclude according to Amnesty's report.

So, sure, this is an offensive attack, true, you're right in that. But the offensive was based on "humanitarian intervention" and the fallout was extremely damaging for Nato even with demonstrated cause. It was, however, nothing made in the interest of the US or made without consent from any other nation within Nato.

Would you call that an offensive alliance in the sense of acting out attacks by geopolitical interests as you frame Nato? If every type of military act by Nato is based on defensive measurements or interventions alike, how would that make them an offensive alliance in the way you describe it or relate it to Russia? The support for an offensive attack is so complex based on the charters that it makes it close to impossible for them to do so, even more so after the fallout of those bombings.

So what reason is there for Nato to attack Russia? Give me one reason where Nato can justify it by their charter and the UN charter? Because there has to be lots of support by them in order to do so. Breaking Article 5 of Nato's charter cannot "just happen", it requires an extreme evaluation and there are no reasons for Nato breaking it to attack Russia. The act of including Ukraine is an act of defense for and by choice of Ukraine. Nato would happily want them to join, of course, but there would be nothing to justify an act of attacking Russia. At the same time, the reluctance to help Ukraine shows just how careful Nato is today. And the more nations that have joined Nato means the US has even less council power.

So, your argument relies on Nato being controlled by the US, which it isn't, even back then. And it relies on an active risk of invading Russia, which doesn't exist. So the valid reasons for Russia to fear Ukraine joining Nato becomes a smoke-screen for what is actually going on. Russia can't attack Nato, but Russia needs to force Ukraine to join them in order to claim it into the imperial borders. So the logical motivation for Putin and Russia to invade and push as hard as they're doing still follows my conclusion. You still have to support the premise that Nato is in fact a threat to Russia. Even if the entire existence of Nato would be (which it isn't) about defense against Russia, it still doesn't equal a threat to Russia. All Nato is, is a threat to Russia's expansion of its borders, an expansion that is not legal by international law. Russia doesn't like Nato expanding into the old regional territory that was part of the old Russian empire, but it would be exactly the same as if Sweden bitched about Norway getting into Nato because we want to claim it back by force sometime in the future if they don't want to join us. Nato has no reasons to attack Russia, it will never be able to justify or vote for such an attack and therefore is no more threat to Russia than the US and other nations actively attacking anyway.

If Nato is a threat to Russia because Nato would attack or do whatever they like, then the nations within Nato could just break protocol anyway at any time and attack. Nato's existence doesn't matter if their charter doesn't matter. So it doesn't matter who's in Nato if they were to attack anyway. This breaks any kind of idea that Nato would attack Russia. Everyone would need to be on board and everyone would need to break both Nato and UN charters to attack Russia unprovoked.

So how can you actually justify the argument of threat against Russia? It's based on a simplistic analysis of Nato's history, boiling down to,they did those bombings, therefore, they will attack Russia. Tell me there's more than that to your argument.

So, maybe they know something that the public aren't being told about .... — Apollodorus

This whole development about bio weapons labs, is truly and utterly bizarre.

Already what's admitted to by Nuland is massive bombshell level, and Russia says it's taken these labs, now WHO is casually suggesting it's advisable to destroy any pathogens that may pose a risk to the entire world population.

Very difficult to imagine this can turn out to be a nothing burger at this point.

So, maybe they know something that the public aren't being told about .... — Apollodorus

Let's put on the tin foil hats then. I mean, this forum is the last place for facts, rational arguments, or logic.

Already what's admitted to by Nuland is massive bombshell level, and Russia says it's taken these labs, now WHO is casually suggesting it's advisable to destroy any pathogens that may pose a risk to the entire world population. — boethius

Still not a bioweapon lab. You know, there are labs in every nation working to prevent stuff like the pandemic we just went through. There are high-level pathogens everywhere in these labs.

I see no conspiracy here, I see normal high-level labs with highly dangerous contagions.

How did this thread go into pure conspiracy theory territory?

Still not a bioweapon lab. You know, there are labs in every nation working to prevent stuff like the pandemic we just went through. There are high-level pathogens everywhere in these labs. — Christoffer

Then why would Nuland talk about non-bio-weapons-related labs in response to a question about bio-weapons?

Are you just saying she's a total moron?

Then why would Nuland talk about non-bio-weapons-related labs in response to a question about bio-weapons?

Are you just saying she's a total moron? — boethius

Why do you make a conjecture in the form of a factual conclusion?

How did this threat go into pure conspiracy theory territory? — Christoffer

If it was just rumor on the internet; sure, conspiracy theory stuff, maybe based on some real cloak and dagger happenings, maybe totally fake, maybe just self-generated internet conspiracy theory.

Likewise, if it was just Russia saying with zero corroboratory evidence anywhere; again, can't just go ahead and trust "intel leaks" from Russia can we?

But we're not talking about rumors on 4-chan or 8-chan or reddit or wherever or just Russian intelligence leaks.

We're talking about a high ranking US official who seems to just come and say that Ukraine does have bio weapons labs: labs working on pathogens with bio-weapons potential that would "be bad" for the Russian military to find.

And, labs that work on defense against bio-weapons, and have relevant pathogens for that, are still working on bio-weapons, just for defensive purposes.

When countries perform nuclear tests to see how to defend against nuclear weapons ... they still obviously have nuclear weapons too.

Why do you make a conjecture in the form of a factual conclusion? — Christoffer

These are literally questions. It would would be up to you to propose a conjecture to answer said questions.

You've already conjectured that "labs" could mean anything and therefore Nuland's statements have no content whatsoever. And I've responded to that conjecture with agreeing that, true, she could be talking about Quizno's in Ukraine.

Just because a question is difficult to answer in a way that makes sense in your narrative based on "leaked-intel" in "previous phases", doesn't make that a question in the form of a conjecture.

We're literally at the level of grammatical analysis that if the police ask a suspect if they've been killing people, and they answer "yeah, sure, some killings have been happening, by me so we're clear who we're talking about," that you're willing to argue that if, not as an immediate followup to clarify the statement, nor even stated by the suspect later but somebody else unfamiliar with the whole case, that the suspect saying "killing" doesn't really have any meaning here, and they could be talking about killing online in World of War craft (which millions of people kill things on everyday, totally normal) ... that, based on such an analysis, the police should just let the suspect go, nothing suspicious at all, totally explainable as just perfectly legal, run-of-the-mill video game killing online.

These are literally questions. It would would be up to you to propose a conjecture to answer said questions. — boethius

No, you conclude it as facts, move it into a premise for another conclusion and there's your maelstrom of ill-conceived arguments. That's why it's such a mess trying to discuss with you, you don't know where the conjectures end and the facts begin.

You've already conjectured that "labs" could mean anything and therefore Nuland's statements have no content whatsoever. — boethius

It has no content before a factual context can be established. That's not conjecture, that's explaining why your premise is wrong until it's been proven correct. At this time, it could mean bioweapons, it could mean traditional pathogen labs, but until any factual context is established, the worst version should not be considered factual since it more heavily erodes truth and leads to conspiracy theories. All we can work on is the most likely scenario, which is traditional high-level pathogen labs, because they're common. Any claim of bioweapon labs needs to have greater factual support, because it's a much less common thing.

Without proper facts, you can only work with what's most likely. If you are unable to do that, you open yourself up to conspiracy theories.

We're literally at the level of grammatical analysis — boethius

No, we're not. We're at the fucking facts- and complexity matters because people with limited rational thinking have it hard to conclude anything other than black and white conclusions. If you ignore actual analysis you are just grasping at what supports your thesis instead of looking at probability correctly. We're on a philosophy forum, this matters, otherwise there are a number of other places where facts, deduction, induction, probability, complexity, logic don't matter as much and opinions matter more.

No, you conclude it as facts, — Christoffer

It's a fact that there's only one common sense interpretation of what Nuland is literally saying.

Now, it's possible she's lying or she's just misinformed herself, but as @Isaac has already explained pretty clearly, there's no way to interpret what she actually says as referring to non-bio-weapons.

Of course, that doesn't make it a fact, just Nuland talking about bio-weapons; she could be lying or misinformed.

But the what she says, and has been recorded as saying, is a fact that she said those words.

If that's inconvenient to your world view and creates questions which have no good answers in your world view (the common sense followup questions of Tucker Carlson are simply good questions, and the explanations offered so far, like it was to destroy soviet bio-weapons, just make no sense as Tucker Carlson accurately conveys) ... not my problem.

Now, seems we will learn more about this when the Russians present their case at the UN, leak intel all over the place.

Likewise, that the Western Media now has their nickers in a knot that they've been blanket denying this and using the fact the Russians are talking about it as evidence that Russia is going to use chemical weapons (when it can simply bomb things to rubble and use thermobaric weapons in addition to that) ... but then Nuland just admits to it on live television and the Western media isn't even united in blanket denial but pundits like Tucker Carlson willing to just say the common sense interpretation of things ... again, that a Western media problem, not mine.

It's a fact that there's only one common sense interpretation of what Nuland is literally saying. — boethius

This is so faulty on so many levels of fallacies that it becomes utter nonsense. It's like one of the most bullshit sentences of an argument I've ever seen. :rofl:

This is so faulty on so many levels of fallacies that it becomes utter nonsense. It's like one of the most bullshit sentences of an argument I've ever seen. :rofl: — Christoffer

She's asked about bio-weapons, she answer that Ukraine does have biological laboratories (that are secret otherwise we could lookup their websites) with things the Russians shouldn't find and they're working hard to prevent the Russians finding those things.

Yes, there is only one common sense interpretation of what she's saying. And this isn't some low-level person that maybe confused, or poorly selecting words, or wouldn't have good insight into the issue and is just surmising from a limited vantage point.

This is a high ranking official, running US policy in Ukraine since even before 2014, answering the question about whether Ukraine has bio-weapons with something that clearly means Yes, and not No.

If the truth was "No, Ukraine doesn't have bio-weapons, why would it" then she would have just stated that "No, Ukraine does not have bio-weapons".

Would you still support Russia if they use chemical/biological weapons?

An Ukrainian drone fell down in Croatia.
One theory is that it was intended for Yarun, Ukraine, but that the navigators might have been using Google Maps, typed in Jarun, and that led it to Jarun, Croatia, about a 1,000 km off.

How the 6 tonnes drone was able to fly across the airspace of at least two Nato countries without being detected remains a mystery.

↪boethius Would you still support Russia if they use chemical/biological weapons? — RogueAI

I'm not supporting Russia.

I'm not cheering on Ukrainians to die for no achievable military objective, that is not the same as supporting Russia; it is political realism and, for me, common sense ethics about the responsibilities of civilian and military leadership.

However, as I've explained a few times, only Ukrainian military leaders know if they have chances of achieving military objectives; maybe they have some huge surprise counter offensive about to launch; we don't know.

I have also presented alternative potential narratives to the Western media narrative, but I've made clear many times that perhaps the Western media narrative is totally true, but, since it seems to be based on nothing tangible, seems useful to present alternative explanations for things for the purposes of critical analysis.

But I do feel the future-crime accusation Russia will use chemical weapons are not based on anything remotely real, Russia has zero military reason to use chemical weapons, it would escalate to a tactical nuclear weapon if it wanted to escalate.

Russia has thermobaric weapons it's already deployed and are effective at clearing large areas (weapons the US also has and uses), and without any risk of poisoning your own troops, super large political consequences, and chemical weapons are notoriously ineffective for tactical purposes (why we stopped using them after WWI).

Ukraine does have biological laboratories (that are secret otherwise we could lookup their websites) — boethius

Biological laboratories do not mean bioweapon research. Biological laboratories exist in almost every country, acknowledge of its existence does not mean acknowledging the existence of biological weapon research. High-tier biological laboratories can possess great danger if compromised, even without being a bioweapon research facility. High-tier biological laboratories are usually secret because their location is a safety risk for any malicious agent, like terrorists etc.

Therefore your conclusion has enough invalid premises to conclude that she's talking about anything other than the most probable scenario, which is a biological laboratory. Another probable scenario is that contagions substances from the Soviet era could be stored there. But that does not mean active biological weapon research.

Your argument is flawed but you don't care. This is called circular reasoning: your conclusion comes before any valid premises.

So, sure, this is an offensive attack, true, you're right in that. — Christoffer

Right. So, that torpedoes your spurious claim that NATO is "defensive". By your own admission, NATO is defending its own interests by attacking countries that have never had any intention to attack NATO! :grin:

BTW, why are NATO's enemies of choice Slavic people like Serbs and Russians. Why can't it bomb Finland or Turkey instead?

Let's put on the tin foil hats then. I mean, this forum is the last place for facts, rational arguments, or logic. — Christoffer

Yeah, that's why you're on this forum, isn't it? As for tin foil hats, I think you're wearing one already .... :grin:

Sen. Marco Rubio: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?

Victoria Nuland: Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.

Sen. Marco Rubio: I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to unleash biological weapons in the country, and with NATO’s coordination.

If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?

Victoria Nuland: There is no doubt in my mind, senator. And in fact, it is a classic Russian technique to blame the other guy for what they are planning to do themselves.

Your inferences do not make any sense based on what was said.

I just don't understand how something as simple as...

I'm not cheering on Ukrainians to die for no achievable military objective, that is not the same as supporting Russia; it is political realism and, for me, common sense ethics about the responsibilities of civilian and military leadership. — boethius

...keeps getting twisted into 'You're supporting Russia'. It's analysis at the level of the school-yard.

Biological laboratories do not mean bioweapon research. Biological laboratories exist in almost every country, acknowledge of its existence does not mean acknowledging the existence of biological weapon research. High-tier biological laboratories can possess great danger if compromised, even without being a bioweapon research facility. High-tier biological laboratories are usually secret because their location is a safety risk for any malicious agent, like terrorists etc. — Christoffer

All true. But she wasn't asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological research facilities", nor was the context such that she might have been confused into thinking she had.

To be clear, the Senator didn't even mention labs, nor pathogens, nor research. He asked about weapons. So she had no reason at all to tell the Senator about innocent biological research labs.

She was asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological weapons". The answer to which should have been "No", if they didn't. It's that simple. Victoria Nuland is not some intern fresh out of college, she's a seasoned politician. If she was in the position to give an unequivocal "No" to a question as important as that she would, without a shadow of a doubt, have done so. So why didn't she?

If the police ask "Are you carrying a bomb", you don't answer "well, I am carrying some electrical devices and a watch, and some fertiliser bags" and then later clarify that none of these ingredients had been put together into a bomb. You answer an emphatic "No!"

Not to mention you've yet to explain why there'd be any concern about these innocent biological research preparations falling into the hands of Russian forces. Russia already have samples of all the ordinary pathogens which can be used as weapons. We know this because they've bloody well used them. So why on earth would it be a problem finding them also in Ukraine, they have plenty already?

This whole development about bio weapons labs, is truly and utterly bizarre. — boethius

Well, there is no smoke without fire. If Ukraine had biological weapons, it would have labs in which it developed them. If it has the labs, it still has the biological material. And if it has the material, some people must know about it. Though, obviously, not the general public ....