I'm not supporting Russia. — boethius

You must be joking.

You must be joking. — RogueAI

Is this guy supporting Russia too? Basically the exact same arguments.

I think what @RogueAl is trying to say is that only fanatical Russia-haters should be allowed to take part in this discussion .... :smile:

Incidentally, Facebook and Instagram have announced they will allow posts calling for Putin’s death and for violence against Russian soldiers:

Sky videoSky video Ukraine war: Posts calling for violence against Putin and Russian soldiers 'to be temporarily allowed' on Facebook – SKY News

But according to some, Zelensky is a thug and his government is evil:

Video emerges of Madison Cawthorn calling Zelensky a ‘thug’ and Ukrainian government ‘woke’ and ‘evil’ – The Independent

Considering Zelensky's connections with criminal oligarchs, they may have a point. After all, if someone is being bombed by someone else, it doesn't follow that he isn't a thug. It just seems a shame that innocent Ukrainians have to suffer because of the corrupt leadership ....

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/665718

Thank fuck it's Friday! :party:

"A pox on both their houses" has turned my stomach for its moral obtuseness while Russian atrocities have flayed Ukrainians these last weeks. But Western – Anglo-American – culpability is even more sickening, and for that reason, goddamn tragic. I still hold to "The time to fireproof your house, my man, is either before or after, not during, a house fire." Still, I've got to give (Bulgakov's or Jagger's) devils their due ...

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them — Vladimir Ilich Lenin

Apparently, Putin took a page out of the other Vlad's book (which no doubt was partially plagiarized from Marx & Adam Smith). Doused in NYC stripclub Stolichnaya while flicking a critical clown's Zippo ...

Londongrad + Manhattangrad = Absurdistan! :fire:

"When after all
It was you and me ..."

За любовь! :shade:

Although I don't read most posts on this thread, I see that our useful idiot support group, having exhausted the neo-Nazi theme for now, has jumped onto the latest Russian propaganda talking point: Ukrainian bioweapons.

Perhaps not everyone realizes just how fantastical this conspiracy theory is (unsurprisingly, QAnon is all over it). One of the more specific claims from the Russian Ministry of Defense is that US biolabs in Ukraine are developing weapons that are capable of selectively targeting certain ethnic groups. And this story has a history.

A few years back people were scratching their heads and wondering about Putin's mental health when, out of the blue, he expressed his concerns about "someone" collecting "biological matter" of various ethnic groups in Russia. Gradually it emerged that Putin was heading into Dr. Strangelove territory with this theory: he believed that Americans were collecting Russians' precious bodily fluids in order to develop bioweapons for ethnic cleansing. No one knows where he picked up this nonsense, but it cropped up regularly over the years, and apparently this is what the propaganda decided to go with this time.

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. — boethius

Here comes very apparent the problem that Russia has now: that "front line" drawn to the map is what? 1300 kilometers or so? In the map (on page 84) there are drawn 16 Russian divisions or equivalent, which would be something similar to that 190 000 - 200 000 figure of Russian forces. But that is "way thin" when you think of it. There are huge gaps in between.

Here's actually a map published by the UK Defense ministry before the invasion in February, then dubbed as information warfare. At least they got very good intel as we now can see.



Let's just compare this to a similar large scale ground war which had similar large formations. Operation Desert Storm:



The US deployed nearly 700 000 troops into the war and the Alliance had a strength of over 900 000 of which ground forces were over 600 000 troops, hence three times the size of Putin "Special Military Operation". In the map below the US & Coalition Divisions consist of a far larger force than Russia has deployed in Ukraine. Yet note the scale! From the town of Nisab, in the West to Kuwait City it is 317 km. The distance from Kharkiv to Mariupol is a little bit longer. 330km or so.

And the Invasion of Iraq in 2003? Again twice as many American troops than Putin's "Special Military Operation". And Iraq is a smaller country with large uninhabited areas with a smaller population.

The simple fact is that in many places in Ukraine there is no "front line". That Russian are attacked in columns is because the distances are so great. Above all, the real problem with deep operations is that the Russian logistics are dependent on rail:

Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts. Only brigades have an equivalent logistics capability, but it’s not an exact comparison. - No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does. Part of the reason is that Russia is so vast — over 6,000 miles from one end to the other.

Then the supply without rail: trucks. We've already seen that Russia has to use civilian trucks and that Ukrainian forces have targeted supply trucks. And there is a reason for this:

The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades.

In fact, the Russian way of fighting, using massive firepower of the artillery, depends a lot on the supply:

The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets. There is also between six to nine tube artillery battalions, nine air defense artillery battalions, 12 mechanized and recon battalions, three to five tank battalions, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and small arms ammunition — not to mention, food, engineering, medical supplies, and so on. Those requirements are harder to estimate, but the potential resupply requirements are substantial. The Russian army force needs a lot of trucks just for ammunition and dry cargo replenishment.

And this is why some Ukrainian cities that the Russian forces are attempting to secure will have lulls in the fighting. Russia simply has to stock the ammo and equipment for some days, perhaps talk about cease-fires and humanitarian corridors, before they make the next attack. Rapid breakthroughs and rapid movement is now unlikely. And when the Ukrainian armed forces haven't been destroyed in two weeks, it's really going to take a long time to destroy them now.

All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail.

The bioweapons thing is comical. The public profoundly misunderstands CBRN, what weapons actually exist, why and under what circumstances they would be useful in military operations, and existing mechanism for deploying said weapons. The whole plot idea makes no sense.

First, if you want to stage biological weapons somewhere, you don't need a lab there. The whole advantage of CBRN is that you can inflict a lot of death with a small amount of material. That is, you have a more portable weapon than a conventional weapon with a comperable ability to cause mass destruction. The US has been shipping a ton of arms into Ukraine. If they wanted to give them VX or anthrax, they'd just move completed weapons systems there.

Second, if the goal is to threaten Russia and put a scary deterrent on their border, why the fuck would they put it in the country Russia plans to invade? The Baltics and Turkey are right there?

Third, chemical and biological weapons are pretty shitty weapons for most military use cases. The main threat from them is that they can kill a lot of civilians without a lot of material. This makes them ideal for terrorism (easy to smuggle into population centers, easy to disperse) or as a MAD deterrent. Barring the US having been planning some sort of false flag mass casualty terrorist attack in Russia, the only use of such weapons would be as a deterrent. The issue with the logic here is that:

A. The US already posseses a much more effective nuclear detterent.

B. A deterrent only works if you let your adversary know about it. Hiding a deterrent makes no sense.

Chemical and biological weapons are easier to defend against than conventional weapons. Very cheap equipment, respirators, atropine injectors, etc., can keep your combat forces relatively safe from CB attacks. There isn't much you can do for high explosives though.

They are weapons that will get you all sorts international blow back for relatively little military advantage. The countermeasures for these weapons are well known and inexpensive. Biological weapons in particular have simply never been good investments. They require specialized training to create, are very expensive compared to conventional weapons, and aren't very effective.

At least with chemical attacks you can make a major breakthrough into an area if you enemy isn't prepared for an attack. They are effective area denial weapons.

While even poor militaries have CBRN countermeasures, training to use them, and even the provision of the relevant equipment is generally neglected. So a nerve gas attack could definitely be effective at clearing the way for an assault. They also have the benefit of persisting for a while, so they can be useful for defensive operations since they can deny access to an area to an enemy for a decent period of time.

However, once chemical weapons start being used, militaries will start employing countermeasures. Gas attacks allowed for big breakthroughs early in WWI. Later, both sides were pounding each other with gas shells incessantly and it didn't move the needle on the fronts. Even Iran's poorly supplied conscript army was able to get fairly effective counter measures in hand during the war with Iraq.

Chemical weapons are good generally to the extent your enemy isn't expecting them, or if they are irregulars without proper equipment. Aside from that, what they're actually useful for is killing a lot of civilians and terrorizing then, which Russia has enough artillery to do plenty well already.

Biological weapons are the same as chemical weapons except significantly less effective while being significantly more expensive. Whereas countries still stockpile chemical weapons because they could be useful against an existential threat and represent a deterrent vis-á-vis their use on an adversary's civilians, they generally don't pursue bioweapons, because essentially, they suck.

You spend years, talent, and money weaponizing anthrax or some other spore. Congrats, you have super expensive shells that can take over a weak to disable your targets, with the added benefit of contaminating land you likely want to control long term. The stuff is great if you want to sneak it into a big subway station and disperse it in the ventilation system to kill a ton of civilians. It's pretty shit fired out of artillery as an alternative to using nerve gas or explosives.

The public tends to think bioweapons would be useful because infected soldiers would spread the pathogen among their ranks. This is not how most of the bioweapons designed work. They are generally spores, or toxins produced by organisms. They aren't going to be communicable. The toxins function like chemical weapons, except they tend to be worse at doing their job. The spores work somewhat similarly, but have the disadvantages of taking a long time to disable soldiers, being more expensive to weaponize, and contaminating areas for too long. Volitility is a perk, not a draw back of chemicals. You can gas a target, drive out your enemy, and then take the position yourself. Spores that sit around for potentially years will persist as a threat to your own forces.

Infectious diseases as weapons have been considered, and in a few cases used (Japan in WW2, American settlers giving small pox blankets to Native Americans, etc.). They make shitty weapons for military uses though.

1. You can't target how an infection will spread.
2. In a modern context, you will infect your own people, and everyone else.
3. It won't cause immediate or predictable effects and could hurt you more than the enemy
4. With these points in mind, such weapons only seem useful in an existential war akin to the Second World War, but nuclear weapons already exist, where as the technology to engineer super diseases easily and predictably does not. Nukes are cheaper and have the added benefit of taking out targets instantly.

Communicable disease attacks against livestock at least make more sense in terms of not killing your own people, but by the time you've moved to trying to cut the food supply to an adversary's entire population you probably would be escalating towards nuclear weapons anyhow. These sort of strategic scale bioweapons make more sense to use in concert with nukes if you did use them anyhow (which indeed is how the Soviets thought of them).

Plus the quote driving all this is dumb. Why would Nuland mention a secret bioweapons program in an open hearing? Why would she know about a secret bioweapons program? Sounds like the type of thing to keep under wraps, no? Why would the US government publicly announce a secret bioweapons program in public documents for years?

The obvious interpretation of her words would be that she, like most people, doesn't understand how infectious disease research works. A CBRN was almost certainly written up after the Russian bioweapons accusations started. Russians taking the lab is going to show up as a threat. This makes sense, no good can come from a bunch of conscripts walking around a BSL lab full of samples of antibiotics resistant tuberculosis, etc. and accidentally infecting themselves, or a building like that being shelled. This is Rubio doing leading questions on materials they've both probably read at Intel Committee meetings. Washington loves to get information out in this way, the staged question, instead of just releasing a memo for public consumption. Guess it makes the Congressmen feel good.

Although I don't read most posts on this thread, I see that our useful idiot support group, having exhausted the neo-Nazi theme for now, has jumped onto the latest Russian propaganda talking point: Ukrainian bioweapons. — SophistiCat

The bioweapons thing is comical. The public profoundly misunderstands CBRN, what weapons actually exist, why and under what circumstances they would be useful in military operations, and existing mechanism for deploying said weapons. The whole plot idea makes no sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

How does Putin's belief about the mooted biological weapons have any bearing whatsoever on their existence? Putin might believe the vase on his shelf is just a container for flowers, or he might believe it's a sophisticated spying device installed by aliens from mars. Whatever mad belief he may or may not have about the nature of that vase has no bearing whatsoever on whether it exists or not.

Likewise, Nuland's deeply suspicious comments, together with the US's atrocious history of deception and subterfuge give reasonable cause to believe that Ukraine has US backed biological weapons. That Putin has some crackpot idea about what they're for and how they work is completely immaterial.

Also, just lol @ the idea of using a weapons platform that can be effectively countered by a paper mask and washing your hands at this exact moment in time.

Why would Nuland mention a secret bioweapons program in an open hearing? Why would she know about a secret bioweapons program? Sounds like the type of thing to keep under wraps, no? Why would the US government publicly announce a secret bioweapons program in public documents for years? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The rest of your analysis is really interesting, but this seems out of place. The Russians are claiming to be about to bring evidence of biological weapons research to the UN. If it's true, you seriously can't think of a reason why Nuland might want to avoid giving a straight "No" to the question, when literally later that week she might have some backtracking to do? How about 'avoiding perjury' as a reason?

Questions:

- Will Belarus stay out of this disaster of a military campaign?

- Will Putin escalate to de-escalate?

Here comes very apparent the problem that Russia has now: that "front line" drawn to the map is what? 1300 kilometers or so? I — ssu

Which line? The current one all around the East of Ukraine?

However, to cut Ukraine in half North-South is still 700 Kilometres.

But the entire line doesn't have to be one giant trench, just overlapping artillery cover defended by infantry and armor. Any sort of assault on the line can also be countered with air power and armor reinforcements.

An assault from the East would be by encircled units without supply lines, potentially no communication, and the river to deal with.

From what I can tell, the South-West front has simply been moving at it's logistical pace, while the North-West front has been slowly getting through the Urban areas around Kiev, which is the hard part.

Of course, it's always possible the Ukraine finds some way to stop these pincers joining in the middle. They do have a lot of ATGM's and intelligence from the US.

However, Russia also has drones for spotting troop movements and can drop bombs on them.

And, do to the flat open country side, Armor can just drive around any dug in infantry positions. I simply don't see a counter tactic available to Ukraine, but, of course maybe they have one.

So we'll find out in the coming days.

The US deployed nearly 700 000 troops into the war and the Alliance had a strength of over 900 000 of which ground forces were over 600 000 troops, hence three times the size of Putin "Special Military Operation". — ssu

True, but NATO wants to wage war with super minimal losses, which is only possible with overwhelming force. If Russia is simply willing to accept losses then it's a different calculus. How many troops are required to easily win, is a different question than how many troops are required to easily win as well as sustain super minimal losses.

And in terms of man power, Russia can rotate troops in and out of the battle space and commit more when it needs. It's not the case that it has put a hard cap on troops, committed them to Ukraine and they will win or lose with what they had to start.

In fact, the Russian way of fighting, using massive firepower of the artillery, depends a lot on the supply: — ssu

This is definitely true, and the possibility that Russia can close the pincers rests on setting up the logistics to do so. Russian army has certainly reflected on the question of supply without rail.

And this is why some Ukrainian cities that the Russian forces are attempting to secure will have lulls in the fighting. Russia simply has to stock the ammo and equipment for some days, perhaps talk about cease-fires and humanitarian corridors, before they make the next attack. — ssu

"Tactical ceasefire" is a pretty standard thing in most conflicts, and definitely the ammo supply problem is a big problem.

However, all these questions about the Russians also apply to the Ukrainians, and the Russians are more just laying siege to cities if there's no strategic reason to take them.

All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail. — ssu

I agree. Closing the pincers entirely depends on sorting out all the supply issues you mention, it would be a large display of operational competence. Maybe they've been bogged down and just incompetent and disorganized as the Western Media keeps saying, or maybe they've been tying up Ukrainian forces with chaotic skirmishing all over the East of Ukraine, while establishing the forward operating bases and logistical plan to close the North and South pincers.

From what I can see, the South salient simply keeps advancing every day, and the North salient has now passed Kiev.

Putin was heading into Dr. Strangelove territory with this theory: he believed that Americans were collecting Russians' precious bodily fluids in order to develop bioweapons for ethnic cleansing. No one knows where he picked up this nonsense, but it cropped up regularly over the years, and apparently this is what the propaganda decided to go with this tim — SophistiCat

Some crazy stuff... I don't know if related, but a similar ugly rumor has been going around in Africa for decades about AIDS, that is was invented by the Americans to kill black people.

Also, just lol the idea of using a weapons platform that can be effectively countered by a paper mask and washing your hands at this exact moment in time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:smirk:

How does Putin's belief about the mooted biological weapons have any bearing whatsoever on their existence? — Isaac

It doesn't. But it's a good indicator of the intelligence levels of the anti-Russia brigade.

I think America’s plan to build a world empire through organizations like World Bank, IMF, G7, NATO, EU, is totally unjustifiable and needs to be stopped.

French Minister for European Affairs Clement Beaune has admitted that the European Union aims to incorporate Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and other countries in the region:

It is my deep conviction that there will be a European Union which will be in a few years, I don't know when, in a few years, probably extended to Ukraine, to Moldova, to Georgia, perhaps to other countries ...

Ukraine likely to join European Union, French EU affairs minister says – CNN

This exposes the imperialistic designs of NATO and the EU and eliminates all doubt that Germany, France, and other European countries need to rise up and free themselves from Anglo-American capitalist dominance once for all.

From what I can see, the South salient simply keeps advancing every day, and the North salient has now passed Kiev. — boethius

Are you quite sure about that? According to Western pro-NWO propaganda, "Superman Zelensky" is winning single-handedly with some assistance from Biden and Batman. It's getting increasingly difficult to decide who to believe .... :wink:

No one knows where he picked up this nonsense — SophistiCat

Does he know it's nonsense? I would think the average educated Russian knows it's retarded. Right?

Will Putin escalate to de-escalate? — ssu

I think he's in it for several reasons: one of the main ones being his standing within Russia. If Russia is threatened, that cements his hold on the presidency. So he can accept a slow simmer of insurgence.

On the way to that state, he'll want to take out Zelensky and he'll escalate if required to accomplish that.

Some crazy stuff... I don't know if related, but a similar ugly rumor has been going around in Africa for decades about AIDS, that is was invented by the Americans to kill black people. — Olivier5

That rumor was actually true. That's why the population of Africa has gone up from 500 million in the 1980's to currently 1,4 billion and growing! Was this genocide?

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

You really shouldn't estimate the time needed for large military advances through contested territory based on estimates for a car trip without any traffic. You can also make it from Berlin to Moscow in a day according to Google Maps.

For example, the start of the southern "pincer" began trying to move northwest on March 2. It is currently fighting south of Voznesensk, which, if you use Google Maps, is two hours, not 216 (and counting) away. If their goal was Kyiv, they'd reach it around mid-April at their current rate.

That force is much smaller than what you appear to be describing. Part of the reason it isn't larger is because larger advances are harder to supply. A "flood of tanks" might be possible if military operations didn't require supplies, and if all of the Russian tanks that exist on paper are in working order, with soldiers ready to operate them.

Moving a "flood" of tanks across a large country isn't at all like a road trip calculated by Google. You generally won't find gas, you need to bring supplies with you. A modern tank division can burn through 500,000 gallons of a fuel in a day. While Russian hardware is generally not as awful about fuel economy as the Abrams, you're still talking about vehicles that use more than a gallon of fuel per mile under ideal conditions.

Filling a 470-gallon fuel tank is not quick, even under ideal drill conditions, using specialized equipment. ROM operations also represent excellent targets for ambushes or airstrikes. Under ideal drill conditions, a well-trained team using the newest US fuel delivery equipment takes 30 minutes to refuel a tank platoon of four tanks.

Obviously, the situations for ROM would be far from ideal, and based on everything we've seen, neither will the crews.

You also need to protect millions of gallons of fuel, hundreds of trucks going each way. You can't just push in one direction. You need an open supply line. If you lose that line, you risk your flood of tanks becoming a stagnant lake of targets.

And indeed, this is a problem Russia has had with an 80 mile advance under their main effort, with a supply line fed by a railhead. You're talking about a 350 mile advance that is then also, for some reason, reliant on sea transport, (Note: there is a bridge to Crimea that you can use to transport fuel. The bridge has the added advantage of not being prone to being sunk by Neptunes).

You also can't drive until you're out of gas, like on a road trip, because running out of fuel makes the tank a death trap.

Ideally, you'd use your tanks dug into scrapes, so they are only moving a bit to fire, or to relocate. But this advance is aimed at supporting urban combat, which means using much more fuel.

Also, tanks are fucking slow. They are ponderous to drive behind.

:up:

Londongrad + Manhattangrad = Absurdistan! :fire:

"When after all
It was you and me ..." — 180 Proof

:up: a good watch.

Which line? The current one all around the East of Ukraine?

However, to cut Ukraine in half North-South is still 700 Kilometres. — boethius

I was talking about the line between the Ukrainian and the Russian lines. You do have the "front" stretched quite long now in Ukraine.

From what I can tell, the South-West front has simply been moving at it's logistical pace, while the North-West front has been slowly getting through the Urban areas around Kiev, which is the hard part.

Of course, it's always possible the Ukraine finds some way to stop these pincers joining in the middle. They do have a lot of ATGM's and intelligence from the US. — boethius

Let's see how it develops then. And let's be honest here: the Western intelligence has been very good.

I simply don't see a counter tactic available to Ukraine, but, of course maybe they have one. — boethius

The initiative is still with the Russians. But if the continue inflicting similar damage to Russia as they have done now, that's really good for them

True, but NATO wants to wage war with super minimal losses, which is only possible with overwhelming force. — boethius

That's not a counterargument. Everybody would desire overwhelming force to minimize owns losses and maximize the losses of the enemy. Short war means less casualties.

However, all these questions about the Russians also apply to the Ukrainians — boethius

Well, they aren't invading anybody, hence when they have logistical problems, they can have peace all around them.

Maybe they've been bogged down and just incompetent and disorganized as the Western Media keeps saying, or maybe they've been tying up Ukrainian forces with chaotic skirmishing all over the East of Ukraine, while establishing the forward operating bases and logistical plan to close the North and South pincers — boethius

OK.

Let's just pause here for a moment.

When have you seen footage of American troops pillaging a supermarket to get food? When have you heard about British troops going from door to door asking for food from the people because their army is totally incapable of giving them rations?

Sorry, but this is really the typical Russian clusterfuck, just like the first Chechen war was. All that authoritarianism and corruption leads to stupidities like this. There simply is no hiding of it. Or to put it another way around, the Ukrainian/NATO propaganda isn't so omnipotent to theatrically portray these difficulties. This was a far too large military operation to perform for the Russian army, that it could succeed with flying colors as it did with the annexation of Crimea.

Yeah, despite it all, the Russian army can lay punches and isn't down for the count. But that this has been a really military "bordello", as we Finns put it, is the truth. No way to hide that.

Only Trump? I can point out truths and lies that all Presidents have told. If you can't tell the truth from the lies it is a problem, Trumps or Obama's lies are their problem not for people who can tell the difference or will not.

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

I think it is time to re-consider this 'imperialist' categorization of Putin. Here are the former Russian states: do you think Putin is going to invade them all? There are 14. Can they ever afford to do that? Look what happened with one Crimea and Ukraine. I think any talk of any imperialism is the echo of US propaganda, they are very familiar with imperialism.

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic→Armenia Armenia
Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic→Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic→Belarus Belarus
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic→Estonia Estonia
Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic→Georgia (country) Georgia
Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic→Kazakhstan Kazakhstan
Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic→Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic→Latvia Latvia
Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic→Lithuania Lithuania
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic→Moldova Moldova

Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic→Tajikistan Tajikistan
Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic→Turkmenistan Turkmenistan
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic→Ukraine Ukraine
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic→Uzbekistan Uzbekistan

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 — boethius

Maybe this was the plan to make a martyr of out Ukraine. If getting people killed is OK with you, then I guess the sky is the limit.

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. — Christoffer

Putin won't retreat unless he has to, because it does not make sense to give up half way. Not because of NATO - Ukraine may still not get NATO membership - after the invasion and refusal of NATO to stop it? That is a really a joke.

Information - in the form of a leaked document? How is that trustworthy? Does it not depend if the leak was intentional? How do we know if the document is not a fake? I do not think you know how disinformation and counter-intelligence works.

Seeing the invasion maps make me feel a little queasy. How many have been killed... and the injuries. I guess Russia did not have the economic clout to push their interests peacefully like China.

Governments come and go. — boethius

Not the government of the United States. I get the impression that Obama, Biden are working for someone else. Trump did not follow orders so I guess he was fired.

I get the impression, not information or propaganda. That is why it is so difficult to deal with the United States, we are not dealing with people or a people but maybe Oligarchs? Maybe.

Who has predominant power in the United States? The short answer, from 1776 to the present, is: Those who have the money -- or more specifically, who own income-producing land and businesses -- have the power. George Washington was one of the biggest landowners of his day; presidents in the late 19th century were close to the railroad interests; for the Bush family, it was oil and other natural resources, agribusiness, and finance. In this day and age, this means that banks, corporations, agribusinesses, and big real estate developers, working separately on most policy issues, but in combination on important general issues -- such as taxes, opposition to labor unions, and trade agreements with other countries -- set the rules within which policy battles are waged.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/class_domination.html

First, wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html

Zelenskyy is in a fix, maybe he has a gun to his head, as they say. Maybe he has two guns to his head.

As a human being how will he react? That is why he is fighting on he is fighting for his life. If Russia takes over then it would make strategic sense, and be good propaganda to ... well those more experienced in this sick game of international politics know what I am getting at.

He must be thinking: how did I get into this mess?