Yes, that is an apposite quote. Is it true? If it is true today, must it always be so? — Srap Tasmaner

I believe so. Do you know what it takes to shoot a human being dead much less bayonet him? An army officer once explained it to me. Looks like you have to leave your soul behind.

More insight into the war in Yugoslavia, this time from Sputnik

How US-NATO Illegal Bombing of Yugoslavia Undermined Rule of Law in the World 23 Years Ago

It was former US Secretary of State of Henry Kissinger who admitted in an interview with the UK Daily Telegraph on June 28, 1999: "The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing."

https://sputniknews.com/20220324/how-us-nato-illegal-bombing-of-yugoslavia-undermined-rule-of-law-in-the-world-23-years-ago-1094157612.html

The Wikipedia article has no mention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia

What happened to this:

https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-conducts-successful-cruise-missile-launch/

Let me add to that: https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/18/nato-s-kosovo-colony/

Maybe there's a difference between having no choice and thinking you have no choice. (For some sorts of analysis, that difference won't show up at all.) What's needed then is what Seamus Heaney calls

a glimpsed alternative, a revelation of potential that is denied or constantly threatened by circumstances

(And you can safely assume he had the Troubles in mind when he said that.)

War is death and destruction on a massive scale carried out by people who would rather not be doing what they're doing.

On some readings, Putin believed he had no choice but to invade Ukraine. And then his army believed it had no choice but to do as he commanded. Perhaps earlier Ukraine believed it had no choice but to seek alliances to the west. And so it goes. We can point at any link in the chain of events and say, but you did have a choice, or say, it's understandable that you thought you had no choice, or both.

The material conditions, then, might come down to this: are the options more than theoretical? Can you come to believe that you do have real competing options, requiring a choice? I want to say that this is what you see with the most effective government programs, the most effective NGOs, that they make options real for people. That's true, of course, but it's not like those things fall from the sky; that's still just people. At some point, people have to create their own possibilities.

My oldest son recently read 1984 and reminded me (decades since I read it) that the state is not in fact all powerful -- it just makes people believe it is. And this is always the trick.

Obviously Putin does have his supporters, no doubt.

But one should notice that Putin's Russia is authoritarian, and spontaneity is usually controlled "spontaneity". Letting people to be spontaneous is not the correct way in Russia. — ssu

https://t.me/insiderUKR/26783

Here you can see a selection of announcements sent out to employees and college students, as well as calls for paid "extras".

On Friday there will be a rally in Luzhniki to celebrate an anniversary of the integration of Crimea into RF. Attendance is STRICTLY MANDATORY

Attention! Urgent update! We just received a direction that only persons of Slavic appearance are requested for the demonstration - no migrants.

(This is how "non-Slavic" people are often referred to in Russia, regardless of where they are actually from.)

Need extras for a concert on 18.03 at 14:00, 2 hours, Luzhniki Stadium (...) 300 rubles
Payment transferred next day to your bank card

This is a typical thing that happens before every government-organized "Puting" (as people call them - a play on "meeting," or rally).

What likely isn't fake news is that Russia has lost many generals (perhaps four or five) and high ranking commanders in the war. This does tell about that the operation hasn't gone well and that in a hierarchial organization like the Russian army, lower commanders taking initiative isn't supported, hence the generals have to come and lead from the front. It also tells about a highly working SIGINT of the Ukrainians that they can find the location of the generals and then use artillery at them. That the West has it's finger on this, can be likely.

In a documentary of the Russo-Georgian war these's footage of the 58th Army commander doing exactly this: before the drive to South Ossetia, a the general spoke a huge crowd of various officers and soldiers just how the lead formations will move Tskhinvali. — ssu

Today the head of Ukrainian border guards issued a mock thank you to a Russian TV propagandist who unwittingly helped Ukrainian military locate and sink a Russian warship in the port of Berdyansk.

My understanding from what I've read is that Putin won't agree to a ceasefire until he's negotiating from a position of strength, which he hasn't yet achieved. One metric for achieving that would be to cut the Ukranian forces off from the sea. Another, would be to take some of the major cities. If that is true and the Ukranians are provided with more weapons and encouraged not to back down to Russian demands where does that leave us?

It seems to me the worst case scenario for Ukraine is a continued war of attrition that they're not losing quickly but can't win either and lose slowly until Putin achieves his military position of strength. And so they continue fighting while their cities are reduced to rubble; their citizens lose access to food, water and electricity; civilian casualties mount; and the cost of reconstruction both in terms of time and money skyrockets. And seeing as NATO has explicitly ruled out intervening militarily, which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome? — Baden

I don't see Ukrainians needing encouragement or persuasion - they are the ones doing all the persuading. And they are the ones doing all the fighting. So it is not for you to decide what is best for them, as if they were children who can't make responsible decisions about their own well-being. If they ask for help, you either give it to them or fuck off.

deleted

So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands. — Baden

The Russian campaign is arguably already a total failure. According to sober estimates they've lost 15,000 troops, that is more than in their entire Afghanistan campaign, and failed to fully capture any city. The troops are demoralised and were it not for the Russian willingness to destroy civilian infrastructure with missiles they would be considered totally defeated already; they've had to practically destroy the only city (Mariopul) they've come near to capturing. As a consequence of all this, NATO and the United States are more united than ever, NATO has drawn up plans to bolster its defensive forces on all of their Eastern lines. Russia is almost totally isolated from the rest of the world save India and China and some other hold-outs. The Russian economy is contracting at a rate which is bound to ensure a domestic depression and a catastrophic diminution of living standards, erasing nearly all the gains made by economic liberalisation since the end of the USSR. In short, the whole adventure has been a catastrophic error of judgement which is going to end in disaster for the Russian government. So, I think you're backing the wrong horse.

Yes, I'm aware this is the Western propaganda line. You're literally parroting what we all read in Western newspapers every day. But apart from the fact their economy is contracting as would be expected you've presented no evidence for anything you've said.

In short, the whole adventure has been a catastrophic error of judgement which is going to end in disaster for the Russian government. — Wayfarer

Ok, how? Tell me what you think is going to happen over the next few months and how Putin's strategic objectives will not be achieved. No one is arguing they won't be achieved at a cost, but if they are achieved, he's won the war. So, I'm not and have never said this was a good idea or is good for Russia economically; what I've said is I don't believe a prolonged war will deter Putin from pursuing and ultimately achieving at least most of what he set out to achieve. I expect he'll end up getting more than what he asked for before the war. And a real danger is the longer it goes on, the more he may demand.

Even some Western media outlets concede:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/russias-war-of-attrition-with-ukraine-where-nobody-wins.html

"...the conflict quickly risks becoming a “war of attrition,” analysts say — essentially, a prolonged struggle in which both sides seek to exhaust the opponent through the gradual loss of personnel, equipment and supplies.

“The war in Ukraine is likely heading towards a grinding war scenario — a stalemate phase during which both sides have limited ability to conduct offensive operations while the devastation and human suffering continues,” Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at Teneo Intelligence, said in a note this week.

What concerns me is a Lindy effect where the longer the war goes on the longer it's likely to go on. So, I'm not backing a horse; this isn't a competition between me and you over who gets to be right about who wins, it's a determination, from my point of view, about how further devastation in Ukraine can be minimized.

So, do a little analysis. Explain to me where you see this situation in three months time. Explain to me how Putin will be defeated and retreat from Ukraine without them acquiescing to his demands. What's the line of reasoning here. His soldiers will get demoralised and give up? He'll admit it was a whoopsie and back down? What?

Yes, I'm aware this is the Western propaganda line. — Baden

:rofl: That's hilarious. I view the entire episode as a disaster, a fiasco, and historic mistake, and can only hope that it culimates in Putin's downfall in the shortest possible time. I don't want to entertain any other idea.

Explain to me where you see this situation in three months time. — Baden

Hopefully with massive civil unrest in Russia culminating in the fall of Putin.

Not sure what's hilarious about giving me a Biden speech. But if you're happy with that and aren't willing to contribute anything beyond, ok.

Not every story has two sides. Climate change denialists don't have a 'fair story to tell', nor do anti-vaccination activists, nor apologists for the January 6th civil insurrection in the United States. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has no justification, no mandate, no warrant, and is an unmitigated disaster for the world and all the participants. The best possible outcome is the fastest possible defeat and overthrow of the current Russian government.

Can you deal with my post, please and give your analysis. I never said the war was justified (in fact I said the opposite from the start) or wasn't a disaster in human terms. Read what I wrote and respond.

They haven't even achieved air superiority. I don't think it's "Western Propaganda" to claim the military campaign has been anything but a disaster, for the reasons Wayfarer cited.

How long do you think Putin can continue losing thousands of soldiers a week and still stay in power? Russia quit Afghanistan, I can see them quitting here too.

According to some posters in this thread, all the coverage back in February on Russia being about to invade Ukraine was also 'Western propaganda'... :rofl:

Hopefully with massive civil unrest in Russia culminating in the fall of Putin. — Wayfarer

Just saw your edit, and what? That's it. A hope on the basis of no evidence with no probability assigned because you don't "want to entertain any other idea", i.e. facing reality might be too uncomfortable, so you'll just cheer on the death and destruction from your living room hoping it'll work out somehow. Well, gee, don't hurt yourself trying to be helpful.

Tell me what you think is going to happen over the next few months and how Putin's strategic objectives will not be achieved — Baden

The Russians haven't succeeded in occupying Ukraine. All they can do is pulverise it with missiles, which is a criminal act. If they drive most of the population out and destroy many of the cities, how does that amount to the achievement of anything?

When Hitler invaded Poland, he successfully over-ran and disarmed the country's army and replaced the government in a little over five weeks. I think that was Putin imagined Russia would do, but he's patently, obviously, plainly failed to do that. It's now become, as you say, 'a war of attrition', with troops dug in for the long haul, and meanwhile the Russian economy is in free fall.

I just don't understand how you can parse this as acheiving anything whatever.

What's the line of reasoning here. His soldiers will get demoralised and give up? He'll admit it was a whoopsie and back down? What? — Baden

There must be a very large number of Russians, many of them formerly wealthy, many of them with connections to Government, who are seeing their fortunes evaporate in front of their eyes. The young urban intelligentsia are fleeing in droves for neighbouring countries and the West. Putin is locked in an impenetrable fortress of delusion and will never be able to admit he was wrong, but hopefully it will be taken out of his hands. And the sooner the better. The whole thing is an unmitigated disaster.

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster
Russian propaganda>It's all going to plan
Any non-idiotic impartial observer>Neither of those is true. They are both just propaganda.

Russia quit Afghanistan — RogueAI

Yes. After ten years.

According to some posters in this thread, all the coverage back in February on Russia being about to invade Ukraine was also 'Western propaganda'... — Changeling

Nothing to do with me. But let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me.

Nothing to do with me. — Baden

Yes, not you. You seem to be looking for some middle ground here - which is commendable. I've no idea what that ground looks like, though.

Lot of strawmen and red herrings there. It can be a disaster on some metrics for either or both parties. What's relevant to Putin are his strategic goals. My ideal scenario is the same as everyone else's here. That he loses tomorrow and goes home. But despite his difficulties, I've yet to see any evidence that he'll lose at all. But same challenge to you: "Let's at least make sure our heads are not completely empty and admit we have propaganda too. Now having admitted that, what is it? What is our propaganda concerning the war? You tell me."

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster — Baden

OK, what military objectives has Russia achieved so far?

You seem to be looking for some middle ground here — Changeling

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list.

I've yet to see any evidence that he'll lose at all. — Baden

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/up-to-40000-russian-soldiers-killed-wounded-captured-or-mia-nato-says.html

That's in one month of fighting. Those are unsustainable losses. Maybe you think NATO is talking out their ass, but based on all the other reporting, Russia has lost gobs of men and material. Do you think they can sustain these kinds of losses indefinitely???

What is our propaganda — Baden

Propaganda: zealous speech to persuade. "Their propaganda is all lies, our propaganda is full of truth."

OK, what military objectives has Russia achieved so far. — RogueAI

The overarching basic aims of the invasion are as follows.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
"Russia is ... aiming for a neutral Ukraine. Russia may also seek to hold on to its territorial conquests - both Crimea in the south and in Ukraine's east."

They control the breakaway regions now and they've got Zelensky to say his country will never join NATO for a start.

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list. — Baden

:up: :up: :broken:

Western propaganda>It's a complete disaster
Russian propaganda>It's all going to plan
Any non-idiotic impartial observer>Neither of those is true. They are both just propaganda. — Baden

I for one believe the prevalent military analysis among experts, ie that this war is going very badly for both sides, while the expectation was that of a relatively easy take over from the Russians.

The dynamics can only turn worse for the latter now, the way I see it. If they haven't won by now, chances are they will never win. Russian troops cannot sit duck in defensive lines for long. A total breakdown of the Ukrainian forces could still happen I guess, but it's not happening... What seems to be happening is that long supply lines are easy targets for them. There is also a huge difference in troop morale between the two sides. The Russian army doesn't know why they fight. The Ukrainians do. It makes a difference.