The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Your main arguements are "whataboutism" ta
Well at least now you seen to recognise that whilst Greece, Turkey and other countries are IN Europe they aren't actually Europe just a part of it.You seem to not have a point or have one that misses the mark more often than not nowadays.
It’s refined in India, but Russian crude is still gushing...
Oil products worth millions have been imported from a refinery owned by a sanctioned Russian firmobserver.co.uk
Turkey instead of India? Sure:
How Turkey became Putin’s ‘pit stop’ for selling camouflaged fuel to the EU
Moscow bagged €3 billion through a sanctions loophole that allows Turkey to relabel Russian oil and ship it to the EU.www.politico.eu
Would you like to know more? Greece participation in the scheme, perhaps? I would think this is a common knowledge that Europe (with very few exceptions) is buying Russian oil via “intermediaries”, whether it is unrefined oil or petroleum products. This is, of course, on top of the oil purchases directly from Russia by the EU members. And, of course, on top of the purchases of pipeline natural gas from Russia (via Turk Stream) and LNG from Russia (still about 15% of the EU gas supplies, probably a significantly higher percentage for Europe overall, only direct imports). There is also, of course, Azeri gas (and oil), Kazakh oil, and other “intermediaries” from all over the place. What is the point you are trying to make? Mine, I believe, is pretty clear: Europe is buying Russian hydrocarbons from all over the place. This is going to remain so for the foreseeable future too, regardless of the sanctions. At the end of the day, it is Europe that wants these resources and, therefore, there will always be a way and a willing “intermediary” to make it happen. Imagine if drugs were finite, supplied at a certain volume, and you ban the drugs of a particular origin. To note, the origin in this case holds about a quarter of natural gas reserves on (rather in) Earth, about 18% of global natural gas production, and about 10% of global oil exports. I would think the picture is pretty clear. I talked about it years ago here. Ananda did as well. On multiple occasions. This is also no rocket science. While some resources are redirected to places like Europe (dictating higher prices in the process), others are now sold in places where they were redirected from (often at lower prices, implying someone making additional profit by reselling these very resources to those who used to buy them directly for less). No mysteries here, very basic economics and common sense.
View attachment 53261
This is not plausible though, but a near certainty especially when one includes the resources bought via “intermediaries”. But Trump is, of course, going to “sanction” India (not China!) with his idiotic tariffs, supposedly for purchasing Russian oil.
View attachment 53262
Basically, the lowest hanging fruit that he also has other agendas to settle with. My guess is this will be revered before Aug 27 or the deadline extended. The same will probably happen with China at some point in the near future when his “negotiations” don’t go as “planned” (everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth).
Even Lindsay Graham (being what he is) is catching a small part of the hypocrisy here:
View attachment 53263
He, of course, is not even referring to the direct purchases of hydrocarbons from Russia. Or the Americans buying what they actually need from Russia.
Is anyone going to chime in with the regular programming “whataboutism” comment? Targeted at me, of course.
@Redshift, imagine (pretending) seeing less than Lindsay Graham does!
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ So you don’t have a point then.
“Dignified peace” is something new though. What happened to “just” and the like peaces?
A new Gallup poll with a strong (but probably misleading) headline:
news.gallup.com
69% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated peace and only 24% remain delusional and want fighting to continue until victory. At the same time, 68% don’t see active fighting ending within the next 12 months.73% disapprove of Trump. German leadership’s approval rises to 63%. 33% of Ukrainians now think that the country will never be in NATO vs 32% thinking that the membership will be granted within then next 10 years. Significant role of the EU, UK, and US in negotiations is seen as about equal (75, 71, and 70%, respectfully). Another drop in hopes (rather expectations) of a quick EU accession.
They won’t be until it is done and over with, I would think. Questionable there will be any meeting to begin with (I would tend think more likely no meeting).
“Dignified peace” is something new though. What happened to “just” and the like peaces?
A new Gallup poll with a strong (but probably misleading) headline:
Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses
New data from Ukraine show the public favors ending the war with Russia through negotiations, as support for fighting until victory has plummeted.
news.gallup.com
69% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated peace and only 24% remain delusional and want fighting to continue until victory. At the same time, 68% don’t see active fighting ending within the next 12 months.73% disapprove of Trump. German leadership’s approval rises to 63%. 33% of Ukrainians now think that the country will never be in NATO vs 32% thinking that the membership will be granted within then next 10 years. Significant role of the EU, UK, and US in negotiations is seen as about equal (75, 71, and 70%, respectfully). Another drop in hopes (rather expectations) of a quick EU accession.
rsemmes
Active Member
According to Kalibrated...
www.google.com
The second mound NE of Pokrovsk fell (updated) yesterday.
I could answer to Redshift if there were anything to answer to.
Kalibrated Ukraine Map - Google My Maps
Kalibrated Maps is developed by (https://x.com/squatsons) ). It was created with the aim of providing a publicly available but accurate control map of Ukraine. The map is updated based on confirmed information but it is still under development and may have some mistakes.
www.google.com
I could answer to Redshift if there were anything to answer to.
Worth noting the wite house says it's speculation. As it says in the link but there is multiple reports that the u.s offer to Russia is something like this
1 recognition of Russian gains for 49-99 years
2 sanctions relief
3 resumption of energy trade
Notable missing is Ukrainians n.a.t.o prospects aswell as sending of arms to Ukraine this that reportedly is something the Russians would be willing to allow. (I'm guessing the devil is in the details on that one)
Personaly I think if Russia would accept that the Ukrainians should jump on it, tho I find it hard to believe with the current state of the war they would be willing to concede on the n.a.t.o or another defensive pact
Has some good points and other road formation on the subject including a Russian official stating that Russia has been offered a deal it considers "good"
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,666
Suriyakmaps has it in no-man's land. So it's likely Russian forces are there, but they may be still clearing the area. West of there is a small third refuse mound, and then Rodinskoe proper starts. Russian forces are also one treeline away from Biletskoe. I suspect Rodinskoe is first, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a separate push on Biletskoe shortly thereafter.According to Kalibrated...
The second mound NE of Pokrovsk fell (updated) yesterday.Kalibrated Ukraine Map - Google My Maps
Kalibrated Maps is developed by (https://x.com/squatsons) ). It was created with the aim of providing a publicly available but accurate control map of Ukraine. The map is updated based on confirmed information but it is still under development and may have some mistakes.
I could answer to Redshift if there were anything to answer to.
Last edited:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Well, looks like I was wrong and there will be a meeting (for now). Trump announced he is going to meet Putin on August 15 in Alaska. Kremlin later confirmed. Logical, but nonetheless interesting choice of location for the meeting. Putin can fly straight from Russia (a really long flight from Moscow though!) without using anyone’s air space, but Russia and the US. No need to wonder and make faces regarding the ICC warrants, as was the case with Netanyahu crossing some European countries on his way to the US.
If reports about the proposed ceasefire plan are correct, “dignified peace” change is then understandable and probably indicates a change in the Ukrainian approach to the ceasefire/peace resolution. One would think that the reports from the frontline are also indicative of the necessity to change the stance to something more rational.
Just a few random tweets here on the subject:
Another reply to the same tweet.
These two were translated from the original in Ukrainian:
Polish analyst:
The reply was to this post (as quoted):
Mike Kofman in his last thread on the situation in Ukraine, after his last trip to the frontline, said that the deficit of armoured vehicles is no longer important. This is probably one of the most crucial changes over the past year or so: Russians have been advancing without armour much faster than they did with plenty after hitting reality in mid-2022-ish. Just a few months ago, people were still waiting for the turn of the tide once Russia “runs out of tanks and other armour”. At the moment, it appears that the only thing keeping Ukraine in the fight are drones. This is not a winning strategy.
Also, in the past month or so, I see a lot more people discussing the “slowly then suddenly” theory talking about the situation on the frontline and Russian advances. I am not talking about random people either. One thing to keep in mind is that we don’t even know the real situation, but a general feel. The actual situation could be much worse, like manpower, for example.
This doesn’t help either, but CNN is reporting that the new Pentagon policy could divert weapons built for Ukraine to the US stockpiles. I think this was kind of obvious from before Trump was sworn in for his second term (and was discussed here plenty).
New Pentagon policy could divert weapons built for Ukraine back into US stockpiles | CNN Politics
A memo written by the Pentagon’s policy chief gives the Defense Department the option to divert certain weapons and equipment intended for Ukraine back into US stockpiles, painting a murky picture ahead of Trump’s potential meeting with Putin
amp.cnn.com
Air defense missiles are likely on the list. Numerous reports over the past couple of months (and especially after the 12-day war with Iran) indicate that the US stockpiles are extremely low. I saw some (I think on was from WSJ?) describing it as “catastrophic”, though seems unlikely?
It will be interesting what this meeting will produce, if it actually takes place. In one of the recent interviews, Trump mentioned that (this is just along the lines type of thing from memory) Zelensky told him he would need to make changes to the Ukrainian laws and constitution in order to accommodate what Trump is asking and he (Trump) told Zelensky he better make it happen quick. None of this seems like reality even to me, to be honest. What is probably more or less clear, if the meeting takes place, it will certainly be “the ball is in Ukraine’s court now” and it will be extremely hard to send it back. What if Trump actually decides to just make “a deal” with Putin without any regard for anything/anyone else? If Putin can be persuasive with him on the phone, a personal meeting is probably like fireworks. Then what? Ukrainian diplomats are going to put some epic overtime hours in the next few days. Anyway… This seems to be a huge win for Russia and if Putin spins Trump the “right” way, which he can, it ain’t looking good for Ukraine (not much would, really, but something about the nail in the coffin).
Edit: the aforementioned thread from Kofman on X:
Or (should be) readable to everyone:
Thread by @KofmanMichael on Thread Reader App
@KofmanMichael: An update on the war following a recent trip. As Russian offensive presume mounts, the front is not at risk of collapse, though salients have formed. More concerning is that Russian improvements in d...…
threadreaderapp.com
Forgot to mention this earlier as well: Putin trolling hard by sending the Order of Lenin with Witkoff to the mother, who is a CIA official, of an American killed fighting for Russia.
Putin needles U.S. by giving Trump envoy an award meant for CIA official whose son died fighting for Russia
Vladimir Putin gave Trump envoy Steve Witkoff an award meant for a senior CIA official whose son was killed in Ukraine while fighting with Russian forces, sources say.
www.cbsnews.com
Didn’t know the Order of Lenin was still an active thing; I was under the impression it was retired. It used to be awarded mostly to civilians (and the highest award at that) for… I am going to look up the Wikipedia or something in oder not to be mistaken… uh, yes:
- Civilians for outstanding services rendered to the State
- Members of the armed forces for exemplary service
- Those who promoted friendship and cooperation between people and in strengthening peace
- Those with meritorious services to the Soviet state and society
Last edited:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Zelensky’s first reaction. Sticks with “dignified peace”, but won’t cede any lands. The video is with English subtitles (I could be wrong, but some translation seems to be off and what he actually says, while slightly different, changes the meaning quite a bit). The main point is what I said above though.
Edit: another thought… Trump had Aliyev in the White House today, who can be legit accused of genocide. Also:
Edit: another thought… Trump had Aliyev in the White House today, who can be legit accused of genocide. Also:
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,669
This is almost certainly not Ukraine's doing. I think this is Trump trying to push though the only kind of peace deal that can be made. I suspect Russia will tell him that it's on him to force Ukraine and the EU to accept this. So I'm still skeptical that this will work out. It could, in theory.
4-8 weeks lol? What reason is there to think it will ever stop? Also why are the options "Ukrainian lines or collapse or Russia stops advancing"? Why can't the option be "Russia keeps advancing and Ukraine keeps going"? What information are they basing this on?
I think we're a ways away from a general collapse. I wouldn't be surprised if the current state of affairs continues for another 8-18 months. One of the things we don't know is, what density of forces is so low that the front line collapses? This war already has lower troop densities than many comparable conflicts. I suspect neither side really knows when the front collapses, when are troop densities just too low. So it could end sooner, it could end in theory any week-month now. The thing is that I don't think it will be sudden. I think Russia will have to feel it out and realize that Ukraine can't hold the line, before they can really use that information. So I think we will see rapid smaller collapses before we see larger ones. It will, in my opinion, look like a cascade of failures, but it wont' really be that. Instead it will be one big failure that the other side doesn't realize until they learn by advancing.
The Iran-Israel mess showed how much you need against a certain volume of in-bounds and the US is traditionally weak in GBAD, since the Cold War era. So it's completely plausible that the US is re-evaluating what kind of stockpiles they need for a potential confrontation with China. In principle this is healthy, and shows they're learning from experience. Ukraine may simply fall victim to the US prioritizing their own needs.This doesn’t help either, but CNN is reporting that the new Pentagon policy could divert weapons built for Ukraine to the US stockpiles. I think this was kind of obvious from before Trump was sworn in for his second term (and was discussed here plenty).
New Pentagon policy could divert weapons built for Ukraine back into US stockpiles | CNN Politics
A memo written by the Pentagon’s policy chief gives the Defense Department the option to divert certain weapons and equipment intended for Ukraine back into US stockpiles, painting a murky picture ahead of Trump’s potential meeting with Putin
Air defense missiles are likely on the list. Numerous reports over the past couple of months (and especially after the 12-day war with Iran) indicate that the US stockpiles are extremely low. I saw some (I think on was from WSJ?) describing it as “catastrophic”, though seems unlikely?
It's one of those things that makes me think this whole mess could go up in flames rather easily. It remains to be seen whether this can really be a win of any kind for Putin.
Iirc it hasn't been issued since the fall of the Soviet Union. In those days it was a highly regarded award, and to be honest it's pretty disrespectful to use it this way. But what else is there to expect from the current crop of Russian leadership. They'll play on Soviet nostalgia when it suits them but offer an insult to anyone who got the award in the past by devaluing it in this way.Forgot to mention this earlier as well: Putin trolling hard by sending the Order of Lenin with Witkoff to the mother, who is a CIA official, of an American killed fighting for Russia.
Putin needles U.S. by giving Trump envoy an award meant for CIA official whose son died fighting for Russia
Vladimir Putin gave Trump envoy Steve Witkoff an award meant for a senior CIA official whose son was killed in Ukraine while fighting with Russian forces, sources say.
Didn’t know the Order of Lenin was still an active thing; I was under the impression it was retired. It used to be awarded mostly to civilians (and the highest award at that) for… I am going to look up the Wikipedia or something in oder not to be mistaken… uh, yes:
This is next level trolling, really.
- Civilians for outstanding services rendered to the State
- Members of the armed forces for exemplary service
- Those who promoted friendship and cooperation between people and in strengthening peace
- Those with meritorious services to the Soviet state and society
rsemmes
Active Member
In 2025, I am stunned to find that wild optimism/wishful thinking...
Korowaj is talking about the degradation of the Ukrainian army,
Zelenski not being invited to negotiations about the war in Ukraine,
Ukrainian defeats at the front and
Skilled Russian troops defeating Ukrainian troops and not that many of them at that.
Kaufman, on the other hand, from the Ukrainian side, is making a very positive assessment of... the Ukrainian side. Everything seems to be great and it is being defeated.
Korowaj is talking about the degradation of the Ukrainian army,
Zelenski not being invited to negotiations about the war in Ukraine,
Ukrainian defeats at the front and
Skilled Russian troops defeating Ukrainian troops and not that many of them at that.
Kaufman, on the other hand, from the Ukrainian side, is making a very positive assessment of... the Ukrainian side. Everything seems to be great and it is being defeated.
Trump talking about how zelensky needs to be ready to sign something
This is interesting because as far as I know Russia still holds the position and it's a logical one that zelensky is illegitimate and signature from him could be voided by the next leader as illegal and therefore non-binding. As that has been stated by Russia it would seam very odd for them to sign a treaty without addressing that particular issue
This is interesting because as far as I know Russia still holds the position and it's a logical one that zelensky is illegitimate and signature from him could be voided by the next leader as illegal and therefore non-binding. As that has been stated by Russia it would seam very odd for them to sign a treaty without addressing that particular issue
Hoover
New Member
If the Ukraine signs the treaty that Russia wants, they would even acceppt a signature by the parliaments milkman.
Some rumors says that Trump is willing to fulfill the Russian main demands, like complete occupation of the 5 oblasts (including the retreat of the UA forces), cancel of all sanctions and exclude NATO membership. The 15th august wil be very interesting.
Yes Russia would accept it the problom lies with the ability of Ukraine to say the deal is void due to zelensky not being a lawfully elected officialat the time of signing. This has even more credibility as Russia has already stated they believe this to be the case. You may very well be correct in that it will be ignored by all parties but as it has been raised and not addressed it may also be a way out for Ukraine at a later date. It would also not be surprising to see the e.u especially and even the u.s.a support a future Ukrainian government in this position..not surprising at all, witch is I believe the whole reason Russia brought the issue up repeatedly.
And yes it will be interesting tho it's worth noting there is no non n.a.t.oclause or army/weapons restrictions. Both factors that would directly effect the balance of power if a year from now a rearmed n.a.t.o backed Ukraine said something like "this deal is invalid due to it not being legal under the Ukrainian constitution at the time of signing"
Edit don't get me wrong I'm for peace here, I'm just genuinely curious as to how/if it's possible considering not just how far apart there positions seam to be but the legitimacy of of any deal being a actual issue (one already brought forward but not addressed) is a unusual twist
Last edited:
Putin is totally legit and I'm sure nothing he ever does would or could be voided by a future leader eh?
Wasn't Crimea given to a Ukraine by a totally legit leader of Russia?
Yes I would say the world would regard a deal signed by Putin at this point in time to be legally valid and binding. And by the world I also mean Russia.... And yes Crimea was given away bya valid leader, it was also taken back by one and legally brought into the Russian federation by it's government. You may disagree with the morality of the events but the legality of it stands. of course a future Russian leader could reverse the decision but it would take a changing of Russia's constitution to do so... Of course not all countries agree (Ukraine for starters). And there is a war because of this and other issues.
Eventually the war will end LAWS will change but as far as recognition anything agreed to by Putin at this point in time,in the past and most likely into the future will be regarded as a valid agreement by the world including Russia from the moment of signing untill the specific issue is once again legally changed. Something that MAY not be the case with Zelensky and the Ukrainian side. The point I'm making here isn't morality but legitimacy and therefore stability. Russia and the world all view Putin as the legitimate head of the Russian state. In Ukraine there is things that call into question anything signed by him due to things like laws prohibiting him from signing a deal with specifically russia.
Ukrainian law prohibits Zelenskyy from negotiating with Putin, Kremlin points out
Neither Ukrainian nor Western officials have mentioned this, signed months after Russia’s full-scale invasion, as Trump pushes for talks.
nationalpost.com
Or even his legitimacy to do so as I'm sure most of people here know about I won't post links as there is two sides to that argument but the fact it's a grey is itself is a valid concern
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
Looking at the strong support now and the strong support from US, NATO, after one year of peace is going to... invade those territories? Provide Ukraine with 500.000 men for that invasion? A recovered Ukraine in one year?
In ten years, Ukraine may declare whatever it wants, crossing the minefields is a completely different matter. (I thought it was Russia the one that was going to invade, again.)
NI is part of the Free State, according to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland; there is still a border.
They could but I agree not likely they could do alot of things. Like invite NATO missiles and navle bases they could (and very well may) declare the treaty void for legal reasons and start "insurrections" to take them back knowing full well if Russia retaliated it would b in a war with NATO. I'm not saying it will happen but it could and Russia knowing this would be foolish if it didn't take measures to remove those possibilities. They are in a defacto state of war it's not like trust is in abundance here. Both sides should rightly expect the other to be willing to word things in anyway they can to extract maximum advantage. And for Ukraine the ability to rearm secure it's current holdings and possibly reclaim those lost would rightly be its goal. For it's allies to reduce current expenses and to later make it prohibitively risky for Russia to re-engage is the goal. Russia has already stated its goals of taking territory it has already claimed. And preventing ANY threat from Ukraine to m the future.
Excluding Crimea the territory taking is imop mostly about dismantling Ukraine future ability to pose a threat tho there are also valid cultural reasons for Russia making claims in Donetsk and leihansk specifically.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,678
I believe it was Nikita Khruschev, head of the USSR as a whole (well head of the Communist Party, i.e. GenSec CCCPSU), not of Russia (RSFSR). But I'm honestly a little murky on the legal basis of that particular decision. One could, I suppose, even make the argument that returning Crimea to the Russian Federation is an element of de-communization of Ukraine, but none of this particularly matters. The argument, flimsy as it is, that Russia is leaning on is the self-determination piece from the UN Charter, so it wouldn't particularly matter how it ended up part of Ukraine during the Soviet era.
That's a good question. EU and US leadership certainly treats Zelensky like he's legitimate. So it would be quite the hypocritical turn around to start claiming that he's not legitimate and therefore wasn't authorized to sign anything. I suspect Russia might require something like a Ukrainian pull back from areas they're going to hand over to Russia as part of any ceasefire deal. So that if Ukraine then reneges on the treaty, Russia could in principle just resume the war but from new positions. However I think these are all secondary. I think the primary issue is that neither Zelensky, not the general Ukrainian establishment is ready to start signing documents that involve handing over territory to Russia. This is where I think Russia will put it on Trump to figure out something with Zelensky and the EU. And some of the statements being made suggest that Trump intends to get Ukraine the best deal he can, put it on the table and let Zelensky take it or leave it. Presumably if he leaves it, Trump can wash his hands of the situation and blame Ukraine for it's lack of cooperation.
I suspect that assuming the unlikely scenario that Trump has some way to force Zelensky to take the deal, it could be worked out like this; the deal is signed, Ukraine pulls back, then Russia pulls back where they promised, a ceasefire begins, and then Ukraine has elections of some sort to have a new legitimate leader (who is unlikely to be any more pro-Russian of course). But this seems like a remote possibility.
Last edited:
No agreement made under the duress of occupation and bombing is likely to last forever no matter who signs it.
PachkaSigaret
Member
I feel anything less than freezing the line of contact and swapping the gains in Sumy @ Kharkov for the rest of Donbass would be bad for Russia. Imagine giving up the land bridge to Crimea after all the work they spent rebuilding, adding in new rail lines, ect. Plus for future security, that was one of their primary objectives.