|
Zelensky is stupidly trippling down https://nv.ua/ukraine/politics/zelenskiy-o-vzryve-v-polshe-ya-ne-somnevayus-chto-eto-byla-ne-nasha-raketa-50284583.html https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1592928556635471873 The much better narrative they could've went with was that this accident indicated the need for better AD FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Nov 16, 2022 |
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Zelensky is stupidly trippling down Did you read this part? "«Мы государство справедливое. Если это было использование нашей ПВО и на территории Польши нашли обломки, я хочу эти доказательства. Если, не дай Бог, какой-то обломок убил этих людей, нам нужно извиняться. Но, извините, сначала следствие, доступ, данные, которые у вас есть, мы хотим получить», — добавил он." He's asking for evidence or to be part of the investigation because he's believing his own people first. But he's not coming out against apologizing if they're shown it was their fault. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1592933049175605248?s=20&t=5MPtgBSBpONFnf6GC-bpwg Zelensky is leveraging the situation for more help like he always does. Shes Not Impressed fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:Did you read this part? He's muddying the waters. Exact same tone. Makes sense as Ukraine's state institutions are direct successors of soviet institutions, just like Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
The line is easy: 'no missiles would be being fired at all if Russia wasn't launching attacks on civilian targets'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The line is easy: 'no missiles would be being fired at all if Russia wasn't launching attacks on civilian targets'. Ukraine wouldn't use surface to air missiles to defend military targets?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
adebisi lives posted:Ukraine wouldn't use surface to air missiles to defend military targets? "Civilian targets" pulls on more heartstrings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Will Milley go 0-3? https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1592950182022242305
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
I don't think Milley is trying to make accurate predictions, everything he's saying seems to be political.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't think Milley is trying to make accurate predictions, everything he's saying seems to be political. For what, angling to be a 2024 GOP appointee? He's been a dipshit about Ukraine right from the dump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't think Milley is trying to make accurate predictions, everything he's saying seems to be political. Who is he appealing to with these "political" statements?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
I think he's trying to manage worldwide expectations so that Ukraine's failure to eradicate a nuclear power isn't viewed as some failure that justifies pulling US and western support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1592966202955075586 Zelensky is a moron or the Ukrainian military is refusing to acknowledge this
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think he's trying to manage worldwide expectations so that Ukraine's failure to eradicate a nuclear power isn't viewed as some failure that justifies pulling US and western support. Not even meme dogs on twitter expect Ukraine to just erase Russia from the map IRL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
I think he's doing the underpromise and overdeliver thing, which is wise in his position. The general Milleys of the world should be dour and pessimistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1592966202955075586 While I agree.that Zelensky's response is wrong, I am not sure a "diplomat" that completely trivializes the deaths of some Polish people isn't looking for an excuse to throw away Ukrainians to their fate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:While I agree.that Zelensky's response is wrong, I am not sure a "diplomat" that completely trivializes the deaths of some Polish people isn't looking for an excuse to throw away Ukrainians to their fate. Completely trivialises the deaths? Come on now, what is this overly dramatic crap? Admitting a possibility of an accident is always going to be less damaging than refusing to talk about it seriously, but especially so if you end being a party to the incident - regardless of your culpability there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Ukraine doesn't get Russia out of Ukraine by total military defeat in like 90 out of 100 hypotheticals. Far more likely is a negotiated withdrawal in exchange for some amount of sanction relief or other incentives if the military situation progresses enough that it's looking that bad for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Completely trivialises the deaths? Come on now, what is this overly dramatic crap? Admitting a possibility of an accident is always going to be less damaging than refusing to talk about it seriously, but especially so if you end being a party to the incident - regardless of your culpability there. Yeah, in western culture it is generally better to admit the possibility that you caused damage and apologise than to vehemently deny any such possibility. Let Putin be the guy who is constantly lying and never admits any errors. In the end this will be a tempest in a teapot, but hopefully Zelenskyi takes heed. It could have been worse, fortunately no one has invested in Eastern Poland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Ukraine doesn't get Russia out of Ukraine by total military defeat in like 90 out of 100 hypotheticals. Far more likely is a negotiated withdrawal in exchange for some amount of sanction relief or other incentives if the military situation progresses enough that it's looking that bad for Russia. I'm curious to know the reasoning behind this. Is it pure people power, the Wagner quality troops (in reserve?), problematic terrain, lack of air superiority...? I don't know enough to agree but I have been thinking this intuitively, also Russia's ongoing capacity to strike at infrastructure in particular the electricity grid, and the growing cost to Ukraine to sustain an offensive. Honestly it's weird that Russia went from oh don't mind us annexing here and there lol to outre invasion because that was actually working - they got greedy
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:I'm curious to know the reasoning behind this. Is it pure people power, the Wagner quality troops (in reserve?), problematic terrain, lack of air superiority...? I don't know enough to agree but I have been thinking this intuitively, also Russia's ongoing capacity to strike at infrastructure in particular the electricity grid, and the growing cost to Ukraine to sustain an offensive. I think it's more that Russia will not wait until it's completely pushed out, but will sue for terms and withdraw voluntarily sometime before that. I don't see any reason why the end state wouldn't be 100% withdrawal and restoration of pre-2014 borders, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:I'm curious to know the reasoning behind this. Is it pure people power, the Wagner quality troops (in reserve?), problematic terrain, lack of air superiority...? I don't know enough to agree but I have been thinking this intuitively, also Russia's ongoing capacity to strike at infrastructure in particular the electricity grid, and the growing cost to Ukraine to sustain an offensive. They did the outright invasion as their policy wasn't working. Even initially, I don't think they were planning on any large scale annexations. That became a goal as the primary objective (regime change) became untenable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:I'm curious to know the reasoning behind this. Is it pure people power, the Wagner quality troops (in reserve?), problematic terrain, lack of air superiority...? I don't know enough to agree but I have been thinking this intuitively, also Russia's ongoing capacity to strike at infrastructure in particular the electricity grid, and the growing cost to Ukraine to sustain an offensive. Ukraine's success has come by pressuring Russia either where they aren't or where they're unable to focus their resources. Ukraine struggles a lot more where Russia is able to use their strengths with no hindrances. Kyiv front collapsed because resupply ended up so difficult and the units were too bruised up too continue. Kharkiv front collapsed because Russia had pulled away too many people and the front simply lacked the density of forces to slow down or react to a Ukrainian offensive. Kherson ultimately was given up because Ukraine destroyed the primary supply lines and made it's defense untenable. As far as actually fighting around Kherson went, Ukraine did not have an easy time of it and many of Russia's best units were there. It's not impossible that Ukraine militarily evicts Russia, but their successes have been about finding ways of achieving their objectives that aren't just head-on fighting. Ukraine having to evict Russia forcibly to the last Russian is essentially the worst case scenario for Ukraine coming out on top and it would be immensely costly. Anyways the real reason I say that the conflict is going to end with something negotiated is just that that's how conflicts end. Generally as soon as a side realizes that they're going to lose and they've exhausted the options to turn it around and it's time to withdraw, it's better to negotiate the withdrawal in the hope that you can at least extract some concessions and avoid further losses. While neither Russia nor Ukraine is currently meaningfully open to negotiations (since Russia's precondition remains essentially that Ukraine cease to exist and Ukraine's precondition for negotiations is 2013 borders), if the offer ever was 'we will withdraw back to pre-war borders' Ukraine would almost certainly jump at that deal because it saves a helluva lot of costly fighting. I don't get the impression that Russia is about to give up, but also Russia's appetite for costly fronts collapsing is not infinite. At this point pretty much anywhere a Ukrainian push finds success they will start collapsing Russian internal lines of supply and/or isolating Crimea and there is eventually a point where Russia will decide that the ongoing cost of the war and sanctions isn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. As I understood, the seizure of Kherson or just prior means that Crimea could again be cut off from fresh water. I assumed this was a motivation for the invasion although I have not seen much discussion other than prior to the invasion proper. As well as a new fresh water source for Russia. Hence I was surprised they wilted so quickly in this specific geolocale. What other reason does Russia have to hold on to Crimea if Ukraine can withhold fresh water, if I am not mistaken?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Related to Herstory's post, western support may dry up at pushing into Russia or at committing acts of terrorism in Russia. This will probably put Ukraine in an eventual position of not being able to hurt Russia while Russia can hurt Ukraine. This means that until a ceasefire is negotiated, once there's very few Russian soldiers in Ukraine, they can just leave and then seize other parts of the border--the attackers advantage of choosing the time and the place of the attack will outweigh the defenders advantage and it will be difficult to hold that whole border in perpetuity. This also means at the time of negotiations, unless Ukraine can find some other leverage against Russia or Russia finds their own other problems, Ukraine and Russia will be negotiating from the position of pre-2014 borders at best with nothing beyond to gain but potential to lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
piL posted:Related to Herstory's post, western support may dry up at pushing into Russia or at committing acts of terrorism in Russia. This will probably put Ukraine in an eventual position of not being able to hurt Russia while Russia can hurt Ukraine. Ukraine has attacked into Russia numerous times already. I can't imagine allies banning Ukraine from countering harassing fire from near-border sites. This seems to be a made-up low probability scenario not really worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:Thanks for the replies. Note that Ukraine can only withhold AGRICULTURAL water. Crimea has plenty of fresh drinking water. They just rely on Ukraine for fresh water for their agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
As I understand it, the US has basically told Ukraine do not attack Russian territory with the weapons they have provided. That's part of the reason they haven't been given ATACMS I think. But what is the policy if Ukraine gets within range of Crimea to start hitting it with things like HIMARS rockets? I think there's a bunch of Russian airbases that would make for some juicy targets there. But would this be a redline for the US? Russia thinks of Crimeas as it's own territory but the US and most of the western world still thinks of it as Ukrainian territory so the I'm not sure what the policy would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:As I understand it, the US has basically told Ukraine do not attack Russian territory with the weapons they have provided. That's part of the reason they haven't been given ATACMS I think. But what is the policy if Ukraine gets within range of Crimea to start hitting it with things like HIMARS rockets? I think there's a bunch of Russian airbases that would make for some juicy targets there. But would this be a redline for the US? The naval drones for the attack on Sevastapol were (allegedly) supplied by the US, they didn't bat an eye at Ukraine's blowing up the Kerch bridge, or the destruction of Saky airbase in Crimea. So either they are telling Ukraine to stop it in private and Ukraine is ignoring them, or they are okay with Ukraine attacking Crimea. (then again there was no public rebuke of Ukraine even when they did the incursions into Belgorod either, so it's possible that mainland Russia is an okay target too from the US POV)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
Tehdas posted:The naval drones for the attack on Sevastapol were (allegedly) supplied by the US, they didn't bat an eye at Ukraine's blowing up the Kerch bridge, or the destruction of Saky airbase in Crimea. The official US position is that Crimea is Ukraine, not Russia, so that doesn't count. And the Belgorod attack was with (I'm pretty sure) Ukrainian armaments (helicopters and I assume missiles too), not US-supplied
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
piL posted:
I think Ukraine will be in a decent position for such negotiations compared to the Minsk accords, even if they're done from the same territorial conditions. Minsk was negotiated with the assumption that Russia could at any point escalate and send everything they've got into Ukraine, whereas now that has been shown not to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
The giddiness that the Russian state press announces in official passive voice the headline "Explosions were heard across Odessa" is truly sickening. They don't even take responsibility, excitement is supposed to simply be aroused by the very notion of these explosions being heard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:Thanks for the replies. Securing fresh water for Crimea was nowhere in the declared goals of the invasion - even if we stick to the economic-expansionist reasoning to it (which I don't believe, I think it is purely a war for the sake of it with geopolitical goals in mind, i.e. flex in the face of the West) land route across the southern coast (Russia-Mariupol-Berdyansk-Melitopol-Crimea) is more important and Russia still controls it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:22
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:Thanks for the replies. I think you’ve got that entirely backwards, if you think the core motivation of this war is any economic gains, and not almost exclusively rote arrogance and pride. The reasons Russia “has” to hold on to Crimea are mainly Putin wanting his legacy to be “the dude who [kinda] brought USSR back”, with just a dash of using Sevastopol’ as a military harbour. “Water supply for Crimea” or “gas fields in Donetsk” all feel like attempts to rationalise this war like a generic American pillaging raid #873 on a Middle Eastern country, and were a fringe interpretation even before Putin made all his speeches about Russian Lebensraum. The reason why you don’t see that discussion here, in case that’s what you meant, is that this is a current events thread. Charliegrs posted:As I understand it, the US has basically told Ukraine do not attack Russian territory with the weapons they have provided. That's part of the reason they haven't been given ATACMS I think. But what is the policy if Ukraine gets within range of Crimea to start hitting it with things like HIMARS rockets? I think there's a bunch of Russian airbases that would make for some juicy targets there. But would this be a redline for the US? Russia thinks of Crimeas as it's own territory but the US and most of the western world still thinks of it as Ukrainian territory so the I'm not sure what the policy would be. Clancychat. Also, please open a map. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1593082574561488896
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
Ok?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 09:57
|
|
|
As opposed to multiple times this year when it was confirmed that backchannels exist and work as intended. Jeet Heer and other people who were traumatized from watching Dr Strangelove should stick to american internal politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
It's self-explanatory. During these kinds of tensions, the Pentagon needs to be able to contact their peers in Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:03
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:As opposed to multiple times this year when it was confirmed that backchannels exist and work as intended. It didn't work when it mattered. If it only works 80% of the time then it could fail at the worst time and lead to a catastrophic war. I think the government should be looking into what happened and whether or not it even can be fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:16
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:It didn't work when it mattered. If it only works 80% of the time then it could fail at the worst time and lead to a catastrophic war. I think the government should be looking into what happened and whether or not it even can be fixed. This situation showed that people who matter and make decisions have better judgement and patience than twitter users
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
fatherboxx posted:This situation showed that people who matter and make decisions have better judgement and patience than twitter users Wait really? You mean my sources were wrong to say that article 5, for attacking Poland, was being considered for Ukraine. I was pro-life and took no pleasure in reporting this. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:30
|
|