putin´s RT wants to " terrorize Ukrainians " I VIDEO

[Donald H]

Here's the numbers game coming from Ritter and Macgregor.

16,000 to 17,000 Russian soldiers dead. Wounded equal of a bit higher.

320,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead and 60,000 missing and can be assumed to be dead. (380,000)
Over 300,000 Ukrainians wounded and unable to return to combat.

These are not my numbers and they don't express any bias on my part. It's all horrendous and tragic!

It's only one report that's claimed to be coming from America's agency responsible, whoever that is?

 

[Litwin]

Here's the numbers game coming from Ritter and Macgregor.

16,000 to 17,000 Russian soldiers dead. Wounded equal of a bit higher.

320,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead and 60,000

only the oriental , primitive mongoloids believe in the own propaganda



Moscow horde´s war record :-

1856 defeated by Britain and France

1905 defeated by Japan

1917 defeated by Germany

1920 defeated by Poland, Finland, Estonia and all Baltic states

1939 defeated by Finland

1969 defeated by China

1989 defeated by Afghanistan

1989 defeated in the Cold War.

1996 defeated by Chechnya

2022 defeated by Ukraine

WW2 won USA/Britain , meanwhile Stalin's officers were shot or sent to the Gulags. Millions went to the Gulags, including Solzhenitsyn

Moscow's only victories come from invading smaller countries :-

a) Hungary 1956

b) Czechoslovakia 1968

c) Moldova 1992

d) Georgia 2008

 

[Litwin]

 

[para bellum]

What I can say about that is the time will show. If there will really be some spring counter-offensive, then I think it should start shortly after the Orthodox Easter.

I am making no predictions, only observing the status of the new AFU formations.

I already expressed my opinion about possible large offensive operations of the AFU some time ago. And about the course of this war as a whole. We are in disagreement about that.

I also have doubts about the AFU's capacity to do division-sized maneuvers, I expressed that concern already.

I think what we are in disagreement over is what happens with a partitioned Ukraine. You can stop resisting, you can try to "freeze" the conflict along the current lines. But that doesn't mean Putin stops trying to take your country. You can negotiate with Putin, I don't think he will honor the deal.

I know what Ukraine sees in NATO. I was trying to get you to ask yourself- what does NATO see in Ukraine? A Ukraine at the 1991 borders restricts the Russian Fleet to the Rostov-to-Sochi coastline, and pushes the warships, missile, and air bases in Crimea back 300km from Turkey and Romania. It nearly doubles the length of Black Sea coastline controlled by NATO member states. For NATO, that's attractive.

A partitioned Ukraine is a rump state, dependent on NATO and Russia for survival, with limited access to the Black Sea (at Russia's pleasure), and without the natural resources of the Donbas. It's not a very attractive prize for NATO.

You can try for your regional security partnership, and your neighbors will probably participate. But they are NATO members, and NATO will not be that keen on another security arrangement in Europe that includes NATO States.

Which vision of Ukraine's future is better for Ukraine?

 

[Silver Cat]

I am making no predictions, only observing the status of the new AFU formations.

I also have doubts about the AFU's capacity to do division-sized maneuvers, I expressed that concern already.

I think what we are in disagreement over is what happens with a partitioned Ukraine. You can stop resisting, you can try to "freeze" the conflict along the current lines. But that doesn't mean Putin stops trying to take your country. You can negotiate with Putin, I don't think he will honor the deal.

I know what Ukraine sees in NATO. I was trying to get you to ask yourself- what does NATO see in Ukraine? A Ukraine at the 1991 borders restricts the Russian Fleet to the Rostov-to-Sochi coastline, and pushes the warships, missile, and air bases in Crimea back 300km from Turkey and Romania. It nearly doubles the length of Black Sea coastline controlled by NATO member states. For NATO, that's attractive.

A partitioned Ukraine is a rump state, dependent on NATO and Russia for survival, with limited access to the Black Sea (at Russia's pleasure), and without the natural resources of the Donbas. It's not a very attractive prize for NATO.

You can try for your regional security partnership, and your neighbors will probably participate. But they are NATO members, and NATO will not be that keen on another security arrangement in Europe that includes NATO States.

Which vision of Ukraine's future is better for Ukraine?

I don't think that both of your options are acceptable for Russia and, therefore, possible. I think, that there are only two possible ways of Ukrainian future:
1) continue fight and eventually became a radioactive desert.
2) surrender and became a group of Russian provinces.

 

[ESay]

I am making no predictions, only observing the status of the new AFU formations.

I also have doubts about the AFU's capacity to do division-sized maneuvers, I expressed that concern already.

I think what we are in disagreement over is what happens with a partitioned Ukraine. You can stop resisting, you can try to "freeze" the conflict along the current lines. But that doesn't mean Putin stops trying to take your country. You can negotiate with Putin, I don't think he will honor the deal.

I know what Ukraine sees in NATO. I was trying to get you to ask yourself- what does NATO see in Ukraine? A Ukraine at the 1991 borders restricts the Russian Fleet to the Rostov-to-Sochi coastline, and pushes the warships, missile, and air bases in Crimea back 300km from Turkey and Romania. It nearly doubles the length of Black Sea coastline controlled by NATO member states. For NATO, that's attractive.

A partitioned Ukraine is a rump state, dependent on NATO and Russia for survival, with limited access to the Black Sea (at Russia's pleasure), and without the natural resources of the Donbas. It's not a very attractive prize for NATO.

You can try for your regional security partnership, and your neighbors will probably participate. But they are NATO members, and NATO will not be that keen on another security arrangement in Europe that includes NATO States.

Which vision of Ukraine's future is better for Ukraine?

We can speculate all day long how it would be great if Ukraine restored its 1991 borders and what advantages NATO would get out of that. But we don't live in a fantasy world and should face the reality.

And reality tells that if you see the 1991 borders as the main goal of this war, then you should ask your representatives to halt any financial and military aid to Ukraine as soon as possible. Because all of that will be in vain.

I don't support any agreements with Russia. Guarantee of Ukraine's existence should be its army, not some agreements with the enemy. And yes, Ukraine doesn't have financial, technological, intellectual means to build this army. It can only be done with cooperation with NATO and its member states.

Whether you as NATO are interested in that or not it is up to you to decide. I have no say in that.

About rump state, btw. Maybe you haven't paid much attention to this part of the world in the last 30 years, so let me inform you that Ukraine became a rump state long before 2022 or even 2014. Thanks to her 'reformers' that minded only their pockets and corrupted governments on and on.

 

[Silver Cat]

We can speculate all day long how it would be great if Ukraine restored its 1991 borders and what advantages NATO would get out of that. But we don't live in a fantasy world and should face the reality.

And reality tells that if you see the 1991 borders as the main goal of this war, then you should ask your representatives to halt any financial and military aid to Ukraine as soon as possible. Because all of that will be in vain.

I don't support any agreements with Russia. Guarantee of Ukraine's existence should be its army, not some agreements with the enemy. And yes, Ukraine doesn't have financial, technological, intellectual means to build this army. It can only be done with cooperation with NATO and its member states.

Whether you as NATO are interested in that or not it is up to you to decide. I have no say in that.

About rump state, btw. Maybe you haven't paid much attention to this part of the world in the last 30 years, so let me inform you that Ukraine became a rump state long before 2022 or even 2014. Thanks to her 'reformers' that minded only their pockets and corrupted governments on and on.

Actually, Ukraine became rump state in 1991, when it lost Great Russia.

 

[para bellum]

ESay

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with any of that.

What Ukraine looks like after the war depends on how expensive the war can be made for Putin.

And that in turn will affect any NATO status for Ukraine. That's just the way it is. Ukraine is getting help from the West because Ukrainians showed the will to fight for their country.

 

[ESay]

ESay

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with any of that.

What Ukraine looks like after the war depends on how expensive the war can be made for Putin.

And that in turn will affect any NATO status for Ukraine. That's just the way it is. Ukraine is getting help from the West because Ukrainians showed the will to fight for their country.

It is already expensive for him. But of course it won't lead to Russia's collapse. Especially given that such countries as China and India are happy to have deals with Russia at affordable price.

Ukraine won't become a NATO member in any foreseeable future. It is a given. Though, some security pact, without direct involvement and troops on the ground, is quite possible.

The West's support also has more practical dimension. It is quite convenient to have some buffer zone between its rival with strictly anti-Russian government that will serve as some form of a lightning rod.

 

[Silver Cat]

ESay

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with any of that.

What Ukraine looks like after the war depends on how expensive the war can be made for Putin.

And how expensive is the possible peace, of course. If the price of peace is forced ukrainisation, discrimination or genocide of 20 millions of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians - the price of 10 millions killed Russians will be acceptable. If the price of peace is possibility of the US middle-range missiles settled in Ukraine - the price of 50 millions of killed Russians is acceptable.

 

[Silver Cat]

It is already expensive for him. But of course it won't lead to Russia's collapse. Especially given that such countries as China and India are happy to have deals with Russia at affordable price.

Yes. The question is how expensive could be the peace? What can Ukraine suggest for, say, end of discrimination of its own citizens?

The West's support also has more practical dimension. It is quite convenient to have some buffer zone between its rival with strictly anti-Russian government that will serve as some form of a lightning rod.

Do you mean conception of "The Wild Steppe"? And how expensive it could be for Ukrainians (or NATO)?
And what is more important - the deterrence in the age of ICBMs should not be based on few areas of scorched land. The USA don't need Ukraine to deter Russia and/or China. We need ICBMs, we need submarines, we need bombers.

 

[ESay]

Yes. The question is how expensive could be the peace? What can Ukraine suggest for, say, end of discrimination of its own citizens?

Ukrainian will be the only official language in Ukraine, the ROC and its affiliated structures will be forbidden, and all political parties and mass media with any connection to Russia will be forbidden also.

Do you mean conception of "The Wild Steppe"? And how expensive it could be for Ukrainians (or NATO)?

Expensive. Efficient army is an expensive thing.

And what is more important - the deterrence in the age of ICBMs should not be based on few areas of scorched land. The USA don't need Ukraine to deter Russia and/or China. We need ICBMs, we need submarines, we need bombers

Sure, dude. That is why your regime is going to put tactical nukes in Belarus.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ukrainian will be the only official language in Ukraine, the ROC and its affiliated structures will be forbidden, and all political parties and mass media with any connection to Russia will be forbidden also.

That means that there will be no peace between Russia and modern Ukraine. Therefore there will be war until the fall of Kiev or Moscow and the end of Ukraine or Russia.

Expensive. Efficient army is an expensive thing.

And do you really believe that anybody will give you that money and resources just to allow bunch of Neo-Nazies discriminate and genocide local Russians?

Sure, dude. That is why your regime is going to put tactical nukes in Belarus.

This is Deterrence Type III - ability to fight and win a Limited Nuclear War. Something, necesserity of what Biden's administration totally ignore and actively denie.

 

[Litwin]

That means that there will be no peace between Russia and modern Ukraine. Therefore there will be war until the fall of Kiev or Moscow and the end of Ukraine or Russia.

And do you really believe that anybody will give you that money and resources just to allow bunch of Neo-Nazies discriminate and genocide local Russians?


This is Deterrence Type III - ability to fight and win a Limited Nuclear War. Something, necesserity of what Biden's administration totally ignore and actively denie.

SORRY IVAN, I AM WITH BAD NEWS ...

BREAKING : Putin´s crew put on trail ULTRA IMPERIALISTS (TURBO - PATRIOTS ) for "discrediting the Moscow army" !

AS I PREDICTED , 1917 N2 BREAKING : Putin´s crew put on trail ULTRA IMPERIALISTS (TURBO - PATRIOTS ) for "discrediting the Moscow army" ! Yuriy Yevich who is going on trial for "discrediting the Moscow army". Pretty sure he was part of the "Angry Patriots Club" created by Girkin. The...

www.usmessageboard.com

ANY COMMENT ?

 

[Silver Cat]

SORRY IVAN, I AM WITH BAD NEWS ...

BREAKING : Putin´s crew put on trail ULTRA IMPERIALISTS (TURBO - PATRIOTS ) for "discrediting the Moscow army" !

AS I PREDICTED , 1917 N2 BREAKING : Putin´s crew put on trail ULTRA IMPERIALISTS (TURBO - PATRIOTS ) for "discrediting the Moscow army" ! Yuriy Yevich who is going on trial for "discrediting the Moscow army". Pretty sure he was part of the "Angry Patriots Club" created by Girkin. The...

www.usmessageboard.com

ANY COMMENT ?

When you are a public person, and when your incomes depends on épatage it may be difficult to keep yourself within the bounds of decency. You may be pro-Putin, an ultra-patriot or a liberal anti-Russian, but the law is same for all. If you spread desinformation - you'll be punished.

 

[ESay]

And do you really believe that anybody will give you that money and resources just to allow bunch of Neo-Nazies discriminate and genocide local Russians?

The only one who is genociding Russians in Ukraine is your oppressing regime with a scorched land tactic in Donbas.

This is Deterrence Type III - ability to fight and win a Limited Nuclear War. Something, necesserity of what Biden's administration totally ignore and actively denie

Eh? So, now Ukraine is important in this Deterrence Type stuff?

That means that there will be no peace between Russia and modern Ukraine. Therefore there will be war until the fall of Kiev or Moscow and the end of Ukraine or Russia

Of course there won't peace in a broad sense.

 

[Litwin]

you'll be punished.

 

[Silver Cat]

The only one who is genociding Russians in Ukraine is your oppressing regime with a scorched land tactic in Donbas.

So, no objections about usage of the term "discrimination"? It depends on your (or Russian) definition of the term "genocide". "Forced ukrainisation" is a form of cultural genocide, you know.

Eh? So, now Ukraine is important in this Deterrence Type stuff?

No. It could be useful for Deterrence Type II (the Credible First Strike capability), it could be useful for Deterrence Type III (Limited Nuclear War capability). But, to have place for the weapon is not enough. First of all, we need this nuclear weapon and nowadays the USA don't have tactical weapon but gravity bombs (which are obsolete and useless against Russia). Second - to play deterrence, we need a safe place for this weapon. Ukraine is not a safe place anymore. No one sober US stategist can even think about sending tactical nukes in Ukraine. Third - before achieving Deterrence Type II and Type III we need to restore Deterrence Type I capability, which means Absolutely Reliable Capability of Unacceptable Retaliation Damage, which we don't have, too.
Send modern nukes in Ukraine (or, may be, even in Poland), and the Russians will prefer immediately attack the USA rather than wait until the USA will be ready to attack them.

Of course there won't peace in a broad sense.

There will be peace in the case of decisive victory of one side. And this side definitely won't be Ukraine.

 

[Toro]

Wagner decapitated a POW and circulated the video.

And the Russian animals want to be part of the civilized world.

 

[Toro]