Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The Ukrainian Army in their briefing this morning talked about ongoing battles in 3 villages well beyond Popasna. It's not a virtual offensive.

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/22-may-at-bakhmut-direction-with-the-help-of-artillery-russian

A lot. Both sides are suffering huge losses, Ukrainians primarily civilians but military too. As we settle into a bloody war of attrition the question seems to be who loses the most and is ready to compromise. A shocking waste of life all because of one vile scumbag in the Kremlin

Czech firestarter https://twitter.com/BlaszczykArtur/status/1528313085311721472?s=20&t=GFlJOCaKz8f0ixXkpeQRpw

The only thing I worry about Ukraine is in the long run is will countries as such just get get bored if this conflict drags on. I mean stop giving as much weapons and support to Ukraine say if there ends up been a recession or the likes. Does time more favour Russia in this regard if this drags on a few years or will countries still give the same military and financial support to Ukraine say if this dragged on another year or 2. More can countries keep up this amount of spending to help Ukraine or will there come a point if this does drag on that its outta site outta mind. Just look at the war in Syria on the news at the beginning it was all over the news stations 1st stories for ages and now hardly anything. Ukraine is still tons in the news but definitely not the top stories as much anymore. If the longer this drags on will it suit Russia more I wonder.?

the encirclement of the Ukrainian army is entering its darkest hours

A lot of the weapons that NATO has are specifically for these kind of threats, while the media might get distracted, the governments and armies of NATO won't and will keep the supplies coming for as long as needed as their usage is exactly what they were built for (even if it wasn't expected they'd be used in the hands of Ukrainians).

NATO also keeps ratcheting up the complexity and effectiveness of the equipment being supplied which is good to see as it leaves Russia with very little to complain about as their "special operation" drags on.

I think many countries, both Russia's longstanding adversaries and those under threat, are fully committed to a Ukrainian win for short, medium, and long-term reasons. This is a pivotal time for the World, and it seems obvious that a much depleted Russian military would make it a safer place.

A simultaneous loss of contentious territories at this point may be welcome as it would flag the end of an empire and force them to see themselves in a more realistic light - a big country. Once the schoolyard bully is on the ground, there may be a queue of those, with long memories, eager to get the boot in.

Yes I think this is a very real risk, however Russia also doesn't have an infinite supply of soldiers and equipment unless they force all men into the army and that brings other risks. So it's hard to know who a long war favours/harms more. Unfortunately it looks like we are going to find out

IMO I think that the following is what the RU invasion is all about:-

Overall, Putin/Ru leadership wants to create as much social cum financial hardship;confusion; mis information; conflict , etc , as it can throughout the world as it can on an ongoing basis and AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. It does not really matter which side wins in any conflict, in elections, in negotiations or wherever as long as it creates decision, conflict , suspicion, etc, etc.

• the overall objective is to weaken the ‘opposition’ as he sees it
• Putin pounces when an opportunity presents itself - he having set it up beforehand by putting ‘ his supporters’into the area . Eg Donbas, part of Georgia, part of Transnistra, Chrimea.
• As an aside the last time ‘ RUSSIA/USSR lost or gained ‘ soverign land’ or under threat - WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN PUTINS BIG AND ONLY ISSUE- is in 1991 when the USSR unilaterally. Decided to split up into 14 ‘independant ‘ states. Russia has not been attacked since Putin came to power or since then . BUT he has GAINED land as described above. And in addition to that RUssia is in ‘ control of a number ox ex states eg Belaruse
• - iMO, Putin is not too pushed if he eventually has to vacate Ukraine - including Crimea. Why? Because:-
• (q) he will have substantially lLEVELLED a significant part of UKR. Including significant infrastructure re steel mil , port facilities , roads , railways, etc, etc, etc. and the cost of rebuilding all of that and the strain that will put on international finances
• (b) the number of deaths and the way that they were carried out and the psychological effect that will have.
• (c) the actual experience of the war and especially on those trying to survive in bomb shelters And the psychological effect that will have
• (d) the whole refugee situation and the cost / disruption that will have on host nations and on Ukr.
• (E)the international issue with regards to the possibility of famine in up to 20 countries and the extra financial cost to some of them
• (f) the disruption of international trade and the extra cost of same

And , well and good if he successfully annex’s part of UKR that he has levelled , in addition to the above, he can leave it ‘ grow weeds ‘ for all he cares , . He will put in his army and populate with Kremlin supporting civilians - and probably financially enticed ones

so the idea of Putin blaming The expansion of NATO for all of this is ABSOLUTE NONSENCE.

pits all about exercising a certain type of power ie. Authoritianism and resetting the clock back to the USSR era. As he said recently the greatest geopolitical mistake made on an international level by any country ever was the break up of the USSR

I wonder what’s their thinking? IMO, it is sticking out by the proverbial mile what Germany and France are at. Given their stance since feb 24 They will be first out of the traps to get back to business as usual with RU. 46241. And they will get very favourable terms . I hope the US has the total opposite point of view.

Given the points I made in post no46241 above Russia MUST BE NEUTERED so that it can never threaten any soverign state again in any shape or form. But let it do what it wants to within its own boundaries. Neutering would also include putting an end to cyber attacks. George Orwell would agree with this - based on his last utterances and NHS’s 1984 novel

I would disagree that the invasion has damaged the EU. Yes, there has been a difference in emphasis in reactions between Germany and France and other nations to the invasion, but it is far from a schism and there haven't been big public rows over it. Saying that it has led to big divisions in the EU would be hugely overstating the issue - apparently recent emergency EU summits on Ukraine went off reasonably well and without major rancour.

Russia has not changed that much, it is a softer and much more open society than under Communism but that's not saying much.