Russia - threadbanned users in OP

You realise that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was ultimately partitioned between Russia and Ukraine?

There was more than a name change. The USSR collapsed as a political entity. Ukraine was a constutient member state of the USSR.

Ah relax, so the Pershings and Tomahawks were scheduled to be planted there. I was 6 at the time so can’t remember if they made it before being withdrawn.

Of course. But this happens just as often with information presented in support of a positive angle for Ukraine. It's simply that everyone is generally happy to give those posts a free pass.

There's a big difference between posters who register here simply to troll anti-Ukrainian messaging and those who are happy to put information from both sides of the fence out there to be discussed.

Looked at another way, if the few posters who occasionally share links with what can be described as 'bad news for Ukraine' content were to disappear from here, virtually none of the remaining posters who put out very good information/ updates from the Ukrainian perspective would bother testing the opposite narrative.

You've a higher regard for the ability of random internet posters to undertake legitimate fact-checking exercises.

I've no doubt whatsoever that right now in Moscow there's a discussion taking place on an internet forum where some Russian poster who shares news from Ukrainian sources is getting slated and 'fact checked'.

What I see most of the time on here is not genuine fact checking but personal attacks on posters, full of childish put-downs.

As I said previously (and it's not dangerously naive), just counter any false info with evidence to the contrary and let the rest of us interpret it.

If I come across a report which suggests bad news for Ukraine, how far should I go in 'researching' it before putting it up here for discussion?

In most cases they have multiple systems but there's a well documented lack of missles for the multiple other systems they use ,it depends on where the Gepards( guns) are in relation to the attacks too ,

How far to go? If it was tweet, just read a few of the comments. The cargo 300 crap was explained in the comments on the tweet and also clarified by the original tweeter where he said a couple died, not 300.

As for reports, the general consensus is just look at the other reports the site in question made. If the website refers to Nazi's in Ukraine, Russia fighting NATO troops in Ukraine and various tripe like that, i'd hope you can figure that out.

I honestly don't think he will, I think most of the bluster is around the idea of Putin attacking a NATO state is just pushing up arms sales, and defence spending, which is great for a handful of companies in the EU and US

Ukraine's mobile AA teams use a combination of German Gepards and various manpads. With the mobile teams they were responsible for about 45% of all drones that were downed, the rest would have been downed by the larger fixed AA systems. The problem is Ukraine is so large and Russia have been flying drones and missiles on looping paths trying to evade Ukraine's air defense. Taking one night's poor results (43% success rate) and assuming it's solely because of conserving missiles is a bit of a stretch. You can look through previous months and see sometimes a higher amount of drones get through:

20th September 2023: 16/30 shot down (53%)

26th September 2023: 26/38 shot down (68%)

While other days they would have a much higher success rate.

It's impossible to say if it's down to reserving AA missiles without knowing where all the drones were attacking:

I highly doubt Ukraine has fixed AA systems that close to the Russian border.

The video was made this week. In the scenario that he describes, the Russian objective would be to trigger disunity in NATO in a manner that would lead to its collapse.

In your scenario where either Finland or Poland had to confront Russia on their territory "on their own", NATO would have failed to invoke Article 5, and the Russian objective would already have been achieved.

this webpage lead me to lose a couple of hours of reading.

every link leads onto stuff I really didn't know.

and then I moved on to Manchuria, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin.

Russians are some shower of....

In the above scenario, where Putin tests NATO resolve as you have described, and based on the concept that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, I'd say that NATO would hit him with everything they have. They well know by now that anything less than a full-scale counterattack, destroying Russian forces, will only trigger a bigger response from Putin. Bottom line is " If Putin try's it on with Nato, he will be destroyed 100%." no half measures. his first attempt will be his last, and it has to be like this.

This is what is needed 100%.

Couple interesting things happening:

Sky News report today Quoting UAF heads that Russias offensive is ' fizziling out'

Guardian article claiming Zelensky asked Zaluzhny to step aside but he refused.

Nonsense

It is quite unreal that the main reason the Russians can carry on their own invasion...at their own chosen time and place...is because they have begged Iran/NK for weapons and ammo.

 Its equally easy to forget, despite some disappointments, how amazing it is that here we are, nearly 2 years down the line and the Ukrainians are holding firm and causing massive casualties on all things Russian. Imagine it if the Republicans hasn't stalled on support as they have at the moment. The Russians would be in real trouble.

What an opportunity missed to damage the Russian imperialist state.