Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Polls like this as so ambiguous they mean nothing.

What does "Russia wins" even mean?

They keep what they have?

They take more land?

They take over the entirety of Ukraine?

Putin is pushing everything to maximise gains in Ukraine at the moment. USA aid suspended, Hamas revolt in Mis East, Trump on the rise and the circumventing of sanctions (7 times exports to countries bordering Russia!). I would say he is behind these events to an extent also the constant propaganda fed to the Western media that the situation is hopeless for Ukraine. Hanging on and striking Russia's oil is the priority for now unitl aid restarts..

It's actually not that ambiguous if you just read the article. It's pretty clear the options are: Ukraine gets back all land or Russia keeps its current stolen territory and/or gains even more. I think the vast majority of people would consider the latter a Russian "victory" of sorts, they couldn't care less about twitter jokes about 3-day wars.

I could dig through each question on each of these mainstream articles as I've done multiple times before to show how you can get any statistic you like if you frame the question or the answers the right way. And indeed I was just about to drill into the charts until I scrolled back up and read:

This is a very slyly written suggestion that is completely unsupported by the article. Even if (and I don't) you take the alarmist "less than 10% believe in Ukrainian victory" at face value.

It is essentially "Ukraine should negotiate with Putin and give away territory" Kremlin propaganda but heavily paraphrased.

So you're saying the Kremlin basically has one of their "team" working at the guardian and slyly promoting the Russian agenda?

I think that's a bit paranoid. The author is very clearly condemning Russia throughout and also says any deal would have to be favourable to Kyiv (quite what form is another matter)

Of course i'll preface this by saying that of course there's plenty of bad news for Ukraine at the moment. Plenty. But that doesn't mean that alarmist articles or ones that are clearly sympathetic to Russia should be listened to.

It's not all that hard to believe the Kremlin has it's claws in western media honestly. Hell they've seemingly got a former president and a current US Congress speaker in their pocket, along with at least a few representatives. A recent example I can think of to make a point:https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/. This is Time magazine. However the author is a known Russian sympathizer Simon Shushter. There have been other examples. Time f*cking magazine for Christ sakes!

Take the article that you posted. The entire thrust of the article and its headline says: "Less than 10% of europeans believe Ukraine can win". Look into the article and you'll see that they base this entire premise on the question: "Can Ukraine win the war militarily?" Now on the face of it that may seem reasonable. But dig even a little and you'll see how this is a complete false equivalence and the question doesn't support the answer(ie the title).

• Ukraine doesn't even need to win militarily to "win". It could just as easily happen that Russian society implodes and the whole Russian army turns tail. In this scenario Ukraine wouldn't even need to lift a finger.
• Boil down the question more: Do the answers mean that people don't think Ukraine can win with military might alone? Do people think that Ukraine will have to kill every russian soldier and clear every trench the whole way to Crimea to call it a win(even i don't think this is possible and I'm as pro-Ukranian as one gets)? If there was a simple follow on question which dove into this more then we'd know. But we don't because they didn't ask or didn't report it.

Broadly speaking mainstream articles that paint Ukraine in a negative light, in my opinion can be boiled down to 3 types:

• Truthful
• Pro-Kremlin garbage
• Alarmist and misrepresentative if the data.

No offense intended to you but that article you posted could easily land in the last two categories. Probably both

The USA was supplying Ukraine with normal 155mm shells and also the cluster versions. Israel never received and never would receive the cluster munitions.

So if funding is approved again, there's nothing stopping the USA sending the cluster ones right away. I believe the US has only supplied Israel with about 60k shells since Oct 7. In comparison they have supplied Ukraine with 2 million since Russia invaded.

Ukraine already produce 122mm and are planning on mass producing 155mm shells this year. They have already been field testing them. I've no idea on the quantity it can produce. I'm sure they won't be advertising the figure.

Ukraine will never out produce Russia, so they will still need to rely on the US and Europe. I wouldn't dismiss Europe yet, most countries in Europe who produce shells are ramping up.

As I mentioned the US supplied Ukraine with 2 million shells, the UK 300k, Germany 50k. France supplied 24k, Denmark 19k, Norway 10k. These are all outside of the 500k separate EU procurement process.

And to make it worse, they can be safely launched from within Russia without fear of them being attacked by western supplied munitions. Probably waiting for the 2 year anniversary to use them.

What it all boils down to is that as far as Putin is concerned, they are all expendable, no exceptions!!! Just a question of circumstances.

Meanwhile, Bosnia direction