From here on at this forum I think we should call TUCKER CARLSON .. COMRADE CARLSON :D
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?
I guess it will be whatever Putin says it is at the end..
It's conducted by ECFR, nothing to do with the Guardian - it's been widely reported by other media outlets as well.
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..
The same as always with some posters: if they don't like the data it's automatically irrelevant or an outlet for Russian propaganda. So predictable, the same response every single time
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.
@Padre_Pio "What does "Russia wins" even mean?"
It means the west was dragging its ass when Ukraine needed help desperately.
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:
"Shift in sentiment requires EU politicians to focus on defining an acceptable peace"
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.
The West has done a lot - but not enough. And it's certainly not going to start doing more now, 2 years in, when domestic problems are increasing everywhere and right wing parties are winning votes by saying "look, they care more about foreign wars than sorting things out in our country"
For Saint Valentine's Day, Putin sent Trump a jar of hummus: it's made of Russian chick pea.
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)
After all the gloomy articles about Ukraine's weapons supply recently, reassurance that the Russians have problems of their own. Clearly both sides struggling right now
The Guardian has always had a soft spot for russia and they gleefully jump on any news of difficulties Ukraine faces. Half of their writers are closet marxist limp wristed clowns with a chip on their shoulder.
Looks like they got the training ground...........again
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).
Broadly speaking mainstream articles that paint Ukraine in a negative light, in my opinion can be boiled down to 3 types:
No offense intended to you but that article you posted could easily land in the last two categories. Probably both
It seems to me the 155mm artillery shell is in massive demand by Ukraine.
These 155mm shells are supplied by the USA.
The USA are now reducing supply and diverting some supply to Israel.
Question is does Ukraine have an arms manufacturing industry and if so why don’t they produce their own 155 shells?
Also what weapons do Ukraine make themselves if any?
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.
Ok that’s good to know that Ukraine will be producing 155mm shells and not depending as much of the US and (not so much) on the EU.
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 on top of everything else ..
https://twitter.com/FAB87F/status/1760432838896132177
Reuters reports that Iran has sent Russia ballistic missiles for the first time.
More than 400 have been sent since the start of January. They have a range of 700km and carry warheads of 500kg of explosives.
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.
You would think this would make the US perk up and get their **** together.
But then we have Trump…..
History will look back at this time and think what the **** were we doing while this was all happening???
Donald Trump ffs.
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.
Transnistriya alert
Meanwhile, Bosnia direction
It will be about 3 years In to the war before Trump gets in to office and probably another 6 months before he has an impact.
He won't change much, no matter either way that isn't already set in stone by then.
Besides it shouldn't matter who is in Washington, Europe should be able to handle this, it can't though. Nor has it the will to even.
Ukraine is desperately short of artillery, just for holding the line nevermind going on the offensive to boot the Red army out.
Tens of thousands a day will need to be fired in a counter offensive.
European shell production is never going to be enough, nor is there any plan to increase production to levels that reflect need.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
