Russia - threadbanned users in OP

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)

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.

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

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.

Who is that quote from?

Here's another defeatist, pro Russian article from that well known arm of Kremlin propaganda, the guardian...

I read that this morning and I actually think it's a good article. So it definitely more depends on the author than the media.

I fully agree. The Wests messaging so far has been weak. And their actions hesitant. For such an existential threat to our entire way of life you'd think we could at least say the right things.

Instead of "We need to support Ukraine as long as it takes" it should be: "We need to support Ukraine until they have won decisively"

Instead of "Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve his goals" it should be: "Vladimir Putin has failed and we must ensure that failure is complete and the man dragged to justice"

Instead of "Ukraine has a right to defend itself against Russian aggression, allowing Russia to win would set a dangerous precedent" it should be: "Russia must be publicly flogged and made an example of. It must be shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that dictators will be face severe consequences if they dare tread on the toes of democracy".

Unfortunately it's very hard to get politicians to say definitive things. They will always duck and dodge and hedge their bets. There's a rally this saturday in dublin just FYI. I know Ireland can't really do much but best make these voices heard.