Russia-Ukraine War (continuing)

”Reported attacks yesterday (Friday/Saturday night) against more targets in Kursk. However these attacks might just have been UAVs, so we need more confirmation.”

https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-108-ukrainian-ranged?

I assume that’s them s400 systems that mysteriously exploded

In a way casualties are better than killed because Russia has to look after all these badly busted soldiers. Very expensive. The dead ones are just left to the rats.

Disingenuous to cite a poll saying a majority in Ukraine don't want to continue the war.

That doesn't mean they want their country dismembered.

If only someone would "liberate" them. Wasn't that Putin's slock?

I'm curious about the way that Biden "authorised the Ukrainians" to use ATACMS against Russian territory. It feels off to say that. One would think the Ukrainian military would be using any weaponry they could use, and have the right to do so, and to hell with "authorisation". There was a post above suggesting that the US control the guidance systems; which makes more sense.

But is it like HIMARS in Israel where the US completely controls and operates these missile systems? What about Storm Shadow and SCALP? The Germans have refused to send Taurus missiles on the grounds that (quote from The Telegraph) it was only possible for Ukraine to use Taurus missiles if "we take joint responsibility for target control". ie: declare war on Russia.

If they do run these systems it seems to imply that the US and UK have just fired on Russia themselves and it's not the Ukrainian military as such. Which doesn't strike me as the most positive development given that for 50 years firing on USSR territory was something to avoid.

Also if Trump considers that Biden, as you say, is attempting to straitjacket him, does he extend that consideration to the UK and France? If so, the UK might rue leaving the EU given the short shrift they'll get from the US in… oh about 8 weeks.

Would it be fair to say that Al Jazeera has (until recently) had a fairly unbiased view when it comes to reporting of the Ukrainian war? I have watched the latest episode of 'The Listening Post' (https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/11/23/1000-days-of-war-and-the-toll-on-ukraines-media) today and kinda shocked by some of the accusations being made within it that go unchallenged.

"Western media have been pivotal in getting us to the point that we are in, partly through the fog of war, partly through ignorance, but partly also through deliberate distortions by leadership in the U.S and elsewhere that has warped our understanding of what is going on. Putin (as horrible as he is) has been open to negotiations but Ukrainian leadership sees negotiation as a type of surrender (that makes sense... on some level, you want to fight until victory) but in reality what that means is that Ukraine has suffered terribly and its future is very bleak".
Branko Marcetic , Jacobin Magazine.

Putin being open to negotiation. Is Branko having a laugh?

And then the episode proceeds to talk about the challenge to independent press freedom in the Ukraine and how Ukrainian authorities are sending such opposition journalists draft notices to send them to the front line in retaliation. That's the first time I've ever heard such an accusation.

Just wondering with your experience I know it's a bit off thread with the discussion in the thread would you reckon just for arguments sake if the US did go back into Afghanistan would the people of Afghanistan fight harder to keep their freedom from the Taliban this time round then what happened or would there still be major support for the Taliban or would there be greater support for America this time round and people would fight harder to keep the Taliban out?

It's my understanding too that its impossible for the Ukrainians to fire these weapons (effectively at least) without US/NATO participation in the targeting, and this is how the US/NATO could enforce rules on Ukrainian usage of them. It was US/NATO personnel providing the targeting data, probably entering it, and then maybe some Ukrainian guy hitting the button after everything was ready. Even for UK/French systems, they would rely on heavy US support to successfully get a hit so the US had a soft veto on those too. The leaks of the German officers talking about missile strikes seems to confirm that - if I recall correctly in that recording they said the UK and French had personnel in Ukraine helping the Ukrainians with targeting.

I've seen an argument that the Ukrainians might, just might, be able to get rough targeting data using drones but that seems really reaching. The recent strikes were led by US officials leaking that permission had been given, so that seems the most probable explanation.

I think it sets a disturbing precedent - its very possible the Russians return the favour by helping militias hostile to the US with hitting US bases in middle eastern countries. Or helping Iran hit israel. Biden has really opened pandora's box. The US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Bill LaPlante, was quoted recently as saying the Houthi's "are getting scary"

"I'm an engineer and a physicist, and I've been around missiles my whole career," he said at the Future of Defense summit in Washington, DC. "What I've seen of what the Houthis have done in the last six months is something that — I'm just shocked."

As for the UK and its handling of Trump, I'm bemused by how stupid they are. Trump already has a reason to be angry with them because Starmer sent UK Labour staff to help the Harris campaign. Which was extremely dumb when the UK absolutely needs a great relationship with the US, who ever is President. The UK does face a massive humiliation if Trump decides enough is enough and cuts investing in Ukraine. They have been extremely hawkish at all times - somewhat rationally given they are in NATO, but not the EU - but they're far too weak to face off against Russia without US support. So if the US ends support of Ukraine, its going to be incredibly humiliating for the UK to also back down. 1956 Suez Crisis humiliating.

I cant honestly answer that question as to a firm timeline.There's too many internal dynamics at play. As I see it, his economy is going downhill at a very fast rate, so he seems to be throwing everything he has at Ukraine it, while he still has the cash to do so. Russian winters are hard, very hard, and in Moscow during the week, there was power outages in a section of the city. So, no power, no lights, no water, no lifts operational in the high-rise apartment buildings..Lots of hardship in other words. The rising inflation, people simply not afford to live, especially the pensioners and the disabled (massive increase in Nrs) The ever-present threat of being called up for military service. Then you have the Silovicki and Oligarchs….they are not happy either, seeing their ill-gotten wealth vanishing in Putins crazy war.Also,Trump will have had his input by next march,and I think that a break point will have been reached by then.

Putin outlined Russia's terms for a ceasefire and negotiations in June 2024. He said that Russia must be allowed to keep all the land it occupies, and be handed all of the provinces that it claims but does not fully control. He also said that Ukraine must officially end its plans to join NATO. Further, he demanded that the international community recognize Russia's annexations and lift their sanctions against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Putin%20outlined%20Russia's%20terms%20for,but%20does%20not%20fully%20control.

LOL Did you actually add that paragraph to Wikipedia? It has no references…

”and be handed control of all the provinces that it claims”

That would include likes of Kherson on the other side of Dnipro instantly ensuring what remains of Ukraine is indefensible

At current rate of advances it would take Russians 10-30 years to gain what they claim

Putin doesn’t have this much time, neither does Russian economy

What will likely happen instead is that Ukraine will demonstrate they can irradiate a good chunk of Russia and that will bring Putin to negotiating table,

For Ukrainians this war is existential for Russians this war of colonial expansion is not

The old vodka trick again….😎

Thanks for that.

Sounds like he's asking the impossible there with his history of breaking agreements. Such an agreement would just see him trying to invade the rest of Ukraine in a few years when he had time to refresh his terrorist forces.

Because it no longer has endless manpower,,the 700'000 + dead / disabled has crippled the economy and the manufacturing / maintenance sections. Out of desperation, Putin has jacked up the salaries of any person who signs a contract with the military, ordinary industry simply cannot compete with the military salarys, even so, he has had to go to N-Korea, where he reportedly got 12'000, prior to that, he had Indian soldiers, until Modi put a stop to that. There were reports of Serbs and Syrians too, but the latest is the Houtis. We will see how long they last.There's been no news of further N-Korean forces coming to Ukraine, and that could be because Biden warned Kim to stop helping Putin, or else.

The pace of Russian gains in Donetsk continues to accelerate according to the latest Deepstate update. Russia will soon reach the border in the west of the province. This is where Ukraine is suffering most and yet they insist on propping up with troops and armour the doomed salient in Kursk. It's hard to understand the logic when the backdoor is being broken in to. The only possible reasoning is that it's too politically difficult to voluntarily withdraw from Kursk.

https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/47.9739852/37.1020814