Ukraine

[Agema]

Russia has defaulted on its foreign debt, says S&P

I'm not an expert on the economy but this is really bad for them, isn't it.

It's a kind of technical default, more superficial than substantial.

Being unable to pay off your debts because you have no money is really bad. Being unable to pay off debts because the transaction is impeded by external factors despite having the money and being willing to hand it over is unlikely to cause serious long-term repercussions. It just means creditors have to wait a while.

Non-payment could raise the possibility of seizing Russian government assets in other countries in lieu - although this would require lengthy court cases (and we all know how long they can take) so I suspect few will bother, they'll just wait for a political resolution.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Russian state media has explicitly stated that Ukrainian neutrality is unacceptable to them.

I'd admonish you not to take Russian propaganda at face value like a total rube, but if you're in that business I suppose I should ask what did "they" actually say precisely? And who precisely is "them"?

So your definition of "negotiating peace" is Ukraine capitulating and giving Russia everything they want? I doubt the US would kill people if they got everything they wanted.

Have you seen how the United States treats its own population?

That's nonsensical.

No, not really. Not for the kind of regime the United States operates under.

You're totally wrong. The only reason why a settlement without total takeover is even on the table is because Ukraine fought back and resisted. Russia wanted to take Ukraine in its entirety, why else did they invade from every direction?

Because they have at least a minimal understanding of how to fight a war against a conventional military after 1914..? ... "Generals"?

It's because such a victory has become impossible they decided to redirect their efforts on the East.

They're directing their efforts to the east because the east is where a large portion of Ukraine's military is threatened with encirclement... and that threat of encirclement occurred because Russia attacked "from every direction".

It's quite clear the more Ukraine resists the less they will have to give in for peace. So the longer it lasts the best it is for Ukraine independence. Obviously a long war is not desirable but Putin has made it clear only military resistance matters in negotiations.

None of that is at all clear.

To add to this: Russian soldiers have been quite open to people in occupied towns that their instructions were to take Kyiv.

This is basically meaningless, as this is precisely what you'd want your soldiers to say if their goal was to make Ukraine expend resources defending Kiev. Also, trying to take an enemy capital is hardly an indication of any particular war aim or other.

Russian state media has been extolling the need to destroy the Ukrainian state in entirety.

You've learned Russian and have been watching non-stop to get a good grasp of all the various things they're saying, I'm sure.

The only reason their aims have shifted to Donbas alone is because of continued resistance beyond Russian expectation.

Totally incidental that the east is where much of the Ukrainian military remains in a vulnerable salient.

 

[Agema]

Because they have at least a minimal understanding of how to fight a war against a conventional military after 1914..?

Depends on strategy, really.

They're directing their efforts to the east because the east is where a large portion of Ukraine's military is threatened with encirclement... and that threat of encirclement occurred because Russia attacked "from every direction".

Well, no.

Clearly Russia's initial intent was to seize key cities, particularly Kyiv. A lightning strike that successfully decapitated the country by crippling the government (even if the leadership escapes, the bureaucracy to run the state is wrecked) could be enough to end the war quickly. After that, controlling major population centres cripples the economic, political and military power of the opposing state, even if it continues fighting: all those potential recruits now under control, the (military) industry that tends to be around cities, and so on.

Invading from all directions is inconsistent with encirclement of the Donbas as primary aim, as it's diluting appropriate concentration of force - never mind that the primary thrust was at Kyiv. Had the intent been to encircle Ukrainian forces in Donbas, it would only require two main thrusts: one Crimea/Azov heading northeast and one around Kharkiv heading south. The redirection to Donbas is a clear sign that the initial Russian strategy failed.

 

[Lykosia]

According to unconfirmed reports Russia has used chemical weapons (sarin gas) in Mariupol. Which is interesting because Biden promised that NATO will respond to the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd admonish you not to take Russian propaganda at face value like a total rube, but if you're in that business I suppose I should ask what did "they" actually say precisely? And who precisely is "them"?

It's already been provided. I presume you know the wording used by the Russian government. They explicitly and with zero room for interpretation said that Ukrainian neutrality was unacceptable.

So... we should agree to Russian demands, and simultaneously we should consider Russian demands as unrealistic propaganda?

(You point to individual instances of Ukrainians saying anti-Russian stuff while they're being invaded and their relatives murdered as evidence of a deep fascist sentiment, and you simultaneously expect us to dismiss Russian state media calling for the complete destruction of the country of Ukraine. Grotesque hypocritical garbage).

Have you seen how the United States treats its own population?

Whataboutism. I'll just wait until something relevant comes up.

No, not really. Not for the kind of regime the United States operates under.

Still waiting...

Because they have at least a minimal understanding of how to fight a war against a conventional military after 1914..? ... "Generals"?

*checks watch*

 

[Hawki]

Christ, imagine identifying as a socialist, and supporting the least equal society in Europe conquer the most equal society in Europe.

All countries are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Invading from all directions is inconsistent with encirclement of the Donbas as primary aim, as it's diluting appropriate concentration of force

One of the main things about modern war strategy is that this sort of analysis is not that simple.

It's already been provided. I presume you know the wording used by the Russian government.

I do not, nor am I going to bother myself looking for where you supposedly put it. Ukrainian neutrality was the main request before the war began; if it is actually off the table now, that indicates that Russia has made enough progress in subduing Ukraine's ability to make war that they feel emboldened to demand more. Which is precisely what could have been avoided by diplomacy before all this death and destruction.

All countries are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Oh, did Silvanus attack a statement never made and then proceed to edit it out? Progress.

 

[Generals]

Have you seen how the United States treats its own population?

Compared to non western states very well actually. Especially if you compare it to states who you continuously defend like Russia and China.

No, not really. Not for the kind of regime the United States operates under.

Still nonsensical regardless of whatever nonsense you read everyday.

Because they have at least a minimal understanding of how to fight a war against a conventional military after 1914..? ... "Generals"?

Good joke!
The army which every expert agrees has been accumulating failures from day 1 is playing 7d chess? They aren't even capable of giving their troops enough fuel and food and setting up secure communication channels to avoid their generals being picked off by Ukrainian drones and snipers.

No, what happened is obvious to everyone except pro Russian Fascists who just read and repeat Russian propaganda despite having access to real information: Russia tried to capture Ukraine as a whole and depose its government but failed. And that is why troops are now retreating and being forced to move around for days/weeks to get in the eastern fronts. What did Russia gain from digging trenches in the radioactive forests of Chernobyl and retreating from there? What did they gain from occupying suburbs around Kyiv and retreating again? Nothing. And that's because these places weren't the final objectives.

They're directing their efforts to the east because the east is where a large portion of Ukraine's military is threatened with encirclement... and that threat of encirclement occurred because Russia attacked "from every direction".

And they didn't need to go into Chernobyl and towards Kyiv for that. Case in point: they are retreating from there and sending their troops to the East to work on that encirclement. Actual Russian troop movement proves you are full of shit. It's not because Putin's propaganda says it's all going according to plan it actually is... You trust Fascist dictators way too much.

None of that is at all clear.

It is to anyone who doesn't just read and believes Russian propaganda.

 

[Silvanus]

I do not, nor am I going to bother myself looking for where you supposedly put it. Ukrainian neutrality was the main request before the war began; if it is actually off the table now, that indicates that Russia has made enough progress in subduing Ukraine's ability to make war that they feel emboldened to demand more. Which is precisely what could have been avoided by diplomacy before all this death and destruction.

The gullibility is amazing. They never wanted "neutrality" before the war began, and they don't want it now: Ukraine did not act in any way that was feasibly threatening to Russia, and Russia from the very start acted to deceive Ukraine about its intentions (lying about the drills) and then to take Kyiv and dismantle the Ukrainian state. That's what's called a flimsy pretext-- like denazification, or WMDs, these excuses exist to get troops over the border so that the true strategic goals can be pursued.

Putin was open about this when he prattled that ahistorical stuff about how Ukraine shouldn't exist. Russian state media is openly stating neutrality wasn't their aim. What will it take!?

Oh, did Silvanus attack a statement never made and then proceed to edit it out? Progress.

I edited it out because it was crass, not because it was terribly inaccurate or mistaken.

You are supporting the least equal society in Europe as it fights to destroy and annex one of the most financially equal societies in Europe. Much like Russia, your initial stated aims are quite disconnected from the practical end point of what you push for.

 

[Agema]

One of the main things about modern war strategy is that this sort of analysis is not that simple.

I'm sorry, but that is some hot, bullshit waffle.

Actually, yes it is that simple. If the primary intent were to cut off the Donbas forces, Russian forces would have deployed to do that. Instead, the primary strike was aimed mainly at Kyiv with a coup de main led by special forces and a pincer attack from northeast and northwest with the regular army, on which they expended a month and a lot of casualties attempting in vain.

It's not only that, but attempting to sieze Kyiv (and Kharkiv) - which for obvious reasons the Ukrainian army would defend very strongly - would be major operations bogging down a huge proportion of forces in urban siege warfare. It is exactly what a general does NOT want to do if the aim is to isolate extended forces in a pocket, because at minimum it gives those forces all the time in the world to withdraw if things start looking hairy. This is modern military strategy, in the sense that it is eternal military strategy.

So, in order to try to cut off Donbas, they had to withdraw forces from Kiev and completely redeploy. So... they clearly didn't have their troops in the right place to conquer the Donbas, did they? Bearing in mind I have faith that the Russian high command aren't total idiots, the obvious conclusion is that just conquering the Donbas was not the initial aim: conquering the whole of Ukraine was.

 

[Hades]

The whole idea of ''neutrality'' has always been a dog whistle for what Russia really wanted: Ukraine as their puppet state.

Ukraine not being in NATO, not being in the EU and not having ties to the west just means its powerless to refuse orders from Russia. The only thing that separates Ukraine from the Baltics is that it was ''neutral'' and thus easy prey for Russia to prey upon.

 

[EvilRoy]

I do not, nor am I going to bother myself looking for where you supposedly put it.

Then you should stop wasting everyone's time by pretending you know what you're talking about. You are arguing that Russia is involved in extreme tactics that include sacrifice of a huge number of their own soldiers and equipment for the long term goal of taking a completely different section of Ukraine, while simultaneously admitting that you have no idea what Russia's own stated goals and opinions on the war are or how they have changed over time. In essence, you're basically saying "I don't know what they're doing, but it must be genius". If that's all you have to offer then you should probably hang up your "expert politician" hat, your "expert diplomat" hat, and the recently donned "expert general" hat, because it's becoming more and more clear that you're bullshitting.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Trunkage]

I would not be suprised if there is a lot of media who fall under this

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would not be suprised if there is a lot of media who fall under this

It's not exactly a new phenomenon, especially(?) in the United States.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war.

 

[Silvanus]

Finland and Sweden are both set to debate joining NATO within weeks. Swedish media is apparently today reporting that they will join. Support in those countries for joining has almost doubled.

Sweden and Finland make moves to join Nato

Public support for western alliance doubled in both countries after Russia invaded Ukraine, find polls

www.theguardian.com

(Both countries, of course, were publicly threatened by Putin shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. That appears to have colossally backfired, as its become clear now that NATO membership is the surest way of preventing oneself from being invaded).

 

[CM156]

Finland and Sweden are both set to debate joining NATO within weeks. Swedish media is apparently today reporting that they will join. Support in those countries for joining has almost doubled.

Sweden and Finland make moves to join Nato

Public support for western alliance doubled in both countries after Russia invaded Ukraine, find polls

www.theguardian.com

(Both countries, of course, were publicly threatened by Putin shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. That appears to have colossally backfired, as its become clear now that NATO membership is the surest way of preventing oneself from being invaded).

Putin wanted to avoid NATO having more of a border with Russia. And now they get more than 1000 km of it.
You love to see it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, the UK is still a shambles after Brexit, you win some, you lose some.

 

[Hades]

(Both countries, of course, were publicly threatened by Putin shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. That appears to have colossally backfired, as its become clear now that NATO membership is the surest way of preventing oneself from being invaded).

Putin always had a dubious message on that front. On one hand Putin made it clear that he would either try to subjugate or destroy neighboring countries that don't have sufficiant protection, but when countries try to gain themselves some protection he says he's going to try and subjugate and destroy them too.

Any course where Russia's neighbor avoids subjugation or destruction hasn't been mentioned by Putin.