The only variable that can change this conflict’s military-strategic dynamics is a conventional NATO intervention, though that’s fraught with the risk of sparking World War III by miscalculation, but it’s still being seriously considered.
Good job on this one, Mr. Korybko. I believe much of the talk regarding use of frozen Russian assets is also part of public perception management, given the cycle of "it's been agreed" to "we're working on the details" to "there's a problem with the details" to "it's been agreed."
The writer has made up his mind - only full scale NATO intervention can turn the tide of battle for the Ukraine in its war with Russia. That's a clear and unequivocal statement that is highly likely to be WRONG. Russia has shown a consistent pattern of failing to comprehend the reality of Ukraine's resistance and it's own inability to alter the situation through combat. The Russian army is simply not up to the task that Putin assigned it. It is marginally better off than the air force and navy - marginally meaning minimally. Putin did not expect to rouse the ire of just about every living Ukrainian. But, that's what he did and he cannot "take it back". He's toughing out a beatdown that promises to destroy the core of his western army while failing to achieve his policy objectives. I pity the fool who cannot see the forest for the trees.
So, are you saying that there are Ukrainians who are ready to accept Putin's rule over Ukraine? Please give us some evidence - I'd really like to know where you dig up your BS.
In 2010 about half the country voted for pro-Russian party of regions candidate Yanukovich. Post the 2014 US sponsored coup referendums were held in Crimea, and four other oblasts since then. The results are unequivocal. Russian speakers and people of Russian ancestry want no part of Ukraine and their Banderista government.
As for the state of the Russian military, I suggest you read what Andrei Martyanov, Larry Johnson, Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter have to say about it. You might also want to look up Eva Bartlett, Patrick Lancaster, Graham Phillips, and Alina Lipp for more accurate reporting than rags like the Telegram or Time magazine.
Putin lied through his teeth when he stood before the cameras and announced the start of his Special Military Operation. His reasoning was built upon selling the big lie.......that Ukraine has never been more than an extension of Russia and cannot be allowed to follow a separate path from the "Mother Country". But this discussion is not about him, his warped sense of history, or his tendency to prevaricate.
The discussion IS about the extent that Russian military operations have made the Ukrainians into surrender monkeys. My opinion is that for all the horror, devastation, and ferocity - the Russian onslaught has been unsuccessful in turning Ukrainians against Ukraine. You have presented some exceptions - depicting Ukrainian soldiers surrendering or civilians attempting to flee the country. Assuming those examples to be true - it hardly makes the case that there are hordes of Ukrainian soldiers ready to go over to the Russians. NO ONE is running to surrender to the Russians! The instances of Ukrainian soldiers actually surrendering are minor and can be explained as due to the relentless nature of the combat which often exceeds a man's capacity to endure. At the same time many Ukrainians don't want to be a part of Ukraine's brave defense. There's nothing strange about that at all. Part of the reason for this could be explained by the person's ancestry (Ukraine has a large ethnic Russian segment that would naturally resist a war v. Russia). So, your case may be supported by some bits of truth - but that does not make the case compelling for the success of Russian arms. Ukraine made itself ready for war. War came. Russians overran the countryside and threatened to invest Kyiv. Ukrainians drove them away in great slaughter. Nothing has "gone right" for Russia since then. Credit Ukrainian armed forces for having the skill, the will, and the spine to break the Russian assault.
The war is not over and more sacrifice is being asked of the Ukrainian people. I believe that they can meet the challenge and contiue to defend their homeland. What, if anything, do you believe?
I doesn't matter what you or I believe. Arguing about it on the internet won't change the outcome. I gave you several good sources: a former US marine involved in arms control in Iraq, a former CIA analyst, a retired Russian navy officer, a retired US army colonel, a guy who lives in Ukraine and has been reporting from the Donbas since 2014, not from Istanbul or Israel, like the guy who wrote the Telegraph article. Do a search on their names. You'll find them.
The choice is yours. You can be better informed, or you can go on believing the Western narrative. You can even listen to Ukrainian sources who admit they're losing. Here's one from a year ago. Sky News. Not exactly a pro-Russian source.
Notice the vehicle they're using. Not an armoured vehicle, a civilian van. That friend I mentioned actually bought a similar van for his unit because they had no transportation. Mobile infantry with no transportation. That's how bad it is. He also had to buy his own kit which is odd considering the amount of material we've sent them. Someone's making money off this war, of that I'm sure. Same goes for all the weapons we're sending which are turning up in the strangest places - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, even Gaza.
The choice is yours. Broaden your information sources, or believe the western narrative. Like I said, it won't make any difference to the outcome.
None of your so-called "information sources" are worth a hoot! They are all biased, perhaps for different reasons, but biased just the same. The Hindustan Times? Are you kidding me? Along with 2 British TV news shows. You might as well be tuning into Rolling Stone magazine. You're a joke, so are your sources, and don't cry to me if you are too academically challenged to hold up your end of a discussion. I'm finished with you. до побачення!
Now you sound like a petulant child. You can't win an argument so you resort to personal insults. But that's OK. Other people will read this and can benefit from the information I provided so the effort to treat you as an adult wasn't entirely lost.
Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. But you really shouldn't mess with a petulant child. If you want to avoid mud spattered upon you - stay away from the bog!
The wild card in Ukraine is their military. Given their dire situation, a rebellion could well be in the offing, and as we've seen with other military rebellions, it's more often junior officers leading them. Why? Because they have direct control of the firepower and can turn it on their government if conditions become dire enough, and the generals can do nothing to stop it.
I suspect this is Russia's strategy - to push those conditions to the max, such as cutting off the power. Far better a counter-coup with conciliatory aims emerges and settlement talks begin (minus any western input) than to run right up to the Polish border with all that that implies.
This also let's NATO off the hook in that they can blame everything on the corruption and intransigence of the Ukrainian govt. and their fall guy, Green T-shirt Man. That should be good for a few months of TV drama after which it will all be forgotten and it's on to the next 'big thing.'
Nothing like that has happened yet on the Ukrainian side - or, it has been expeditiously suppressed with minimal fuss. No soldiers are fragging their officers or threatening to kill the president.
If you know different - then show your evidence. Otherwise, you sound like a crank.
Those are your sources? The Telegraph and Time? Not exactly impartial observers.
"If you know different - then show your evidence."
I didn't make any claims, I made a speculative prediction based on the evidence at hand. Ukraine is losing badly and their soldiers are surrendering or bugging out in numbers. They haven't turned their guns as yet, but give it time.
A friend of mine who served 6 months on the Ukrainian front lines confirmed what's being reported by surrendering soldiers. Lack of supplies, leadership nowhere to be found. Under constant artillery barrage. He left the country when his tour was up which he could only do because he's the father of 3 children and a volunteer. Not possible anymore.
"Otherwise, you sound like a crank."
Do you insult everyone you disagree with before they have a chance to respond?
Good job on this one, Mr. Korybko. I believe much of the talk regarding use of frozen Russian assets is also part of public perception management, given the cycle of "it's been agreed" to "we're working on the details" to "there's a problem with the details" to "it's been agreed."
The writer has made up his mind - only full scale NATO intervention can turn the tide of battle for the Ukraine in its war with Russia. That's a clear and unequivocal statement that is highly likely to be WRONG. Russia has shown a consistent pattern of failing to comprehend the reality of Ukraine's resistance and it's own inability to alter the situation through combat. The Russian army is simply not up to the task that Putin assigned it. It is marginally better off than the air force and navy - marginally meaning minimally. Putin did not expect to rouse the ire of just about every living Ukrainian. But, that's what he did and he cannot "take it back". He's toughing out a beatdown that promises to destroy the core of his western army while failing to achieve his policy objectives. I pity the fool who cannot see the forest for the trees.
"rouse the ire of just about every living Ukrainian..."
Right there. That exact point. That shows that either you're a paid troll, or a higher level of stoopid.
So, are you saying that there are Ukrainians who are ready to accept Putin's rule over Ukraine? Please give us some evidence - I'd really like to know where you dig up your BS.
"I'd really like to know where you dig up your BS." That's two troll indicators.
"Putin did not expect to rouse the ire of just about every living Ukrainian."
You should probably look at some actual data before making such unfounded claims.
https://images.theconversation.com/files/43080/original/wmm4bgwk-1393921430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3
In 2010 about half the country voted for pro-Russian party of regions candidate Yanukovich. Post the 2014 US sponsored coup referendums were held in Crimea, and four other oblasts since then. The results are unequivocal. Russian speakers and people of Russian ancestry want no part of Ukraine and their Banderista government.
As for the state of the Russian military, I suggest you read what Andrei Martyanov, Larry Johnson, Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter have to say about it. You might also want to look up Eva Bartlett, Patrick Lancaster, Graham Phillips, and Alina Lipp for more accurate reporting than rags like the Telegram or Time magazine.
Putin lied through his teeth when he stood before the cameras and announced the start of his Special Military Operation. His reasoning was built upon selling the big lie.......that Ukraine has never been more than an extension of Russia and cannot be allowed to follow a separate path from the "Mother Country". But this discussion is not about him, his warped sense of history, or his tendency to prevaricate.
The discussion IS about the extent that Russian military operations have made the Ukrainians into surrender monkeys. My opinion is that for all the horror, devastation, and ferocity - the Russian onslaught has been unsuccessful in turning Ukrainians against Ukraine. You have presented some exceptions - depicting Ukrainian soldiers surrendering or civilians attempting to flee the country. Assuming those examples to be true - it hardly makes the case that there are hordes of Ukrainian soldiers ready to go over to the Russians. NO ONE is running to surrender to the Russians! The instances of Ukrainian soldiers actually surrendering are minor and can be explained as due to the relentless nature of the combat which often exceeds a man's capacity to endure. At the same time many Ukrainians don't want to be a part of Ukraine's brave defense. There's nothing strange about that at all. Part of the reason for this could be explained by the person's ancestry (Ukraine has a large ethnic Russian segment that would naturally resist a war v. Russia). So, your case may be supported by some bits of truth - but that does not make the case compelling for the success of Russian arms. Ukraine made itself ready for war. War came. Russians overran the countryside and threatened to invest Kyiv. Ukrainians drove them away in great slaughter. Nothing has "gone right" for Russia since then. Credit Ukrainian armed forces for having the skill, the will, and the spine to break the Russian assault.
The war is not over and more sacrifice is being asked of the Ukrainian people. I believe that they can meet the challenge and contiue to defend their homeland. What, if anything, do you believe?
"What, if anything, do you believe?"
I doesn't matter what you or I believe. Arguing about it on the internet won't change the outcome. I gave you several good sources: a former US marine involved in arms control in Iraq, a former CIA analyst, a retired Russian navy officer, a retired US army colonel, a guy who lives in Ukraine and has been reporting from the Donbas since 2014, not from Istanbul or Israel, like the guy who wrote the Telegraph article. Do a search on their names. You'll find them.
The choice is yours. You can be better informed, or you can go on believing the Western narrative. You can even listen to Ukrainian sources who admit they're losing. Here's one from a year ago. Sky News. Not exactly a pro-Russian source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH2tiIx22u4
Notice the vehicle they're using. Not an armoured vehicle, a civilian van. That friend I mentioned actually bought a similar van for his unit because they had no transportation. Mobile infantry with no transportation. That's how bad it is. He also had to buy his own kit which is odd considering the amount of material we've sent them. Someone's making money off this war, of that I'm sure. Same goes for all the weapons we're sending which are turning up in the strangest places - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, even Gaza.
The choice is yours. Broaden your information sources, or believe the western narrative. Like I said, it won't make any difference to the outcome.
None of your so-called "information sources" are worth a hoot! They are all biased, perhaps for different reasons, but biased just the same. The Hindustan Times? Are you kidding me? Along with 2 British TV news shows. You might as well be tuning into Rolling Stone magazine. You're a joke, so are your sources, and don't cry to me if you are too academically challenged to hold up your end of a discussion. I'm finished with you. до побачення!
Now you sound like a petulant child. You can't win an argument so you resort to personal insults. But that's OK. Other people will read this and can benefit from the information I provided so the effort to treat you as an adult wasn't entirely lost.
Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. But you really shouldn't mess with a petulant child. If you want to avoid mud spattered upon you - stay away from the bog!
The wild card in Ukraine is their military. Given their dire situation, a rebellion could well be in the offing, and as we've seen with other military rebellions, it's more often junior officers leading them. Why? Because they have direct control of the firepower and can turn it on their government if conditions become dire enough, and the generals can do nothing to stop it.
I suspect this is Russia's strategy - to push those conditions to the max, such as cutting off the power. Far better a counter-coup with conciliatory aims emerges and settlement talks begin (minus any western input) than to run right up to the Polish border with all that that implies.
This also let's NATO off the hook in that they can blame everything on the corruption and intransigence of the Ukrainian govt. and their fall guy, Green T-shirt Man. That should be good for a few months of TV drama after which it will all be forgotten and it's on to the next 'big thing.'
There has been mutiny within the ranks of Russian troops: see this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/10/new-russian-army-unit-sent-find-soldiers-lost-chaos-faltering/ and this https://time.com/6290163/wagner-mutiny-russia/ .
Nothing like that has happened yet on the Ukrainian side - or, it has been expeditiously suppressed with minimal fuss. No soldiers are fragging their officers or threatening to kill the president.
If you know different - then show your evidence. Otherwise, you sound like a crank.
Those are your sources? The Telegraph and Time? Not exactly impartial observers.
"If you know different - then show your evidence."
I didn't make any claims, I made a speculative prediction based on the evidence at hand. Ukraine is losing badly and their soldiers are surrendering or bugging out in numbers. They haven't turned their guns as yet, but give it time.
maybe you should cite more independent sources?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjlJoLT1Df0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t70E1tc4p84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIOmuU-NyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXhC8WREVKM
Is this the face of a winning campaign?
A friend of mine who served 6 months on the Ukrainian front lines confirmed what's being reported by surrendering soldiers. Lack of supplies, leadership nowhere to be found. Under constant artillery barrage. He left the country when his tour was up which he could only do because he's the father of 3 children and a volunteer. Not possible anymore.
"Otherwise, you sound like a crank."
Do you insult everyone you disagree with before they have a chance to respond?