• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎

View: https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1780431574137294958


View: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1780421334113120670

66b91667661d96cf924875502f34aca0.gif
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎

in addition to this ↑


View: https://twitter.com/VladLupan/status/1780295555438051614


View: https://twitter.com/VladLupan/status/1780343487277211959

As a Govt negotiator on Russian troops withdrawal (and 2 Transnistrian conflict commissions) I witnessed Russians use of lies in talks about their troop numbers, even when we knew they were briefed. Therefore taking Russian statements at face value always presents a problem.
Even in a jointly negotiated environment there can be discrepancies, since parts of multilateral negotiations are actually & initially bilateral. We had a case when Russian diplomats agreed with us to continue negotiations but misinformed the West that an agreement was reached. In that case some Western govts were concerned about getting to any agreement on conflict resolution & suspected that WE're unrealistic when we signaled Russian use of misinformation during negotiations & pressured us. Knowledge of prior practices matter in negotiations.

So, when Moscow wanted to stall negotiations & blame others for it, it would submit unacceptable draft changes, then in a multi-track negotiations environment with different information supplied to each party, it'd use confusion for deniability & lay blame on others/target.
Now add to why the sources authors used (in a war negotiations environment) may not all be bona fide - in negotiations, public interviews serve as messaging channels to domestic public or the other side. Otherwise why give interviews about confidential negotiations!? Btw, the "domestic public" is usually enlisted for war negotiations to strengthen one side point - the Russians themselves referred to the 'will of donbass people' for quite a while to push their interests. Did we believe such Kremlin statements? I think not.

Speaking of the domestic public, Ukraine is not an autocratic state like Russia & its leadership decisions need to consider popular reaction - remember that in 2014 Ukrainians ousted their President as he accepted Russia request to stop free visa & trade (jobs) talks with EU. So, to negotiate a deal with Russia in 2022, Zelensky still needed public support. It wasn't there &he could've ended worse than Yanukovich. He needed to prepare Ukrainians for a deal. While messages abt negotiations were spread, there were no signals of an IMPLEMENTABLE deal
Now, let's have a look at the unspecified claim "Others have dismissed the significance of the talks ENTIRELY, claiming that the parties were merely going through the motions & buying time for battlefield realignments or that the draft agreements were unserious."

In fact, initially Zelensky immediately called for talks, but Putin declined & then, when Russia didn't "take Ukraine in 3days" Ru became more "flexible". That is a proof that talks were attempted, but the conflict dynamics didn't favor negotiations. Historically we have seen such examples even when one of the most important international relations events took place - Mazarin attempted to stall negotiations ahead of the Westphalia Treaty negotiations in hope from "profiting from military success".
The tactics of mimicking negotiations by stalling them with unacceptable proposals for potential gains (revolutions in Central Europe) is something that the nascent Soviet Union has done in Brest Litovsk. Stalling negotiations & opening when losing (to avoid losing gains) isn't a good faith negotiation. If you've done peace negotiations, then you know that a ceasefire is a major prerequisite for peace talks => No ceasefire in Ukraine 2022 first half...

The fact that Russia turned towards a ceasefire only when it started losing invaded Ukraine territory only strengthens the above point - the indicators are that the 2022 peace negotiations seem to have been tactical stalling
Remember how the 1st invasion of Ukraine happened in 2014. During that President Putin denied Russia's involvement. Then denied he'll invade in 2022 and then invaded again. Consider "good faith" negotiations in Feb-May 2022 against such a background. From prior negotiations with Russia I observed that Putin entrusted actual breakthrough agreements to close trustworthy figures: in case of my country it was ex-GRU Head of Putin's administration Dmitri Kozak, not some ex-culture minister Medinski...

Content: an important indicator that Ukraine faced Russia alone in negotiations (talks were bilateral, no USA, as I suggested) is that Kyiv included US as a guarantor for a future treaty, an impossible provision that US would have rejected, if it was there...
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎

View: https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1780295412731015581

Institute for the Study of War

The current US debate about providing additional military assistance to Ukraine is based in part on the assumption that the war will remain stalemated regardless of US actions. That assumption is false. The Russians are breaking out of positional warfare


on top on that
"Our public line is all about Israel's right to defend itself," said one senior European official. "But internally, there is a growing tension about support for Israel versus Ukraine.

"The Middle East is going to be volatile forever. But if Ukraine loses to Russia, that would be a step change for Europe and Nato. Where do our strategic priorities really lie?"


View: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1780477143719289306

Ukraine's air defences late last year were intercepting almost all of Russia's aerial assaults, which use weaponry similar to that deployed by Iran at the weekend. But those defences have since been depleted by a constant stream of enemy missiles, and last week Ukraine succeeded in stopping less than two-thirds of a massive salvo that destroyed Kyiv's biggest power plant.

archive.ph

Ukraine’s air defence struggle shows risks to Israel

archived 17 Apr 2024 04:29:45 UTC
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎

View: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1780479854627979557

www.bbc.co.uk

Russia's meat grinder soldiers - 50,000 confirmed dead

In the second 12 months on the front line the body count was nearly 25% higher than in the first year.

_133162514_newnewranks_weekly_deaths_area_simple_with_civilians-nc.png.webp

_133157826_russian_deaths_before_after_2x640-nc.png.webp


oof
We found that, under Wagner, those former prisoners had survived for an average of three months.

However, as the graph above suggests, those recruited later by the defence ministry only lived for an average of two months.
compared to putin, prigozhin was "humanist"

_133162506_anewweeks_of_service_facet_vertical-nc.png.webp
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
One should realize that Putin believes in the world he is talking about. He truly believes that the whole world is against Russia He also believes in his mission to restore a proper world order which never existed in reality. This new order should not only consist of destroying Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, not only of restoring the empire, whether Soviet or Russian, but also of weakening the West in every possible way.

At the same time, he is surrounded by people who do not just agree with him for pragmatic reasons, but partly believe in it too. They consider the West cowardly and ineffective compared to Russia. This is partly the result of inadequate sanctions from the West, which has led not to a split in the elites, but their rallying around Putin.
www.themoscowtimes.com

The Self-Obsession at the Heart of Putin’s Wartime Psychology - The Moscow Times

Opinion | If Vladimir Putin was just a military pensioner playing dominoes and not the president of Russia, his inner world would be important only to his relatives, whom he would pester with his historical insights.

Putin is stronger than one might think. He is prepared for his subjects to die and live in poverty at rates no Western leader could tolerate. Furthermore, he can make whatever decision he wants because there is no parliament, court, or free press to hold him accountable.
Of course, he realizes that the combined military and economic potential of NATO is dramatically greater than Russia's. But he counts on the mental weakness of the West, that this potential will never be used beyond symbolic gestures, that in extreme cases the "strange war" of 1939 will be repeated.

Dictatorships are much better at consolidating their strength quickly than democracies. But, as the history of World War II shows, when democracies realize they are facing a deadly threat, everything changes. And with Churchill's words, democracies will fight until victory, and at the cost of enormous sacrifices.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎

View: https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1780485136527524108

iz.ru

Системный блок: еще четыре крупных банка Китая перестали принимать юани из РФ

Почему кредитные организации КНР отказываются работать с Россией и как сейчас можно проводить расчеты
The situation with payments from Russia to China deteriorated sharply at the end of March.
 

Darkstorne

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,838
England

View: https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1780295412731015581


View: https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1780295421371224262

Institute for the Study of War

The current US debate about providing additional military assistance to Ukraine is based in part on the assumption that the war will remain stalemated regardless of US actions. That assumption is false. The Russians are breaking out of positional warfare

This is batshit insane. They're all briefed on this, right? There are military officials telling the politicians that if they don't stop shitting the bed like this then Ukraine will have a far higher chance of being conquered by Russia, leading to a colossal power shift where the defence of NATO and the baltics are concerned, and history will record American political inaction as the primary factor behind this shift in the war that Russia was able to capitalise on?

I'm just really struggling to wrap my head around what's going on here, and why we're genuinely looking at around HALF A YEAR of American political incompetence on such an important issue of global security. I really don't understand how that's possible, and how they aren't all hanging their heads in shame. This is such a massive own goal, and like the slowest most preventable one I've ever seen in my lifetime, so it's agonising to watch. I feel so bad for Ukrainians right now, because if I'm feeling like this from the UK then their shock and disbelief must be unimaginable.
 

GrantDaNasty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,009

View: https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1780485136527524108

iz.ru

Системный блок: еще четыре крупных банка Китая перестали принимать юани из РФ

Почему кредитные организации КНР отказываются работать с Россией и как сейчас можно проводить расчеты


China can either gain soft power by working with the West, or hope that sticking with Russia will allow them to project force.

They can't do both so it'll be interesting to see if the CCP just starts taking money under the table because no business will want to sully their hands in an official manner, the U.S will sanction them to high hell.
 

Pankratous

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,277
www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine war: Deadly Russian missile strikes hit Chernihiv north of Kyiv

Five people have been killed after three missiles hit near the centre of Chernihiv, officials say.

A Russian missile attack has killed and wounded civilians in the city of Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, according to its regional leader.

Vyacheslav Chaus said three missiles had struck close to the centre of the city and emergency services were at the scene.

The acting mayor said at least five people had been killed in the attack.

The attack came hours after reports of a Ukrainian attack on a Russian military airfield in occupied Crimea.
 

Tomasoares

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,563
This is batshit insane. They're all briefed on this, right? There are military officials telling the politicians that if they don't stop shitting the bed like this then Ukraine will have a far higher chance of being conquered by Russia, leading to a colossal power shift where the defence of NATO and the baltics are concerned, and history will record American political inaction as the primary factor behind this shift in the war that Russia was able to capitalise on?

I'm just really struggling to wrap my head around what's going on here, and why we're genuinely looking at around HALF A YEAR of American political incompetence on such an important issue of global security. I really don't understand how that's possible, and how they aren't all hanging their heads in shame. This is such a massive own goal, and like the slowest most preventable one I've ever seen in my lifetime, so it's agonising to watch. I feel so bad for Ukrainians right now, because if I'm feeling like this from the UK then their shock and disbelief must be unimaginable.

Yep, also shows a huge weakness in US stance regarding geopolitics which probably was determinant for Iran massive attack against Israel. (and will influence China's future actions as well). EU's slowpoke stance regarding the war isn't helping any bit as well.
 

Zip

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,028
China is no doubt watching everything going on. If Russia can beat the U.S. and its clear interests by having even just a small group of utterly corrupt traitorous politicians in american government, we'll see if support for China to 'do whatever it wants' suddenly starts popping up...

Utterly disgraceful failure ongoing by the U.S.
 

Pankratous

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,277

Tomasoares

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,563
What about the scenario where Putin says OK, we'll stop the war, but we're holding on to the "annexed" areas and Crimea?

I can't see Ukraine stopping in that scenario. Maybe pausing whilst they get their shit together.

I don't think Ukraine has much choice tbh.
I really, really, doubt Ukraine will ever recover any considerable portion of the taken territory.
 

BlackLagoon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,767
What about the scenario where Putin says OK, we'll stop the war, but we're holding on to the "annexed" areas and Crimea?
I can only see that happening if we get to a point where Ukraine is starting to make gains and the Russian army is struggling to stop them. It would be a play to try to get the international community to stop them.

I don't think Ukraine has much choice tbh.
I really, really, doubt Ukraine will ever recover any considerable portion of the taken territory.
It's very hard to accurately predict how this war will develop. You could see a future where modernized F-16s shut down most of Russia's air support, and an ample supply of CAESARs and shells eviscerates Russia's offensive potential. Meanwhile Russia mostly runs out of modern, or even Cold War era, equipment, and all those mobilized troops are stuck with ancient, short range artillery and "golf carts". You should never assume that the current situation is forever. It's swung significantly to either side before, and it can do so again.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,129
It's very hard to accurately predict how this war will develop. You could see a future where modernized F-16s shut down most of Russia's air support, and an ample supply of CAESARs and shells eviscerates Russia's offensive potential. Meanwhile Russia mostly runs out of modern, or even Cold War era, equipment, and all those mobilized troops are stuck with ancient, short range artillery and "golf carts". You should never assume that the current situation is forever. It's swung significantly to either side before, and it can do so again.

There are certainly a lot of ways it can go. The same pinch points still exist as before if Ukraine can go on the attack again. But it'll require a lot of support to get there. I'd sooner expect to see Crimea fall than the cities over on the Russian border in Donbass. They have much shorter supply lines for Russia and can't be isolated like Crimea theoretically can.

The long term dream scenarios involve upgrading to a truly high tech air force to attain air superiority. Or of course, if they want to get it out of the way, actual direct western involvement would certainly speed up victory substantially.

Heck, let's start getting Nighthawks out of cold storage. They kept some around in operational condition!

But you have to walk before you can run. And that means unfucking the American aid situation while gearing up European industries just in case this nonsense happens again.
 

Machado

A friend is worth more than a million Venezuelan$
Member
Oct 26, 2017
473
Sorry for the dumb question but what does holding mean? I see it often in tweets.

Thanks in advance
 

AquaRegia

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,683
Sorry for the dumb question but what does holding mean? I see it often in tweets.

Thanks in advance
I assume it's a joke about troops "holding position" against an enemy attack, except that instead of defending against a direct assault as is usual for such phrases, it's being used for rear areas that shouldn't be reachable at all (if Russian military superiority were to be believed).
 

maabus1999

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,994
I assume it's a joke about troops "holding position" against an enemy attack, except that instead of defending against a direct assault as is usual for such phrases, it's being used for rear areas that shouldn't be reachable at all (if Russian military superiority were to be believed).
Correct plus they add the idea that the Russians are "holding" (hugging) each other as well as part of the meme.

Personally I miss "What Air Defense Doing?" more...
 

Mr Swine

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
6,046
Sweden
I feel that Russia and China will somehow time an invasion on Baltics (Russia) and Taiwan (China). EU and US will have their budget, weapons and more spread thin with no way to counter
 

BlackLagoon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,767
Sorry for the dumb question but what does holding mean? I see it often in tweets.
It's sarcasm by the pro-Ukrainian IgorGirkin Twitter account, generally means Ukrainians have attacked the place mentioned. It comes from overly optimistic assessments from pro-Russian accounts of Russian forces "holding" out against Ukrainian advances earlier in the war.
 

maabus1999

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,994
I feel that Russia and China will somehow time an invasion on Baltics (Russia) and Taiwan (China). EU and US will have their budget, weapons and more spread thin with no way to counter
Russia has no way to stop EU/NATO airpower, so no.

And Taiwan is an island scenario where air and naval assets would be key, which haven't been touched by this conflict.

So no. Next.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,469
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
Some people got tired of waiting for help from authorities and built a small "dam" to protect their homes


View: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1779983523119550826

And how do you think authorities responded on that?

Right. They started threaten residents of Orenburg with criminal proceedings ↓

www.moscowtimes.ru

«Этим должны заниматься профессионалы». Чиновники пригрозили жителям Оренбургской области уголовным делом за спасение своих домов от наводнения - Русская служба The Moscow Times

Самостоятельную защиту жителями своих домов в Оренбургской области от наводнения не оценили местные власти и Госдума.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,412
I feel that Russia and China will somehow time an invasion on Baltics (Russia) and Taiwan (China). EU and US will have their budget, weapons and more spread thin with no way to counter

The US could swat down Russia with air power alone, and it's generally agreed that it would only take 2-3 carrier groups to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (and that's assuming the US holds back and performs zero strikes against the Chinese mainland, which makes things harder for the US, but prevents escalation).
 

maabus1999

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,994
The US could swat down Russia with air power alone, and it's generally agreed that it would only take 2-3 carrier groups to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (and that's assuming the US holds back and performs zero strikes against the Chinese mainland, which makes things harder for the US, but prevents escalation).
I think people also seem to forget how powerful US submarines would be in this situation.
 

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
10,716
It is nice to hear what the US could all do,
but here we are in year 2 of a full on attack on Ukraine and International law.

Personally i don't believe Russia will attack Nato, but i'm not sure if the US will go full in for Taiwan.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,412
It is nice to hear what the US could all do,
but here we are in year 2 of a full on attack on Ukraine and International law.

Personally i don't believe Russia will attack Nato, but i'm not sure if the US will go full in for Taiwan.

The political decision to involve the US military is an entirely separate matter, like you say. But there should be no question that if it chose to do so, the US could take on both Russia and China at the same time in these specific scenarios. However, there has never really been a hot conventional war between nuclear powers (which is a good thing) because of the possibility of continued escalation to the US of nuclear weapons. So it's entirely possible the US would choose not to intervene against China if it moved on Taiwan. This is also the reason why China hasn't moved on Taiwan, because it doesn't want to engage with the US.
 

Reckheim

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,391
It is nice to hear what the US could all do,
but here we are in year 2 of a full on attack on Ukraine and International law.

Personally i don't believe Russia will attack Nato, but i'm not sure if the US will go full in for Taiwan.
If two nuclear capable powers are engaging each other in direct combat then things have gone very south.

I can see USA giving Taiwan the same type of support they gave to Ukraine but that's about it.