Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

Seems like we should send them some more fucking Bradleys and M113s.

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[Brisketexan 105580]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

 

I think that rape as a weapon of war is one of the most abhorrent things imaginable.

If Margarita Simonyan was captured and raped by opposing forces.....I'd have a hard time not just shrugging my shoulders and walking away.  She's a vile, evil bitch, who deserves every bit of human suffering imaginable...and unimaginable.

[Rimbo 26438]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think that rape as a weapon of war is one of the most abhorrent things imaginable.

It's neither new nor unusual.

War sucks.

[TexasEd 8146]

5 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

Stinky Pinky

[atomheartbevo 90056]

 

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

I could not imagine letting any of my boys fight in a war, and even if I was 85 yrs old I would be out there trying to protect them.   BAMF father that kid had.  

If the reports are right, he tried to cover his son

Quote

He covered his son with himself, but the Russian weapons still took both of them away - fragments flew into his head... Oleg "Khoma" and Nikita "Tourist", father and son - in the first days of the war, I saw them on Lavrskaya, in the 206th battalion . Then - the South, and then the East. Both died near Bakhmut Rest in peace

 

[atomheartbevo 90056]

You'll never see Shoigu or anybody approaching his level taking a knee in honor of a fallen Russian soldier.  Shoigu probably wouldn't even attend any of their funerals.

[atomheartbevo 90056]

What air defense doing?  Being praised by a former Ukrainian President

Quote

You never see them, but maybe your life is saved by them. These guys are the first to know when enemy aircraft are rising on the other side. They determine where a missile or an enemy plane is flying and know how to make them "fall" earlier.

I am very pleased to be among the real heroes, here in the South. And our main task is to continue strengthening the guys. Today's set: DAF truck, equipment, monitors to better see the targets.

 

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[atomheartbevo 90056]

Switzerland is guaranteeing that a bunch of other countries/defense companies are ramping up production and will be stealing plenty of contracts from Swiss companies in the future.  While I get the neutrality thing, it's like they've decided to kill their defense industry, and they are also safe from countries like Russia because they are surrounded by plenty of countries who provide them a safe buffer.

[KYHorn 17278]

Pretty interesting analysis from Rand on the Russian missile launches.

 

[MissingInAction 25311]

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

[MillerEP 30570]

 

[BamaATL 16593]

12 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

I heard that Bankman-Fried dude has a good plan.  Larry David told me so

[atomheartbevo 90056]

21 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

All the cool kids bury it on their property.

[Pescado_Rojo 19454]

26 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

Cayman Islands

[hookemATL 11979]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

I’m selling all my clocks, chocolate, skis, and Roger Federer dickpics IMMEDIATELY 

[0xdeadbeef 1654]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

 

Does Switzerland have any leverage if some country says Screw you, we're giving the weapons to Ukraine any way.   Besides not sell them any more weapons?  Are the Swiss like John Deere where they have remote kill switches built in? 

 

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19454]

11 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Does Switzerland have any leverage if some country says Screw you, we're giving the weapons to Ukraine any way.   Besides not sell them any more weapons?  Are the Swiss like John Deere where they have remote kill switches built in? 

 

 

Turn over their Nazi grandfather’s safe deposit box’s to the US or the UK?

[Nivek 17043]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

That's it! I'm closing all my Swiss bank accounts!

Where else does one stash gold plunder? Asking for a friend.

Oak Island

[MissingInAction 25311]

26 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Oak Island

Basement of the Alamo?

[Schulz2.0 29042]

Seems like more and more people are disagreeing with the decision not to withdrawal from Bakhmut.

The encirclement is slowly getting tighter.

 

[KYHorn 17278]

Really informative thread on the context for these petitioning videos and what specifics can be gleaned from them. A few highlights, but the whole thread is worth the read 

 

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

[SL Xpress 7518]

11 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Seems like more and more people are disagreeing with the decision not to withdrawal from Bakhmut.

The encirclement is slowly getting tighter.

 

 

Neil Hauer is claiming Syrski is an idiot.

It's my opinion Syrski wanted to keep his job. 

It's my opinion Moskalyov was fired two weeks ago for wanting to withdraw from Bakhmut. 

We'll see how things work out. I always maintained I'd prefer them to withdraw from Bakhmut before the last road out came under pressure (which wasn't even paved). Bakhmut is at a lower height than the western topography. You could have withdrawn to the surrounding hills overlooking the town. I feel like Zelensky didn't want to give up any more territory. 

It's not over, yet. But it doesn't look like it's getting any better, when I keep hoping it will. 

Quantity still has a quality all of its own, even when people say it doesn't. It's not providing Russia a breakthrough, and I firmly believe Ukraine wins this war, but in this particular battle Russia being willing to sacrifice so many men, and constantly use their artillery shell bombardment on squares rather than using reconnaissance to correct their shots, is making slow, deliberate, painful progress. I understand it's not sustainable for Russia in the way it was for the Soviet Union, but if they end up cutting off the UAF forces in Bakhmut that's not going to be much reassurance for them. 

We'll see. Like I said, I keep hoping for a result other than Azovstal or the Donetsk Airport. 

[SL Xpress 7518]

14 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Switzerland is guaranteeing that a bunch of other countries/defense companies are ramping up production and will be stealing plenty of contracts from Swiss companies in the future.  While I get the neutrality thing, it's like they've decided to kill their defense industry, and they are also safe from countries like Russia because they are surrounded by plenty of countries who provide them a safe buffer.

 

It's not like people didn't know what they were getting into when they signed contracts purchasing ammunition and weapons from Swiss defense contractors. This neutrality thing has only been going on for 700+ years. 

And for @0xdeadbeef the issue isn't what Switzerland would do. It's kind of like welshing on a debt agreement. Every country has similar agreements regarding their weapons and ammunition. It's a big problem with the way the EU arms industry is constructed (I'm sure you know, but Switzerland is not actually part of the EU, so this doesn't apply to them per se) as far as this particular conflict is concerned. There are as many as 10 to 14 countries involved with the manufacture of systems and their spare parts/ammo for quite a few of the weapons utilized by NATO countries. All of them have to agree to their re-export. 

If a country chooses to re-export weapons in their possession without permission, they don't just endanger their relationship with that specific country. They risk being ostracized from the system itself, including countries no longer selling weapons/parts/ammo to them any more, as well as other countries sending off weapons/spare parts/ammo as re-exports without gaining permission themselves. It's the system itself that protects Switzerland more than the Swiss's overall importance in the ecosystem. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

The whole “off the books” mobilization would indicate Vlad ain’t too worried about the post-war repercussions of all of this.

[SL Xpress 7518]

6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

The whole “off the books” mobilization would indicate Vlad ain’t too worried about the post-war repercussions of all of this.

This is a holy war for him. He's all in. His stance is Russia can't be great without Ukraine, and Ukraine shouldn't exist in the first place anyway. That's not mind reading. That's exactly what he's said on a continuous basis in word and print since 2014. And Russia being great is necessary for the human race. That's literally what he believes. And I believe Russian fatalism as a chief part of their collective culture is going to allow him to maintain the support he needs right up to the moment he dies. Then we'll see what kind of new disaster unfolds, because it's Russia.

Russian history in a nutshell, "...and then it got worse."

[BamaATL 16593]

A cost benefit analysis says this is a good deal

 

[BamaATL 16593]

In so far as Putin and the domestic issues after the fact, I think he is looking at it sort of like, one problem at a time, and I will deal with that later.  Sort of kicking the can down the road.  But the quote of SL Express is certainly applicable towards Russian history, "and then it got worse" is certainly true and probably should be the subtitle for every book written on Russian history.  

The appeal to the Tsar videos are interesting in that while it is an appeal for help, deep down these troops know that this will be fruitless on that in an immediate basis, but rather for pensions on down the road.  It's sort of an admission, that hey, we know you are going to kill us, here is why it happened.   Sort of a living will for pensioner families after the fact to use as evidence.  

As to Switzerland, I've long felt we ought cut them out as much as possible from the business community for a number of reasons:

The first being that they are obviously a legal cartel that operates certainly in the grey areas of the world and almost certainly in the black market. 

The second being that in addition to being financial facilitators to illegal operations on a global scale, they seem to exert some level of moral superiority over everyone because the are "neutral".  They are neutral, they are bad guy facilitators.  

The third being that they are a clear international tax dodge.  They can afford this in terms of pure volume and because their "neutrality" allows them to avoid paying for things like NATO, which because of their geography they enjoy the benefits of anyway.  

Why would anyone want to do business with their defense contractors, I frankly have no idea.   I wouldn't be but I get it, they have countries blackmailed with finances into not using these weapons beyond how the Swiss see fit.  Interestingly enough, the Swiss themselves may have just killed their own defense industry with these decisions.  Couldn't happen to a nicer group of sophisticated thugs and criminal enablers.  

TLDR, fuck the Swiss, right in the ear.  

[bolverk 29822]

Get a load of these MFers threatening to invade Georgia like they have in Ukraine. Even in their threats, they gaslight, because they already have invaded Georgia.

 

[Nivek 17043]

12 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Seems like more and more people are disagreeing with the decision not to withdrawal from Bakhmut.

The encirclement is slowly getting tighter.

 

In the first image, it looks like there is a bulge (parallel to the lower purple arrow) that Ukraine can exploit as well by cutting off and encircling Russians, or by concentrating a push in the South they could possibly break through and then attack Russians from the rear?  Heck from the North it looks like the push by the Russians exposes another option to get behind them?

Where are the HIMARS and Artillery?   Are they just not using them because of the immoveable residents?

[BamaATL 16593]

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Get a load of these MFers threatening to invade Georgia like they have in Ukraine. Even in their threats, they gaslight, because they already have invaded Georgia.

 

Put me in the camp of Georgian immediate accession into NATO.  Who cares if we piss of Putin and his idiots at this point?  They called down the thunder, lets start giving them a taste.  It's not as if this would be out of nowhere either, there have been vague promises in this regard over the years, now is the time to act.  Start sending a fucking message.  

[Schulz2.0 29042]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

In the first image, it looks like there is a bulge (parallel to the lower purple arrow) that Ukraine can exploit as well by cutting off and encircling Russians, or by concentrating a push in the South they could possibly break through and then attack Russians from the rear?  Heck from the North it looks like the push by the Russians exposes another option to get behind them?

Where are the HIMARS and Artillery?   Are they just not using them because of the immoveable residents?

Read, or listen, to Kofman's report from Bakhmut. The Ukrainians are rationing artillery ammo. The Russians have more. 

[BamaATL 16593]

16 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Read, or listen, to Kofman's report from Bakhmut. The Ukrainians are rationing artillery ammo. The Russians have more. 

I'm hopeful, with no proof mind you, that like the Russians who have to build inventory for a big cruise strikes, that the Ukrainians are doing exactly the same thing with artillery for a massive barrage and elimination of the Wagner forces.  Unfortunately, an act like this will likely end with civilian loss on the Ukrainian side, but the elimination of the Wagner forces would be a big win out of all this.  It would also potentially punch a large hole in the lines with an opportunity to move further into Donestk.  I long felt that Bakhmut would be to a degree a feint with the idea that the real first stage of the counter offensive would be toward Melitopol.  If this is in fact the plan, I hope they blast those assholes to Mars.  

[Pato del Muerto 52884]

Uk is seemingly making an Alamo out of bakhmut, knowingly or not. 
 

and maybe some of the orders predate alliances, but is it or should it be that nato countries buy arms from other nato countries, and EU countries buy from other EU countries?  To alleviate some of the differences of opinion on their allowed usage?

[Bevo 13637]

https://www.grid.news/story/global/2023/02/13/we-asked-russians-how-they-define-victory-in-the-war-in-ukraine-we-got-a-lot-of-different-answers/?utm_source=Quora&utm_medium=Paid&utm_campaign=Quora-Paid-Victory-Meaning

 

We asked Russians how they define ‘victory’ in the war in Ukraine. We got a lot of different answers.

From retaking territory in eastern Ukraine to punishing NATO, Russians have very different ideas of what “victory” should look like.

As we approach the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, both sides insist they will fight to the bitter but victorious end. For the Ukrainians, the meaning of “victory” is clear, but ask Russians to define it, and you get vague and contradictory answers. The stated aims of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” have shifted often, and the mood of the Russian public has as well.

For Ukrainians, this isn’t complicated. “Victory” means the liberation of their country from Russian invaders.

“I can tell you for sure that if they leave our territory, the war will stop,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a late-January interview with Sky News. “That’s all it takes.”

The one point of ambiguity has involved Crimea, the territory Russia annexed in 2014. Recapturing Crimea would mean restoring not just the pre-February 2022 reality but the borders that existed nearly a decade ago. But as the Ukrainians have felt emboldened by their resistance — and hardened by the Russian aggression — the return of Crimea has entered into the definition of “victory.” Certainly this is Zelenskyy’s view: nothing less than a return to the borders set in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

On the Russian side, talk of “victory” is constant.

At a rally to commemorate the (illegal) annexationof Ukrainian territories in September of last year, Putin said, “We have the truth behind us. And in truth is our strength, which means victory. Victory will be ours!” On Dec. 31, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu declared, “Our victory, like the New Year, is inevitable!” “It’s either our victory or World War III” — this was the headline of a video posted by the Kremlin’s propaganda star Margarita Simonyan in January.

But dig deeper and the question arises: What exactly would “victory” look like for Russia? It turns out that the answers depend on where you look — and who you ask.

From the Kremlin, shifting missions

The Russian authorities have struggled from the beginning to define the goals of their war — or what Putin still calls the “special military operation.”

On Feb. 24, 2022, the day of the invasion, Putin said his troops were going in to achieve the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, along with the deliverance of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics from “genocide.” His twin speeches that week — and the columns of tanks that headed for Kyiv — suggested that Russia was aiming to decapitate the Zelenskyy government.

Less than a week later, the goal posts had already shifted. Shoigu declared that the mission was to defend Russia from a NATO invasion. And by the end of March, as the Russian army bogged down along the outskirts of Kyiv, the mission had shrunk. The Ministry of Defense announced that the main aim was the liberation of the Donbas region in the east.

That was just one month of goal-post-shifting, in the history of Putin’s “special operation.”

The pattern has continued. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in April that the war was being fought “to put an end to the reckless expansion and reckless course toward the complete dominance of the United States and other Western countries.” More recently, various Kremlin-backed propagandists have said that “victory” must include an end to Zelenskyy’s rule, a westward pushback of NATO military assets and an end to “Western hegemony.”

So even when you try to ascertain the official Kremlin definition of “victory,” it’s not so easy.

How ordinary Russians define “victory”

I asked several Russian acquaintances what they thought “victory” would look like in Ukraine. I concentrated on people who support the war or know others who do (those who are against the war are less likely to speak, and in any case, “victory” isn’t something they are thinking about). Overall, I was in touch with nearly 100 people — via email, Facebook and other channels.

The answers I received were if anything even more scattered than the Kremlin’s own visions of victory.

One man said victory would come with “the collapse of NATO.” Another said it would be defined by “Ukraine’s refusal to be friends with the West and refusal to develop nuclear weapons.” Another: “Ukraine’s becoming a part of Russia.”

And so it went. Victory meant “the secession of the Donbas,” “bringing to power pro-Russian governments in the West” and “Kyiv’s promise not to persecute Russians.” Perhaps the oddest answer — although given the nature of current Russian propaganda, perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised: “Stop gay propaganda.”

The responses only piqued my interest to dig more deeply. I turned to other sources — including Russian political scientists, journalists and bloggers. My conclusion? The majority of Russians would define “victory” in one of four ways.

Version 1: Keep the newly captured territories and cut off Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea

Many Russians believe victory involves making permanent Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian land — the four regions in the east and south that were illegally claimed by the Kremlin in September 2022.

Parliamentary Duma Deputy Nikolai Novichkov put it this way:

“It is important to stand our ground. We have annexed four regions, all of which must be included in the Russian Federation in their entirety,” Novichkov said in January. He went on to emphasize the importance of taking the Black Sea ports of Odessa and Nikolayev as well. “Victory should be obvious, so no one will dare question it,” he said. “Everyone will understand that the world has changed.”

Many politicians have made similar arguments based on Russia’s historical claims to these places. An anonymous contributor to the anti-Ukraine site Antimaidan put it this way:

“Thus Ukraine will be cut off from the sea, which will significantly weaken its already ruined economy. After that, Ukraine is unlikely to be able to provide serious military resistance to Russia, which will allow us to occupy the Russian regions without bloody battles.”

Another anonymous voice, this one writing under the heading “Reflections of a Couch Analyst” onZen, a major Russian platform for bloggers, threw the eastern city of Kharkiv — Ukraine’s second largest — into the mix.

“This is the maximum task. Kyiv, Lviv, even Poltava are not at all necessary … Russia will have enough. Ukraine will be cut off from the sea as a punishment, the collective West will objectively lose.”

These are all “victories” that would reward the Russian aggression, and at the moment they seem highly unrealistic. But they constitute a relatively humane notion of “victory” — at least compared with the others I heard.

Version 2: Destruction of Ukraine’s statehood

On April 22, 2022, a reporter recorded street conversations with ordinary Muscovites in which she asked: “How will the war end?” The answers were posted on “Lachen pishe,” a popular Ukrainian Telegram channel with an audience of more than 1 million.

Here are some excerpts:

“We need to wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth and that’s it! And then add Poland to the heap.”

“Ukraine will become a secondary state that will not decide anything, and we will take this land for ourselves.”

“It seems to me that we will probably take these poor citizens under our wing. I think that Putin will create better living conditions for them.”

Vadim Kirpichev, author of two books and a number of conspiracy articles and a regular contributor to the “Scientific Answer” channel on the Zen platform, believes that any peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine would be tantamount to defeat for Russia. In his view, “victory” means wiping Ukraine off the map.

“The preservation of Ukraine in any form will lead to constant shelling of the border areas, terrorist attacks and the payment of reparations based on the decisions of international courts,” Kirpichev said. “If we spare Ukraine, there will be an American embassy there. … They will stuff the country with weapons, prepare an army. And Russia will get a war again.”

At the same time, Kirpichev said he doesn’t believe the Kremlin is capable of achieving such a “victory.” In November, he blamed Russian leaders for an “unwillingness to win the war” and said a “change of elites” was needed.

Yuri Apukhtin, an analyst with the online publication Voyennoye Obozreniye, a Russian website that actively supports the war, agreed that the goal must be the elimination of the Kyiv “Russophobic regime” (his words) and the destruction of Ukrainian statehood:

“For Russia, which has declared the goal of the operation to ensure its security, victory lies in unconditional capitulation of Kyiv with the cleansing of the ruling regime.”

If such a “capitulation” isn’t possible, then Apukhtin suggested a compromise: destroy the “Ukronazi regime” and seize enough Ukrainian territory so that the country cannot restore its economic and military potential. At most, Apukhtin said, postwar Ukraine should consist only of its central and western regions, where there will be little industry. At that point, the “West will lose interest in this country and the rest of Ukraine will eventually turn into a Russian-controlled enclave.”

Version 3: Punish the West

For some Russians, even these scenarios — the elimination of Ukrainian statehood and plunder of its land — are not enough; “victory” must include the punishment of the West for helping Ukraine.

On Jan. 15, the online world heard from Akhra Avidzba, who was commanding a Russian volunteer unit fighting in eastern Ukraine. Avidzba gave an interview to the Russian propaganda channel Tsargrad-TV in which he said that “for educational purposes,” it would be a good idea for Russia to conquer several European countries.

“I know that for me and my unit, ‘victory’ is a parade in Lviv,” Avidzba said, referring to the largest Ukrainian city in western Ukraine. “But for Russia, which we represent here today, we need to go further. Because the countries that supplied Ukraine with weapons and helped it should also be held accountable. Giving our errant brother a slap on the back of the head and putting him in his place will not punish the others in any way. Therefore, I think it is necessary to bite off something from the Finns, or the Poles.”

The Finns and Poles were likely singled out given both nations’ centuries-old rivalry with Russia; Avidzba didn’t elaborate.

For Tsargrad TV, such radical and expansionist rhetoric is a staple. The platform has aggressively supported the Kremlin and has waged a long-running campaign against dissidents. (I know this from personal experience; the channel regularly compiles a “list of Russophobes,” and in 2016, I was labeled “a Russophobe and a Jewish TV propagandist.” For the record, I am neither a “Russophobe” nor Jewish nor a “propagandist.”)

But today, you can find this kind of talk on less-hardline media as well. The Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK), until recently a liberal publication, is among many that have changed their tune. Polina Petrusevich, who covers international politics for MK, recently raised the following questions, without apparent irony:

“Should Russia, in case of victory, demand reparations from the European Union, which had supplied Kyiv with lethal weapons?” she asked. “Under what conditions could these requirements be met?”

Version 4: Scaling back expectations

In all these scenarios, reality intrudes. And the longer the war drags on, the more it becomes apparent that some Russians — whatever their views — have begun to realize there may be no quick victory of any kind.

Russian soldiers are suffering heavy casualtiesfighting for slivers of territory in Ukraine. And as the carnage continues, some less ambitious versions of “victory” have begun to surface.

A contributor to Aftershock, a Russian nationalist website, wrote under the nickname KV1 (the KV-1 was a WWII-era Soviet tank) that a total Russian victory is no longer possible. The Russian army cannot occupy Ukraine militarily, he said, adding that it would be expensive to feed “all this ukropopulation” and restore Ukraine’s infrastructure. KV1 also fears that Russia may not be able to cope with the combined forces of the West.

“Compared to NATO, we are already the weaker side,” he said. “And in this situation … for us just to survive, not to lose territory and not to drop the standards of living too much will already be an achievement. Our flag over Brussels and Washington — this clearly cannot happen.”

So KV1 thinks the answer is to force NATO to stop supporting Ukraine. To do so, he said, Russia will need what he described as an “attrition strategy”: On the domestic front, the government must provide for its people and work to ensure that Russians don’t think constantly about the war — thereby avoiding “war fatigue.” As time goes on, he believes the West will suffer knock-on effects of the war and “interest in supporting Ukraine will inevitably fall.”

What matters most: Respect — and fear

One theme runs through all the “victory” scenarios: Russia must have the world’s attention and respect.

This can of course be interpreted in different ways. To some ardent nationalists, the war itself has brought that sort of attention; it has forced the world to follow Russia’s every move and fear what it might do next. Simonyan, the main Kremlin mouthpiece, says often that she is nostalgic for the former might of the USSR and the Russian Empire — and the attention they garnered on the world stage.

Recently, she shared a historical anecdote:

“There is a famous phrase of [Czar] Alexander the Third. Once when he was fishing, he was informed that foreign ambassadors were waiting for him. And he replied that ‘when the Russian Czar is fishing, Europe can wait’. And of course, I dream of just such a country, so that it returns. To make it big, powerful, strong, and, if you like, scary. Because the one who is scary, he can spit and knock you down with one spit.”

That’s a common view in Russia today. Yevgeny Prigozhin, Putin’s former chef and CEO of PMC Wagner, said recently that Russia “should be a great power, not some kind of a regional operator. It should be a country whose word is heard everywhere, even if it is said in a whisper.”

Simonyan and Prigozhin know what buttons to push to rouse and rally the Russian people. For 20 years, the Russians have been told that the U.S. and Europe have humiliated their country, and that most of their problems can be traced to Western-led policies. For all these years, Putin and his entourage have nurtured what you might call a Russian inferiority complex. And so today, most supporters of the war want to restore the greatness of Russia at any cost — hence some of the more outlandish and unrealistic definitions of “victory.”

In small ways, “victory” has already come. The Western press writes about Russia every day; top-tier analysts worry about Putin’s every move. If attention is what Russians are looking for, they are getting plenty of it.

But of course it’s hard to imagine Putin standing before the cameras on the February anniversary of his invasion and saying something like: “We have already won, because the whole world is paying attention to us.” And among the many problems Putin faces — beyond the battlefield — the confusion about “victory” is a significant one. When the people don’t know what their soldiers are fighting for, then “victory” of any kind becomes that much harder to achieve.

Correction

An earlier version of this article misstated the ownership of the Zen platform. This version has been corrected.

Tamara Ivanova contributed reporting. Thanks to Lillian Barkley for copy editing this article.

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

14 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

She has my favorite coverage. I'm glad Rob Lee featured her on his twitter feed.

[BamaATL 16593]

Balls of steel

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by BamaATL

[SL Xpress 7518]

39 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Uk is seemingly making an Alamo out of bakhmut, knowingly or not. 
 

and maybe some of the orders predate alliances, but is it or should it be that nato countries buy arms from other nato countries, and EU countries buy from other EU countries?  To alleviate some of the differences of opinion on their allowed usage?

I don't think that would help anything. At the end of the day you're creating a very collaborative process that could easily involve drastically different opinions on the final usage. Switzerland isn't a part of NATO or the EU. And they're not going to be. Hungary is ruled by a strongman who is being whittled down in what kind of resistance he's willing to put up on Russia's behalf because he's publicly acknowledging there's a limit to how much advantage Russia going to be able to provide in the future. Erdogan is going to do Erdogan things. I long for the days of another Turkish army coup of the kind that used to make Europe nervous but ensured the country stayed secular. 

Thank goodness the Baltic states and Poland are in both organizations, because they're the ones pushing the narrative. But how much is Baltic manufacturing going to contribute to the EU/NATO defense industry? I'm sure it's not zero, but it won't be substantial in any case.

There isn't an easy solution. Not one that's practical. Many of the issues are inherent with having unwieldy political organizations needing an absurd amount of unanimity to do anything. Honestly I thought the EU would fall apart under its own weight long ago, but instead it's proven to be a more robust organization than I ever thought it would be. But there are always going to be issues, and coming to agreement about what should be done regarding the weapons/ammo produced in the region is going to be a part of that. 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

 

[BamaATL 16593]

38 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I don't think that would help anything. At the end of the day you're creating a very collaborative process that could easily involve drastically different opinions on the final usage. Switzerland isn't a part of NATO or the EU. And they're not going to be. Hungary is ruled by a strongman who is being whittled down in what kind of resistance he's willing to put up on Russia's behalf because he's publicly acknowledging there's a limit to how much advantage Russia going to be able to provide in the future. Erdogan is going to do Erdogan things. I long for the days of another Turkish army coup of the kind that used to make Europe nervous but ensured the country stayed secular. 

Thank goodness the Baltic states and Poland are in both organizations, because they're the ones pushing the narrative. But how much is Baltic manufacturing going to contribute to the EU/NATO defense industry? I'm sure it's not zero, but it won't be substantial in any case.

There isn't an easy solution. Not one that's practical. Many of the issues are inherent with having unwieldy political organizations needing an absurd amount of unanimity to do anything. Honestly I thought the EU would fall apart under its own weight long ago, but instead it's proven to be a more robust organization than I ever thought it would be. But there are always going to be issues, and coming to agreement about what should be done regarding the weapons/ammo produced in the region is going to be a part of that. 

This is an incredibly complicated problem to be sure.  Any brief analysis is sure to be over simplified.  In regard to the Swiss, its hard to make deals with people that aren't really your partner, and make no mistake, the Swiss aren't partners with anyone.  In a broad stroke (and believe me this is broad and way oversimplified) the best option is to phase them out of as much as possible.  The Swiss are the way they are because the world has allowed them to be under their bullshit noble notion of neutrality.  You want rid of the problem, stop doing business with them and take the gloves off on allowing them to do business outside of western norms.  

Will this happen, most likely not.  Are there instances where they prove beneficial, yes (say you want to do something clandestine).  Does the good outweigh the bad, absolutely not.  If we want to live in a world with more transparency, which I believe we do, then the Swiss way of doing things has to be snuffed out.  We (the western world) perpetuate their way of doing things simply by continuing on business as usual.