Thanks for the response. I saw a report the other day on the BBC. A war correspondent embedded with the Ukrainian army accompanied them into a “liberated” town and she (Lyce Doucet?) was approached by a woman and her mother. The daughter wasn’t at all happy to see them and started making disparaging remarks about the Ukranian forces. I did grudgingly think she was very brave in the face of heavily armed soldiers…
The BBC reporter seemed genuinely shocked to hear it and so was I as it isn’t often we see or hear the other side. There is a fog of propoganda as always.
There have been polls done before Mariupol for example when the Russians were in occupation (DPR) the polls showed 98% in favor of the annexation. After they were pushed out an 'independant poll indicated 75% in favor of remaining Ukrainian. (You can google this stuff I did some time ago). Of course Mariupol isn’t Donbass but it gives an indication.
These referendums and polls are dangerous, the ones that favor ‘your’ pov get into your arguements for that view. They tar the situation and the arguements (generally as soon as someone repeats ‘official’ propaganda I walk away as there’s no point arguing with a mindless idiot.
Then again my gut is with Ukraine and that’s about all I have.
sure…98% of 39367 voters (Russians sympathetics) who actually showed up to vote in an invaded country. where the local population exceed 750,000… That’s 2% of the available population to vote.
Maybe. Lyman is surely in operational encirclement now, so will be vacated any day now by the Russians. The longer they wait, the worse the retreat will be in terms of getting targeted as they get the hell out of dodge. I am not so sure this will be the line when the offensive freezes up. I think Ukraine will have grabbed a bit more.
Makes sense. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find out that they didn’t and stayed, though. Reports have suggested that Putin is making military decisions and some have suggested he’s forcing a no retreat policy. Makes no sense but at this point, nothing the Russians do will surprise me.
I need someone to explain the significance of NordStream 2 being destroyed (whoever did it). Seen lots of arguments about why Russia wouldn’t or wouldn’t blow it up, as well as it being an escalation against NATO if they did… But as far as I can tell it’s a completed but never used pipeline for natural gas that - based on the current politics - was unlikely to be used at all in the near future.
I was trying to fathom this yesterday as it just looked petulant.
What I am wondering is if this was intended as a threat to western European countries that they could attack underwater infrastructure whether pipelines or, more importantly, cables.
I’m not sure what the NATO response would be if they did. I would assume that this would be seen as a direct attack on the alliance infrastructure. That could result in a blockade of the Baltic and Mediterranean.I’m assuming that NATO would want to defend rather than escalate but I’m not sure how possible that would be.
Well, the US seems to be the most accurate source of Russia intelligence, thinking on how all their defense was focused for decades against them, it’s not surprising.
Interesting bit on German news. It was suggested that the explosions in Nordstream may have been carried out on the inside using a “robotic pig” (Roboterschwein? I may have misheard that). If that was the case it would account for why NATO forces didn’t detect any activity.
I found an article which quotes the same analyst as saying that the motive may be to avoid fines from Germany although I suspect that is all well out of the window at the moment: