https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66796358

"Has Ukraine broken through the Dragon's teeth?"

-- No, and they are nowhere near doing so.

"War in Ukraine: Is the counter-offensive making progress?"

-- No, not really

"Ukraine's generals say they have "broken through" Russia's first line of defence in the south".

-- True, that was weeks ago, in a vastly limited number of areas, at huge costs, and progress has ground to a standstill since.

I don't know why the BBC are spinning lack of progress in a click-bait headline asking if they have breached deeper lines of Russia's defences when they have barely breached the first.

The article itself says all this, "these show incursions, not that Ukraine has managed to take control of the area".

True, as the articles says, if Ukraine can push forwards, if they can push through defences, if they can retake land from Russians, if they can push them out, if they can hold that ground, if they can defeat Russia, they can declare victory.

But that's a lot of "if" and it's pure wishful thinking. There's fuck all sign of it happening, fuck all possibility that it will.

"Moscow saw this counter attack coming long ago and has spent months building the world's most formidable layered defences in depth", "Russia has been moving in reinforcements, and Russia could still reverse Ukraine's gains", "We've geolocated a Russian drone video which backs up reports that its elite airborne forces, the VDV, [are] plugging any gaps created by Ukraine's counter-offensive". "Alongside artillery fire, drone strikes and Russian defensive structures - Russian forces are also extensively using electronic warfare measures that aim to impede Ukrainian signals and drone usage".

Which might explain why there's been no progress, why none is expected.

It just more BBC propaganda and bullshit: "Has Ukraine broken through the Dragon's teeth?" - No, you know they haven't, no one has claimed that they have, and it will be a miracle if they ever do.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:36:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66796358
>
> "Has Ukraine broken through the Dragon's teeth?"
>
> -- No, and they are nowhere near doing so.
>
>
> "War in Ukraine: Is the counter-offensive making progress?"
>
> -- No, not really
>
>
> "Ukraine's generals say they have "broken through" Russia's first line
> of defence in the south".
>
> -- True, that was weeks ago, in a vastly limited number of areas, at
> huge costs, and progress has ground to a standstill since.
>
>
> I don't know why the BBC are spinning lack of progress in a click-bait
> headline asking if they have breached deeper lines of Russia's defences
> when they have barely breached the first.
>
> The article itself says all this, "these show incursions, not that
> Ukraine has managed to take control of the area".
>
> True, as the articles says, if Ukraine can push forwards, if they can
> push through defences, if they can retake land from Russians, if they
> can push them out, if they can hold that ground, if they can defeat
> Russia, they can declare victory.
>
> But that's a lot of "if" and it's pure wishful thinking. There's fuck
> all sign of it happening, fuck all possibility that it will.
>
> "Moscow saw this counter attack coming long ago and has spent months
> building the world's most formidable layered defences in depth", "Russia
> has been moving in reinforcements, and Russia could still reverse
> Ukraine's gains", "We've geolocated a Russian drone video which backs up
> reports that its elite airborne forces, the VDV, [are] plugging any gaps
> created by Ukraine's counter-offensive". "Alongside artillery fire,
> drone strikes and Russian defensive structures - Russian forces are also
> extensively using electronic warfare measures that aim to impede
> Ukrainian signals and drone usage".
>
> Which might explain why there's been no progress, why none is expected.
>
> It just more BBC propaganda and bullshit: "Has Ukraine broken through
> the Dragon's teeth?" - No, you know they haven't, no one has claimed
> that they have, and it will be a miracle if they ever do.

Arr, I warrant Ukraine could win but there be many a practical dilemma.

In the first place Ukraine could be swamped with the finest cannon balls
ever to sink a galleon, at the same time risking setting the world ablaze.

The second part would exchange scale for time but that time costs treasure
and Russia may turn out to have as much time as we can buy.

Defeat is a fearful outcome though. Far worse than just 'cutting our
losses' in Ukraine and saving a few dubloons. This battle could signal
the strength or weakness of the Western sphere, not just betwixt ourselves
and Russia but across the seven seas. We have bases and weapons
throughout this region. We've spent half a century readying for battle
with this very foe. If we then are forced to withdraw and allow Ukraine
to be taken what hope is there for others that put their faith in our
strength?

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:00:00 +0000, TWP wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:36:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66796358
>>
>> "Has Ukraine broken through the Dragon's teeth?"
>>
>> -- No, and they are nowhere near doing so.
>>
>>
>> "War in Ukraine: Is the counter-offensive making progress?"
>>
>> -- No, not really
>>
>>
>> "Ukraine's generals say they have "broken through" Russia's first line
>> of defence in the south".
>>
>> -- True, that was weeks ago, in a vastly limited number of areas, at
>> huge costs, and progress has ground to a standstill since.
>>
>>
>> I don't know why the BBC are spinning lack of progress in a click-bait
>> headline asking if they have breached deeper lines of Russia's defences
>> when they have barely breached the first.
>>
>> The article itself says all this, "these show incursions, not that
>> Ukraine has managed to take control of the area".
>>
>> True, as the articles says, if Ukraine can push forwards, if they can
>> push through defences, if they can retake land from Russians, if they
>> can push them out, if they can hold that ground, if they can defeat
>> Russia, they can declare victory.
>>
>> But that's a lot of "if" and it's pure wishful thinking. There's fuck
>> all sign of it happening, fuck all possibility that it will.
>>
>> "Moscow saw this counter attack coming long ago and has spent months
>> building the world's most formidable layered defences in depth",
>> "Russia has been moving in reinforcements, and Russia could still
>> reverse Ukraine's gains", "We've geolocated a Russian drone video which
>> backs up reports that its elite airborne forces, the VDV, [are]
>> plugging any gaps created by Ukraine's counter-offensive". "Alongside
>> artillery fire, drone strikes and Russian defensive structures -
>> Russian forces are also extensively using electronic warfare measures
>> that aim to impede Ukrainian signals and drone usage".
>>
>> Which might explain why there's been no progress, why none is expected.
>>
>> It just more BBC propaganda and bullshit: "Has Ukraine broken through
>> the Dragon's teeth?" - No, you know they haven't, no one has claimed
>> that they have, and it will be a miracle if they ever do.
>
>
> Arr, I warrant Ukraine could win but there be many a practical dilemma.
>
> In the first place Ukraine could be swamped with the finest cannon balls
> ever to sink a galleon, at the same time risking setting the world
> ablaze.
>
> The second part would exchange scale for time but that time costs
> treasure and Russia may turn out to have as much time as we can buy.
>
> Defeat is a fearful outcome though. Far worse than just 'cutting our
> losses' in Ukraine and saving a few dubloons. This battle could signal
> the strength or weakness of the Western sphere, not just betwixt
> ourselves and Russia but across the seven seas. We have bases and
> weapons throughout this region. We've spent half a century readying for
> battle with this very foe. If we then are forced to withdraw and allow
> Ukraine to be taken what hope is there for others that put their faith
> in our strength?

Putin should bargain. He can call anything a victory, we have to not be
seen to have been defeated militarily even by proxy.

They got an arms dealer for a basketball player the last time. Putin
could end up with access to his port, and end to the war and a solid gold
toilet if he plays this right. If he wins what does he get? Years trying
to hang onto a huge country like Ukraine and years of things blowing up in
Moscow every few days?

There is a solution to this situation and maybe everyone can come away
from it a bit wiser rather than extra crispy.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:21:27 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Putin should bargain.

He would be happy to end the conflict if -

1) East Ukraine is recognised as a part of Russia.

2) Crimea likewise.

3) NATO agrees Ukraine won't be granted NATO membership.

4) And agrees not to move NATO troops and weapons into Ukraine.

That's the deal Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy and others have proposed which would end the conflict within 24 hours.

There will be some argument over how much of the south should remain in Russian hands. Given the Dnipro makes for a natural border, making it that would make sense.

It's a myth that Putin wants more than that, a dangerous one when it leaves us no alternative but to fight to the last man, destroy humanity over a patch of wasteland which never wanted to be Ukrainian, which Kiev never controlled.

It is tempting to say all this could have been avoided. But, Nuland, Obama and Biden, were so determined to provoke a war between Russia and Europe they would have found some way or other.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:55:44 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:21:27 GMT TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Putin should bargain.
>
> He would be happy to end the conflict if -
>
> 1) East Ukraine is recognised as a part of Russia.
>
> 2) Crimea likewise.
>
> 3) NATO agrees Ukraine won't be granted NATO membership.
>
> 4) And agrees not to move NATO troops and weapons into Ukraine.
>

If that's all they'll settle for then we might as well get comfy. It's
going to be a long war. Another word for that list is "surrender". If
Trump would impose those conditions on a formerly independent nation - a
nation that his own country recognised as a sovereign state up to now -
just because it's the path of least resistance then he's not the guy I
thought he was. Whatever he comes up with needs to work for everyone or
Ukraine will have just lost its freedom to the US instead of Russia.

>
> That's the deal Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy and others have proposed
> which would end the conflict within 24 hours.
>
> There will be some argument over how much of the south should remain in
> Russian hands. Given the Dnipro makes for a natural border, making it
> that would make sense.
>
> It's a myth that Putin wants more than that, a dangerous one when it
> leaves us no alternative but to fight to the last man, destroy humanity
> over a patch of wasteland which never wanted to be Ukrainian, which Kiev
> never controlled.

Russia is just a car drive away and there's loads and loads of Russia. It
won't be the land that matters so much to Ukraine anyway as the
circumstances of the loss. The fact that something of theirs that was
accepted by the world as theirs has been taken by force and no-one could
or would stop it. I don't see anything being offered in exchange for
these things on the list of terms so that everyone gets something and can
claim not to have been totally defeated - oh yes, the offer is "we'll stop
killing you if you give these things to us". That's some solid
negotiating.

>
> It is tempting to say all this could have been avoided. But, Nuland,
> Obama and Biden, were so determined to provoke a war between Russia and
> Europe they would have found some way or other.

If you were in charge would you only do things that didn't upset or met
with the approval of Russia? Would you never try to pursue your own
advantage?

Isn't that also called 'not being in charge'?

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:13:22 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:55:44 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:21:27 GMT TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Putin should bargain.
> >
> > He would be happy to end the conflict if -
> >
> > 1) East Ukraine is recognised as a part of Russia.
> >
> > 2) Crimea likewise.
> >
> > 3) NATO agrees Ukraine won't be granted NATO membership.
> >
> > 4) And agrees not to move NATO troops and weapons into Ukraine.
> >
>
> If that's all they'll settle for then we might as well get comfy.
> It's going to be a long war. Another word for that list is
> "surrender". If Trump would impose those conditions on a formerly
> independent nation - a nation that his own country recognised as a
> sovereign state up to now - just because it's the path of least
> resistance then he's not the guy I thought he was. Whatever he comes
> up with needs to work for everyone or Ukraine will have just lost its
> freedom to the US instead of Russia.

Ukraine won't have lost her freedom. She will merely have lost some land whose inhabitants never wanted to be a part of Ukraine, and haven't been since 2014.

> > That's the deal Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy and others have proposed
> > which would end the conflict within 24 hours.
> >
> > There will be some argument over how much of the south should
> > remain in Russian hands. Given the Dnipro makes for a natural
> > border, making it that would make sense.
> >
> > It's a myth that Putin wants more than that, a dangerous one when it
> > leaves us no alternative but to fight to the last man, destroy
> > humanity over a patch of wasteland which never wanted to be
> > Ukrainian, which Kiev never controlled.
>
> Russia is just a car drive away and there's loads and loads of
> Russia. It won't be the land that matters so much to Ukraine anyway
> as the circumstances of the loss. The fact that something of theirs
> that was accepted by the world as theirs has been taken by force and
> no-one could or would stop it. I don't see anything being offered in
> exchange for these things on the list of terms so that everyone gets
> something and can claim not to have been totally defeated - oh yes,
> the offer is "we'll stop killing you if you give these things to us".
> That's some solid negotiating.

You seem to have forgotten the Ukrainian war of oppression where fascists in Kiev have been trying to ethnically cleanse the east.

That's what lost Ukraine her right to hold on to those lands, what gave Russia their obligation under international law to enter the east in defence of those peoples.

> > It is tempting to say all this could have been avoided. But, Nuland,
> > Obama and Biden, were so determined to provoke a war between Russia
> > and Europe they would have found some way or other.
>
>
> If you were in charge would you only do things that didn't upset or
> met with the approval of Russia? Would you never try to pursue your
> own advantage?
>
> Isn't that also called 'not being in charge'?

I like to think that if I was in charge I would seek solutions which were equitable and fair.

But if I was seeking to ensure American Supremacy above all else I'd be appluading Obama, Biden, and even more so Nuland, for the win-win-win-win-win-win-win whammy of securing American Supremacy, destroying Russia, destroying Europe, ensuring there will never be any pact between Europe and Russia, ensuring European dependency on America, securing European subservience, lining up China as next in line for a kicking.

Nuland's a fucking genius. She's done all this and has Europeans cheering for their own defeat, begging to be harmed some more. Absolute genius.

What amazes me is that America's rightwing can't see it. They want to kill the goose which is laying those golden eggs. All because its Democrats securing American Supremacy, and they hate Democrats.

I am forced to support Trump, DeSantis, Republicans, America's right, because I don't want to secure American Supremacy either. That's because it's not in my interests. But I can't fathom how that's not in theirs, why they'd reject securing American Supremacy rather than embrace it.

I think they might simply be too stupid to understand how this conflict is working in America's favour.

I guess it's a re-run of not understanding how bank-rolling NATO buys them a huge an loyal coalition of the willing. They only see the cost, can't quantify the benefit, see it as a loss rather than a win.

It's like wanting to have Americans suffer for the sake of not cancelling student loan debt.

Like wanting to have Americans suffer in removing abortion rights.

Like all fascists they are ideologically driven, will harm their own and their country simply because they are ideological zealots.

It's like the Taliban lording it over their worthless shithole of a caliphate. It has nothing, is worth nothing, is worse than nothing, but it's theirs.

TWP wrote:

>
>>
>> It is tempting to say all this could have been avoided. But, Nuland,
>> Obama and Biden, were so determined to provoke a war between Russia and
>> Europe they would have found some way or other.
>
>
> If you were in charge would you only do things that didn't upset or met
> with the approval of Russia? Would you never try to pursue your own
> advantage?
>
> Isn't that also called 'not being in charge'?
>

Don't you remember that dippy once declared himself a "proud communist"
? Of course he is happy to be Putins fawning water boy, he really
doesn't have much other purpose in life other than to fantasize about
being some tyrants mouthpiece.

Its the Chamberlain method of peace, on steroids - A country is attacked
by a brutal dictatorship, and the only thing we must figure out is which
portions of that country must be ceded to the invading thugs to
temporarily appease them.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:38:54 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> TWP wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> It is tempting to say all this could have been avoided. But,
> >> Nuland, Obama and Biden, were so determined to provoke a war
> >> between Russia and Europe they would have found some way or other.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you were in charge would you only do things that didn't upset or
> > met with the approval of Russia? Would you never try to pursue
> > your own advantage?
> >
> > Isn't that also called 'not being in charge'?
> >
>
> Don't you remember that dippy once declared himself a "proud
> communist" ?

"Some kind of proud communist" I believe, or something like that.

> Of course he is happy to be Putins fawning water boy, he
> really doesn't have much other purpose in life other than to
> fantasize about being some tyrants mouthpiece.

Which is hilarious when you played that role until you fell out favour with Putin because he attacked your beloved Nazis in Ukraine. Have tried to convince people Hitler was some kind of good guy.

And I am no more a mouthpiece for Putin than you are with your "JOOlensky" jibes, your insulting his wife as "gash", your wanting to cut American funding for the war.

> Its the Chamberlain method of peace, on steroids - A country is
> attacked by a brutal dictatorship, and the only thing we must figure
> out is which portions of that country must be ceded to the invading
> thugs to temporarily appease them.

It's also the Trump method of peace. The DeSantis method of peace. The MAGA method of peace.

And it's all propaganda dribble when you want to deny Ukraine the funding she needs to avoid being defeated by Putin.

You are not even wanting peace, you are seeking a Putin victory. You are the traitor, the enemy of the people, here.