So from a military pov it is right to invade an independent country?

Russia invaded a foreign country and got trashed and continues to be thrashed.

Do you know what freedom is and what is the difference here? I'll still say it to be sure you know:

1. If you join EU or NATO you can always get out (surprisingly most don't do that).
2. If you join neoUSSR (call it however you like) then there ist only one way to get out - as "Gruz 200".

See the difference?

"is right" in this context is a moral question. Morals have no place in public affairs (though of course morals may inform any given individual's position), be they domestic or international.

Countries don't have friends. They have allies with common interests, or opponents and enemies with diverging ones.

@Excad
"always" isn't entirely true, restrictions apply, IIRC you can't leave Nato for 10 (or 20) years after joining. Thereafter it is indeed a simple matter of declaring exit.

Russian social media this evening is full of claims of major Russian forces collapse in Kherson Oblast, sounds too good to be true so is probably not true.

The following is a Russian-produced map of what is possibly happening.
The red square shows the location of Kreshchenovka

Everybody helps with what they can. Marton posted some data about aid in weapons and it reveals only the disclosed one.

There's also humanitarian aid, private and from the government, which will never make it to stats and frankly who cares, people who helped Ukrainians by risking their lives and transporting food and medicines from neighbouring countries on a daily basis don't need to show up in statistics. If they publish anything about what they do in Ukraine is only to gather funds. These things don't make the news either.
Or what we donated and contributed privately, especially those who have relatives in Ukraine. I was a bit amused when OH told me that his Ukrainian colleagues said something along the line of "you in the West do things like that".. (we are the "West", that's something new)

Could you please elaborate on why did they had to do that (i.e. invade Ukraine)? Other than the self-obvious goal of stealing someone else's land?

The fact that their president is asking for it, rather than someone else walking over them (as Russia does) is pretty much a sign of self-determination. Or is it self-determination but only if they make the choice that you want?

If the goal was losing influence on Silk Road Stan countries and the region between the Caspian and Black sea, it has been a great military success.

Ukraine is just becoming a smokescreen for overall Russian decline. Influence is being lost without a single shot in other Russian borders.

The official (alleged) goal was to protect Russian ethnics from Donetsk and Luhansk from "persecution" but what we could see later was that the frontline moved further away from these regions and last week they declared they annexed Kherson and Zaporizhzhia both very strategical points from where they can easily attack other places...

Apparently locals from Zaporizhzhia don't want to be "liberated"...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63076950
(my heart will melt if I see one more picture of toddlers with big, trustful eyes in their mother's arms, running from conflict zones..)

Does it still matter what was told back then about the goals of this "special operation"......

Later edit: Isn't it weird that "liberated" people feel like there's a genocide going on in their country? From the same source I posted earlier

Maybe this was the goal, after all? Maybe people like Liobov are right...

Only a Swiss person could write that.

You are totally wrong.

There are morals in public affairs. Invading another country can be morally wrong. Joining forces to repel that invasion can be the morally right thing to do.

Countries can learn from their mistakes. Doing nothing every time gives you absolutely no rights.

Is there any clarity on what territory exactly the Russians claim they have annexed? It looks like Peskov doesn't know and there "accession treaties" don't say either.

I read somewhere Putin will hold discussions to determine the boundaries; no clarity on who, what, where.

I agree. Plan A was for a lightning decapitation attack. Maybe had they reached Kyiv and got Zelenskyy and installed a puppet regime, things would have been different.

However, they were so over-confident of the success of Plan A, that they didn't have any contingencies. No plan B, no reserves, not even enough supplies to last the few days they thought it would take for the local population to welcome their liberators with open arms.

Then they pivoted and withdrew from the north to focus on Donbass. A wise move after the failed lightening strike, but it came a bit too late. Now they have limited mobilization which again is too little too late. UA started full mobilization immediately and they had a shakey start on both training and equipment, but they have now had months to get things running. With training camps overseas, more volunteers than they can digest (ok that might just be propaganda) and military supplies from NATO, they are well-equiped, adequately trained and well-motivated.

Compare this to Russia which still has to put in place the same processes. It just doens't look like it is working. Training resources are not there. Equipment is not there (reports of what conscripts bring themselves are being stolen by superiors). Motivation also not there. Being thrown into war means they can do only basic tasks such as drive logistic trucks or sit behind the lines. Putting them in the front lines would make them cannon-fodder and put them and the soldiers they fight with at risk.

Now one important aspect is annexation. Conscripts can't normally be sent overseas to fight. Now the territories are annexed, they can be deployed there as defenders - this is perhaps more important than the more widely discussed 'nuclear defence' implications. Again, I think throwing badly motivated, ill-equiped and untrained conscripts to the front lines is a recipe for disaster. But if these are people gathered up from potential breakaway republics, then maybe to Putin this is a feature and not a bug (beware if they return as battle-worn veterans).

I guess RU can only hope that winter slows things down enough to buy time for them to train recruits and get them ready. But I think momentum is now on the UA side. They now have the material support from NATO, a deep reserve from early full mobilization and most importantly, the morale and will-to-fight.

I don't see this ending well for RU and wonder what the end-game could be. That said, nothing is predictable in war and we can always get surprises.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

He's just taking an agile approach

Interesting take by Gen (ret) Petraeus on the potential NATO/US reaction to a potential nuclear use by the Russians: Conventional take out all Russian positions in Ukraine, including Crimea.

I cannot believe that this would be the majority opinion in NSC - but interesting position from a former director of the CIA and CENTCOM commander.

Did you see this video from a russian reservist claiming his group will be sent to the front line without any training to reinforce the 1st tank guard regiment.
https://mobile.twitter.com/wartransl...21960281513990

Latest news is this regiment with "reinforcements " was sent against Ukraine in Kharkiv Oblast and after a couple of days was almost totally wiped out.

Incredibly cynical that this regiment that was the Most elite Russian regiment was reinforced with untrained reservists.

Now claims the Russians have been ordered to abandon Svatove
https://mobile.twitter.com/wartransl...93698914611200

Just LOL!

Just for amusement.

The Russian mercenary group Wagner have a blog on Ukraine and they like to make musical comparisons as their name is Wagner.
Today they posted the situation in Ukraine is like the Titanic where the orchestra continued playing on the top deck.

Or to put it another way the whole Russian defense in the North East seems to be collapsing, they have no solid line of defense to fall back to and to consolidate.
They cannot run back fast enough to get far enough ahead of the Ukraine to build sufficient defense

Is Musk the new billionaire involved in politics? Wants to fill Soros's shoes?


He literally proposed this

And one answer was


IMHO, giving up territories in exchange for peace didn't work during ww2 and it probably won't work now either.

sending untrained people to the front lines is going to be counter productive. they are just going to get themselves and everybody around them killed.

also interesting is the impact of corruption. i doubt all reservists who were supposed to do their training actually did it. a lot of equipement that was supposed to be there is also mysteriously missing.