- **Opening Line:** _"No, Russia isn't winning in Ukraine"_
- **Closing Line:** _"And I believe there’s a lot."_
- **Summary:** The text presents an opinion piece arguing that Russia is not succeeding in its objectives in the war against Ukraine, specifically framed around the notion that capturing Kyiv is the ultimate measure of Russian victory. It critiques Russia's military performance, tactics, and leadership while advocating for more robust support for Ukraine from its allies. The tone is assertive and emotive, seeking to juxtapose the purported failure of Russian ambitions with calls for ongoing Western support for Ukraine.
- The text uses strong phrases like _“losing more AVs and tanks in Pokrovsk than during the Stalingrad battle in 1943”_, _“you must be out of your mind”_, and _“wasting 150K personnel”_. These statements are designed to evoke shock, ridicule, and indignation.
- References to high casualties (_“150K personnel”_) and phrases like _“no respect for anyone’s lives”_ are intended to provoke moral outrage and highlight the perceived callousness of Russian leadership.
- **Assessment:** Emotional language is pervasive, aiming to elicit strong emotional reactions such as anger or despair. For instance, comparing Pokrovsk losses to Stalingrad is historically evocative and dramatizes the alleged scale of failure.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
2. **Bias and Misrepresentation**
- **Examples:**
- The piece asserts that _"Russia isn’t winning this war"_ without acknowledging alternative perspectives, such as claims of localized Russian successes or nuances in military objectives beyond Kyiv.
- Selective framing is evident in highlighting Russian losses and leadership failures while downplaying or not mentioning Ukrainian losses and challenges (e.g., high costs of maintaining resistance).
- **Assessment:** The text reflects significant bias, favoring the Ukrainian narrative while dismissing any legitimacy to Russian advances or objectives. It selectively omits opposing viewpoints to suit its narrative.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
3. **Simplification and Generalization**
- **Examples:**
- Oversimplified statements include _“Blitzkriegs can only be effective once”_, implying that Russia has no chance of regaining strategic advantage.
- The text asserts _“the concept of victory can only be measured against the overarching goal of one’s endeavor”_, narrowly framing Russia's intent as centered solely on capturing Kyiv, disregarding other potential strategic goals like securing the Donbas region.
- **Assessment:** Binary thinking is used throughout, oversimplifying complex military and political dynamics into absolutes like good vs. bad or success vs. failure.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
4. **Repetition**
- **Examples:**
- The theme _“Russia isn’t winning”_ is repeated throughout the piece, reinforced through various angles (military failures, leadership incompetence, and loss of equipment).
- The failure to capture Kyiv is reiterated as the sole benchmark for Russian defeat, anchoring the narrative.
- **Assessment:** Repetition is used effectively to engrain the perspective of Russian failure in the reader’s mind.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
5. **Targeting Specific Audiences**
- **Examples:**
- The text appeals to Western audiences by criticizing Russia’s military incompetence and framing the situation as one where _“Allies”_ should take decisive action (_“supply everything in bulk”_).
- It references figures like Douglas Macgregor and Donald Trump, likely resonating with readers familiar with polarized Western political and media narratives.
- **Assessment:** The content is tailored to align with pro-Ukrainian, Western-leaning audiences, echoing their biases and reinforcing their existing beliefs.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
6. **Manipulative Techniques**
- **Examples:**
- The author uses ridicule (_“you’ll have to Google that”_), fostering a dismissive tone toward dissenting arguments.
- Appeals to logic (_“common sense”_) imply dissenters lack rationality, indirectly pressuring readers to align with the author’s views.
- **Assessment:** Sarcasm and appeals to authority and logic are used manipulatively to bolster the author’s credibility while undermining alternative perspectives.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
7. **Use of Censorship**
- **Examples:**
- No direct suppression of opposing views is evident within the text, but the selective omission of Russian-aligned arguments or potential Ukrainian shortcomings creates a one-sided narrative by exclusion.
- **Assessment:** While not outright censoring, the absence of diverse perspectives creates an imbalanced presentation.
- **Conclusion:** Partially present.
8. **Creating False Equivalencies**
- **Examples:**
- Comparing Pokrovsk losses to the Battle of Stalingrad creates a misleading equivalence between vastly different historical and military contexts.
- Suggesting that decisions such as ceasefires are _“double-edged swords”_ without proper exploration of risks and benefits simplifies complex geopolitics.
- **Assessment:** False equivalencies oversimplify nuanced issues to serve the broader narrative.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
9. **Exaggeration and Hyperbole**
- **Examples:**
- Statements like _“the Russian victory was buried back in 2022”_ exaggerate the impossibility of future Russian success while ignoring ongoing territorial control and resource advantages.
- Referring to Russians as _“insatiable KGB clerks”_ hyperbolizes leadership inefficiencies in a mocking tone.
- **Assessment:** The text uses exaggerated claims and descriptors to dramatize its points.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
10. **False Dilemmas or Dichotomies**
- **Examples:**
- The binary framing of Russia’s goal as _“capture Kyiv or lose”_ ignores alternative objectives, creating a false dilemma.
- The suggestion that _“supply everything in bulk”_ is the only way to stop suffering oversimplifies possible solutions to the conflict.
- **Assessment:** Dichotomies that restrict the scope of discussion are frequently employed.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
---
### SUMMARY FINDINGS:
The analyzed text employs numerous elements of propaganda and disinformation, particularly **Emotional Appeals**, **Bias and Misrepresentation**, **Simplification**, **Repetition**, and **Exaggeration**. The overarching narrative seeks to reinforce a pro-Ukrainian stance while discrediting Russian military efforts and leadership. Repeated emotional and hyperbolic language, selective presentation of facts, and dichotomous reasoning limit the scope for nuanced understanding.
### POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON AUDIENCE:
This piece reinforces pre-existing beliefs in pro-Ukrainian readers, potentially intensifying bias and reducing openness to opposing viewpoints. Its emotionally charged tone may provoke indignation and further polarization in discussions regarding the conflict.
I glanced at the picture and was drawn to the sources. As if the Ukrainian MoDenfence has any credibility. We don’t look at the Russian MoDefence for the truth, so why should we do it for Ukraine?
After the first sentences, comparing Pokrovsk to Stalingrad and taking Kiev as the Russian primary goal, something they’ve never stated, not even once, one can clearly see this article is just one big pile of emotion laden propaganda Ukrainian propaganda, completely devoid of facts.
it is not my thought, this is the report of one of the most powerful ai model based on the well defined criteria of propaganda. this analysis can be done by a human to reach the same conclusion about the original post, but why waste time to do so on every junk post on the internet if this can be automated?
Could I politely suggest that you go away, and as an antidote to your irrelevant humanities degree, study military history, tactics, and strategy for 4 years (pref not in a western institution). You could then understand that a military power with a 10:1 advantage in every military system on the battlefield and above it, will be inflicting casualties at a similar ratio on its enemy. The losses that you cite (from Ukrainian sources 😂) for Russia are fantastical, and anyone who takes an interest in these matters (outside the propaganda marinaded Empire) knows that perfectly well.
Goodbye then! Been nice chatting, and all the best! Whatever voice you have (and I have none), I urge you to use it as best you can, to try and bring this NATO proxy war (catastrophic for Ukraine & Europe) to a swift end. Hopefully there might be something left of that benighted country when that happens.
It's not just that the Soviet Union won WWII, but that they also won each of those battles you list. Ed. I've oversimplified this point. Let me say it this way: it could be argued that they won each of these battles strategically even though it cost them dearly tactically. Winning or losing has an awful lot to do with objectives.
The fact that they lost more armor is fascinating, significant, and worthy of note. But it seems to me that the Russians won each of those battles needs to be taken into consideration since you seem to be arguing that Russia is losing in Ukraine because they are losing more armor. Am I misunderstanding your position?
The largest risk to Ukraine emerging victorious is stupidity espoused by Trump. And, let's not skip tis one, the puzzling lack of commitment from EU nations. Commitment in terms of mobilizing their own troops. This failure to communicate resolve to Putin results in a provocation. And Putin just keeps on escalating.
Hate to point out the obvious, but when Russia loses hugely in battle they tend to win the war. Kursk and Stalingrad were horrendous losses, but who won that war?
I’ll also point out the obvious: Russia isn’t the Soviet Union that had access to a much larger pool of people and weapons flowing via the Lend Lease as well as the help of the Allies on the Western front. Like comparing oranges and apples
And I’ll point out the obvious that the Ukraine is no where near the strength of the Nazi army that the Soviets defeated in WW2. So there’s that.
I would like the Ukraine to successfully defend its land from Russia, but soon Trump will yank the rug out from underneath them and then they’ll be little chance of victory. More likely a stalemate is their best option.
During the more than month long Battle of Kursk, in summer of 1943 which was devastating to Soviet forces particularly its armored corps. It could be argued that a beleaguered Nazi tank and infantry army (armies) tactically won the Battle of Kursk, until the strategic nature of prolonged war fighting caught up with them. General Heinz Guderian of the Nazi General Staff and commander of the 1940 Blitzkrieg (loosely translated “fast war”) that crumpled the Western Allies like a paper tiger, argued against the fight at Kursk. Hitler and his general staff prevailed and the rest has been written and analyzed to endless degree. What turned the tide for the Soviets? Well despite massive losses of everything, artillery, tanks, other armor, air assets and manpower, they had by 1943 amassed an industrial complex that could turn out more war fighting equipment of all types than Nazi Germany. The war of Industrial attrition was being won and would continue to be won to the end of the European theater of war. The Soviets just had more of everything and ground the opposition to fine dust.
Thus when looking at losses of Russian Federation men and material in the east west axis of advance, in the Ukraine theatre, equating these losses with “winning” or “losing” is a zero sum game. The Russian Federation is on a total war footing, industrially and otherwise, and oddly Western Europe continues to buy natural gas from the RF thus actually fueling the financing of the RF efforts in the east of what once was Ukraine and will now be Russia. Further NATO which was always meant to be a defensive force has now morphed into some form of neutered force that has given away massive amounts of military assets in a scenario that has zero positive outcomes for the Ukraine and for that matter Western Europe. Sure the Baltic nations despise the Russian, for good reasons, but NATO is not currently capable of offensive operations and at the rate it’s going pretty unlikely to defend itself very well, it might prevail but it will be bad, very bad, if someone thinks it a good idea to attack Russia.
So for all who wish to defeat the vast array of Russian Federation forces in the east of Ukraine, here is the question? When are you leaving your warm beds and joining the fight? The Ukrainian’s are out of people to send into the meat grinder. So head on in, see how badly the Russian Federation is losing the fight.
True. But the people in charge have a Russian fever dream going and don’t you know “we can win a thermonuclear war.” Just ask John Bolton or Tony Blinken or Jake Sullivan…winable yep…winable
Pokrovsk will be taken. Territory gains do not matter. Most of the armor losses are recoverable because RF is not withdrawing but advancing. Someone needs to take a strategy view instead of looking at the situation through tactical lenses.
Yes, territory gains do matter. Russia can take ten Pokrovsks and that changes nothing in terms of attaining its goals. So, my heart goes back to you :)
“Russia can take ten Pokrovsks and that changes nothing in terms of attaining its goals.”
You change the Russian goal (taking Kiev) while they’ve never stated that. And now you say taking Pokrovsk is not a big deal while every military analyst says it is a huge strategic and operational city?
You’re out of your mind. But than again, your language isn’t meant to persuade or to inform people, it’s meant for an already pro-Ukrainian audience.
So nothing changes, until Russia wins of course. Through demilitarisation and taking the 4 regions as was their goal.
Pablo, you nailed it, but please don’t embrace Russia—you have no idea how ossified their regime is. I’ve lived next door to them for a lifetime.
And for heaven’s sake, this is not the time to withdraw support for Ukraine. It will be a strategic own goal. The strategically correct course of action is to maintain and increase the pressure on Russia, and we will see it collapse in the second half of 2025.
Their war economy undermines the rest of the country’s production, which is crying out for labour and lacking investment opportunities. They have a lending interest rate of nearly 25%, and and an inflation that only encourages caution. Everything they produce in terms of war material is sent to Ukraine and destroyed, while their stockpiles are shrinking at a much faster rate than they can replenish it.
China, North Korea and Iran need Russia to succeed so they can lift their own ambitions to break the West. If you can’t see this connection you’re a Russian ambassador or just a so-called;
Conspirato, Illumina Coroni, Juda Contemtus, Assangus it Putino innocentia Classico.
Boris, If you actually knew something about GPT-40 then you would know that it’s not uniquely qualified as the undisputed world’s foremost Global Affairs Strategist/
Strategic Risk Advisor/
International Relations/ Economist/ War and Outcomes expert/ Professor Emeritus of Rhetoric God above-all-gods. It’s not even the world’s most powerful LLM. Declaring “GPT-40” as if that’s saying something special and people should take note is silly not to mention a logical fallacy in and of itself. If you actually knew something about AI in general you would know that it gets it wrong quite often. I could easily toy with your manufactured “analysis” and have 40 doing double takes but I won’t because I’m wasting enough time as it s now. Suffice it to say “Lesia is biased ???” Of course Lesia’s fucking biased. You needed GPT-40 to tell you that? So the fuck what? It’s their stack. it’s their audience. You don’t like it? Fuck off. The kicker is that each and every claim they made, including the main two that Russia is not “winning” and there is no revisiting the blitzkrieg disaster for Putin, and make no mistake it was a disaster, could both be true. You never offer any analysis to the contrary. Both you and 40 get it wrong logically.🤦♀️ Suggestion: Learn to think for yourself before you turn to AI to think for you. Garbage in Garbage out as the saying goes. If you’re thinking is shit then your prompts are for shit. If your prompts sre for shit then AI is going to give you back a shit sandwich. Good luck with that. Fuck that fucking amoral fascist crime lord Putin btw. I hope there is an ATCAM munition with his name written on it in the near future. Now to Lesia, you do make one glaring mistake. Trump doesn’t have a fucking humanitarian bone in his fat unhealthy body. He cares for no one but himself. He wouldn’t know peace if it hit him in the ass. He would assume give Ukraine to Putin as he would Gaza to Palestinians. Embracing monsters may seem the right thing to do in the immediate present, kind of like you embrace the state of Israel. In the end they are more than likely going to eat you as well. Good luck with that. Finally, your pal, the ambivalent Trump supporter in Washington you mentioned recently, seems like a not particularly bright light. You need to get some better US insiders for heavens sakes. It’s a bad look. Slava Ukraine!!!
Supplying in bulk would require the bulk with which to supply - not sure if those stockpiles actually exist; mass-production of shells and combat vehicles takes time, resources and skill. Not entirely sure there's an ample supply of those either.
### PROPAGANDA AND DISINFORMATION ANALYSIS REPORT
- **Date/Time:** 2024-12-17T20:06:45+00:00
- **Website Domain:** lesiadubenko.substack.com
- **Analysis Criterion:** Emotional Appeals, Bias and Misrepresentation, Simplification and Generalization, Repetition, Targeting Specific Audiences, Manipulative Techniques, Censorship, Creating False Equivalencies, Exaggeration and Hyperbole, False Dilemmas or Dichotomies
- **LLM Model:** GPT-4o
https://www.maxai.me/share/?id=0236549090758d63ed09892eda52b792dfa4b4d222c7654f3ea0ffa1
---
#### TEXT ANALYZED:
- **Opening Line:** _"No, Russia isn't winning in Ukraine"_
- **Closing Line:** _"And I believe there’s a lot."_
- **Summary:** The text presents an opinion piece arguing that Russia is not succeeding in its objectives in the war against Ukraine, specifically framed around the notion that capturing Kyiv is the ultimate measure of Russian victory. It critiques Russia's military performance, tactics, and leadership while advocating for more robust support for Ukraine from its allies. The tone is assertive and emotive, seeking to juxtapose the purported failure of Russian ambitions with calls for ongoing Western support for Ukraine.
- **Key Terms:** Russian victory, Kyiv, Pokrovsk, Stalingrad, blitzkrieg, Ukraine, Allies, tanks, ceasefire.
---
### ANALYSIS BY CRITERION:
1. **Emotional Appeal**
- **Examples:**
- The text uses strong phrases like _“losing more AVs and tanks in Pokrovsk than during the Stalingrad battle in 1943”_, _“you must be out of your mind”_, and _“wasting 150K personnel”_. These statements are designed to evoke shock, ridicule, and indignation.
- References to high casualties (_“150K personnel”_) and phrases like _“no respect for anyone’s lives”_ are intended to provoke moral outrage and highlight the perceived callousness of Russian leadership.
- **Assessment:** Emotional language is pervasive, aiming to elicit strong emotional reactions such as anger or despair. For instance, comparing Pokrovsk losses to Stalingrad is historically evocative and dramatizes the alleged scale of failure.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
2. **Bias and Misrepresentation**
- **Examples:**
- The piece asserts that _"Russia isn’t winning this war"_ without acknowledging alternative perspectives, such as claims of localized Russian successes or nuances in military objectives beyond Kyiv.
- Selective framing is evident in highlighting Russian losses and leadership failures while downplaying or not mentioning Ukrainian losses and challenges (e.g., high costs of maintaining resistance).
- **Assessment:** The text reflects significant bias, favoring the Ukrainian narrative while dismissing any legitimacy to Russian advances or objectives. It selectively omits opposing viewpoints to suit its narrative.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
3. **Simplification and Generalization**
- **Examples:**
- Oversimplified statements include _“Blitzkriegs can only be effective once”_, implying that Russia has no chance of regaining strategic advantage.
- The text asserts _“the concept of victory can only be measured against the overarching goal of one’s endeavor”_, narrowly framing Russia's intent as centered solely on capturing Kyiv, disregarding other potential strategic goals like securing the Donbas region.
- **Assessment:** Binary thinking is used throughout, oversimplifying complex military and political dynamics into absolutes like good vs. bad or success vs. failure.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
4. **Repetition**
- **Examples:**
- The theme _“Russia isn’t winning”_ is repeated throughout the piece, reinforced through various angles (military failures, leadership incompetence, and loss of equipment).
- The failure to capture Kyiv is reiterated as the sole benchmark for Russian defeat, anchoring the narrative.
- **Assessment:** Repetition is used effectively to engrain the perspective of Russian failure in the reader’s mind.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
5. **Targeting Specific Audiences**
- **Examples:**
- The text appeals to Western audiences by criticizing Russia’s military incompetence and framing the situation as one where _“Allies”_ should take decisive action (_“supply everything in bulk”_).
- It references figures like Douglas Macgregor and Donald Trump, likely resonating with readers familiar with polarized Western political and media narratives.
- **Assessment:** The content is tailored to align with pro-Ukrainian, Western-leaning audiences, echoing their biases and reinforcing their existing beliefs.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
6. **Manipulative Techniques**
- **Examples:**
- The author uses ridicule (_“you’ll have to Google that”_), fostering a dismissive tone toward dissenting arguments.
- Appeals to logic (_“common sense”_) imply dissenters lack rationality, indirectly pressuring readers to align with the author’s views.
- **Assessment:** Sarcasm and appeals to authority and logic are used manipulatively to bolster the author’s credibility while undermining alternative perspectives.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
7. **Use of Censorship**
- **Examples:**
- No direct suppression of opposing views is evident within the text, but the selective omission of Russian-aligned arguments or potential Ukrainian shortcomings creates a one-sided narrative by exclusion.
- **Assessment:** While not outright censoring, the absence of diverse perspectives creates an imbalanced presentation.
- **Conclusion:** Partially present.
8. **Creating False Equivalencies**
- **Examples:**
- Comparing Pokrovsk losses to the Battle of Stalingrad creates a misleading equivalence between vastly different historical and military contexts.
- Suggesting that decisions such as ceasefires are _“double-edged swords”_ without proper exploration of risks and benefits simplifies complex geopolitics.
- **Assessment:** False equivalencies oversimplify nuanced issues to serve the broader narrative.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
9. **Exaggeration and Hyperbole**
- **Examples:**
- Statements like _“the Russian victory was buried back in 2022”_ exaggerate the impossibility of future Russian success while ignoring ongoing territorial control and resource advantages.
- Referring to Russians as _“insatiable KGB clerks”_ hyperbolizes leadership inefficiencies in a mocking tone.
- **Assessment:** The text uses exaggerated claims and descriptors to dramatize its points.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
10. **False Dilemmas or Dichotomies**
- **Examples:**
- The binary framing of Russia’s goal as _“capture Kyiv or lose”_ ignores alternative objectives, creating a false dilemma.
- The suggestion that _“supply everything in bulk”_ is the only way to stop suffering oversimplifies possible solutions to the conflict.
- **Assessment:** Dichotomies that restrict the scope of discussion are frequently employed.
- **Conclusion:** Present.
---
### SUMMARY FINDINGS:
The analyzed text employs numerous elements of propaganda and disinformation, particularly **Emotional Appeals**, **Bias and Misrepresentation**, **Simplification**, **Repetition**, and **Exaggeration**. The overarching narrative seeks to reinforce a pro-Ukrainian stance while discrediting Russian military efforts and leadership. Repeated emotional and hyperbolic language, selective presentation of facts, and dichotomous reasoning limit the scope for nuanced understanding.
### POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON AUDIENCE:
This piece reinforces pre-existing beliefs in pro-Ukrainian readers, potentially intensifying bias and reducing openness to opposing viewpoints. Its emotionally charged tone may provoke indignation and further polarization in discussions regarding the conflict.
### CONFIDENCE LEVEL: **High**
Unbelievable how little people are capable of critically engaging with a piece that they would find value in posting a comment like this.
perhaps the same question you may ask yourself liking the author's publications?
what makes you to believe in the original post?
I didn’t say a thing about the author’s post, just your substituting original thought with AI
I glanced at the picture and was drawn to the sources. As if the Ukrainian MoDenfence has any credibility. We don’t look at the Russian MoDefence for the truth, so why should we do it for Ukraine?
After the first sentences, comparing Pokrovsk to Stalingrad and taking Kiev as the Russian primary goal, something they’ve never stated, not even once, one can clearly see this article is just one big pile of emotion laden propaganda Ukrainian propaganda, completely devoid of facts.
In short, I loved this AI answer.
it is not my thought, this is the report of one of the most powerful ai model based on the well defined criteria of propaganda. this analysis can be done by a human to reach the same conclusion about the original post, but why waste time to do so on every junk post on the internet if this can be automated?
Could I politely suggest that you go away, and as an antidote to your irrelevant humanities degree, study military history, tactics, and strategy for 4 years (pref not in a western institution). You could then understand that a military power with a 10:1 advantage in every military system on the battlefield and above it, will be inflicting casualties at a similar ratio on its enemy. The losses that you cite (from Ukrainian sources 😂) for Russia are fantastical, and anyone who takes an interest in these matters (outside the propaganda marinaded Empire) knows that perfectly well.
You're on my page, so the one going away will be you :)
Goodbye then! Been nice chatting, and all the best! Whatever voice you have (and I have none), I urge you to use it as best you can, to try and bring this NATO proxy war (catastrophic for Ukraine & Europe) to a swift end. Hopefully there might be something left of that benighted country when that happens.
Likewise! bye bye
He and his terrible antidote are GONE.
It's not just that the Soviet Union won WWII, but that they also won each of those battles you list. Ed. I've oversimplified this point. Let me say it this way: it could be argued that they won each of these battles strategically even though it cost them dearly tactically. Winning or losing has an awful lot to do with objectives.
The fact that they lost more armor is fascinating, significant, and worthy of note. But it seems to me that the Russians won each of those battles needs to be taken into consideration since you seem to be arguing that Russia is losing in Ukraine because they are losing more armor. Am I misunderstanding your position?
Excellent graphic. It does tell the story.
The largest risk to Ukraine emerging victorious is stupidity espoused by Trump. And, let's not skip tis one, the puzzling lack of commitment from EU nations. Commitment in terms of mobilizing their own troops. This failure to communicate resolve to Putin results in a provocation. And Putin just keeps on escalating.
(shameless self-promotion)
https://simplestufffirst.substack.com/p/europe-is-at-war-with-russia
Hate to point out the obvious, but when Russia loses hugely in battle they tend to win the war. Kursk and Stalingrad were horrendous losses, but who won that war?
I’ll also point out the obvious: Russia isn’t the Soviet Union that had access to a much larger pool of people and weapons flowing via the Lend Lease as well as the help of the Allies on the Western front. Like comparing oranges and apples
@Lesia Dubenko
How quickly they have forgotten: Moscow has never won a war without Ukrainians fighting for them…
And I’ll point out the obvious that the Ukraine is no where near the strength of the Nazi army that the Soviets defeated in WW2. So there’s that.
I would like the Ukraine to successfully defend its land from Russia, but soon Trump will yank the rug out from underneath them and then they’ll be little chance of victory. More likely a stalemate is their best option.
I don’t know. Trump went from “tough on China” to “tough on Canada” instead. So he might easily go from friendly with Russia to give Ukraine nukes.
Lend lease won both.
During the more than month long Battle of Kursk, in summer of 1943 which was devastating to Soviet forces particularly its armored corps. It could be argued that a beleaguered Nazi tank and infantry army (armies) tactically won the Battle of Kursk, until the strategic nature of prolonged war fighting caught up with them. General Heinz Guderian of the Nazi General Staff and commander of the 1940 Blitzkrieg (loosely translated “fast war”) that crumpled the Western Allies like a paper tiger, argued against the fight at Kursk. Hitler and his general staff prevailed and the rest has been written and analyzed to endless degree. What turned the tide for the Soviets? Well despite massive losses of everything, artillery, tanks, other armor, air assets and manpower, they had by 1943 amassed an industrial complex that could turn out more war fighting equipment of all types than Nazi Germany. The war of Industrial attrition was being won and would continue to be won to the end of the European theater of war. The Soviets just had more of everything and ground the opposition to fine dust.
Thus when looking at losses of Russian Federation men and material in the east west axis of advance, in the Ukraine theatre, equating these losses with “winning” or “losing” is a zero sum game. The Russian Federation is on a total war footing, industrially and otherwise, and oddly Western Europe continues to buy natural gas from the RF thus actually fueling the financing of the RF efforts in the east of what once was Ukraine and will now be Russia. Further NATO which was always meant to be a defensive force has now morphed into some form of neutered force that has given away massive amounts of military assets in a scenario that has zero positive outcomes for the Ukraine and for that matter Western Europe. Sure the Baltic nations despise the Russian, for good reasons, but NATO is not currently capable of offensive operations and at the rate it’s going pretty unlikely to defend itself very well, it might prevail but it will be bad, very bad, if someone thinks it a good idea to attack Russia.
So for all who wish to defeat the vast array of Russian Federation forces in the east of Ukraine, here is the question? When are you leaving your warm beds and joining the fight? The Ukrainian’s are out of people to send into the meat grinder. So head on in, see how badly the Russian Federation is losing the fight.
No one outside of a Russian fever dream wants to attack Russia.
True. But the people in charge have a Russian fever dream going and don’t you know “we can win a thermonuclear war.” Just ask John Bolton or Tony Blinken or Jake Sullivan…winable yep…winable
The people saying Russia is losing never talk about Ukraine’s losses, which are also substantial, and irreplaceable.
"losing more AVs and tanks in Pokrovsk than during the Stalingrad battle in 1943"...
I'm confused, or am I reading the infographic wrong? USSR lost 4000 tanks in Stalingrad, and 1600 tanks/afvs in Pokrovsk?
Stephen, he’s on a roll … he’ll get on track soon.
Haha Oosterhout, nice. Keep up the good work Lesia !
haha I also thought it was quite bad for Russia to compare it to Oosterhout
Pokrovsk will be taken. Territory gains do not matter. Most of the armor losses are recoverable because RF is not withdrawing but advancing. Someone needs to take a strategy view instead of looking at the situation through tactical lenses.
Oh Pablo, master of woe,
With dreams so big, yet nowhere to go.
Your tales are grand, your deeds so small,
A legend in your head—that’s all.
King of excuses, ruler of none,
The battle’s over before it’s begun.
Oh Pablo, bask in your hollow fame,
A jester by any other name.
That was actually pretty good
For the ChatGPT - decent.
Oh Baltic Sea, so loud in senseless roar,
Your briny voice doth echo shallow thought.
You mock the dreamer striving for the shore,
Yet bear no wisdom in the storms you’ve wrought.
Dimwit of waters, fickle, cold, and vain,
Your waves do rise but crash in fruitless spite.
What claim have you to scoff at noble pain,
When depths you guard know neither truth nor light?
Your tides may jeer, but still they fade and fail,
While Pablo’s words persist beyond your reach.
For even seas grow dull, their tempests stale,
Yet hope endures, despite your witless screech.
Oh Baltic, know this truth: you’re but a phase,
While legends bloom where courage lights the blaze.
Typical - coming up with amateurish insults to ignore opposing views. Yawn.
oh wait, your sympathy is on the losing side. My heart goes out to you, world is a cruel place.
Yes, territory gains do matter. Russia can take ten Pokrovsks and that changes nothing in terms of attaining its goals. So, my heart goes back to you :)
“Russia can take ten Pokrovsks and that changes nothing in terms of attaining its goals.”
You change the Russian goal (taking Kiev) while they’ve never stated that. And now you say taking Pokrovsk is not a big deal while every military analyst says it is a huge strategic and operational city?
You’re out of your mind. But than again, your language isn’t meant to persuade or to inform people, it’s meant for an already pro-Ukrainian audience.
So nothing changes, until Russia wins of course. Through demilitarisation and taking the 4 regions as was their goal.
Too bad there is only one then.
Pablo, you nailed it, but please don’t embrace Russia—you have no idea how ossified their regime is. I’ve lived next door to them for a lifetime.
And for heaven’s sake, this is not the time to withdraw support for Ukraine. It will be a strategic own goal. The strategically correct course of action is to maintain and increase the pressure on Russia, and we will see it collapse in the second half of 2025.
Their war economy undermines the rest of the country’s production, which is crying out for labour and lacking investment opportunities. They have a lending interest rate of nearly 25%, and and an inflation that only encourages caution. Everything they produce in terms of war material is sent to Ukraine and destroyed, while their stockpiles are shrinking at a much faster rate than they can replenish it.
China, North Korea and Iran need Russia to succeed so they can lift their own ambitions to break the West. If you can’t see this connection you’re a Russian ambassador or just a so-called;
Conspirato, Illumina Coroni, Juda Contemtus, Assangus it Putino innocentia Classico.
Lived? No longer?
Boris, If you actually knew something about GPT-40 then you would know that it’s not uniquely qualified as the undisputed world’s foremost Global Affairs Strategist/
Strategic Risk Advisor/
International Relations/ Economist/ War and Outcomes expert/ Professor Emeritus of Rhetoric God above-all-gods. It’s not even the world’s most powerful LLM. Declaring “GPT-40” as if that’s saying something special and people should take note is silly not to mention a logical fallacy in and of itself. If you actually knew something about AI in general you would know that it gets it wrong quite often. I could easily toy with your manufactured “analysis” and have 40 doing double takes but I won’t because I’m wasting enough time as it s now. Suffice it to say “Lesia is biased ???” Of course Lesia’s fucking biased. You needed GPT-40 to tell you that? So the fuck what? It’s their stack. it’s their audience. You don’t like it? Fuck off. The kicker is that each and every claim they made, including the main two that Russia is not “winning” and there is no revisiting the blitzkrieg disaster for Putin, and make no mistake it was a disaster, could both be true. You never offer any analysis to the contrary. Both you and 40 get it wrong logically.🤦♀️ Suggestion: Learn to think for yourself before you turn to AI to think for you. Garbage in Garbage out as the saying goes. If you’re thinking is shit then your prompts are for shit. If your prompts sre for shit then AI is going to give you back a shit sandwich. Good luck with that. Fuck that fucking amoral fascist crime lord Putin btw. I hope there is an ATCAM munition with his name written on it in the near future. Now to Lesia, you do make one glaring mistake. Trump doesn’t have a fucking humanitarian bone in his fat unhealthy body. He cares for no one but himself. He wouldn’t know peace if it hit him in the ass. He would assume give Ukraine to Putin as he would Gaza to Palestinians. Embracing monsters may seem the right thing to do in the immediate present, kind of like you embrace the state of Israel. In the end they are more than likely going to eat you as well. Good luck with that. Finally, your pal, the ambivalent Trump supporter in Washington you mentioned recently, seems like a not particularly bright light. You need to get some better US insiders for heavens sakes. It’s a bad look. Slava Ukraine!!!
@Andrew Kern
A cease fire allows the RF to rearm … and that is not great for Ukraine.
However, if the RF surrenders, that is great for Ukraine.
Thank you
Wayne
just found it - this is how the banderolies are being spread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DbmgndlEto
Nation that recruits 30k soldiers a month has lost 150k soldiers over last 3 years, set to lose war of attrition. Lol. Lmao even.
*Kiev
ukraine burns bodies of own soldiers to hide...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuBLT0bha8Q
Supplying in bulk would require the bulk with which to supply - not sure if those stockpiles actually exist; mass-production of shells and combat vehicles takes time, resources and skill. Not entirely sure there's an ample supply of those either.