Nazis again… The most rabid russian propaganda dogs like Solovyov already don’t mention nazi narrative as often, cake still cannot calm down. Post smth about biolabs and infected birds lah!
Well, I did see this yesterday. Maybe not so imaginary 
Of course a Russian response may well come in some form at any time, but I doubt how grounded @Cake’s info on this may be (I don’t think he’s provided any support for it). And, the Ukrainians could have obvious reasons for drumming up such fears. It’s paywalled (anyone happen to subscribe?), but the main point should be clear
just google/brave russia winter offensive, and narrow down to past week
1 Like
How do you mean? I did it but not sure what that accomplishes?
the thread veered to winter offensive.
the media are proclaiming it or speculating, too.
I’m still hitting the paywall.
hate to break the news to you but the part where they raise a skeleton army from corpses…well… it’s only a movie.
2 Likes
@cake where 500,000? better show up quick because daddy Zelensky is about to pound Putin’s anus into dust.
1 Like
Last one to suggest Ukraine would be running down the streets of Crimea any minute now, was @hansioux a couple of months ago.
The big fighting is still in Bakhmut, a CNN analyst made the claim it will drag on there for a few more months, we will see, I am hearing the Ukrainian position there is increasingly untenable and would be wise to retreat.
1 Like
open here
A looming Russian offensive
Ukraine’s chiefs, in an unprecedented series of briefings, tell The Economist about the critical months that lie ahead
Russia is MASSING men and arms for a new offensive. As soon as January, but more likely in the spring, it could launch a big attack from Donbas in the east, from the south or even from Belarus, a puppet state in the north. Russian troops will aim to drive back Ukrainian forces and could even stage a second attempt to take Kyiv, the capital.
Those are not our words, but the assessment of the head of Ukraine’s armed forces, General Valery Zaluzhny. In an unprecedented series of briefings within the past fortnight the general, along with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, and General Oleksandr Syrsky, the head of its ground forces, warned us of the critical few months ahead. “The Russians are preparing some 200,000 fresh troops,” General Zaluzhny told us. “I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.” Western sources say that Russia’s commander, General Sergey Surovikin, has always seen this as a multi-year conflict.
This is not the view outside Ukraine. In the freezing mud, the conflict is thought to be deadlocked. There has been almost no movement for a month along the 1,000km or so of battlefront. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Britain’s most senior officer, this week said that, right now, a shortage of artillery shells means Russia’s scope for ground operations is “rapidly diminishing”.
The appearance of stalemate is feeding new interest in peace talks. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, America’s Joe Biden and (for very different reasons) the Russian aggressor, Vladimir Putin, have all in recent days talked about a diplomatic solution. Many in the West, appalled at the suffering, and, more selfishly, wearying of high energy prices, would welcome this. But Ukraine’s commanders argue that it should not happen too soon, and they are right.
If Ukraine sought to stop the war today, freezing the battle lines where they are, the Russians could prepare better for the next attack. Mr Putin’s generals have been pushing on with their programme of training and deploying newly mobilised troops and retooling industry to help the war effort—including, say Ukrainian commanders, by producing artillery shells. A freeze would repeat the mistake of the three years leading up to the invasion on February 24th 2022. In that time Mr Putin talked endlessly to the West’s leaders, who indulged him, while all the while readying his armies for invasion.
The West’s highest responsibility is to ensure that any Russian counter-offensive fails. For that, the supply of weapons must increase, and fast. Ukraine has used HIMARS, a rocket system the Americans have been supplying since June, to devastating effect against Russian ammunition dumps and command-and-control centres, allowing the rapid advance first in the north-east and then in the south. But Russia has moved many such targets back out of range of Ukraine’s HIMARS batteries. So Ukraine needs more powerful ordnance, like the ATACMS missiles that could hit targets at least twice as far away. And it needs lots of them, as well as regular ammunition and artillery of all kinds; plus tanks and helicopters and much else, too.
Ukraine also needs help repelling Russian attacks on civilian electrical, water and heating systems. These are aimed at wrecking Ukraine’s economy as well as battering the morale of Ukrainian troops on the front line, who are worried about their families back home.
As General Zaluzhny explains, Ukraine is running low on stocks of ammunition for its existing defence systems (mostly Soviet-era anti-aircraft kit being repurposed for use against missiles). It also needs many more, and better, anti-missile defences; the American Patriots that now seem to be forthcoming will be a huge boost, but training soldiers to use them takes time and they should have been supplied months ago.
If Ukraine is to emerge from this conflict as a thriving democracy, even air defence will not be enough: it also needs to recapture more territory. Although Russian forces have seized only a small slice of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast this year, that puts them close enough to all of the big Ukrainian-held ports to menace shipping. Apart from limited amounts of grain under a UN deal, Ukraine’s exports are still largely cut off.
Taking more territory also helps avoid a frozen conflict by showing that Mr Putin risks losing even the gains he has made. With today’s frontier, Russia has a land-bridge that can resupply annexed Crimea and threaten the south of the country. By contrast, if Ukraine cuts the land-bridge and retakes the northern coast of the Sea of Azov, it can negotiate from strength, putting even Crimea within artillery range. That way it can discredit the idea in Russia that Mr Putin can prevail simply by launching another attack in a few years’ time.
Ukraine is still willing to make the sacrifices that fighting on demands. Mr Zelensky told us that “95 or 96% of people want to de-occupy all their territory”, recapturing everything that Russia seized in 2014 as well as what it has taken this year. He argues that Western promises of security guarantees are a poor substitute for his country’s territorial integrity. After all, similar guarantees offered to Ukraine by America and Britain in 1994, when it surrendered the Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, proved almost worthless 20 years later.
Ukraine’s backers will have a slightly different point of view. They believe taking back everything is a maximalist aim that Ukraine will struggle to achieve, not least because it will in places mean freeing people who do not want to be liberated. Mr Putin’s nuclear threats are a reason to ensure that Russia is not victorious, but also a reason to require that Ukraine does not appear to threaten Russia’s recognised borders. Ukraine also needs to understand that the flow of military and financial aid depends on it avoiding internal rivalries that may be emerging, and on ensuring that it curbs long-standing corruption.
That said, the entire world—including Russia—would benefit from the failure of the revanchist idea that the old Russian empire can be recreated. If Ukraine is adequately supported, its commanders can push a long way towards the coast, and possibly take back most of what Mr Putin has seized since February. The more territory that Ukraine can recover the greater the chances of its lasting success.
Try this browser extension
GitHub - iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome: Bypass Paywalls web browser extension for Chrome and Firefox.
3 Likes
A deep dive from the NY Times has been getting quite a bit of attention as it tries to tell the story of “Putin’s War” and what has (from the Russian side) gone wrong. WARNING: This is about a 20-30 minute read, so perhaps get a cup of tea or coffee before diving in.
Original article behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html
Accessible version linked here: archive.ph
Guy
7 Likes
“Russia’s vaunted hacking squads tried, and failed, to win in what some officials call the first big test of cyberweapons in actual warfare.”
These are the same dastardly clever Russian hacksters who supposedly stole the 2016 presidential election on a shoestring budget.
1 Like
Turns out Trump voters were an easy target, who knew 
1 Like
Bizarre, after all the revelations about Clinton funding a dossier and the IC being chided for falsifying reasons for a FISA warrant in an effort to “get Trump” that anyone would assert it was the Trump supporters who were duped.
Talk about a lack of self awareness in who was duped.
Self awareness would mean I was duped, wouldn’t it?
The Russians used Facebook and troll farms in 2016, this is well established
2 Likes
The relevance of that has been discussed elsewhere. Yes they had some trolls. But would have garnered about 0.0001% of interest compared to the massive funding of the political parties and not mentioning Twitter, Googles own biases which were massive.
You have an outcome you desire and are reaching for anything that might justify that whilst at the same time ignoring facts about Clintons dossier and the IC wrongdoing that fueled reporting for years.
Yes, people that bought into that narrative were duped. The Twitter bots you talk about weren’t even ust supportive of Trump they just wanted chaos, they were supporting the pussy hat march too, which was against Trump.
But they were mostly for trump, but a tiny factor not even likely to match Chinas influence or a bunch of other countries trying to influence the outcome of a US election, which they do every election.
1 Like
Everyone was expecting Russian cyberattacks this time. As per the NY Times article linked above, specialists from around the west were there to help Ukraine to try to fend them off.
Guy
1 Like
Me, personally?
Yes, if you bring up Trump supporters as easily duped by Putin, you seem to have bought that narrative.
It was gross what they did.