I'm still of the opinion that if western funding stops, the entire Zelenski administration disappears to some other nation. They've already taken billions in cuts. They can go live billionaire lives literally anywhere else on the planet.

The primary question to my mind is will western funding dry up before, or after the remainder of the male population of Ukraine has gone through the grinder?

They still got a million to grind through before coming to a screeching halt.

A solution needs to come asap. This is not sustainable.

Source plz

This post was edited by Gala on Feb 20 2024 10:24am

I do not believe that Zelensky has "billions" in some bank account. I consider that as Russian propaganda.
I agree there are corrupt individuals, but they exist in all countries, and the money pouring in SO MUCH that a million here a million there, who cares. Sorry.

The Ukrainian Government shows no signs of collapsing. Russia shows no signs of seeking to replace it. Even if there is a resounding military victory for Russia I do not see "The End" of this conflict as I simply do not see Ukraine capitulating. Its not in their blood/history. I am only beginning to understand their mentality now. If it is not Russia's goal to conquer all of Ukraine then the situation will remain as it is at present, war war war with no end in sight. I can envisage Russia bombing the crap out of Western Ukraine (in response to bombings in Crimea / Russia) but I am not convinced that will change Ukrainian mindsets.

A lot of stuff still has to happen before we reach the "end". At a basic level, normal ukrainians are willing to fight and die, to resist. There is no evidence to support the notion of toppling the Ukrainian government, or replacing it one with a government that will see to negotiate a peace deal.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 20 2024 10:41am

In 1945, Nazi Germany was already effectively defeated, what the battles had actually become by that point was a race to Berlin between the western Allies on one side and the Soviets on the other side. The Soviets recklessly sacrificed thousands, probably tens of thousands of their soldiers during the Battle of Berlin who didn't need to die - but taking things more slowly would have risked ending up with less influence over the occupied post-war Germany. So in this sense, taking Berlin as quickly as possible, no matter the death toll, did have a strategic reasoning behind it.

I don't care about how fortified Avdiivka was, you cannot hold such an exposed position, particularly not against a foe who has the upper hand on artillery and manpower. By the way, I never said that this was a symbolic victory, you're making that up. What I stress is that this victory was not some huge Russian feat and that it isn't necessarily indicative of Ukraine's lines crumbling at-large.



The stuff you quote about its strategiv value confirms what I already wrote previously: Avdiivka had strategic value as the gateway to Donetsk, had strategic value as long as Ukraine wanted to attack, wanted to put pressure on the Russians in Donbass. But since they can't spare the ammo to keep shelling Donetsk from Avdiivka anyway, and since the idea of taking back the Donbass has morphed into a pipedream, the strategic value of Avdiivka for the Ukrainians had been gone. For the Russians, it has marginal strategic value since controlling it consolidates their control over the region, even in the unlikely case that the tides of this war turn yet again and Ukraine gets on the offense again.

That coke plant is definitely destroyed, and presumably had been idling since 2014.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 20 2024 10:51am

Zelensky in cases like this IMO is the face that's used but in reality when people say stuff like that they don't actually mean him and him alone. Fact of the matter is, Ukraine and many other ex-soviet states struggle with widespread and systemic issues of corruption. Ukrainians sources themselves went on expose's and dozens of high ranking officials were accused of corruption. For example one such case:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-accuses-two-former-officials-over-army-food-contracts-2023-04-21/


The country even made it a huge point to try to fight it and at least show western partners that they're doing something about it (some may be real, some just lip service).

There was a lot of examples of border guards accepting payments to let men cross, or army recruiters falsely marking some young men as ineligible for service because of whatever condition, this is news to no one really. Generally speaking though, most western partners know and understand that there's huge leakage. It starts at the top and works it's way down, and it's just generally accepted of the cost of doing business, because it's damn near impossible to weed out.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 20 2024 10:56am

"The more Ukraine resists, the more likely it becomes that Russia wins/that Ukraine loses additional territory"? That's quite the iffy logic.


Of all the future scenarios that I can imagine, there are two which are semi-good for Ukraine:
1) Russia is actually satisfied with what they have right now, therefore doesn't attack any futher. The conflict winds down and eventually, both sides sign a peace treaty enshrining the current lines.
2) Russia tries to go on the offense and take more territory in Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is strong enough to repel them, but too weak to pose a threat for the areas Russia conquered. Conflict eventually fizzles out.

There are obviously plenty of other scenarios in which Ukraine ends up worse than that.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 20 2024 11:02am

Battle for Berlin: The USSR lost 80K dead/missing plus ~200K wounded, history clearly states they won the battle which is the point I made.

Now compare to Avdiivka where the Russians won a major battle (that the place was heavily fortified actually underlines it's importance).

So you agree that Avdiivka was strategically important, then how would you call the obvious downplaying of the Russian victory by various Western "experts" and media, cope / propaganda / something else?

This post was edited by Djunior on Feb 20 2024 11:49am

Are you dense? I spelled it out verbatim for you: Avdiivka was strategically important in the past, but due to the way the war has gone, it had lost its strategic value to Ukraine.
To make it even more clear, so that even you get it: Avdiivka was useful for Ukraine as long as they were on the attack, but has no defensive value. And since they now are on the defense, have been for quite some time and will be for the foreseeable future, the loss of this city isn't that big a strategic blow to Ukraine. Truth be told, Ukraine should have given it up earlier, particularly if the reports about the hasty, disorganized and costly retreat are true.

Still, the biggest impact of Russia taking Avdiivka is on the psychological side, it is a big blow to Ukraine's morale and a big boost to Russia's.

You're massively coping dude.