It's a grind alright.
Russia's mass-production numbers show a severe lack of quality which luckily for Ukraine's less amount, gives them something to go on.
Russia has always relied on 'mass production' and sometimes it just doesn't work.

I hope Trump can force a settlement early next year.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 1:13pm:


Yes, but I do like Trump's disdain for war (if I understand his position correctly).

Unlike the commedian Zelensky.   

chimera wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:


it won't matter eitherway chimera besides the final causality rate as ukraine isn't going to win long-term

why don't you volunteer if you care so much

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 1:17pm:


Are you suggesting Zelensky enjoys having the Russians invade?

The US has spent about $175 billion supporting Ukraine since February 2022. Far more than they spend supporting Israel.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:


What makes you think the Russian figures are more reliable, or that the Ukrainian ministry of defence is the source for all the other estimates?

Russia has two offensives going already, one towards Karkhiv.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:


i didn't cite russian figures, because i don't treat official ministry of defense statements on eitherside as reliable (and nor should you). i cited mediazona which is a BBC affiliated organisation. and it has a clear methodology for determining russian casualties based on actual empirical evidence (looking at obituaries, social media posts of soldiers families, funeral schedules, graveyards, etc). it does this directly to get around the fact that both sides are obviously going to be lying about their own casualties and inflating those of the other side. the casualty rate provided by mediazona is somewhat of an underestimate though as it doesn't include the DPR/LPR militias etc, so it's likely to be a bit higher than that, but not much more.

it would be extremely unlikely ukraine is inflicting more casualties than russia is, as russia has far more artillery and firing capacity, and artillery is the most deadly weapon on a modern battlefield. even if ukraine was 'breaking even' casuality wise (unlikely) that is disasterous for them as the overall russian manpower pool is much greater. ukraine needs to be inflicting a casuality ratio that even the wehrmacht was barely capable of achieving, and the wehrmacht were the most operationally effective army in modern history and perhaps all history; to pretend the ukrainians are somehow as good as the werhmacht was relative to the modern russian army despite having obviously less artillery, no strategic rocket force and a mostly non-operational air force is silly. it's just not likely, though it makes a pretty good story (and that's the whole point).

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 4:00pm:


?

the number is right in the link i provided. do you just ask questions over and over again until the people you're arguing with give up out of boredom?

Are the Ukrainians making a ruse? -

drawing the Russians past their defenses out in the open where they can be defeated?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 5:14pm:



The Ukrainians are being used up.

It would take an operation like Desert Storm in 1991
to kick the Russians out of Ukraine -
that's not going to happen.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:


I'm suggesting the clown Zelensky is like the knight in the Monty Python skit. 

He could have negotiated with Putin re the majority  Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine.  But you - being a deluded "freedom or death" ideologue - won't understand that. 

Quote:


Yes, and the discussions about WW3 are heating up in Russia...as Putin realizes he's in a proxy war with the US.

Quote:


When? And why?

Do you support the Russian invasion?

'In the direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, and even in the Turkish mediated talks, the United States seems invisible.'
That is unacceptable. And weak when Putin threatened Yanukovich with sanctions. Look what US made Putin do now.

TGD, how exactly do you "negotiate" with a belligerent country that keeps invading? Are you suggesting that the Ukraine give up bit and pieces of it's territory to Russia every 10 years?

We saw that in 1942 when Britain refused to help as Darwin was bombed. Australia dropped king George and bowed to Emperor Hirohito. He said 'Kamikaze' and took slaves from Singapore.

I heard estimates of both sides losing 1,000 soldiers per day.
They send anyone to the front lines as canon fodder.
The true number of deaths is likely to be 500,000 on each side -
that's 1 million dead so far.

And meanwhile France is having their lovely Olympics soon.   

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 9:48am:


yes.


Jump to 6:39

Ukrainian losses could be around 500,000 soldiers dead.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 10:32am:



OK - that was then.
The Russians never expected such strong resistance.
It was similar to how they underestimated Finland in 1939.
The Russians recovered from that and won the war but
not without losing 25 million people.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 10:40am:


They do not appear to have won any of it back. Territorially, it looks like an 18 month stalemate. Hardly "crushing" anyone.

Ukraine is in Ukraine. Putin is in Russia, the Russian land (Russkaia zemlia), or the Muscovite state (Moskovskoe gosudarstvo),  In 1721, Peter the Great changed the name of the state  Tsardom of Muscovy ( Московское царство) to Russian Empire (Rossiiskaia imperiia).

thegreatdivide wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 11:25am:


What was he ready to "negotiate"? The UN surrendering to him whatever he demands?

'Vladimir Putin stated that, the winner of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Viktor Yushchenko had come to power with the help of a coup d'etat, which "at least took place in a relatively peaceful way." [this is democracy, a fascist Jewish war-tactic].  Russia negotiated its tanks into Georgia and control of NATO to distribute roses and chocolates. When China takes Siberia, Russia will negotiate, surrender and smile but keep two villages for sentimental reasons.

Today the South China Sea, tomorrow Siberia and the Himalayan border. Putin knows the art of the deal and surrender.

vlad will win in the long run

the west seems determined to fight to the last ukranian

zelensky will head off to hollywood and do the celebrity tour with clooney and penn and other leftie fools 

Quote:


When you say "negotiating", do you mean handing over territory to Russia to save them the effort of invading? Or do you just mean saying no politely?

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 2:36pm:


Yes, because

1. Ukraine has Russian majority provinces.
2. War is the ultimate insanity, though not seen by insane "freedom or death" ideologies like yourself - and Putin who doesn't have to fight on the front line as cannon fodder.   

Quote:


No, I mean negotiation to avoid an insane outcome ie war.

And non interference by other war-mongering madmen,  in this case the US.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 3:19pm:


How much of Ukraine's territory do you think the Russians would have accepted in exchange for not invading?

If the CCP pulled the same stunt, would you blame the invaded country also?

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 7:53am:


It's called negotiation, including the Russians speakers in Ukraine. 

Quote:


Yes.  The freedom goons in Tawain want war, the CCP wants peace, as do many Taiwanese.

Except China can't "invade" Taiwan which is part of China.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 10:56am:


??  Russians are a majority in some Ukrainian provinces; they preferred a pro-Russian party in Kiev.

Nothing to do with propaganda.

Quote:


The Russian-majority provinces.

Quote:


Corrected for you.

Just in case you have forgotten, the UN itself regards Taiwan as part of China. 

chimera wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:09pm:


It's a bit like the CCP's rule. "We will look after you, and if you don't like it, you can have a free bullet to the back of the head, and even if you do like, you might still starve to death."

chimera wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:09pm:


False analogy; Ukraine was part of the USSR, meaning Russians settled into Ukraine. Russia wanted to maintain Ukraine as a buffer between it and NATO, but when pro NATO forces gained ascendency in Kiev, Putin became paranoid. 

But the US - like you - knows nothing other than the "freedom or death" insanity  (war solves everything) , hence happy to increase Putin's paranoia.

chimera wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:58am:


And we need an international organization capable of protecting us from Putin's paranoia amd NATO's US led triumphalism.   NATO is obsolete - and a threat to world peace - especially in paranoid Putin's eyes, but also in the eyes of people who want common prosperity and security for all.

The vicious US market economy  (separate from  the nationalized Pentagon-led military industrial complex)  is turning out billionaires while there are homeless - no thanks.   

The world needs protection from your "freedom or death" war-mongering ideology.

See, your post from the very beginning, based on defining "protection"  is GIGO.

UN Charter (1946): "in order to save (protect) mankind from the sourge of war.

You are only interested in protecting your own sorry a*se. 

chimera wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:28pm:


Only to a "freedom or death" ideologue like  yourself. 

Putin doesn't want the EU (he even  wanted to join NATO in 1990, rebuffed by the US)


Quote:


Ah the 'domino theory' of deluded "freedom values" ideologues.

"All must submit to rule of law, for all to be free": Cicero.

Why? Because men aren't naturally cooperative so as to remove the necessity for law, they are naturally competitive and self-interested, by instinct.

chimera wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:30pm:


Your insistence that negotiation with Putin is impossible is a definite hint.

Putin wanted to join NATO, but was rebuffed by the US.....on perceived grounds of geopolitical advantage for the US's global-hegemonic aspirations.   

Quote:


No, unlike you I understand human motivation - and the need for effective international law. 

Quote:


Putin is paranoid, but he was open to negotiation.  You are resorting  to your domino theory again.   

chimera wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 2:06pm:


Can't debate the points I made in #67 ?

I accept your concession. 

Btw, Craig Foster (spokesman for ARM) resigned today, because he believes in international law, not the 'sovereignty' of neanderthals like Netanyahu and Putin (and Hamas).

   

chimera wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 11:51am:


No it doesn't, it means certain Russian majority provinces in Ukraine (a hangover from the USSR) object to certain policies from the pro-NATO government in Kiev, which  a paranoid imperialist like Putin thinks he has to deal with.   


Quote:


Wrong again, and for the same reason: Berlin was divided by ideology after 1945 (ideological differences between former allies). 

Hence your following questions are invalid.

Quote:


Because that's what internation law requires, to avoid war.

Quote:


See above.

chimera wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 1:32pm:


Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The UNSC has STILL NOT taken the necessary steps; ie including the recognition of both states in 1947, after the UN vote supporting the Palestine Partition plan was conducted. 

But more fundamentaly,  Article 51 reveals a contradiction based on confusion over sovereignty: you can't have rule of law AND individual sovereignty.

Which means in the case of member states of the UN,  they don't NEED a "right" to "defend" themselves, they need the UNSC to be able to do its job ie maintain the peace. So why can't the UNSC do its job?  (see below). 

Quote:


Russia doesn't have inherent rights to attack another state; it's the job of the UNSC to maintain the peace,  after the ICJ  has ruled on measures to prevent the current civil war in Ukraine - a conflict giving Putin an excuse to invade  E.  Ukraine and Crimea.   


Quote:



Putin wants Donetsk because Zelensky is introducing policies which discrimate against the majority Russians living there - which is like waving a red flag in front of Putin. 

Quote:


Wrong, as already noted:   Berlin was divided between the "free world" and the USSR immediately after the cessation of hostilities in  WW2.

Quote:


NO.

I've already answered FD on this; all you "individual sovereignty" ideologues - who demand the UNSC has its veto powers - are hopeless, incapable of rational argument.

Hint: if Russia didn't have a UNSC veto, it couldn't have invaded Ukraine and remain in the Council, indeed it would have faced the full force of the rest of the world, and Putin's army would have been annihilated  before it corssed over the border.     

chimera wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 4:21pm:


Unlike you, I'm not a robot; I'm employing basic logic to explain the requirements for effective international law.

The rule of law requires negotiation (exchange of ideas)  and adjudication.

In fact, individual sovereignty is incompatible with rule of law, in logic.

Likewise,  national sovereignty is incompatible with an international rules based system

Now, let's deal with your following FD-style succession of questions ( his are usually absurd, let's see what you got...):

Quote:


Who said Russia has no rights?

Next:

Quote:


You identified your previous error; by "Berlin", you meant East Berlin.  The Western powers ruled in West Berlin.

ditto for Ukraine now:  East versus West.

Quote:


Addressed above; I have shown why article 51 of the UN Charter (which you cited)  contradicts the rest of the Charter. 

And I have shown an international rules-based system (which the US likes to imagine it believes in) requires an international  negotiating  and adjudicating court, to avoid states' recourse to war to settle disputes.

The veto is WHY the UNSC has failed  to keep the peace, and interntional law is rendered ineffective.   

[Some history: in 1946, most delegates present at the creation of the UN Charter resisted the adoption of the veto by the members of the proposed UNSC - but the great powers (US and USSR) demanded it: "no veto, no UN Charter" they insisted. Everyone was forced to accept  the veto in the UNSC, another triumph for national self-interest by the great powers]. 

chimera wrote on May 24^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:


Negotiation includes exchange of ideas, required to  establish international  law in the first place.

As for negotiation beteen clowns like  Putin and Zelensky, the latter  supported by the self-intersted US hegemon, negotiations didn't get off the ground.

Quote:


Er.....please explain; 'national sovereignty' means not subject to law outside the nation's jurisprudence.   

Quote:


Correct, but under the current contradictory "international rules based system" (contradiction revealed in Article 51 with its bs about "defensive war"), Russia (Putin) is able to claim he is fighting a "defensive war" because  NATO is backing anti-Russian policies  in Russian-speaking provinces in Ukraine.

Quote:


Given the absence of effective international law, negotiation between the disputants might still avoid war, but as we have seen the US -as always - prefers to  further its own own strategic interests. 

Quote:


I'm undermining the 'sovereignty' of ALL nations..... I think you made a mistake....

Quote:


(google)

"The army of the Soviet Union conquered Berlin in April/May 1945. Two months later the Western Allied troops also entered the city. On 4 July 1945, the American Independence Day, U.S. troops officially took charge of their occupation sector in southwest Berlin.

Ditto for the other allied  forces, all allies with Russia at that time before the Cold War began.   

Quote:


Your ignorance of the issues leading up to the present war is egregious; you are in fact complicit in the war. 

chimera wrote on May 24^th, 2024 at 2:06pm:


Indeed, only international law can add legality to effective negotiations (which avoids war).

International in this context refers to international jurisprudence:

https://academic.oup.com/book/12583/chapter-abstract/162407753?redirectedFrom=fu...

Summing up, international jurisprudence is a binding form of global administrative law to those parties involved in a dispute.

...as opposed to national juripridence.

Quote:


Don't have to guess; the 'Oxford Scholarship Online" article cited above defines it for you.   

Quote:


No, I'm seeing the issue from Putin's point of view, some- thing you appear incapable of doing; much better to  fight Putin to the last Ukrainian, as you and the US prefer.   

Quote:


Did you miss it? All the allies occupied Berlin in 1945, with the administrative arrangements for the occupied city completed 2 months after Russians (who were still allies at this time) first entered in April, and particular zones were established by agreement ...not war.

So you can stop hurting your head now.....Russians were the alies' friends in 1945.

chimera wrote on May 24^th, 2024 at 6:26pm:


You forgot to identify the contradictions, after I had explained your errors. 

Quote:


No, it's an order in which all nations abide by international law/jurisprudence, as defined in the linked article.

chimera wrote on May 24^th, 2024 at 6:55pm:


Again, you forgot to point to the "other contradiction"  in "all nations need to abide by international law/jurisprudence",

Typical of conservatives who can't defend their views logically.   

Quote:


It seems you don't have many functioning neurons, so not much harm can eventuate I suppose. 

I turn to drink - I have a Zenker's Diverticulum in the throat and to keep things out of it I turn to the left to swallow... gives me my excellent growl, too!!!

Grrrrrrrr...

I think the whole world is so fed up with the Russians.

We helped them to win WW2 and then they turned on us -
forming an iron curtain placing the whole of Eastern Europe
under communist slavery and then they pointed
10s of 1000s of nuclear missiles at us.
Never in human history has there been a greater betrayal.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 5:39pm:


Yes. Even Xi is annoyed, while trying to maintain a strategic partnership with Putin (Chinese trade with Russia is being hindered because of spill-over effects from US sanctions).   

Quote:


They helped the Allies,   at a cost of 20 million Russian lives.

Quote:


The communist/capitalist contest need not have been a matter of life and death, both sides were responsible for the Cold War in the age of MAD.   Russians over-ran Eastern Europe during the defeat of Nazi Germany; obviously  in Stalin's (and following communist leaders' eyes), the more countries available to 'prove the superiority of communism' the better (they lost that contest). 

But right now, the most egregious betrayal of the world  is the US-based  global  financial system. 

Just sayin'. 

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 1:59pm:


Ah - we are making progress; now you have identified  where you see an imagined  contradiction.

So the first statement  recognizes what SHOULD happen, if we are to achieve an international rules-based system.

The second statement is a matter of simple logic.

Admittedly poor old Josep Borrell (foreign minister of the EU) is currently trying to work out whether to follow UN agencies like the ICC and ICJ, or Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza... he is confused like you.


Quote:


Correct: good to see you can at least copy information correctly, even if you can't  think logically. 

There has to be some way to solve European territorial disputes without starting wars?

Maybe the UN could enforce a plebiscite in any any country where there is a dispute
and have free and fair monitored UN elections there to decide what to do?
Proper elections in: Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea
to see if Russia or Ukraine would take control.
We can't be risking WW3 every time Europe has a dispute over some land?

Hardly anyone had even heard of:
Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia 3 years ago.
Hasn't the world learnt anything from WW1 and WW2 ?

Quote:


they already tried those

didn't work

Bobby. wrote on May 28^th, 2024 at 10:41am:


Good post, but for the UN to "enforce" anything including an international rules-based system (to avoid war, the lesson we SHOULD have learnt after WW2) requires a UNSC capable of enforcement of the law.

Exit the UNSC veto.....

thegreatdivide wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 2:26pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

Incompatible is 'incapable of co-existing'.
The impossible is not impossible. English language is not English, it's split between sanity and  thegreatdivide.

chimera wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:


Ah...now we are narrowing it down, thanks, we will soon nail it....

TGD:

means

Absolute national sovereignty is incapable of co-existing with (is incompatible with) an international rules-based system.

iow, just as in a federal government, certain powers reside with the states and others with the national government  (eg national defense), ie, the states don't have absolute sovereignty in the federation, so with international law.

chimera wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 5:33pm:


Mere sophistry; you are now arguing over the meaning of the phrase "national sovereignty", when most people understand it means "absolute national sovereignty", ie, NOT subject to international law. 

Quote:


Correct. The UN is the institutional machinery to legislate  international law. 

Quote:


Incorrect, see above. All nations are members of the UN, and they all have ambassadors at the UN, but not all nations obey its rulings, owing to the obsolete concept of absolute national sovereignty- which is incompatible with an international rules-based system.

Quote:


That is the problem; they don't practice what they preach, namely, an international rules-based system. 

Quote:


I should hope your government has provided the requisite agencies to assist you with your alcohol problem; the topic here is international law to avoid war - the great desire and vision of those who came together for the creation of the UN Charter in San Francisco in late 1945...

More dead RuZZians

thegreatdivide wrote on May 30^th, 2024 at 2:17pm:

No your comprehension is zero.
Please give one example of an international law.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

A resolution is not a law or an international law.
Please give an example of UN legislation.

Then you are unable to provide an international law. They don't exist and don't then impact national sovereignty. The UN can't have superior sovereignty. So your claim is false.
(And sovereignty can't have two levels, like being pregnant and half-pregnant).
World trade using the WTO of the UN by sovereign nations was $31 trillion 2023 which is how you got your pc. You are a naughty man.