Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Nobody disputes that the Russians have to negotiate - so nothing to mention.

People here do however, have a belief that the Ukrainians will win back Donbass and Crimea and everything else simply by keeping on fighting, ignorant of the fact that both their economy and their military force is weakening with every passing week. All well and good for armchair generals here to call for fighting to the last Ukrainian - the reality of the situation is that Ukraine are not winning.

What do you think is going to happen in the end of this war?

Ukraine and its people will be standing brave and proud long after Putin and his henchmen are dead and buried.

Firing missiles into a city in the middle of a Monday afternoon when ordinary people are going about their business would be highly reckless at the best of times (and apparently Kremenchuk had not been hit before). Even if the Russian claim of an 'accidental' hit to the mall was correct, the chances of large numbers of civilians being killed was high.

Boris is an interesting case study in intention versus effect. I doubt he cares about Ukraine very much at all, probaby no more than Macron or Scholz. Boris has shown time and again he only cares about himself, but Ukraine is very good for him for three reasons: 1) it distracts from his domestic problems 2) it allows him to live out his "little Churchill" fantasies in the hope that one impressive war deed will overshadow all the obnoxious sides of his character and make history view him favourably, and 3) Britain's proactive stance supports the Brexit ideology: we can do more and do it better without the EU.

None of these motivations are particularly honorable, but if the result is that Ukraine gets at least some of the support it desperately needs, does it matter? Should we just focus on the effect and not worry about how dubious the real motivations might be? In this case I'm inclined to say yes, the result is what counts even if the motives may be murky

Hmmm I heard that interview and he never said Russia is winning and Ukraine won’t be able to push back.

Its very much the opinion Russia are slowly gaining ground but are running low on artillery etc and are using missiles from 1962.

Once Ukraine get trained and supplied with new gear things will get interesting.

There is no shortage of Ukrainians ready to fight.

Russia are low on men, ammo, weapons and with sanctions kicking in their situation isn’t looking good in the long run.

Cant believe you think that by Ukraine surrendering now all of a sudden Putin will stop there and not try for Kyiv again.

If he smells fear from the Ukrainians he will go again.

Ukraine have already been supplied with new gear - theyve been getting "new gear" for months now

And if there were no shortage of Ukrainians ready to fight, why are they doubling down on drafting men 18-60 and stopping them from leaving the country? Also the Ukrainians have admitted to losing at least 100 people per day at this phase of the war, which is much higher numbers than previously. Certainly doesnt give the impression all is going swimmingly.

No one said it’s going swimmingly.

But it isn’t going swimmingly for Russia either.

Ukraine are in this for the long haul with support coming from many countries.

Russia has an infinite supply of equipment which they are burning through.

They can’t even gain air superiority in Ukraine.

The wolfsangels are showing here on this thread. Agree with them on all things Ukraine, or be silenced.

Dan Breen is facinating, you'll never hear his name in offical circle jerks about beating the occupier, however he is responsible for doing all the dirty filthy work that nobody with political ambition could claim, but was neccessary to beat a world super power.

This sounds very much like a deployment of UK troops is not far away.

Note the speaker's emphasis on boots on the ground over other forms of combat: you need an army to stop an army.