J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks given that this is just an internet message board. But you're implying they can't reach whatever "victory" means to you, so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that. To me if Ukraine still exists after being invaded by a neighbor 3x their size with a massive resource advantage, even if they have to give up a portion of the eastern part of the country, I think everyone left there will consider that a victory. And that's definitely attainable.

---

Is victory no more Russian occupation within Ukrainian border, or is victory some level of occupation. Has that been defined by anyone in charge within Ukraine? Ukrainians seem willing to let this continue until there are no Ukrainians left to fight. If that's the case, Russia will seize all of it. That doesn't seem smart to me.

Actually it's not unless you're into spamming up threads with random tweets. Anybody can find those to support whatever position they want.

Here is the only real evidence - the war is a stalemate with neither side able to maneuver into a position of advantage. There have been negligible gains/losses of territory by either side save the sideshow of Kursk. Russia is taking heavy losses to gain a few meters a day if that. Russia has not demonstrated it can destroy the Ukrainian Army in the field, that's not my opinion, that is what is literally happening. Everything else is just noise.

Look at anything other than changes in the front line is folly.

Edit, it's still fascinating to read about drone this and drone that…and this war is still being fought like WW I. Which is interesting since WW I saw the introduction of the machine gun and the tank and it wasn't until the US joined the war to overwhelm the Germans that the war ended. So unless Russia commits more forces to the battlefield, it will remain a stalemate, just like WW I.

Quote:

---

But you're implying they can't reach whatever "victory" means to you, so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.

---

I'm not implying anything..I'm trying to determine what victory is. Like I said, victory is right now is ambiguous at best. If it's to drive out the Russians completely, the Ukrainians don't have the force to do that without additional troops. Troops is the very resource they have in limited supply. If that is realized by them, reason says they should open up negotiations to see what they can get (land wise) from the Russians.

Quote:

---

Russia cannot do 1 tomorrow, but with enough time I fear they would.

2 is completely up to Ukraine. Obviously Russia cannot surrender on behalf of Ukraine.

Your description of 3 is incomplete, and frankly irrelevant. If Ukraine loses the political will, they'll take option 2.

As for you continuing to assert Russia is close to losing the political will, it's past time for you to realize you've been hoodwinked. Here's a 3 year old article peddling the same narrative: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10613069/Putins-forces-able-fight-14-days-military-experts-say.html

---

Ask yourself this, why haven't they done 1 yet if they could? That's what you won't try and explain.

And I never said Russia has lost the political will yet. We're still in year 3. Time and bodies will determine the political will in this fight down the road for one side or the other.

The problem for Russia is they want to occupy Ukraine. They want its resources and infrastructure, preferably with cooperation from its citizens. That means they can't go total war. Or at least that is my assumption. As numerous posters have stated, no one really know what their end game is. The safest assumption seems to be total annexation of all of Ukraine. In that regard, giving land for peace is really just a short-term truce before completion of the objective. Does Ukraine get anything out of giving Russia time to ramp up their military again? It seems to me the answer is no. Not unless it's getting them into the NATO. Even that I question the value of as it's increasingly looking like a paper tiger of an organization.

Whats your timeline for Russia completing total annihilation? Your question seems to assume if it hasn't happened yet, it can't happen; which is farcical on its face.

Can you help me understand?

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is going until Ukraine calls uncle.

---

It's good you finally agree that Russia is the aggressor and they alone can stop this war that no one wants but them.

---

I addressed this in the post you quoted. Be serious.

"Russia could end this today and go home" has always been an unserious proposition. Its not going to happen.

---

Just as unserious as expecting Ukrainians to surrender without a fight. Or Russia will their way to victory, something they haven't done in an offensive war in over 100 years.

---

"Without a fight"? Ukraine has been fighting for 3 years. The fight has happened (is happening). Ukraine has lost a fifth of its territory and counting.

How exactly do you think the Russians ended up in Berlin?

Agree that annexation is the most likely endstate but uncertain as to why they won't commit more combat power to the war. I don't think it's infrastructure as they've shown no reluctance to attack infrastructure in Ukraine. I think the actual reason is that limited attacks on infrastructure limits Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. Russians haven't really felt this war and Putin doesn't want them to. Could also be that the Russians lack the capability to invest more combat power to the war. Whatever the reason, it buys the Ukrainians time.

I have no idea what the timeline is and that's not what I'm saying at all. All I have said is that a defensive strategy favors Ukraine in a political war since Russia cannot dislodge them from the battlefield with their current applied resources.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And you haven't answered the question I posed to you. What is the Ukrainian path to victory?

---

Why do you care?

It's their country and their war to fight.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Children aren't combatants. So murder seems to be appropriate.

---

Murder by definition has intent. Can you prove intent?

---

Why else do you drop bombs and missiles?

You seriously asking this? Bombs and missiles in wartime are to kill the opposing combatants. Civilian deaths (typically) are not done on purpose.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And you haven't answered the question I posed to you. What is the Ukrainian path to victory?

---

Why do you care?

It's their country and their war to fight.

---

Yea, why do I care about my country using my tax dollars to fight a war we shouldn't be involved in. Silly me.

Quote:

---

Actually it's not unless you're into spamming up threads with random tweets. Anybody can find those to support whatever position they want.

---

I have no idea what you're referencing.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And you haven't answered the question I posed to you. What is the Ukrainian path to victory?

---

Why do you care?

It's their country and their war to fight.

---

Yea, why do I care about my country using my tax dollars to fight a war we shouldn't be involved in. Silly me.

---

Most of the money is to replace aging weapon systems.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You seriously asking this? Bombs and missiles in wartime are to kill the opposing combatants. Civilian deaths (typically) are not done on purpose.

---

So if I shoot at one person with the intent of killing them and I hit innocent bystanders, will you support a call for only charging me with manslaughter?

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/05/25/7514003/
Sounds like war crimes to me. That is unless the Geneva convention does not matter to Winkerbean. For him it's just natural to kill children in war.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You seriously asking this? Bombs and missiles in wartime are to kill the opposing combatants. Civilian deaths (typically) are not done on purpose.

---

So if I shoot at one person with the intent of killing them and I hit innocent bystanders, will you support a call for only charging me with manslaughter?

---

You have to be trolling.

More folks who are paying attention are…noticing.

So Ukraine just tried to assassinate Putin.

Peace talks won’t be possible now.

It’s time to cut all ties with Sniffy the Clown and Ukraine. They don’t want peace.

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 25, 2025

I noticed you never post on that main Ukraine thread.

Sounds to me like aircraft flying through a war zone got targeted. It's war. If it indeed was Putin he should question his security detail.

Edit-removed comment

Be glad it was only one embedded tweet instead of the usual wall of tweet spam.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Sounds to me like aircraft flying through a war zone got targeted. It's war. If it indeed was Putin he should question his security detail.

At any rate, according to Funky, it's just war and peopled get killed so no way it's an assassination attempt since that's murder and this is a war.

---

Why are you being such an ass and making stuff up now?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You seriously asking this? Bombs and missiles in wartime are to kill the opposing combatants. Civilian deaths (typically) are not done on purpose.

---

So if I shoot at one person with the intent of killing them and I hit innocent bystanders, will you support a call for only charging me with manslaughter?

---

You have to be trolling.

---

Nope, it's still murder. You don't have to pick a side to call it what it is.

Fair enough, I was just framing the absurdity of the assassination tweet posted a few posts sbove.

My apologies for being over the top and appreciate you calling me out for that. I edited out the part directed at you.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Sounds to me like aircraft flying through a war zone got targeted. It's war. If it indeed was Putin he should question his security detail.

Edit-removed comment

---

Even if that's true (doubtful) at least Putin now knows what every Ukrainian has felt for the last 3+ years. And considering he started the war it would be his own fault.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You seriously asking this? Bombs and missiles in wartime are to kill the opposing combatants. Civilian deaths (typically) are not done on purpose.

---

So if I shoot at one person with the intent of killing them and I hit innocent bystanders, will you support a call for only charging me with manslaughter?

---

You have to be trolling.

---

Nope, it's still murder. You don't have to pick a side to call it what it is.

---

Go study the difference between murder, and collateral deaths as the result of a declared war between governments and get back with us when you gather that information.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And you haven't answered the question I posed to you. What is the Ukrainian path to victory?

---

Why do you care?

It's their country and their war to fight.

---

Yea, why do I care about my country using my tax dollars to fight a war we shouldn't be involved in. Silly me.

---

You are claiming the Ukrainians can't win and should surrender, which is separate from US funding of their efforts.

"Everything out of his mouth…"

Donald Trump Truth Social 05.25.25 08:46 PM EST pic.twitter.com/H81G7hmdwn

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 26, 2025

Ukrainians continue to reject volunteering for Zelensky's meat grinder:

But brOSINT assured me that Ukrainian losses were minimal!

The fact the Ukrainian government could offer nontrivial enlistment incentives to young people and basically nobody took the offer indicates the "zero line" is little more than an open-air mass grave for Ukrainians. https://t.co/SXHHqgUhkt

— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) May 25, 2025

I've seen credible claims Russia is producing more drones/missiles than they are expending, even as rates of fire have steadily increased:

This updated chart includes last night's drone attacks, by wide margin the largest in this war. Altogether, 355 Shahed-type drones were used. Ukraine claimed to have intercepted (kinetic and non-kientic means) 288 drones. https://t.co/mCFoFnItPa pic.twitter.com/mE9V9WLnQj

— Konrad Muzyka - Rochan Consulting (@konrad_muzyka) May 26, 2025

Really, both sides are throwing everything they've got at the other in terms of drones, but the attack on Putin himself was undoubtedly a mistake. Even if it had worked, his successor would only be harsher with respect to Ukraine:

Quote:

---

Russian air defence officer Yury Dashkin said on Sunday that Putin's helicopter was at the "epicentre of an operation to repel a massive drone attack" on Tuesday, state media RT reports.
The alleged attack came as the Russian leader visited the Kursk region, which saw the most significant incursion into Russian territory since the Second World War after Ukraine's forces launched a daring counterinvasion last summer.
During his first visit to the Russian region after expelling the Ukrainians, Putin's helicopter became embroiled in an "unprecedented" drone attack comprised of dozens of fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), Dashkin claimed.
"I would like to stress the fact that the intensity of the attacks during the flight of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's aircraft over the territory of Kursk Region increased significantly," he said.
Claiming the destruction of 46 Ukrainian drones, Dashkin said that the Russian air forces were engaged in anti-aircraft combat and ensure the safety of the president's helicopter in the air."
"The task was accomplished. The attack of the enemy drones was repelled, with all aerial targets being hit."
It comes as both sides of the conflict have claimed an increase in drone strikes, with Moscow's Foreign Ministry claiming that Ukraine launched 764 drones into Russian territory between Tuesday and Friday.

---

https://time.com/7288567/zelensky-putin-russia-ukraine-war-silence-america-trump-conflict/

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/1kvkajc/trump_says_putin_has_gone_absolutely_crazy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Putin may push his limits?

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦 Yesterday's video, widely circulated by Western media, showed Trump appearing "angry" at Putin. However, a follow-up question revealed something more telling—it strongly suggests that Trump, likely due to filtering by figures like Keith Kellogg, isn’t being given the full… https://t.co/FzyRsNgRSw pic.twitter.com/4pcj1pBR0l

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) May 26, 2025

Context always matters.

Time to renew dialogue with Russia!

I am in Moscow at the invitation of the State Duma to discuss with Russian counterparts the many pressing issues that our countries and our continent faces.

I will meet with members of government and the two chambers of Parliament, today and… pic.twitter.com/vQvlBtpekC

— Fernand Kartheiser (@FernKartheiser) May 26, 2025

Meant to share this yesterday but forgot:

🇷🇺🇪🇺🇩🇪 SANCTIONS IDIOCY EXPLAINED ON PAPER:

1) Russia produced raw paper
2) Russia shipped raw paper to Germany
3) Germany produced cardboard, office paper and other paper types
4) Germany shipped the finished paper back to Russia

SANCTIONS COME:
1) Russia builds paper plants… pic.twitter.com/OoINOv5xy0

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) May 25, 2025

Accurate take on how sanctions have just backfired on Europe. More at the full podcast.

DJT is finally getting to know the real Putin, the KGB cut your throat and poison your mom man, Putin is not going to stop, hes pot committed.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is going until Ukraine calls uncle.

---

It's good you finally agree that Russia is the aggressor and they alone can stop this war that no one wants but them.

---

I addressed this in the post you quoted. Be serious.

"Russia could end this today and go home" has always been an unserious proposition. Its not going to happen.

---

Just as unserious as expecting Ukrainians to surrender without a fight. Or Russia will their way to victory, something they haven't done in an offensive war in over 100 years.

---

"Without a fight"? Ukraine has been fighting for 3 years. The fight has happened (is happening). Ukraine has lost a fifth of its territory and counting.

How exactly do you think the Russians ended up in Berlin?

---

More obfuscation. It's only a fifth if you include Crimea and parts of the east that were lost prior to the outset of the current war. In 3 years Ukraine has barely lost anything at all.

And the Russians ended up in Berlin after turning the tide in a defensive war. A purely offensive war is another matter. The myth of the Russian endless will is just that, a myth.

nortex97 said:

---

More folks who are paying attention are…noticing.

So Ukraine just tried to assassinate Putin.

Peace talks won’t be possible now.

It’s time to cut all ties with Sniffy the Clown and Ukraine. They don’t want peace.

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 25, 2025

---

What makes no sense about this "assassination" attempt is how the hell would Ukraine have the intelligence to know where Putin is or which aircraft he's using? Considering we are their primary intelligence apparatus, that leaves two possibilities. Either for some reason we are giving that intel, which is completely idiotic, or this is made up BS propaganda.