The Steppenwulf

I'm not sure this is the way for China to take back Siberia.
 
https://www.ft.com/content/ba524406-ee6c-4c39-9ac2-110a2549569a
 

Russia is pushing propaganda and disinformation on every possible channel. Indeed I think the ritual suicide charges they keep doing on the actual battlefield have more to do with propaganda than any meaningful military goal.
 
 

It has happened before with Cyprus in 1974 where Turkey blamed the right wingers for harassing turkish Cypriots and invaded Donbas style. Of course it was just the pretext...But somehow international community had to accept it. Now it's history... 
Of course many countries have problems with neo nazists. We almost reached a point where GD had a significant 7-8 %presence in the parliament and in the streets. Not proud of it. That was during the deep social and economic crisis where usually extreme elements come out and manipulate the anger/desperation of the people. 
The difference here is that Greek Golden dawn isn't trained and armed by western funds and weapons and embedded in the armed forces. They don't have a paramilitary division in some aegean island. They are all currently in jail serving a 10+ sentence for criminal organization charges. I can't guess what will happen in a war crisis but that's the way it is now. 
That being said , I understand where your comment is coming from. I didn't mean to imply this alone could justify invading a country. My denazification remark bordered a little on sarcasm. 

This is not the first time we have seen evidence that the Russians are depleting their Soviet legacy reserves to stay in this war.  The slow but steady downgrading of equipment and troop quality is consistent.  The impact on this war are yet unknown.  Are Ukraine and Russia in a “race to the bottom”?  Not if the West can get its act together and ramp up production of modern systems.  We can easily crush Russia in a modern force generation war, the real question is whether or not we are willing to do it.
The “so what?” for the next war is that Russia as a regional threat (side stepping the nuclear equation) has been demonstrably reduced.  The spectre of hordes of T62s and T55s is laughable in this day and age. Russian military production is constrained and they are not going to be able to rebuild a modern offensive force quickly.  In fact we are not even sure what a modern offensive force really looks like but I do feel safe to say it is not whatever Russia has left.  Next gen will demand higher levels of technology: unmanned air and ground, distributed space based capability, AI supported C4ISR, PGMs everywhere.  All that takes a lot of investment and pivoting for a Russian military industrial complex designed to make tanks and IFVs.
This projects Russia into a serious security dilemma after the war: completely re-tool after the war, or stick with former conventional metrics and try to rebuild what hey had on 21 Feb 22.  In both cases they are heavily burdened by western sanctions and pressures.  Neither is a great option or easily done in anything less than a decade.
Another metric that Russia has essentially “lost” this war - they have likely dramatically reduced strategic post-war options as a result of this as opposed to expanding them.

Don't get all flustered.
There was little to no rebuttal on that one. 
I'll not be drawn into political debate on free speech equating that someone can support the idiocies and viciousness she promotes without repercussions.
 

But isn’t a “domestic” enemy someone whose position is forbidden?  There weren’t a lot of protections granted communists in the US back during the Cold War.  For example, if one was a firm communist they were not going to be employed within the defence department.  Roll forward to modern era, devoted fundamentalist Muslims did not fare much better.  This “freedom” concept really appears to be selective when viewed through a historic lens.  Sure, a US citizen can be free to express whatever they wish, but to do so without consequences from both private and public sectors has clearly been demonstrated as false.  Once a society allows for negative consequences as a result of free speech or association, it is no longer “free”.  This inconsistency appears migratory and frankly unfairly applied historically.  Try being a black civil rights movement in the 1930s in the South.  Not a whole lot of freedom of speech and association in that period for that demographic. LGBTQ in the 50s?
So what, as it relates to this war and situation?  Within the US, and other modern democracies, I do not think this is a case of “autocratic control” but you are very correct in calling it out as a slippery slope.  I think it is a case of “when does speech and association become a threat to national security?”  When is it honest political discourse in an open and fair democracy, and when does it become too dangerous to tolerate?  Obviously sharing information on how to build and deploy a WMD should not be covered in “freedom of speech”.  Nor should sharing of classified information.  But when does political discourse cross that line?
The US currently has elected officials who are pretty actively supporting a foreign powers agenda.  To the point that they are blocking military aid to an ally in the middle of an existential war.  At what point does this stop being “open and free political discourse” and become “paid foreign lies by a domestic enemy?”
I honestly do not know.  I have watched my country wrestle with this.  I think our “hate speech” laws are in fact dangerous.  But clearly there is a point, even within free democracies where we cannot tolerate free expression.  For this war, where that line is drawn could very well impact its outcome and what the region looks like. 

It's ironic that you exactly prove your point by posting an outrage-farming video by someone with a clear political bias watching a video by someone else with a political bias (who misrepresents what people say and asks leading questions) rather than actual data. I will not discuss US politics as I am not American, it is off-topic and it will just lead to a ****-show, so consider this post in the vein of how to form evidence-based opinions, which has been a central point of discussion over the past few pages.
Here is an actual study on this topic. Note how they outline their methodology and openly discuss the limitations of the study. You are also free to decide for yourself if these are meaningful when spread out over the entire population (though you would really need to look more closely at local situations given the way the electoral system works).
WHO LACKED PHOTO ID IN 2020?: An Exploration of the American National Election Studies

Honestly I am really not understanding your point here.  What am I supposed to disagree on?
Territorial integrity for Ukraine means that Ukraine law can be applied across that territory without foreign interference and the nations sovereignty is recognized. They would need this as a precondition to true open and free referendum and constitutional reform on any Donbas question.  And it appears - from your own citation - that they never got it.
“10. Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.”
Yet,
”American Defense Department official Michael Carpenter said on 2 March 2016 that at least 430 Ukrainian soldiers had died since the signing of Minsk II, that Russia maintained "command-and-control links" over the DPR and LPR, and that Russia was "pouring heavy weapons" into the Donbas.[68] Deputy head of the OSCE mission in Ukraine Alexander Hug said on 25 March 2016 that the OSCE had observed "armed people with Russian insignia" fighting in Donbas from the beginning of the conflict, that they had talked to prisoners who said they were Russian soldiers, and that they had seen "tire tracks, not the vehicles themselves, but the tracks of vehicles crossing the [Russo-Ukrainian] border".”
Russia never left the Donbas. The entire thing was in bad faith. Any elections and constitutional reform was happening while Russia held guns to heads.  In fact the entire scheme has the hallmarks of Russian incremental warfare strategies. The West dithered and failed to actually engage back in 15-16, and here we are.
So what is your point here?  The referendums in Donbas, while they had Russian troops on Ukrainian soil, was legit but the West doesn’t like them so did not recognize it?  And what does Croatia back in 91 have to do with any of this? Croatia was during the total collapse of Yugoslavia as the West grappled with the fallout.  States such as Slovenia, Macedonia and Montenegro all successfully separated and Europe was desperately hoping Croatia could do the same. (No one held out much hope for Bosnia, which was totally accurate.) What was left of Yugoslavia disagreed and tried to pull Croatia back in by force…and hilarity ensued.
So Donbas was a break away province that held fair and free elections but Ukraine tried to pull them back in by force? Russia was simply trying to intervene and protect them? While grabbing the Crimea at the same time?  And ignoring years of Russian interference in the region under the waterline for years?  You will note that modern day Croatia is not occupied by another nation.  And no western powers has declared Croatia a province…like Russia did Sep ‘22 for Donbas, Crimea and Kherson (no less).
What I do not understand is your actual position here. What is your theory?  These are some pretty disjointed point of information from where I am sitting.  Honestly, please stop being oblique and just come out and state your theory here. How did this war start?  What is the Russian side of the story according to you?  What partial justification did Russia have for the invasion of ‘22?

Oh for God's sake, are we still engaging with this guy? 
Cmon,  that last post ("rigged elections in the US") pretty much seals the political troll label. 

Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.
*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.

The maidan movement was not a us goon squad, it was a popular uprising against a guy who was previously thrown out already once before, the first time he was president.  For great background on all of this that would challenge your narrative watch the following video and the rest of the series
 
https://youtu.be/exJ024Zdzdk?si=W3_R2k0E7tVFqDn0

That's a more polite word then I would use. 
 
Kim Jong Un is elected over and over again. Surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't a dictatorship. I mean, it's right there in the name. Kim Jong Un and his father and grandfather are simply the inheritors of the Baektu bloodline and therefore are/were chosen by the minjok of North Korea in proper, totally above board elections.

See kids, this is the problem with rejecting the "reality based community". You just become a red pilled font of balderdash.

Community Note: if reality is something you put in quotes it is likely that you have become detached from it yourself.   

Seriously guys, why are we (yet again) feeding the troll?
It's not like he has anything useful or even coherent to say, or is objectively considering counter points from various people, so... Why? 
It's just clutter, now. 
 

Putin's invasion plans were formulated on Hunter Biden's laptop.  They were created while he and George Soros were vacationing at Jeffery Epstein's place at the same time that Hilary Clinton was discussing a marketing plan with Epstein to use a Pizza place as a front for child trafficking.  I seem to remember this was close to the same time Jewish Space lasers were lighting up California forests because we hadn't properly raked them like they do in Finland.  I remember all this because right about then I was sticking light bulbs up my anus to kill Covid.
See it all makes sense now right?

What has Hunter Biden to do with russian tanks in Ukraine?

What's your point? What have you added?
Humans you gotta love them...

Well that is one of those “it depends” thing. Ejecting from an aircraft is always dangerous and can cause injuries, but not necessarily in all cases. In wartime, a pilot will also be returned to duty quicker even if he has mild injuries.

Hamas lives in Gaza like royalty and in order to justify their rule, they have to
a) show that they are actively fighting the Israeli Apartheid regime.
b) provoke an overwhelming response with mass casualties.
At the same time the Israeli right-wing needs Hamas in order to justify their own existence and aid in the creation of a proto-fascist bonapartist regime. Both feed off each other and the regular outbursts of violence are a piece of political theatre that would frankly be funny if real people didn't get killed.

Terror groups often operate on some pretty vague or non-linear logic.  The fundamentalists are operating largely on faith.  That [blank] = God in their minds, so it is pretty hard to see a logical design at times.  Very often the “goal” of an attack is any reaction with the hope that it will lead to further opportunities they can jump on.  This is really Darwinian warfare - we keep going, and failing, until the opponent makes a mistake we can then evolve into.  Broader goals are often very vague and faith based: Allah will give us a Caliphate if we kill enough of them.  The actual mechanics of how that Caliphate may actually come into existence are extremely blurry.
Hamas was a bit different.  Their goals were very likely an Israeli overreaction which would lead to its firm isolation within the region (any talks of Israeli - Saudi rapprochement are dead) with a window for possible widening of the conflict - why the Palestinians keep hoping the rest of the Arab world will ever give a f#ck is beyond me.  The opportunity for global isolation, which is effectively occurring, was likely a stretch goal, if they thought of it at all.
So behind killing and taking Israeli hostages, which makes the troops feel good, the goal of the Hamas attacks was the reaction, which could then be exploited for political gains. This is the dilemma terrorism projects onto the state and why we label it “asymmetric”.  It forces the state to react in order to re-establish certainty, but it can easily do too little or too much. In fact it will very likely do either of those for segments of any population.  So the state is thrust into “best of bad” choice sets. This is always good news for a terror group as it opens up the door to opportunity.
This is why terrorism would never work within a zombie horde.  Zombies can’t get scared and never react outside of “more brains!”  A terror attack on zombies will never get a reaction (beyond “more brains”) so it offers little opportunity options space.

So why do it and then expect no response!!!
🤔 
Defence doesn't include mass murder of innocents.
I'll just leave it there...

More RUSI analysis from Justin Bronk.
Getting Serious About SEAD
 

<areas of COIN involved cerebral cortex begin to spin up, blinking lights, whirring and puffs of dust ensue>
It's pretty clear that ISIS-K wants to recruit more members of ISIS-K in Russia at this stage of the game by committing acts of terrorism that inflame an already quite hostile Russian cultural reaction to Muslims from the Southern fringe of the imperium which then alienates and radicalizes yet more potential recruits. To this end, an attack like that at Crocus also provides a clear signal that Moscow isn't just nasty...but weak, preoccupied completely by the losing war in Ukraine and not prepared to handle what ISIS-K can dish out. 
Russia did actually lean into pretty much what ISIS-K could have hoped for with televised tortures, ear lopping and the like...which is precisely the worst way to equalize both sides in the minds of fence sitters and videos of Russians assaulting random Tajiks are all over the Stans as we speak. What meh there was involved the messaging from the top...which underlined the how out of of touch the Kremlin is. 
All in all, ISIS-K has to feel pretty good about this round. 
 

Galeotti is about as clear an observer of Russia as exists and he too is noting the weakness of the response: