G.I. Joe

I’m glad you said this. In truth I've felt this way since the first week of the war. Honestly I’ve felt strongly drawn to releasing from my current service just to help more directly - - I joined to defend Canada, her Allies, and hopefully punch a nazi or, in my case, two. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for the call to action is far harder than I thought - my experience this summer definitely increased my respect for the Cold War warriors who had to stand this watch for a long time. 
 
Again, thank you to all the extremely thoughtful posting and discussion on this thread. Back to it. 

Gawd, I hate when that happens.
Ok, that is a major unsupported leap of logic, and frankly we are get way too many of these in the last 50 pages - at some point this is going to devolve this venture into the same rhetorical and propaganda spaces we see all over the internet, and at that point I will be lobbying to close the thread down because it is no longer keeping people informed, it will have become a dogmatic platform.
If Russia employs battlefield nuclear weapons, there will be a response, there must be.  However, let's say hypothetically that the West backs down and says "ok, well now it is getting real - let's negotiate an endstate".  Yes, it is not a good thing for the future risk the employment of nuclear weapons may have on imperialist expansion.  Russia will likely try the same game elsewhere; however what is missing between the Baltic nations and Ukraine is certainty. 
If Russia annexes, invades or attacks a Baltic nation, and IF that nation declares an article 5 then Russia is not getting handsie on some side hustle, it is declaring war on NATO.  "Oh, sure but who says NATO will actually do anything about it?" some say cynically - well 1) NATO nations sure as hell have done something about Ukraine and 2) NATO is too big to fail, and 3) if NATO does fail - and don't take this too personally - but we individually won't give two figs what happens in Baltics or the entirety of Eastern Europe, and even more bluntly in North America, we might not even really care too much about all of Europe anymore - at least as far as collective defence goes.
1) You know, a simple "thank you for having our backs" would go a long way once and awhile.  Instead we get "well what have you done for me lately" and "what do you mean you are not willing to risk nuclear escalation for Ukraine?!  How dare you!!"  I am very grateful that those voices are in the minority.  NATO has already committed to the defence of Ukraine, the question is how far will that will last in a nuclear exchange...good question, but I suspect it isn't to drop everything and declare unconditional surrender.  But we are not likely to be interested in a bottomless pit of cost and risk either.  And before anyone crawls on a morality high horse - take a long look at Africa and the Middle East, we have and will let places burn to the ground outside of our orbit/key interests or if risk/cost gets too high - "change the channel Marge."
2) In NATO and out of NATO is a very significant different state - kinda why we make such a big deal about entry.  By definition NATO is a collective defensive alliance, supported by a very complex and political treaty.  NATO is, in effect, the military power of the western world and the hard power that backs up the western rules-based order.  Without it, that order starts to unravel.  If Russia pushes the West into "well let us do what we want, and NATO collapses" situation, we are living in the End Times.  Russia, as immensely stupid as they have been, has yet to try and back the West into a corner, even though they themselves are being rammed into one.  Why?  Because the West would crush Russia beyond recognition to protect itself...and NATO is central to that equation.  I expect that NATO would accept nuclear exchange losses, leaving Russia a radioactive wasteland for a few centuries, before it is going to allow itself to fall apart through direct force.  Oddly enough,  Putin was on the right track to actually defeat NATO by continuing to support narratives that "NATO was irrelevant" - NATO could have evolved into something less than it is now, that would have given Russia more....wait for it...options space.  But then they did this useless war and pushed NATO in the exact opposite direction.  Maybe Russia needs NATO to be big and strong and scary so that it can hold itself together, but they even have to be smart enough to realize...they just made NATO big strong and scary.
3) If NATO collapses under direct pressure.  The whole edifice falls apart.  Then, and try not to be too hurt, we got much bigger problems than Ukraine, the Baltics or Russia to worry about.  We would likely see a series of new collective defensive bodies arise from the ashes, and a fair number of them can't even find Ukraine or the Baltics on the map.  The EU might hold together militarily but Europe has a bit of shaky history in that regard.  I suspect it may fall back on internal alignment, most of which won't care what happens in the Baltics.  The bigger players will likely try to hold it together, 5 EYES+ for example but even then, the most liberal humanist nations are going to start to contract back to their own borders and interests.  This will have economic repercussions as we no longer have unified collective military power to secure globalization. I expect China will be invading Taiwan the following Tues - at which point all of this Eastern Europe/Russia noise is going to fade to background while we hit a singularity decision point in Asia. 
So as bluntly as I can - The Baltics are more important to NATO and the West because  they are in NATO under the collective defence mechanism that affords.  We will take far fewer risks or BS from Russia in these countries because  they are within that framework.  I suspect that there are more than a few politicians that are quietly thanking whatever gods they pray to that Ukraine is not in NATO right now because we would not even have the option to pull back. 
That said, the issue of having Ukraine in NATO is likely largely settled at this point, so once this war is over, it will also come under that collective protection - for the love of god, just take the freakin win!  Russia nuclear deterrence is working in this war, that is why we are not Shock and Awing Moscow, Bagdad Style.  In this game of chicken Ukraine may lose - I personally do not think that is the most probable outcome but, dare we admit it and not get yelled at for 15 pages - it is a possibility.
Lastly, I am going to put out the question of "what are we doing here?"  On this thread?  If we are continuing the collective and distributed objective analysis and assessment of this war as it unfolds, then let's do that.  I think we are safe to say that we all agree Russia's war is illegal and immoral and they deserve everything they are getting.  However, if this is turning into a maximalist Pro-Ukrainian propaganda machine, I am out - lock it down and people can go elsewhere for their information.

Congratulations! All the best to both of you...

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree here.  You once called my experience into question so let me fill you in a bit - I have personally been on the ground in one civil war and an insurgency.  You are really underplaying a lot of really complex factors here, for example:
“I’m sure there will be some sort of insurgency, but a clampdown of the border should keep it down.”  This tells me that you have zero idea how insurgencies actually work and frankly you are making some extremely dangerous deductions from that.
It appears that you have a firm conclusion and you are wrapping reality around it - this has been a serious strategic error in the past - see Iraq 2003.  
Insurgencies are about an idea.  An idea by a sub-section of a population that things need to be different.  When you are combating one, you are combating that idea.  As you have noted and I do not think anyone can deny, the idea of being “not Ukraine” exists within these regions to a statistically significant level.  Further, these factions have demonstrated that they will act on that idea, clearly.  
So assuming you can “clampdown” on hundreds of kms of coastline in Crimea, and along the Russia  border in Crimea - perhaps by “building a wall”?  You have done nothing, nor have you suggested anything to actually combat the idea of an insurgency- one you admit is likely.  You are glossing over some enormously difficult, some say unsolvable problems, all in pursuit of a nice clean end-state.
”I am not sure it will be a risk to Ukraine’s PR”.  Seriously?  So Ukraine has to deal with two likely insurgencies deeply embedded within two separate regions.  Two insurgencies that you, and others fully admit cannot be solved through democratic process.  So we are at FID.  So how is your history?  Now find me a counter-insurgency, or god help us, civil war, that was nice and clean.  And we are talking years here, maybe decades - the same decade Ukraine is reliant on western reconstruction money.  You think the first collateral damage, or unrighteous shoot isn’t going to wind up on the internet as Macgregor makes as much hay about it within political circles?  One soldier screw up caught on camera and you are talking narrative risk - especially as you are also prescribing restrictions on democratic freedoms.  Even if those reasons are legitimate, it will get lost in the political churn.
I get the point but in the business we call this exposure.  And Ukraine’s exposure in these regions is too high in my estimation.  Beyond the spectre of nuclear weapons, the post-conflict risks are very high as there are all the ingredients for some really dark roads.
Solutions that may actually work:
- kick it over to international community.  Let the UN deal with these open sores and in a generation or two you may have re-integration.
- Let Russia have them and then build a shining city on a hill and attack the idea that life in Russia is better than in a new Ukraine - money and personal interest matter.  Russia is going to botch the job anyway, they are being set up for economic collapse.  Attraction back into Ukraine is a powerful tool, and a win-win if you tie it to democratic freedoms.  In a few years you will likely have them begging to re-enter into the Ukrainian union.
Key attribute here is patience.  Even in the face of atrocity and injustice.  Play it right and you can come out on top without risking WW3 and/or a weeping open sore that covers you in sh#t while you are trying to rebuild a nation.
 

But gents, this is where Air Power comes back into play, both conventional assets and drone swarms.  Everyone thought it would be the Chinese first to use this kind of thing. Wrong!
If the Iranians can export 'Saheed' buzz bombs that make a noticeable dent in UA defences, do you really believe the Western defence establishment can't source better weapons and crank them out by the thousand in 6 months (e.g. Turkey)?
(OK, maybe 6 months is pushing it)
...And then you have the conventional aircraft to follow up.
Every single RU AA position is under the Argus Eye, zeroed, in the crosshairs.  Their heavy guns, similarly.
You heard it here first:  air power has been MIA in this war, but just because the Russians couldn't pull it off, it doesn't mean it's gone for good.

Very good overview... however, when it comes to the conclusion I tend to agree more with Steve and TheCapt that the cost-benefit analysis leans more towards the long game...

The above kinda says it all.  Crimea and even DNR/LPR probably only get taken back if there's RU political collapse/regime change.  Crimea would be very hard to take if even marginally defended.  Ask Manstein.
Geeez, I have a travel day and all hell breaks loose.  Someone goes after TheCapt?  That's like heckling Santa Claus!  I am honored if he even deigns my words to be worthy of his derision.  
Mobilization:  I think it's important to remember that this is a mix of reality and theater/reality show.  And it's being done w the level of competence we would expect from Putin's Russia.  It'll be interesting to see how these troops are used.  They will be ridiculously brittle.  If used to fill up existing units, they could actually make those units more brittle.  And what does this totally disorganized mess look like going forward?  Will there be food when they arrive at their initial barracks, let alone uniforms, boots, weapons?  This is a whole bunch of very mutinous looking mobs.  I wouldn't want to be the gung-ho NCO in charge of one of these once they are armed. 
LLF:  He's fun and whether one agrees or disagrees w him he makes the forum richer.  
I just spent way too much work time getting caught up w hundreds of posts, mostly very good, now I'll have to work straight through lunch to end of day to get caught up.  Thanks for that, y'all.  🤪
 

[throws back head and laughs insanely, like Bugs Bunny]

Crimea, like any other piece of land, belongs to "those who reside there", not based on any written constitutions (which in theory codify both natural principles and operations / administration to enact those principles) but on the overall natural principle of self-determination.

This has been discussed; some more perspective and addressing of topics below.
In Canada, Quebec (a large province) has had two referenda on separation.  The last one - 1995 - was on the brink of success, and as a result there is now a federal law on the conditions for separation, called the "Clarity Act".  
What about the portions of a province that don't want to secede?  For example, in Quebec there are many regions / enclaves who wish to remain in Canada - mostly Anglo, but not all.  What about the various indigenous groups, most governed by the Indian Act, that prefer to be part of Canada vs. part of Quebec?  
What about the people who have been run out of the province?  Various pieces of legislation have pushed mostly-Anglos out of Quebec for about fifty years (I don't have a reference for that, but I recall kids in high school who exited with their families as a result of concern about their social and economic future).  Should they get a say in the next referendum, if there is one?
Why do lines on a map matter?  Because they set boundaries for social, economic and legal systems and opportunities, and strategic risks and opportunities.  They matter a lot.  If an American crosses the border to Canada with a restricted (in Canada) firearm (and no paperwork), serious consequences.  If a Canadian lands in Singapore with a joint - very serious consequences.
Applying this to Crimea / Donbas:
most importantly and differently from the Quebec example, they were taken forcibly and recently by a foreign state, so they should be returned "to" the original government to prevent the moral hazard where, in future, other states nibble provinces from each other.  If something is successful, it will be repeated. Having said that, the costs and risks of returning them to Ukraine will be and are being weighed against the moral hazard issue by Ukraine and its supporters.  The Ukraine government's maximalist position of all of the Donbas and Crimea is either a firm position or setting a stance for eventual negotiation - no way to tell. once returned: do the people in those regions want to be part of Ukraine?  If after a few years of stabilization, rebuilding, return of kidnapped and displaced persons, purging of RU agents and land occupiers (people who moved on to stolen land vs. purchased a nice house voluntarily on the market), there is overwhelming support for separation, what then?  The two basic alternatives are the use of force, which always results in insurgency and civil war, or a negotiated handshake and well-wishes with post-separation cultural, political and economic ties maintained.  On the first, perhaps civil war / insurgency is worth it in return for keeping the Russian Armed Forces physically further away from the rest of Ukraine - or not.  On the second (and the first ,for that matter), for the minority who wish to remain "in" Ukraine - sucks to be you, see the Quebec example above.   So there is no simple answer, and no risk-free way forward.  I'm on the "return them and them sort it out in a few years" camp because on balance, I think that that minimizes total (present, near-future and mid-term future) risk and maximizes 'fairness', which means different things to different people but unites the people (not governments) of the West. "Fair" and "realpolitik" are not always the same thing - when in conflict, choose realpolitik and try to turn it into fair later, but fair should weigh in.
One issue that hangs over all of this is the Western idea that every problem can have a good solution with sufficient good will and energy applied to same.  History, the present, and common sense tells us that not all problems have a solution that rises above neutral.  The current problem has, I think, at best a neutral outcome and likely only choices between bad, really bad, disastrously bad, and catastrophically bad.  Or, between ungood and double-plus ungood.

Going back to uncertainty, the Russian state could suffer a near-term peripheral collapse which would change the calculus entirely - my prediction on this is early 2026.  But it could be earlier, later, or not at all.
Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.
I get more "likes" from memes than from determined typing, so here is a meme  :


 
 
 

+1
Agreed... wouldn't be surprised if it's closer in some places to the Confederate army.

This article:
https://news.yahoo.com/congress-pushes-dod-rule-gray-202919149.html
Congress pushes DoD to rule on Gray Eagle drone delivery to Ukraine
offers this interesting quote from General Atomics spokesman C. Mark Brinkley
 

Ok, so let's try and have an actual conversation about all this.  Why not?  It is "forbidden discussions" week on the thread while we wait for the UA to reload.
First, lets put the emotion to one side for a moment - we saw how well that worked last time - and try to arrive at common ground.  I am not going to comment on forum policy or poor BFCElvis' endless and thankless work in trying to keep this place from become another internet cesspool - if you have a problem with forum policy, or felt you have been wronged in some way, take it up with him and BFC.
So what to do about Russia?  Russians everywhere?  They started a land war in Europe and they are supporting it, to some extent, for 6 months while their military is, in part, committing what is pretty much confirmed as systemic war crimes.
So how will justice be served in the prosecution of this war?  How will the offenders be made to pay so that it serves as an example to those that would re-offend?
Legally.  
The whole point of this war, and one of the big reasons why we care so much is that this is not just an unjustified invasion of Ukraine, it is an attack on the entire rules based international order.  In 1949, we all sat down, even Russia within the USSR, and said that this sort of action was illegal.  Its premise and definitely in its prosecution, by Russia, have been illegal within international law and the Law of Armed Conflict.  Russia's position, beyond some very weak tea technical arguments - SMO, has been - "ya, so what are you going to do about it...we are Russia and have nukes?"
That will not stand.  It cannot stand.  It threatens the entire scheme at its heart.  That scheme, btw, pays for our lifestyles and guarantors the stability and security we need to thrive, get richer and fatter, and have the freedom to yell at each other over all sorts of stuff.
So how will we put Russia back in the box?  Well first steps are to ensure it gets the spanking it so much deserves on the battlefield.  The next step, and it is very important, is to prosecute those responsible in Russia for this atrocity, within the frameworks of the law.
"Oh but the law is so "woke", we need to get medieval here to send a real message!"
1.  Shh, grown ups talking.
2.  If we step outside the legal framework, the one we built, we will break it ourselves, which in many ways is worse.
Don't believe me, well we have a convenient historical example - Iraq 2003. 
And before anyone freaks out, let me start by saying that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is not anywhere near what is happening in Ukraine.  The legal justification for that war was "thin" but it adhered to the rules far closer than what we are seeing today.  It was unsanctioned by UN, the evidence for the whole thing turned out to be incorrect; however, the US made a case for self-defence against a known international offender, one who had not only invaded another country but also threatened "the great Satan" repeatedly.  Further the US prosecuted that war under the LOAC.
However the repurcutions of that action, one the edge of legality in some places are still being felt today.  In Putin's last speech he references "terror/terrorism" 5 times as as a justification for this war.  The lesson here is that if we fracture to system of order, very bad things start to happen.
So we will hold Russia accountable.  We will demand reparations for lifting sanctions.  We will demand the turning over of war criminals for prosecution.  We will employ national security mechanisms to find and arrest anyone who supported Russia's war outside of the laws of whatever country they are in.  And we will do so within the defined limitations of the law.
Anything beyond that is a revenge fantasy that serves no real purpose in discussing this war.  Now are we able to continue on in peace and harmony?

Oh so very mistaken.

I've been trying to keep up for half the day but I'm still 10 pages behind... So, no idea wether the discussion has already moved on.
I, too, had the impression that generally people get attacked rather quickly here for voicing caution or not chiming in with Ukraine for total victory. Well, this whole war is a very emotional topic, we all have a hard time discussing purely in a rational way.
So, here's my subjective and rational 2 ct. I'm all for supporting Ukraine in defeating Russia, so the Ukrainians can live their lives they way they want. I couldn't care less lines on maps, though. So, if a prolonged war is about saving Ukrainians from suffering under Russian occupation, I'm fine with that. If it is about about making lines on the map look like 2014 - not for my money.
When I say, I'm for supporting Ukraine, I say that because I can afford it. My girlfriend told me yesterday that she did the calculation and probably her low wage won't be enough to pay the bills this year. She takes some pride in being able to fend for herself despite a lot of hardship she had to go through in her life. It's not her fault that Russia attacked Ukraine, it's not even her fault she has gas heating - she was lucky to get the flat she has. Why do I tell that story? Because of course there is a cost/gain calculation here, even if it's about doing The Right Thing (tm). Obviously hurt pride weighs less than suffering from being attacked or from brutal occupation. But when we talk about retaking lost territory for the sake of restoring border lines... righteous as it may be, in what way is that really different from hurt pride... ? Does the gain outweigh the costs? At some point I for one can't say it does with any real conviction.
Go ahead and stone me now, here take a bag of pebbles.

Interestingly I have been wondering the same thing - what is the threshold?  Not a single household (it has been tried).  Is is a county, a township, I don't think so, a province or region seems to be on the table.
I do think a state has a right to establish territorial integrity; however, this is also contract between the people who live within it.  At some point, not entirely sure where, if they people wish it, that contract may need to be renegotiated.  I think removing that freedom is extremely dangerous, unless of course it is agreed to beforehand.
My concern here is that we are playing fast and lose with peoples rights and freedoms, largely because we might not like the answer.  Democracy says that power is derived from a mandate from the people - the only international bounds on that which I know of are laws with respect to human rights (and even here we play a little loose).  A state is free to determine how it is governed.  We even have an index for democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).
So if you and others are saying Donbas or Crimea does not have a right to explore the question - of course when it can be established as free and fair - then who does and why?
According to @RandomCommenter Scotland does as it was an independent nation who joined a union and retained the right to leave - so it has to do with entry into the union?  What about places like Quebec, who were conquered and then as our democracy evolved so did their rights to separate? What about indigenous peoples, like Greenland?
Regardless, it may not even come to this; however, it is an issue worth considering, I do not think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.   

Ok, ok, let's all settle down.  Irritate is fine by me.  We are in a heated debate, I am sure we can irritate each other just fine and still have productive conversations. 
Look, we are all on the same side here.  We vary in some areas but I can say we are all very much pro-Ukrainian on this thread.
Probably on me, I poked back too hard.  I withdraw "irritate", maybe frustrate is a better word, but hey we can disagree.  So long as we keep it clean and most importantly productive.
Right?

Very long thread, aircraft hardened bunkers require multiple missiles to take out each bunker, Russia seems very reluctant to invest the number of missiles needed to take out the ZSU. Their missile stockpile and/or ability to restock it is not enough to make eliminating the ZSU worth it. Limited ISR and C4ISR limit the ability for strikes.
Not only does it probably have a majority of aircraft still operational, several major air bases still operate despite limited attacks on them. Unclear how General Hecker is defining the 80% but it could be true if all manned helo and aircraft were included in the figure.
 

Just finished reading a story about the exodus the conscription is causing in Russia and was browsing through the comments in the Sydney based news paper to see a steady stream of pro-Ukraine anti-Putin (not Russian) comments from simple to more well informed opinions when I came across this little gem that made me laugh.
"Why can’t he just go play civilisation on his computer like the rest of us." - DFISH (anon Australian)

As one who has held his tongue reading EVERY SINGLE PAGE thru 1,40freaking2 of this unprecedented and now legendary thread - despite all the numerous assertions with no evidence except (well informed) opinions about the past…and despite the important and profound debates on morality and ethical conduct during and after war…and the demonstrated courage and sacrifice of a nation standing up to one of the all time biggest bullies in history…and the terrific analyses of the ebb and flow of the front lines…and the historical and cultural explanations…all without daring to stick my only neck out - THIS CROSSED THE RED LINE! Loyalty DEMANDS solidarity!
FLY, EAGLES, FLY! COWBOYS, BYE BYE!
 

 
PS forum name is in honor of my first childhood best friend, who refused to abandon a downed severely wounded black ops pilot as time ran out on a mission up North. Cost him dearly the rest of his life - ended too soon. Clear skies, Allen. Never forgotten.

It's a great news! 
Commander of Azov Denys Prokopenko "Redis" is free!
Deputy of Azov commander Sviatoslav Palamar "Kalyna" is free!
Acting commander of 36th marines brigade Serhiy Volyna is free!
 
 

No the Russians have definitely not won - hell they will be lucky to still have a country by the time this is over.  I am saying that there is a likely limit to western support for this war and it lies somewhere in the Donbas and at the border to the Crimea.  Be it because of nuclear escalation or fatigue.  
Sorry, but I am not invested in telling people what they want to hear - there are enough mouthpieces out there doing that - but how I see things.  This is how I see things.  You can disagree, I am not saying that I am absolutely correct and this is a unavoidable reality.  I am saying that under the current conditions it is likely to happen.
I am not advocating for this btw, my personal feelings are not part of this.  This is how I expect things to go down on the current trajectory.
Again, if things change, like a sudden collapse of the Russian power structure, then this is not the expected future anymore.  However, on the train we are on...etc...etc.    

So where on this thread or anywhere else for that matter will you find an analysis/assessment by me, or anyone else here for that matter that mirrors this?  In fact we were all going the other way while mainstream analysis was saying above.
One year?!  Ok, I think we are done here - you can push back but you are crossing some lines here.  We will be paying off this war for at least a decade, likely longer. The realignment of energy in Europe alone is going to take that long, let alone the reconstruction bill for Ukraine.  The investment in NATO will likely go into the trillions in that time.
You wanna push back with facts, sure let's hear em, but this is more a temper tantrum that the world is harsh and things are likely not going to go all the way you want.  Or you could simply disagree with me and we shall see, but it appears that ship has sailed.  So stamp your feet, hold your breath, it is not going to change likely endgame reality.
Or I could lie to you and tell you that the west will stand behind Ukraine all the way to the 2013 border, even if it takes 10 years and a nuclear war...there, feel better?

My sense of all this is it seems the start of 'end game'.   The great russian bear is cornered.   But an animal is most dangerous when it is cornered.  There will be much roaring and bellowing and hissing and one can get very severely savaged if one makes a incorrect move or action to confront the beast.   But the bottom line is this.  The bear knows it is cornered and it will do anything to escape its fate, which is why this is the most dangerous moment in the hunt.   The hunters must be thoughtful, determined, resolved and patient to close with the beast and finish it off.   That is where I think we are on the cusp of.  The final fury before the bear is laid low.   There is deadly danger for everyone involved in this figurative dance of death.
My analogy and sense of where I think we are right now.

The Captain is making the cost benefit analysis that you can be sure is also being made not just in London, Paris and New York but also in Kyiv. Should the war continue to go in Ukraine's favor and should it take back everything to the 2014 line, it's going to have a choice. The choice will be either to continue a much harder war for terrain it may decide it doesn't need or an immediate settlement within NATO and the EU. If that choice takes the potential for nuclear weapons off the table, all the better. That is very much *not* status quo ante. That's a Ukrainian victory of great import...if not a total one. And it's not one Zelensky will ever articulate until the day the Russians sign the document.

Together with 10 fighters of Foreign Legion UKR brought back 190 own militaries and among them some heroes of Azovstal, including Azov fighters. In this time became knowingly about liberation of chief of Mariupol patrol police Mykhaylo Vershynin - his guys were almost single police unit of Mariupol, which fought to the end, when most of other policemen either fled or hide and further to defect to Russia

Also was liberated Kateryna Polishchuk "Ptashka" ("Birdy") paramedic of "Hospitaliers" volunteer medic unit, which became famous when uploaded own songs from besiged Azovstal