How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

It is Arestovych of course, but I really hope he’s right this time. BTW @Haiduk do you have some info about alleged RU offensive plans in the south? I recall you mentioned it few days ago.

 

Are these idiots really going to try to do an offensive that has basically no sustainable supply lines???  Even w the bridges working it's longer than what they had in Donbas and they couldn't make that work.  This is lovely.  Yes, please push everything to the right bank.  

UKR has all the advantages in this region.  Including partisans! UKR on nice interior lines.  RU on stretched, incredibly vulnerable lines.  So Putin is basically giving up on getting more of Donbas in crazy attempt to hold onto Kherson?  

Classic dictator, thinking his will makes reality.  What was that yoda meme? -- "Belief does not reality make."

If this is real, maybe Putin thinks he can push the lines back to get the bridges out of HIMARS range???   madness.  But never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[JonS]

33 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

madness

The soundtrack in Putin's mind?

Edited August 1, 2022 by JonS

[DesertFox]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Careful, DF, you might shock the sensitive Gutmenschen among us.

LOL! I already used the very much toned down version of what I really think 

[DesertFox]

Yes! Not enough to blast them off the planet, but we are getting there.

 

 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

For sure Russia is distracted with Ukraine, but Azerbaijan conducted their major attack  in 2020 well before the current events. 

Also, in this case we have probably Turkey acting behind the scenes. 

not sure what your point is.  The 2020 conflict was terminated with an agreement with Russia as a signatory which is where the "guarantor" part came from. From wiki on Russian forces in 2020

Quote

 Wagner Group
On 28 September, Russian media reported that Russian private military companies were ready to fight against Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. On 1 October, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, citing a Wagner Group source, claimed they were already in Nagorno-Karabakh and participating in hostilities. The Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer also stated that Wagner contractors were sent to support the Armenian forces as ATGM operators. After the war, in December 2020, a photo of a Wagner mercenary, apparently taken in front a church in Shusha during the war, appeared on the internet. Also, the Russian media leaked a message, apparently describing how the Armenian government refused to pay the Russian mercenaries for their work, and how, because of that, some of the Wagner mercenaries intended to return to Russia or defect to the Azerbaijani side. The Russian media reported that, in November, there were about 500 Russian mercenaries fighting on the Armenian side, and some 300 Russian mercenaries had taken part in the Battle of Shusha, with Victor Zlobov, a retired captain of the Russian Armed Forces, stating that Shusha was "defended mainly thanks to the Russian volunteers".

 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

 

 

3 hours ago, JonS said:

Was anyone really saying the US lacked the ability to kill people anywhere in the world?

Does anyone really still think that killing people is counter-terrorism?

Is killing people in general counter terrorism? No. But killing Zawahiri and tying him to the Haqqani network definitively certainly is. But I think more to the point is the reailty that remaining in Afghanistan wasn't particularly useful counter terrorism and would have been a distraction from the far more important conflict in Ukraine.

Edited August 2, 2022 by billbindc

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 

Is killing people in general counter terrorism? No. But killing Zawahiri and tying him to the Haqqani network definitively certainly is. But I think more to the point is the reailty that remaining in Afghanistan wasn't particularly useful counter terrorism and would have been a distraction from the far more important conflict in Ukraine.

And NOT being there allows us to be a lot more discriminating. There are not multiple drones strikes per day just to protect an array of outposts in outermost nowhere. What would completely bleep all of our enemies except China is getting off oil as a ground transport fuel, because at $15 per barrel they all go broke. Maybe the current lesson will finally sink in.

[danfrodo]

26 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And NOT being there allows us to be a lot more discriminating. There are not multiple drones strikes per day just to protect an array of outposts in outermost nowhere. What would completely bleep all of our enemies except China is getting off oil as a ground transport fuel, because at $15 per barrel they all go broke. Maybe the current lesson will finally sink in.

I agree w the esteemed Dan/CA.  NOthing would be better than seeing Saudi Arabia become what it should be, an uber-impoverished wind-bitten wasteland. 

On China, this got me thinking:  Do we want to think of China as an enemy?  Rival, most definitely.  Potential enemy, for sure.  But I wonder about throwing around enemy w a country with which we have massive trade, and where US companies are deeply ingrained. 

Will Chinese nationalism and pride push it to war at some point?  Would sure be dumb.  Spend multiple generations using the greed of capitalism (race to the bottom for wages) to become the manufacturing center of the world then throw it all away over Taiwan?  War would cripple the american economy but it would destroy China's.  So talk of China taking steps to prepare, financially, for war, would signal that they consider the insane somehow potentially feasible. 

Humans are truly unbelievable (US very much included).  We seem to have a complete inability to do a basic cost-benefit analysis where war is concerned.  Like drunks in a bar who think that some perceived slight is worth getting half their teeth knocked out and next day not even remembering what they were fighting about.  What's the saying ?-- (paraphrase) "wars start for reasons.  But once started they continue for the sake of the war itself, the reasons nearly immediately forgotten." -- WW1 being the perfect example.

Edited August 2, 2022 by danfrodo
typo

[Calamine Waffles]

  

55 minutes ago, sburke said:

The Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer

Oh wow, Pavel Felgenhauer is still around?

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

WW1 being the perfect example.

The excuse was not the reason, to start a war because of an assassination is silly. It is always a combination. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Unclear results of UKR strikes on the video, just interesting forestry terrain in 4 km NW from Spivakivka village and in 16 km west from Izium in that large forest. Video issued by 71st jager infantry brigade

 

I find it interesting that we are still seeing O and V markings on units currently engaged in operations.  These vehicles have Os on them and much of the engineering equipment sent to Kherson last week had Vs on them, for example.  Clearly they have had enough time to replace these markings with Zs and, of course, this is the symbol Russia has promoted as representing the operation.  Are individual units sticking with their old markings as a sort of veteran bragging rights thing?  Like "I was there a the very beginning"?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, panzermartin said:

For sure Russia is distracted with Ukraine, but Azerbaijan conducted their major attack  in 2020 well before the current events. 

Also, in this case we have probably Turkey acting behind the scenes. 

Is this still about your doubts about how important ethnic/regional problems are for Russia and how likely it is there will be areas of the current Russian Federation that breakaway along those lines?  I really don't know why you're stuck with that, especially when the evidence is pretty clear that you're thinking is historically off the mark.

To prove my point... which of these traditional Tzarist Russian regions, which were part of the Soviet Union, refused to be a part of the Russian Federation?

Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Georgia
Armenia
Chechnya
Dagestan
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia

Yes, all of them.  Now, what is the common theme for all of these 10s of millions of people opting to abandon hundreds of years of shared history with Russia when it was too weak to stop them from leaving?  Let me give you a small hint... it begins with "E" and ends with "thnicity"

I'm curious what your theory is that precludes this from happening again when Russia is, once again, too weak to do anything about it.  Because so far you haven't put forth anything tangible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, akd said:

LPR solution to a serial rapist / murderer on the loose: wait until the current RF unit rotates out and problem will be solved.

 

This is sad, but not unexpected.  When the most basic concept of being a Russian soldier is compatible with cold blooded murder, rape, and torture... serial killers are just really good soldiers.  Whomever is doing this is probably going to get a medal pinned on his chest by Putin himself.

Steve

[paxromana]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is sad, but not unexpected.  When the most basic concept of being a Russian soldier is compatible with cold blooded murder, rape, and torture... serial killers are just really good soldiers.  Whomever is doing this is probably going to get a medal pinned on his chest by Putin himself.

Steve

Or, possibly, a bullet in the back of the head in the basement of the Lubyanka and a burial in a hero's grave so they can't embarrass Putler at some future point ...

Edited August 2, 2022 by paxromana

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, Grigb said:

Evening Donbass Map

 

Thanks again for mapping this stuff.

What I see from this is about a half dozen points of effort that are each fairly small in scale.  As one of your translations stated, Russia continues to use BTGs as if they are just larger companies.  Even the Russian BTG doctrine isn't followed, not to mention the Western "battle group" concept that it was based on.

So far it seems that this new offensive (or continuation of the previous one in my view) is much the same as we've already seen.  Attack in many places with limited means and hope for the best.  And as with the previous several months of doing this, it's not able to move quickly even when it moves.  Which often it doesn't do on a day to day basis.

In the fighting today we saw the usual pattern of shelling and/or recon in the morning, followed by ground attacks and/or artillery only strikes, ending with losses and not much terrain taken.  The conflicting reports from Ukrainian government and Russian nationalist sources usually boil down to both agreeing an attack took place, but Ukraine saying it was defeated and Russia saying it took a limited amount of terrain.  It seems that in many cases both are correct simultaneously.

I expect that this pattern will continue as long as Russia can keep it going.  The question is, as it has been for months now, is how long can it do that.  I think we can all agree that once Russia's artillery ceases to have a certain volume of fire, it's done.  Even with artillery the attacks are pathetic.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, paxromana said:

Or, possibly, a bullet in the back of the head in the basement of the Lubyanka and a burial in a hero's grave so they can't embarrass Putler at some future point ...

Possible, but I doubt anybody is going to make a serious effort to figure out who is doing it and "fix" the problem.

That said, there are some within the Russian Federation that are concerned about what psychopaths like this might do when they return home to Mother Russia.  These guys might be the same ones that had to deal with the damaged goods that came back from fighting in 2014 and 2015.  Or they might be the ones that are (probably) making sure lots of hardcore fighters, such as DLPR and Wagner, don't return home at all.  It is a typical Russia way of dealing with problem cases, so it is possible.

Or it could be that this individual gets some sort of promotion and increased responsibilities.  He could have all the makings of a new Dirlewanger for all we know.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

14 hours ago, Grigb said:

Discussion: The most interesting part - he has news from Kherson, but he does not have news from Kharkiv-Izum direction. Not even a simple statement that there were not any changes. That means something is happening there or is going to happen. Obviously, it is regarding RU plans because he would not be quiet regarding UKR plans. Also, there are not many options there - either RU attacks or retreats.

Ukraine usually goes quiet right before or during a sensitive operation.  In this case, however, they've been very public about going on the offensive in Kherson.  They've also made some pretty high profile "statements" about its intentions (bridges, of course!).  However, I don't expect we'll know what Ukraine's plans are until after whatever it is they are planning is well underway.  Oddly enough, their tea leaves are a lot harder to read than Russia's thanks to Russia being rather predictable.

Russia has been rather quiet about Kherson as well, yet they are definitely very actively reinforcing the area.  I think this is a sign they are very nervous about what is about to happen.  Especially because they looked to be ramping up bragging about how Kherson is totally on Russia's side and will soon be separate from Ukraine.

14 hours ago, Grigb said:

My gut feeling Steve @Battlefront.com is right - it is slow moving disaster there.  They could be planning a retreat right now. I already posted UKR claim that in vicinities of Brazhkivka (South of Izum) 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade captured several Guard vehicles (from parade vehicles), including possible 150th Moto Rifle Division Banner left by retreating RU. 

We know that Russia is willing to take a major PR hit and blatantly retreat when it's clear to even the dimmest of high ranking Russians that sticking to the plan will yield worse results.  But Kherson has a different feel than the ones we've seen so far.  Here's my snarky summary of Russia's official position on each significant loss so far:

• Kyiv and the north -> "we never really wanted to take this terrain, just tie down Ukrainians while we focused on the Donbas.  Mission accomplished"
• Kharkiv -> "we don't talk about this because we didn't plan on it happening"
• Pull back from west of Kherson -> "we never said we were there, so nobody really knows we retreated"
• Failure to cross the Siverskyi Donets -> "fake news"
• Failure to bag any Ukrainian forces after Severodonetsk -> "we destroyed units that never existed, now that's what we call results!"
• Sinking of the Muskova -> "maintenance problem, 2 guys suffered stubbed toes and were evacuated, ship sunk in seas with waves that were centimeters high"
• Loss of Snake Island -> "we pulled our units out as a demonstration of how nice we are"
• Loss of terrain around Izyum -> "says who, the Nazis?"
• Loss of terrain around Kherson -> "we're busy getting ready to advance on Kryvyi Rih and Odessa, does that sound like we're losing ground?"
• Damage to Kherson bridges -> "minor damage, all patched up now.  Nothing to see here, move along"

The common thread here is that only ONE of these did the Russians provide a clear excuse for their failures (the northern withdrawal), the rest of them were ignored because circumstances allowed them to be from a domestic audience point of view.  But losing Kherson in any way, either by withdrawal or battlefield route, is something I don't think Russia can either excuse or sweep under the carpet.  Especially because the Nats are already pretty upset about the situation there and generally with the war.

I think they are going to stay in Kherson and hope that a rabbit magically appears out of a hat. 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

It is Arestovych of course, but I really hope he’s right this time. BTW @Haiduk do you have some info about alleged RU offensive plans in the south? I recall you mentioned it few days ago.

 

ISW continues to report on units withdrawing from Izyum and being redeployed to Kherson and the south.  I have a feeling that many of the "30" that Arestovych is talking about are these much diminished BTGs.  Some are probably hastily raised volunteer battalions, and the rest are likely fantasy by Arestovych to make the situation sound more concerning than it is.

I get the feeling that Ukraine is now deliberately baiting the Russians into putting forces onto the western side of the river before completely cutting Kherson off from Russian supply.  We all know what they can do because they did it very easily.  They definitely can do it again, despite losing HIRAMS launchers hiding on the 2nd floor of a building in Kharkiv

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Another example of Putin's brilliance at keeping NATO in check by attacking Ukraine:

 

[Battlefront.com]

I didn't see this posted here.  Footage from a few days ago showing Russia's ferry crossing of the Dnepr and the reason for it.  It's not too hard to see that this isn't a substitute for the bridges in any meaningful way. 

This footage caused some to notice there's new things in the water aside from the ferry crossing.  Specifically attempts to "dazzle" radar guided munitions:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-building-ghost-bridges-with-radar-reflectors-in-ukraine

As anybody who knows anything about HIMARS rockets and various PGM 155mm rounds... they aren't radar guided   Which means we can add another thing to the various "cope" programs of the Russian armed forces.

Someone in the comments section suggested they could be there to aid maritime radar spotting the bridge as a hazard to avoid.  I don't think so.  The timing of these things is apparently post strike and they were also newly established around the Kerch bridge (or at least that's the reporting).  I'll stick with them being a way to reassure Russian forces that Putin has a plan to keep them safe and these large pieplates will do just that.

Steve

[FancyCat]

52 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine usually goes quiet right before or during a sensitive operation.  In this case, however, they've been very public about going on the offensive in Kherson.  They've also made some pretty high profile "statements" about its intentions (bridges, of course!).  However, I don't expect we'll know what Ukraine's plans are until after whatever it is they are planning is well underway.  Oddly enough, their tea leaves are a lot harder to read than Russia's thanks to Russia being rather predictable.

Russia has been rather quiet about Kherson as well, yet they are definitely very actively reinforcing the area.  I think this is a sign they are very nervous about what is about to happen.  Especially because they looked to be ramping up bragging about how Kherson is totally on Russia's side and will soon be separate from Ukraine.

We know that Russia is willing to take a major PR hit and blatantly retreat when it's clear to even the dimmest of high ranking Russians that sticking to the plan will yield worse results.  But Kherson has a different feel than the ones we've seen so far.  Here's my snarky summary of Russia's official position on each significant loss so far:

• Kyiv and the north -> "we never really wanted to take this terrain, just tie down Ukrainians while we focused on the Donbas.  Mission accomplished"
• Kharkiv -> "we don't talk about this because we didn't plan on it happening"
• Pull back from west of Kherson -> "we never said we were there, so nobody really knows we retreated"
• Failure to cross the Siverskyi Donets -> "fake news"
• Failure to bag any Ukrainian forces after Severodonetsk -> "we destroyed units that never existed, now that's what we call results!"
• Sinking of the Muskova -> "maintenance problem, 2 guys suffered stubbed toes and were evacuated, ship sunk in seas with waves that were centimeters high"
• Loss of Snake Island -> "we pulled our units out as a demonstration of how nice we are"
• Loss of terrain around Izyum -> "says who, the Nazis?"
• Loss of terrain around Kherson -> "we're busy getting ready to advance on Kryvyi Rih and Odessa, does that sound like we're losing ground?"
• Damage to Kherson bridges -> "minor damage, all patched up now.  Nothing to see here, move along"

The common thread here is that only ONE of these did the Russians provide a clear excuse for their failures (the northern withdrawal), the rest of them were ignored because circumstances allowed them to be from a domestic audience point of view.  But losing Kherson in any way, either by withdrawal or battlefield route, is something I don't think Russia can either excuse or sweep under the carpet.  Especially because the Nats are already pretty upset about the situation there and generally with the war.

I think they are going to stay in Kherson and hope that a rabbit magically appears out of a hat. 

Steve

10 days ago, July 20th, in response to the HIMAR made holes in the Antonovsky bridge, you wrote the battle for the right bank of the Dnipro had been decided. 10 days since those holes in the bridge, Russia seemingly is still reinforcing Kherson oblast. ISW stated that Khariv counter offensive was announced May 5th, with Russian forces withdrawing by May 12th. 7 Days, tho Khariv had no statements on explaining the withdrawal. 

I double checked wiki on Snake Island, June 17th was when the regular attacks on the Russians on Snake Island began, and their pullout was announced June 30th, so 13 days. 

March 29th, the "goodwill gesture" for Kiev was announced, after Ukraine announced a counter offensive on March 16 according to wiki, or 13 days. 

Im doubtful it will be so aptly 13 days, either way, within a couple of days, the Russian General Staff and Putin should wise up to the fact that not pulling out their forces in Kherson oblast is inviting disaster on the scale of Kiev, and accordingly pull out. That or if they really are going for the rabbit in the hat trick, Russia will make no indication of retreat anytime within the next week. 

[panzermartin]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Is this still about your doubts about how important ethnic/regional problems are for Russia and how likely it is there will be areas of the current Russian Federation that breakaway along those lines?  I really don't know why you're stuck with that, especially when the evidence is pretty clear that you're thinking is historically off the mark.

To prove my point... which of these traditional Tzarist Russian regions, which were part of the Soviet Union, refused to be a part of the Russian Federation?

Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Georgia
Armenia
Chechnya
Dagestan
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia

Yes, all of them.  Now, what is the common theme for all of these 10s of millions of people opting to abandon hundreds of years of shared history with Russia when it was too weak to stop them from leaving?  Let me give you a small hint... it begins with "E" and ends with "thnicity"

I'm curious what your theory is that precludes this from happening again when Russia is, once again, too weak to do anything about it.  Because so far you haven't put forth anything tangible.

Steve

My theory is that the melting point of these breakaway republics is past its date. It was in 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union. 

You brought some valid points about current culture diversity in Russia but still that's not enough to suggest that there is desire to cut the umbilical cord. Until we see hints of unrest and another color revolution the core of the russian ethnos remains no less firm than UK and US. Actually maybe more. UK aka GB has lost huge areas the last centuries and let's remind ourselves almost half of the Scots voted recently for independence. I frequent a bar here owned by a Scotsman friend that totally hates English rule and so do the other Scots and Irish people drinking there. (Yes and every Scottish beer >Those weak tea flavored ales ) The decision of Brexit against the desires of these populations and the economic deterioration will only make this worse. But I bet they still have good chances to stay together despite all the historical vendetta. 

I think most predict this event along a catastrophic collapse for Russia. Well it's one of the possible outcome of this war. But we are very early in this war to tell. 

The example that was brought here with Nagorno Karabakh is not an ethnic russian issue. In fact Russia showed very little desire to assist there, that could possibly indicate some behind the scenes deal with Turkey involved. 

[Zeleban]

9 минут назад, Панцермартин сказал:

Моя теория состоит в том, что точки плавления отколовшихся республик прошли. Это было в 1991 году и распаде Советского Союза. 

Вы наблюдали некоторые веские доводы о нынешнем культурном разнообразии в России, но это было недостаточно для заражения, что есть желание перерезать пуповину. Пока мы не видим намеков на смуту и очередную цветную революцию, отражение русского этноса остается не менее прочным, чем Великобритания и США. На самом деле может и больше. Великобритания, также как Великобритания, потеряла природные территории за последние несколько месяцев, и давайте напомним себе, что почти половина шотландцев недавно проголосовала за независимость. Я часто посещаю здесь бар, принадлежащий другу-шотландцу, который полностью ненавидит английское правление, как и другие шотландцы и ирландцы, пьющие там. (Да и каждое шотландское пиво > Эти вкусовые качества чая)) Решение Brexit против желаний населения и экономики спад только усугубит ситуацию. Но держу пари, у них все еще есть хорошие шансы остаться вместе, несмотря на всю историческую вендетту. 

Думаю, самое главное предрекает это событие катастрофический крах для России. Ну это один из возможных исходов этой войны. Но мы очень рано в этой войне, чтобы сказать. 

Приведенный здесь пример с Нагорным Карабахом не является особо привлекательным для русских. На самом деле Россия не проявляла особой воли среди населения там, что может выступать на некую закулисную войну с Турцией. 

Shortly before the collapse of the USSR, there were no signs of its imminent collapse. In Ukraine in 1991, there were many supporters of Ukraine being part of the USSR (my grandparents are a good example of this, I'm sure this applies to most of the older generation of the USSR).

Nagorno-Karabakh strongly influences the internal state of Russia also in the sense that the Armenians make up a significant and very influential part of Russian society (take at least such propagandists as Simonyan and Keosayan). The loss of Karabakh by Armenia is a very heavy blow for them (at least the Armenian diaspora of Ukraine experienced this event very hard)

[panzermartin]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Shortly before the collapse of the USSR, there were no signs of its imminent collapse. In Ukraine in 1991, there were many supporters of Ukraine being part of the USSR (my grandparents are a good example of this, I'm sure this applies to most of the older generation of the USSR).

Nagorno-Karabakh strongly influences the internal state of Russia also in the sense that the Armenians make up a significant and very influential part of Russian society (take at least such propagandists as Simonyan and Keosayan). The loss of Karabakh by Armenia is a very heavy blow for them (at least the Armenian diaspora of Ukraine experienced this event very hard)

This is the only possibility I guess. With no visible cracks suddenly to fall apart like the pressure cooker Grigb repeats. I can't predict this. 

I'm curious why Russia didn't intervene at all in the Karabach if this was a national security issue. It was another sign of increasing weakness? 

 

[hcrof]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Is this still about your doubts about how important ethnic/regional problems are for Russia and how likely it is there will be areas of the current Russian Federation that breakaway along those lines?  I really don't know why you're stuck with that, especially when the evidence is pretty clear that you're thinking is historically off the mark.

To prove my point... which of these traditional Tzarist Russian regions, which were part of the Soviet Union, refused to be a part of the Russian Federation?

Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Georgia
Armenia
Chechnya
Dagestan
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia

Yes, all of them.  Now, what is the common theme for all of these 10s of millions of people opting to abandon hundreds of years of shared history with Russia when it was too weak to stop them from leaving?  Let me give you a small hint... it begins with "E" and ends with "thnicity"

I'm curious what your theory is that precludes this from happening again when Russia is, once again, too weak to do anything about it.  Because so far you haven't put forth anything tangible.

Steve

Doesn't that very long list suggest that any ethnic group that wants to break away would have done so already? Other than some statelets in the Caucasus I really don't see how any new nations are likely without external backing (meaning China) but the gain of some sparsely populated forest doesn't really offset the bad example of ethnic breakaway states for them imo.

Edited August 2, 2022 by hcrof