Russia is not gaining a lot of terrain, barely a couple hundred meters into Ukraine however they do have been losing a lot of their soldiers and that's big loss compared to the little gain, just different perspectives when commented by some Russian lovers, we do still have a lot of them here, some went to sleep for a while but somehow they woke up and made it back to their usual Ukraine negativity, luckily some stupid Russian's decided (involuntarily) to help Ukraine

Ukrainian forces attack: Russian troops helped destroy key bridge

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ukrainian-forces-attack-russian-troops-helped-destroy-key-bridge/ss-AA1Km6uI?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a8a22f4e3bbb4124b47a3878941a64b2&ei=69#image=3

 

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Maybe if the collective leadership weren’t so corrupt and hadn’t stolen billions in aid given willingly and wholeheartedly by Western allies the situation would be different. But the reality is that Ukraine is losing, Russia is making significant gains on the battlefield, and under Trump, America has effectively stepped back as Ukraine’s major ally.

Europe, meanwhile, is financially tapped out. If Russia were truly the existential threat they claim it to be, European nations would be urgently restocking their own armies and armaments.

At this stage, every life lost in this senseless war is exactly that a senseless loss. For all his crassness, Trump seems to understand this. We are on the brink of Europe realizing that its collective will, however strong or weak, no longer rules the global stage. Empires rise and fall, and the world keeps turning but the writing was on the wall from the very beginning, and that was always my position from the start. I take no pleasure in being proved right. I see we have lost @thaibeachlovers and others who seem to have left the site permanently. 

After Russia takes the War to the Baltics what would be after that Putin

6 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

Russia is not gaining a lot of terrain, barely a couple hundred meters into Ukraine

 

LOL  5555  what a load of propaganda !!!  they are almost to the Dnieper river

if/when they reach the river it will be about 1/3 of the country taken.

 

Based on  the last 12 months advance, Russia will succeed in being back to precisely square 1 in November 2026. They will need another 420,000 troops on top of current. Total losses to Russia will be about 2.5 million men, dead or maimed. Ukraine will be 800-1000,000.

 

The reputations of both countries will be changed immeasurably.

Breaking News!

Donald Trump has just won the biggest clown in the world award.  Finally he will get the prize and recognition he was looking for. 
 
 

Reports of Putin's proposal to Trump.

Completely unacceptable to Ukraine.

So the question probably is will Trump escape from all this by totally throwing Zelensky under the bus.

To me, both Putin AND Trump are evil players in this so called "card" game. 

 

To add, I think this guy has it right.

Ukraine and Europe are on one side.

Putin and Trump are on the opposing side.

Certainly a very nauseating situation for decent Americans.

 

 

 

https://archive.ph/5le5N

 

Russian breach sparks alarm on Ukraine’s eastern front
Sudden advance beyond Ukrainian frontline in Donetsk region comes ahead of Trump-Putin summit in Alaska - FT 

 

Bohdan Krotevych, former chief of staff of the Azov brigade and a National Guard lieutenant colonel, made a public appeal to Zelenskyy.
“Mr President, I sincerely don’t know what exactly is being reported to you, but I’m informing you: on the Pokrovsk-Kostyantynivka line, without exaggeration, it’s complete chaos,” he wrote on social media. “And this chaos has been growing for a long time, worsening with each passing day.”

Svitlana Morenets
Putin’s summer offensive is gaining momentum -THE SPECTATOR

 

https://archive.ph/JLs60#selection-1195.0-1201.44

 

With all that said, the Russian breach north of Pokrovsk doesn't come unexpectedly. It is the product of months of accumulated issues in Ukraine’s armed forces, starting from inefficient mobilisation, chronic weapons shortages, chaos in communication between units, misleading reports from the field to senior command and ill-conceived orders to attack for the sake of attacking rather than stabilising the defence. As many soldiers have pointed out, there is also the deeper problem: the absence of a clear strategic vision from Ukraine’s military leadership about what can realistically be achieved on the battlefield. The result is that Russian troops are now tightening the noose around the last fortress cities in the Ukrainian-held quarter of Donbas.

Zelenskyy: Russian losses roughly triple those of Ukraine - pluggin that into Chat it reveals that the losses are far greater on the Ukrainian side than previously admitted and in  comparative terms weighted for population then the Ukrainians have lost twice as many men as Russia has. I sincerely hope that Zelensjyy takes the best  offer that come from the 'peace' talks but I worry even if he did the ultra-nationalists won't let him. He will be a dead man walking. 

 

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/08/12/7525895/

 

Here’s an updated estimate of total manpower losses for both Russia and Ukraine over the duration of the war, based on available data.

---

Russia: Estimated Total Casualties (Killed, Wounded, Missing, Captured)

• Ukraine's Armed Forces estimate Russia has suffered 1,001,560 total losses (combined killed, wounded, missing, captured) as of 13 June 2025 (Wikipedia).

• British and U.S. sources (via The Guardian) note that by mid-2025, Russian military casualties had surpassed one million, with around 250,000 dead, and the rest wounded (The Guardian).

• CSIS analysis similarly indicates over 950,000 total casualties, including up to 250,000 fatalities (CSIS).

• The Week reports as of August 2025, Russian casualties may exceed 1 million, with up to 250,000 dead (The Week).

Takeaway: Most credible estimates cluster around 1 million total Russian casualties, approximately 250,000 of which are fatalities.

---

Ukraine: Estimated Total Manpower Losses

• According to Wikipedia (drawing on The Wall Street Journal and The Economist):

  • Ukraine has suffered 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded, as of early-2025 (Wikipedia).

• Timeline data from Wikipedia cites Ukraine's commander-in-chief saying:

  • Since the war began, 45,100 Ukrainian soldiers killed and 390,000 wounded (as of February 2025) (Wikipedia).

• Supportively, The Economist and other outlets estimate 60,000–100,000 Ukrainian fatalities as of mid-2025 (New York Post, The Week, Wikipedia).

Takeaway: Ukraine’s total manpower losses likely range from ~450,000 to 500,000, combining both killed and wounded.

---

Summary Table of Estimated Cumulative Losses

Country	Approx. Fatalities	Approx. Wounded/Other Losses	Total Losses (Estimate)
Russia	~250,000	~750,000	~1,000,000
Ukraine	~60,000–100,000	~390,000–400,000	~450,000–500,000

---

Per-Capita Comparison Based on Population

Using approximate war totals and population figures (Russia ~146 million, Ukraine ~39 million):

• Russia:

  • Total casualties: ~1,000,000 → ~6,850 casualties per million people.

• Ukraine:

  • Total casualties: ~500,000 → ~12,820 casualties per million people.

Here’s an updated estimate of total manpower losses for both Russia and Ukraine over the duration of the war, based on available data.

---

Russia: Estimated Total Casualties (Killed, Wounded, Missing, Captured)

• Ukraine's Armed Forces estimate Russia has suffered 1,001,560 total losses (combined killed, wounded, missing, captured) as of 13 June 2025 (Wikipedia).

• British and U.S. sources (via The Guardian) note that by mid-2025, Russian military casualties had surpassed one million, with around 250,000 dead, and the rest wounded (The Guardian).

• CSIS analysis similarly indicates over 950,000 total casualties, including up to 250,000 fatalities (CSIS).

• The Week reports as of August 2025, Russian casualties may exceed 1 million, with up to 250,000 dead (The Week).

Takeaway: Most credible estimates cluster around 1 million total Russian casualties, approximately 250,000 of which are fatalities.

---

Ukraine: Estimated Total Manpower Losses

• According to Wikipedia (drawing on The Wall Street Journal and The Economist):

  • Ukraine has suffered 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded, as of early-2025 (Wikipedia).

• Timeline data from Wikipedia cites Ukraine's commander-in-chief saying:

  • Since the war began, 45,100 Ukrainian soldiers killed and 390,000 wounded (as of February 2025) (Wikipedia).

• Supportively, The Economist and other outlets estimate 60,000–100,000 Ukrainian fatalities as of mid-2025 (New York Post, The Week, Wikipedia).

Takeaway: Ukraine’s total manpower losses likely range from ~450,000 to 500,000, combining both killed and wounded.

---

Summary Table of Estimated Cumulative Losses

Country	Approx. Fatalities	Approx. Wounded/Other Losses	Total Losses (Estimate)
Russia	~250,000	~750,000	~1,000,000
Ukraine	~60,000–100,000	~390,000–400,000	~450,000–500,000

---

Per-Capita Comparison Based on Population

Using approximate war totals and population figures (Russia ~146 million, Ukraine ~39 million):

• Russia:

  • Total casualties: ~1,000,000 → ~6,850 casualties per million people.

• Ukraine:

  • Total casualties: ~500,000 → ~12,820 casualties per million people.

So, per capita, Ukraine’s losses are roughly nearly twice as high as Russia’s.

---

 

Ukraine’s Once Nimble Army Is Mired in Soviet Decision-Making
As U.S.-Russia summit approaches, Ukrainian military faces growing divisions between the rank-and-file and top brass. ‘If you’re dumb and obedient, they leave you alone.’ - WSJ 

 

The final straw, said Shyrshyn, was an order for his men to go back into Kursk—a Russian region that Ukrainian forces had partly captured a year ago but ultimately had to withdraw from. The direction of the ordered attack was predictable and the Russians were prepared for it, he said. Wave after wave of Russian infantry counterattacks forced a retreat. Many men were killed, said Shyrshyn, including fresh, well-trained recruits, who are hard to come by. “They were young and motivated. I had hopes for them. Instead we just lost them.”

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-russia-army-soviet-5fa8e1c9?st=h2HJgj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalinkhttps://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-russia-army-soviet-5fa8e1c9?st=h2HJgj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

and yet they still manage to destroy expensive Russia weapons 

 

Ukrainian forces strike: Russia lost another weapon

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ukrainian-forces-strike-russia-lost-another-weapon/ss-AA1Kqw9B?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=1c4a1e455a774e4ba6942d8fc6522df9&ei=5#image=6

these are not the actions of somebody looking to cease hostilities, Trump should hold Putin accountable and notice his behavior while preparing for a peace talk meeting, Zelensky is right when he says the Russians can NOT be trusted

Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukraine kill at least six

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/top-stories/russian-missile-and-drone-attacks-on-ukraine-kill-at-least-six/ar-AA1KqRqA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=1c4a1e455a774e4ba6942d8fc6522df9&ei=25

 

Hallelujah – Matthew finally, mainstream columnists are addressing the previously overlooked issue: the pro-Ukrainian crowd, in their support of the war, bears some responsibility for this mess, alongside Putin himself. Putin is, without a doubt, an autocratic, despotic dictator, but he leads a country with the world’s largest landmass and immense mineral wealth. His power still holds. Never fight Russia unless you are prepared to go down to hell with them and hell it most certainly is: tens of millions of Ukrainians have left the country, and many will be reluctant to ever return. Forced mobilization is taking place in the thousands, and badly equipped, poorly trained troops are losing their lives needlessly. Don’t fight battles you can’t win and don't trust western allies who promise coalitions of the willing and then sit on their hands cometh the hour. Oh and western goverements you have enough problems of the home front to solve then getting involved in forever wars with nuclear armed powers. 

 

Matthew Parris - Has Zelensky become a liability? -THE SPECTATOR 

 

https://archive.ph/epOPD

 

Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European
nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can’t save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won’t save Ukraine unless there’s movement on conceding land. 
The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It’s as simple as that. 

 

 

47 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Hallelujah – Matthew finally, mainstream columnists are addressing the previously overlooked issue: the pro-Ukrainian crowd, in their support of the war, bears some responsibility for this mess, alongside Putin himself. Putin is, without a doubt, an autocratic, despotic dictator, but he leads a country with the world’s largest landmass and immense mineral wealth. His power still holds. Never fight Russia unless you are prepared to go down to hell with them and hell it most certainly is: tens of millions of Ukrainians have left the country, and many will be reluctant to ever return. Forced mobilization is taking place in the thousands, and badly equipped, poorly trained troops are losing their lives needlessly. Don’t fight battles you can’t win and don't trust western allies who promise coalitions of the willing and then sit on their hands cometh the hour. Oh and western goverements you have enough problems of the home front to solve then getting involved in forever wars with nuclear armed powers. 

 

Matthew Parris - Has Zelensky become a liability? -THE SPECTATOR 

 

https://archive.ph/epOPD

 

Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European
nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can’t save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won’t save Ukraine unless there’s movement on conceding land. 
The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It’s as simple as that. 

 

 

That column is totally bogus because it mentions that Ukraine should get it's goal of an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. 

Putin is not offering to allow anything of the kind!

As far as land, the article is disingenuous. Ukraine has been very clear that an ultimate peace solution could include acceptance of current Russian occupation but never acknowledging it as permanent or legitimate.

Yes we all know the Zelenskyy was previously a very successful entertainer. So what?

Parris is a fickle correspondant.

 

In March 2022, he ran a headline "Think twice before egging on brave Ukraine"

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/think-twice-before-egging-on-brave-ukraine-fb0lwkvgk

 

Quote

There’s a sharp difference between the intensity of our longing for the Ukrainians to succeed in fighting off their attackers, and the caution most of us feel about how far we should go in helping them. Is it right, is it responsible, can it be wholly sincere, for our country to encourage another country in a fight we do not ourselves choose to join?

 

Even then, he was calling for compromise with Russia, talking up their capabilties.

 

Then a year later he flips, and attempts historical revisionism

 

Quote

I thought at first that the Russians should just be pulverised, Putin humiliated into personal collapse and all the territory Moscow had stolen returned to Kyiv. After that, I thought, Europe would be at peace again: stabilised, sorted and ready to help rebuild Ukraine.

 

 

We get the usual "I don't support Putin but.....". The Ukrainians have warned this would happen; there would be an uptick in media chit chat talking up the Russians, and carefully denigrating Ukraines, but never the Russians.

 

I notice you criticise the Ukrainian military for its Soviet-style leadership. The same sort of leadership, literally (they went to the same officer school together) is over on the Russian side. They are also committing mistakes.

 

You critique the "Pro-Ukraine" crowd. I like to think of myself as part of the anti-genocidal kletocratic lunacy crowd. Ukraine may not be perfect. Neither was the United Kingdom in 1940; we undoubtedly at the time had an opportunit racist in charge of the country, responsible for one of the greatest disasters of WW1, with a head of state who's close family was in lock step with the Nazis, leading a class-ridden imperialist nation. When Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans landed on the beaches of Normandy, were they really motivated about defending the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, were they really gung ho to further General Charles de Gaulle's political career. Nope; I think many felt a clear sense of moral duty, that the Nazi menace, directly and indirectly, was a threat to the entire world. 

 

You say the so-called "Pro-Ukrainian crowd" bears responsiblity for this "mess" along with Russia. That's like saying if only thre Jewish people had been less Jewish they might have survived, and therefore brought it on themselves.

 

"Mobilisation" is the latest buzz word used by FB generals. Strangely, isn't this conscription. The British had to conscript people in WW1 and WW2, basically because people were not volunteering to go die for King and Country. From late 1940, the upper limit was extended from 40 to 55 because there were not enough recruits.

 

You talk about "10s of millions" of Ukrainian refugees. More deliberate distortion. There are 6.8 million Ukrainian refugees outside of Ukraine, and about 3.5 million displaced in it. You use that to suggest Ukraine isn't prepared to "prepared to go down to hell with them".

 

90% of those refugees are women. Men between 18 and 60 were not allowed to leave. Do you think during WW2 every able bodied man was on the Western Front, in North Africa, in the jungles around Rangoon? No. Many were Bevin boys. Others, like my Grandfather, were in protected occupations (he wanted to go, but was a foundary foreman). Britain still had an economy to run. It had to pay for the oil. While imports dramatically increased, exports continued, approximately 2:1 by value. Because the British population was not 100% devoted to a war economy, because there were men reluctant to join, or who actually went AWOL (like my Great Uncle, who ended up in court over it) that DOES NOT mean the British population was responsible for Dunkirk, Singapore, Hong Kong, Narvik and other debacles. Britain was losing the war until it suddenly started winning. In part because of the support of allies like the US, but also because of tenacity and guile. In North Africa, the German army was lead by a brilliant General, Erwin Rommel, who had already been blooded in Poland and France. He came up against Montgomery, who wasn't entirely popular with the politicians. Churchill didn't like him, and at one point demoted him because of his constant moaning about the BEF command.

 

Stubbornness? Or the Steel in the Spine of a Nation. Parris frames Zelensky’s refusal to barter away Ukrainian soil as a flaw. But this is not obstinacy; it is the iron principle that a free nation’s borders are not for sale. A leader who trades territory for the mirage of peace doesn’t end a war — he seeds the next one.

 

Compromise Is Not Peace. Your favourite ex-MP toys with the idea that wars “usually” end with concessions. Perhaps — but history also shows that concessions to aggressors are invitations to return. Ask Czechoslovakia, 1938. A Russia rewarded for conquest will not stop at its current gains; it will take them as proof the West’s will can be bent. Putin broke agreements with Georgia, leading to multiple aggressions against its tiny neighbour, who put up a valiant defence, with zero help.

 

Wars might well often end in concessions, but this one demands enduring deterrence over expedient peace. Compromises made under duress risk emboldening Putin, not containing him. The manuac has a clear track record of aggression both against his own people such as Chechenya, where there was near genocide, to his neighbours, such as Georgia. He has broken agreement after agreement.

 

Forget what your favoured biased news sources are telling you, if you can. But American and European resolve remains robust, reflected in sustained military and financial aid. A bold, resolute Ukrainian leader bolsters—not harms—this support by reminding allies why the fight matters.

 

We are told that an unyielding Zelensky could alienate Washington. Yet his moral clarity has been the most potent rallying cry for NATO since the Cold War. If anything, it is faintheartedness in Kyiv — not resolve — that would drain Western support. Leaders who stand firm inspire; leaders who buckle are soon forgotten. I'm sensing the American President is waking up to the geopolitical realities of allowing Putin to profit from his disasterous misadventure. Vance's recent speech to troops in the UK is a powerful indicator of that, and how he has shifted in his views (a really strong shift, compared to his pre-VP positions).

 

Ukrainian opinion polls consistently show strong resistance to territorial concessions without absolute trust in enforcement mechanisms. Parris may cite “some poll” and “his own conversations” with under-25s The Spectator, but broader data reveals deep citizen commitment to safeguarding the nation's integrity—Zelensky reflects that democratic will, not liability.

 

Zelensky’s leadership throughout war has been extraordinary. Recognized internationally as a wartime hero—often compared to Churchill—and invested with confidence by the U.S. public  Casting him as a liability dismisses his resilience, character, and the trust he commands at home and abroad. Now, like Churchill, he might be fairly useless when confronted with bread and butter policies, such as his recent inaction and inability to read the room over the corruption issues. Churchill was dumped while the British army was fighting the Japanese still.

 

Parris’s piece mostly focuses on geopolitics, but Zelensky’s record includes difficult domestic reforms—in mid-2025, he faced backlash for signing a law undermining Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, then swiftly acted to restore their independence following protests. His willingness to correct course under public pressure underscores democratic responsiveness, not weakness.

 

You dress defeatism in the clothes of pragmatism. But in the harsh light of war, that tailoring comes apart at the seams. Zelensky is not dragging Ukraine into danger — danger came uninvited. What he has done is meet it head-on, and in doing so, he has held the line not just for his country, but for the democratic world.

 

Americans would like to tell the world that they could have beaten North Vietnam; a nuclear power against rice farmers. But they didn't. The North Vietnamese were losing until they weren't.

 

Like if Nazi Germany won WW2, the risk is not German or Russian troops goose stepping up Pennsylvania Avenue, but the risk that the idea of a kleptocratic autocracy is the preferred system of government "because it gets sh*t done" becomes legitimised.

 

20 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Parris is a fickle correspondant.

 

In March 2022, he ran a headline "Think twice before egging on brave Ukraine"

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/think-twice-before-egging-on-brave-ukraine-fb0lwkvgk

 

 

Even then, he was calling for compromise with Russia, talking up their capabilties.

 

Then a year later he flips, and attempts historical revisionism

 

 

 

We get the usual "I don't support Putin but.....". The Ukrainians have warned this would happen; there would be an uptick in media chit chat talking up the Russians, and carefully denigrating Ukraines, but never the Russians.

 

I notice you criticise the Ukrainian military for its Soviet-style leadership. The same sort of leadership, literally (they went to the same officer school together) is over on the Russian side. They are also committing mistakes.

 

You critique the "Pro-Ukraine" crowd. I like to think of myself as part of the anti-genocidal kletocratic lunacy crowd. Ukraine may not be perfect. Neither was the United Kingdom in 1940; we undoubtedly at the time had an opportunit racist in charge of the country, responsible for one of the greatest disasters of WW1, with a head of state who's close family was in lock step with the Nazis, leading a class-ridden imperialist nation. When Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans landed on the beaches of Normandy, were they really motivated about defending the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, were they really gung ho to further General Charles de Gaulle's political career. Nope; I think many felt a clear sense of moral duty, that the Nazi menace, directly and indirectly, was a threat to the entire world. 

 

You say the so-called "Pro-Ukrainian crowd" bears responsiblity for this "mess" along with Russia. That's like saying if only thre Jewish people had been less Jewish they might have survived, and therefore brought it on themselves.

 

"Mobilisation" is the latest buzz word used by FB generals. Strangely, isn't this conscription. The British had to conscript people in WW1 and WW2, basically because people were not volunteering to go die for King and Country. From late 1940, the upper limit was extended from 40 to 55 because there were not enough recruits.

 

You talk about "10s of millions" of Ukrainian refugees. More deliberate distortion. There are 6.8 million Ukrainian refugees outside of Ukraine, and about 3.5 million displaced in it. You use that to suggest Ukraine isn't prepared to "prepared to go down to hell with them".

 

90% of those refugees are women. Men between 18 and 60 were not allowed to leave. Do you think during WW2 every able bodied man was on the Western Front, in North Africa, in the jungles around Rangoon? No. Many were Bevin boys. Others, like my Grandfather, were in protected occupations (he wanted to go, but was a foundary foreman). Britain still had an economy to run. It had to pay for the oil. While imports dramatically increased, exports continued, approximately 2:1 by value. Because the British population was not 100% devoted to a war economy, because there were men reluctant to join, or who actually went AWOL (like my Great Uncle, who ended up in court over it) that DOES NOT mean the British population was responsible for Dunkirk, Singapore, Hong Kong, Narvik and other debacles. Britain was losing the war until it suddenly started winning. In part because of the support of allies like the US, but also because of tenacity and guile. In North Africa, the German army was lead by a brilliant General, Erwin Rommel, who had already been blooded in Poland and France. He came up against Montgomery, who wasn't entirely popular with the politicians. Churchill didn't like him, and at one point demoted him because of his constant moaning about the BEF command.

 

Stubbornness? Or the Steel in the Spine of a Nation. Parris frames Zelensky’s refusal to barter away Ukrainian soil as a flaw. But this is not obstinacy; it is the iron principle that a free nation’s borders are not for sale. A leader who trades territory for the mirage of peace doesn’t end a war — he seeds the next one.

 

Compromise Is Not Peace. Your favourite ex-MP toys with the idea that wars “usually” end with concessions. Perhaps — but history also shows that concessions to aggressors are invitations to return. Ask Czechoslovakia, 1938. A Russia rewarded for conquest will not stop at its current gains; it will take them as proof the West’s will can be bent. Putin broke agreements with Georgia, leading to multiple aggressions against its tiny neighbour, who put up a valiant defence, with zero help.

 

Wars might well often end in concessions, but this one demands enduring deterrence over expedient peace. Compromises made under duress risk emboldening Putin, not containing him. The manuac has a clear track record of aggression both against his own people such as Chechenya, where there was near genocide, to his neighbours, such as Georgia. He has broken agreement after agreement.

 

Forget what your favoured biased news sources are telling you, if you can. But American and European resolve remains robust, reflected in sustained military and financial aid. A bold, resolute Ukrainian leader bolsters—not harms—this support by reminding allies why the fight matters.

 

We are told that an unyielding Zelensky could alienate Washington. Yet his moral clarity has been the most potent rallying cry for NATO since the Cold War. If anything, it is faintheartedness in Kyiv — not resolve — that would drain Western support. Leaders who stand firm inspire; leaders who buckle are soon forgotten. I'm sensing the American President is waking up to the geopolitical realities of allowing Putin to profit from his disasterous misadventure. Vance's recent speech to troops in the UK is a powerful indicator of that, and how he has shifted in his views (a really strong shift, compared to his pre-VP positions).

 

Ukrainian opinion polls consistently show strong resistance to territorial concessions without absolute trust in enforcement mechanisms. Parris may cite “some poll” and “his own conversations” with under-25s The Spectator, but broader data reveals deep citizen commitment to safeguarding the nation's integrity—Zelensky reflects that democratic will, not liability.

 

Zelensky’s leadership throughout war has been extraordinary. Recognized internationally as a wartime hero—often compared to Churchill—and invested with confidence by the U.S. public  Casting him as a liability dismisses his resilience, character, and the trust he commands at home and abroad. Now, like Churchill, he might be fairly useless when confronted with bread and butter policies, such as his recent inaction and inability to read the room over the corruption issues. Churchill was dumped while the British army was fighting the Japanese still.

 

Parris’s piece mostly focuses on geopolitics, but Zelensky’s record includes difficult domestic reforms—in mid-2025, he faced backlash for signing a law undermining Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, then swiftly acted to restore their independence following protests. His willingness to correct course under public pressure underscores democratic responsiveness, not weakness.

 

You dress defeatism in the clothes of pragmatism. But in the harsh light of war, that tailoring comes apart at the seams. Zelensky is not dragging Ukraine into danger — danger came uninvited. What he has done is meet it head-on, and in doing so, he has held the line not just for his country, but for the democratic world.

 

Americans would like to tell the world that they could have beaten North Vietnam; a nuclear power against rice farmers. But they didn't. The North Vietnamese were losing until they weren't.

 

Like if Nazi Germany won WW2, the risk is not German or Russian troops goose stepping up Pennsylvania Avenue, but the risk that the idea of a kleptocratic autocracy is the preferred system of government "because it gets sh*t done" becomes legitimised.

 

It is possible to admire Ukraine’s courage and still recognize the cold, unpleasant arithmetic of war. Two years ago, talk of “standing firm” and “never conceding” resonated as moral clarity. Today, with Ukrainian forces stretched thin, supply lines increasingly fragile, and front-line attrition rates rising, the battlefield reality is far less heroic than the slogans suggest.

 

We can debate history all day Czechoslovakia in 1938, Churchill in 1940  but the present has its own grim unique logic. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict has reached an impasse: Ukraine cannot dislodge Russian forces without a level of matériel, manpower, and sustained Western commitment that no longer appears forthcoming. The United States, distracted and divided, is no longer the anchor it was in 2022. Europe, for all its moral outrage, lacks both the resources and the collective political will to “see this through” in the maximalist sense.

 

That is not “rewarding aggression”; it is acknowledging constraints. War aims must be achievable, not aspirational. Endless exhortations to “hold the line” mean little if that line cannot, in practice, be held without bleeding a generation dry.

 

The ugly truth is that both Russia and Ukraine are absorbing staggering human and economic costs, while the West rhetorically committed, tactically cautious drifts toward the sidelines. To insist on total victory in this environment risks turning heroism into self-immolation. A negotiated settlement, even one that leaves territory in Russian hands for now, may not satisfy our moral instincts, but it can save tens of thousands of lives and preserve Ukraine’s core sovereignty for the day when conditions are more favorable.

 

History books lionize leaders who refuse to yield; they also quietly note the ones who knew when to salvage what they could. A messy peace is not the same as surrender it is a pause, a chance to regroup, rebuild, and outlast an adversary who has just as many vulnerabilities as strengths.Romanticizing a forever-war is easy from a safe distance. Living through one is not. For Ukraine, the greater act of courage may be to accept a bitter compromise today in order to still be standing tomorrow.

You have repeatedly posted statements attacking Ukraine whikle pretending to be not supportive of Russia. At best appeasement, but could be something else.

 

Russia gets away with chunks of Ukraine. So you are completely cool about America carving off Greenland and bits of Canada, because, realistically, what can Canada and Denmark do about that.. Or indeed China-Taiwan. North Korea, nuclear armed, could overun Seoul in hours.

 

It is your Russian friends who are the maximalists. All Ukraine wants is to be a country. That's pretty minimal really. 

 

You repeatedly denigrate Europe. Europe has HUGE resources. Russia, remember, started out with an economy the size of Italy. Now it has an economy the size of Spain. 

 

For instance, Russia has had to decimate its civil economy to get to artillery production of 50 million shells a year. Europe currently produces 6 million a year. But its well on track to exceed Russian production by 2026. And thats thanks to the power of European innovation and guile compared to your favoured lumbering Soviet kleptocracy. And our economies will barely break a sweat. You sound awfully like a defeatist, believing the Kremlin line hook line and sinker.

 

You sit there copy pasting articles written by an ex-Tory minister who has never set foot in Ukraine, and a 20 something Ukrainian jobbing journalist who spends most of her time in London. Looking for anything to support your view, which includes letting Russia win and profit from this. Why do you want Russia to profit from this. By profit, I mean accepting Russia's conquest of parts of Ukraine, and drawing a line under that.

 

Ultimately the things you are demanding from the Ukrainian President are not in his power to give, unless you are a support of the idea of a Dictatorship, which you might do (an unhealthy number of Americans on this site, largely living in Thailand, seem Dictator-enthusiasts). Ukraine has a parliament, which needs a 60% vote, and the rest, to amend their constitution.

 

You don't have much idea what "Peace" means. For you, Ukraine should surrender now to Russia, while secretly planning to attack them again when their back is turned ("A messy peace is not the same as surrender it is a pause, a chance to regroup, rebuild, and outlast an adversary who has just as many vulnerabilities as strengths").

 

Ukraine, quite rightly, doesn't want some sort of deal that just sets up Russia to attack again. You view that wish as immoral, which is perverse. You champion the strong, while denigrating the weak. Sounding a bit like a Gopnik "Russia Strong".

 

You say Ukrainian forces are "stretched thin". I am curious why you are consistantly failing to point out that the Russian forces are also "stretched thin", being high dependant on press ganged Convicts, North Koreans, Bangladeshis, Africans. Why aren't you exorting the Russians to think again; there are plenty of Russians on this forum to appeal to. But you don't. You expect the Ukrainians to give in, never the Russians, despite your mealy mouthed "but I don't supprt Putin" line.

 

You statements are contradictory. You attack, using your interpretation, Zelensky's demands as looking for "Total Victory", but then suggest that Ukraine could reclaim its territories by other means later on. That's not how treaties work.

 

Zelensky is not looking for "Total Victory" in the manner you frame it. He wants continued recognition of Ukraine's international borders. He doesn't want a peace which means a change in Ukraine's borders.

 

When you cede territory to another nation, what that means is that you change your international borders.

 

For example, Cyprus has never ceded Northern Cyprus.  Nor should it. Syria never ceded the Golan Heights. Egypt never ceded the Sinai. Georgia has never ceded Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

That doesn't mean the countries involved were forever at war, but it has important implications legally and with respect to sovereignty. For instance, if you were a Brit, looking to retire to Cyprus, if you brought in the north, likely you have no legal title to that property. Its a pretty bad investment when you are sold stolen property.

 

When you cede territory, thats it, there is no further negotiation. This is what Russia wants; the country you claim to not support, in fact, you support their demands 100%.

 

If Ukraine cedes territory, then any future act it carries out to reclaim that lost territory would be seen as an act of war. 

 

This is exactly the line Argentina took when it invaded the Falkland Islands. The islands were British, through am internationally recognised treaty. Argentina felt this was wrong, but their act was illegal. After WW2, Germany ceded East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania to Poland and USSR. No attempt was made to reclaim these territories; so you think Germany should have gotten Konigsberg back after the collapse of the SU? So you have mixed up thinking there.

 

Zelensky absolutely wants a ceasefire, which you repeatedly misrepresent, but not at the expense of recognising Russia's conquests. The Americans are proposing a 49-99 year "pause". President Zelensky is unhappy about this, considering it a de facto recognition of Russia's claims, but has not rejected it out of hand (lets see the details).

 

A 99 year pause could be considered alongside a recognition that the Russian occupation is illegal, which has the practical  impact of severely sanctioning Russia. It sounds like you want all sanctions to be lifted.

 

You are supporting the maximalist ambitions of Russia while falsely presenting the Ukrainian position (Kremlin bots are the ones talking up "to the last Ukrainian" line). You seem not to want to support the option that Russian should be reminded, continually, that it has committed an illegal act.

 

Why aren't you calling for the demilitarisation of the occupied territories, and replacement of the occupiers with blue helmets of similar, who can supervise a free referendum to see what people in the Donbas want. Let me guess, you are going to say they already had a vote.

One may assume that the propaganda all over on the Ukraine war seems far more intense then the fighting itself on the field

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

That is not “rewarding aggression”; it is acknowledging constraints

Yes, it would be acknowledging constraints. But that would also be rewarding aggression.

8 hours ago, MicroB said:

You have repeatedly posted statements attacking Ukraine whikle pretending to be not supportive of Russia. At best appeasement, but could be something else.

 

Russia gets away with chunks of Ukraine. So you are completely cool about America carving off Greenland and bits of Canada, because, realistically, what can Canada and Denmark do about that.. Or indeed China-Taiwan. North Korea, nuclear armed, could overun Seoul in hours.

 

It is your Russian friends who are the maximalists. All Ukraine wants is to be a country. That's pretty minimal really. 

 

You repeatedly denigrate Europe. Europe has HUGE resources. Russia, remember, started out with an economy the size of Italy. Now it has an economy the size of Spain. 

 

For instance, Russia has had to decimate its civil economy to get to artillery production of 50 million shells a year. Europe currently produces 6 million a year. But its well on track to exceed Russian production by 2026. And thats thanks to the power of European innovation and guile compared to your favoured lumbering Soviet kleptocracy. And our economies will barely break a sweat. You sound awfully like a defeatist, believing the Kremlin line hook line and sinker.

 

You sit there copy pasting articles written by an ex-Tory minister who has never set foot in Ukraine, and a 20 something Ukrainian jobbing journalist who spends most of her time in London. Looking for anything to support your view, which includes letting Russia win and profit from this. Why do you want Russia to profit from this. By profit, I mean accepting Russia's conquest of parts of Ukraine, and drawing a line under that.

 

Ultimately the things you are demanding from the Ukrainian President are not in his power to give, unless you are a support of the idea of a Dictatorship, which you might do (an unhealthy number of Americans on this site, largely living in Thailand, seem Dictator-enthusiasts). Ukraine has a parliament, which needs a 60% vote, and the rest, to amend their constitution.

 

You don't have much idea what "Peace" means. For you, Ukraine should surrender now to Russia, while secretly planning to attack them again when their back is turned ("A messy peace is not the same as surrender it is a pause, a chance to regroup, rebuild, and outlast an adversary who has just as many vulnerabilities as strengths").

 

Ukraine, quite rightly, doesn't want some sort of deal that just sets up Russia to attack again. You view that wish as immoral, which is perverse. You champion the strong, while denigrating the weak. Sounding a bit like a Gopnik "Russia Strong".

 

You say Ukrainian forces are "stretched thin". I am curious why you are consistantly failing to point out that the Russian forces are also "stretched thin", being high dependant on press ganged Convicts, North Koreans, Bangladeshis, Africans. Why aren't you exorting the Russians to think again; there are plenty of Russians on this forum to appeal to. But you don't. You expect the Ukrainians to give in, never the Russians, despite your mealy mouthed "but I don't supprt Putin" line.

 

You statements are contradictory. You attack, using your interpretation, Zelensky's demands as looking for "Total Victory", but then suggest that Ukraine could reclaim its territories by other means later on. That's not how treaties work.

 

Zelensky is not looking for "Total Victory" in the manner you frame it. He wants continued recognition of Ukraine's international borders. He doesn't want a peace which means a change in Ukraine's borders.

 

When you cede territory to another nation, what that means is that you change your international borders.

 

For example, Cyprus has never ceded Northern Cyprus.  Nor should it. Syria never ceded the Golan Heights. Egypt never ceded the Sinai. Georgia has never ceded Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

That doesn't mean the countries involved were forever at war, but it has important implications legally and with respect to sovereignty. For instance, if you were a Brit, looking to retire to Cyprus, if you brought in the north, likely you have no legal title to that property. Its a pretty bad investment when you are sold stolen property.

 

When you cede territory, thats it, there is no further negotiation. This is what Russia wants; the country you claim to not support, in fact, you support their demands 100%.

 

If Ukraine cedes territory, then any future act it carries out to reclaim that lost territory would be seen as an act of war. 

 

This is exactly the line Argentina took when it invaded the Falkland Islands. The islands were British, through am internationally recognised treaty. Argentina felt this was wrong, but their act was illegal. After WW2, Germany ceded East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania to Poland and USSR. No attempt was made to reclaim these territories; so you think Germany should have gotten Konigsberg back after the collapse of the SU? So you have mixed up thinking there.

 

Zelensky absolutely wants a ceasefire, which you repeatedly misrepresent, but not at the expense of recognising Russia's conquests. The Americans are proposing a 49-99 year "pause". President Zelensky is unhappy about this, considering it a de facto recognition of Russia's claims, but has not rejected it out of hand (lets see the details).

 

A 99 year pause could be considered alongside a recognition that the Russian occupation is illegal, which has the practical  impact of severely sanctioning Russia. It sounds like you want all sanctions to be lifted.

 

You are supporting the maximalist ambitions of Russia while falsely presenting the Ukrainian position (Kremlin bots are the ones talking up "to the last Ukrainian" line). You seem not to want to support the option that Russian should be reminded, continually, that it has committed an illegal act.

 

Why aren't you calling for the demilitarisation of the occupied territories, and replacement of the occupiers with blue helmets of similar, who can supervise a free referendum to see what people in the Donbas want. Let me guess, you are going to say they already had a vote.

 

I want to make something clear from the start: I don’t support Putin, I don’t support Russia’s invasion, and I wouldn’t want to live in Russia. I live in the UK, and my position is based on pragmatic realism — not virtue-signalling, wishful thinking, or the comforting idea that the world works the way we would like it to.

 

Ukraine has been led down the garden path by the West. NATO membership is not coming nor is EU membership  because Ukraine’s geography, economic fragility, and endemic corruption make it an unviable long-term member. More importantly, admitting it would cut directly across the self-interest of several existing members. That’s not moral approval of Russia  it’s recognition of the political and strategic reality.

 

Many here seem to have selectively supped on the propagandist framing of the war in the Western media coverage that, until very recently, required a deep dig to find any article that wasn’t about Putin dying, being toppled in a coup, Russia running out of soldiers, tanks, ammunition, missiles, or the economy collapsing. None of those takes have turned out to be true. Ukraine is now on life support the US has pulled that plug and I will state again, forcefully, that the populations of Europe are tapped out. Welfare states are collapsing, people feel besieged by migration and taxation, and there is no open tab to keep paying for this war indefinitely.

 

In 2015, John Mearsheimer made a widely cited prediction about the consequences of Western policy toward Ukraine. He stated:

“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
That wasn’t an endorsement of Russia it was a blunt warning about cause and effect, and events since have proven him 100% correct.

 

And to those who say they want this war to end in a Ukrainian victory, I ask: where are your troops, where is your money, and where are the weapons? The surplus stock from NATO stores has long since gone. In fact, this menagerie of clapped-out, different-gauged kit brought its own logistical headaches, while Russia maintained one supply chain which it has since reinvigorated and when that fell short, it turned to Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian weapons built on familiar Soviet patterns to fill the gaps.

 

History should give us pause. From Napoleon’s invasion to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, taking on Russia directly has proved a ruinous undertaking for those who try. The sheer size of its territory, the depth of its resources, and its capacity to absorb enormous losses make outright military defeat of Russia an exceptionally remote prospect. If two of history’s most formidable military powers could not achieve it, what makes anyone think Ukraine even with Western help can do so now?

 

It’s also not gone without notice that those who want to take reality, not propaganda, as their starting point are smeared with labels like “Putin shill,” “vatnik,” or “gopnik” to shut down debate rather than confront the facts. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s endemic corruption which has persisted throughout this war has seen vast amounts of Western aid and assistance siphoned off at the very top. All the while, ordinary soldiers, many forcibly conscripted by TC goon squads , poorly trained, and poorly armed, have been sent to the frontlines without effective air cover, where thousands of glide bombs have rained down on their positions. Where was the moral outrage about that? And frankly, old men living comfortably in Thailand tapping out their support for a war that doesn’t lap at their shores, doesn’t touch their families, and doesn’t cost them a penny is not the moral high ground they seem to think it is.

 

The United States has a long history of high-minded interventions that fail to deliver on their stated goals: stopping communism in Southeast Asia, toppling Saddam, removing the Taliban. Each ended with enormous loss of life, trillions in wasted expenditure, and ultimately the same entrenched problems. Ukraine is the latest iteration of this pattern a proxy war where the likely end state will look nothing like the lofty aims being declared now.

You accuse me of wanting “Russia to profit” or “Ukraine to surrender.” That is wrong. What I am saying is that wars end through negotiation, and negotiations require compromise often painful, imperfect, and unfair. That’s not a moral endorsement of an aggressor; it’s a recognition that the alternative  grinding warfare with no achievable path to total victory produces even more destruction for the weaker side.

 

Comparisons to Cyprus, the Falklands, or post-WW2 Germany are historically interesting but strategically misleading. Those situations all ended in political settlements that froze the status quo for decades, whether anyone “recognised” it or not. I am arguing for a ceasefire and political process that stops the killing now, preserves Ukraine’s ability to survive as a state, and leaves the question of sovereignty open not one that “cedes” territory in a way that makes it impossible to revisit later.

 

Both sides are stretched thin Russia included but that doesn’t alter the central point: Russia has greater strategic depth, population, and industrial mobilisation capacity than Ukraine. A war of attrition favours them in the long run, and no amount of optimistic production projections from Europe changes the fact that Ukraine cannot match Russian manpower indefinitely.

I do not “champion the strong” or “denigrate the weak.” I champion survival over martyrdom, and a realistic path to preserving Ukraine as a functioning state over an endless war fought for objectives that cannot be delivered in practice. The West’s responsibility is not to lead Ukraine into another unwinnable crusade, but to help it secure the best possible deal in the worst possible circumstances.

That’s not defeatism. It’s refusing to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan mistakes made when people ignored reality in favour of inspiring speeches about ideals.

 

But thankyou for making a lengthy and impassioned post - this place used to have  a lot more of that and was the place to be way back when . The sad truth is those days have long gone and menbers have fallen away , died or left for one reson or another and frankly these days there is very little debate to be had. 

They come thick and fast now and I for one won't join in the chorus of calling Pavlo a coward - he's a patriotic realist. 

 

Why divided Ukrainians are refusing to fight for Zelensky
Russian gains in the east are undermining morale while casting Kyiv’s manpower problems in stark relief - DAILY TELEGRAPH 

 

https://archive.ph/nuwcK#selection-2205.4-2209.110

 

Ukraine is “visibly losing the war”, says Konrad Muzkya, a Polish military analyst, largely because of the manpower crisis. So why won’t men like Pavlo, 35 and a new father, enlist?

“Probably because I am afraid,” he says, with disarming honesty.

“Afraid to die or, worse, lose my mind and become a burden to my family. Afraid to leave my family in poverty. Afraid that my daughter will grow up an orphan. Afraid of being captured and tortured for months.

“I feel ashamed of this. People look for excuses not to join the army. People tell themselves that it is the government which is wrong, or that Europe is to blame, or that someone else should be sent. But for most, it’s simply fear.”

As I was saying... 

 

Rebekah Koffler - Putin cannot fight in Ukraine indefinitely. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have to

Russia is unlikely to accept a deal with Trump, because the Kremlin believes it can grind Kyiv and the West into surrender 

DAILY TELEGRAPH

 

https://archive.ph/zqjaj

 

In terms of combat potential – a combination of the size of a country’s weapons stockpile, the size of its armed forces, its ability to mobilise additional troops, its military-industrial capacity to scale up production of weapons, and its will to fight – Ukraine is outmanned, outgunned, and overly reliant on the West economically and militarily. Its will to fight also appears to have been eroded. Despite having lowered the minimum conscription age in 2024 from 27 to 25, and allowing men over 60 to enlist in the military, Ukraine is in a manpower crisis, with the average age of a Ukrainian soldier reportedly having reached 45.

now let's see if does follow thru on his promises and will play hardball with Putin or will the Russia smooth talk will make Trump swing to the usual TACO

 

However, Trump also added that Putin would face “severe consequences” if the Russian leader does not agree to a ceasefire, though he did not specify exactly what those consequences would be.

When asked if Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday’s meeting, Trump responded: “Yes, they will.”

 

 

Trump ‘did not like’ moment Macron called him out over Putin during high-stakes call with European leaders

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-did-not-moment-macron-222354578.html

I’ll stick my neck out here: Putin will completely outplay Trump over Alaska. Trump and Vance couldn’t care less about Zelensky  just remember the Oval Office meeting. Trump is already talking about doing deals with Putin involving Alaska. Oh, and he’ll probably say, “Let me have Greenland, and you can do what you want with Ukraine.” Putin will stroke his ego, agree to everything, and emerge triumphant, letting Trump paint Zelensky as the roadblock to peace and cut the remaining ties. Oh and Trump wants to crow about multi-billion airline deals with Boeing - that's the piece of meat he wants to bring home to his base. 

 

https://archive.ph/d4vzc

 

Trump to offer Putin minerals for peace

US president will propose money-making opportunities to encourage Russia to end Ukraine war 

 

The US president will arrive at the much-anticipated meeting with his Russian counterpart on Friday armed with a number of money-making opportunities for Putin.

They will include opening up Alaska’s natural resources to Moscow and lifting some of the American sanctions on Russia’s aviation industry, The Telegraph can reveal.

Proposals include giving Putin access to the rare earth minerals in the Ukrainian territories currently occupied by Russia.

 

49 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I’ll stick my neck out here: Putin will completely outplay Trump over Alaska

That's not sticking your neck out, that's a certainty.

2 hours ago, Mavideol said:

However, Trump also added that Putin would face “severe consequences” if the Russian leader does not agree to a ceasefire, though he did not specify exactly what those consequences would be.

When asked if Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday’s meeting, Trump responded: “Yes, they will.”

 

Of course Putin will agree to a cease fire, the same kind of agreement he has made twice or three times already

6 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The West’s responsibility is not to lead Ukraine into another unwinnable crusade, but to help it secure the best possible deal in the worst possible circumstances.

 

Wrong, The West's responsibility is to make sure Europe will continue to be democratic and protect our borders against the enemy , the Russian regime led by a dictator.

Ukraine wants to be independent from Russia and join a democratic Europe with protected borders. Joining the EU or NATO is a long process for them but Europe got no choice, unless we want an uncertain future for our family, for the next generations. Putin tried to invade all of Ukraine, and Kyiv back in 2022 , he tried to turn Ukraine into another Belarus. We can not allow that to happen! 

 


 
 


 

1 hour ago, balo said:

 

Wrong, The West's responsibility is to make sure Europe will continue to be democratic and protect our borders against the enemy , the Russian regime led by a dictator.

Ukraine wants to be independent from Russia and join a democratic Europe with protected borders. Joining the EU or NATO is a long process for them but Europe got no choice, unless we want an uncertain future for our family, for the next generations. Putin tried to invade all of Ukraine, and Kyiv back in 2022 , he tried to turn Ukraine into another Belarus. We can not allow that to happen! 

 


 
 


 

As my nan used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. The way the world’s going, we’ve seen peak Europe. We boomers rode the wave built by our parents  my dad included, who fought in the war. But where are the pensions, affordable housing, job security, the NHS, and all the rest for today’s young people, who are now expected to do the fighting? Even Ukraine seems increasingly unwilling to do that themselves. Let Eastern Europe protect itself if they want to spend half their GDP on huge armies and defensive lines, good luck to them. Britain is an island nation with nukes. Other people’s wars should be their own business. 

Does Tommy's mob outsdie the hotels know this yet ?

 

Here’s the latest breakdown based on official figures and reputable sources:

---

1. UK Spending on Ukraine Since Feb 2022

• Military Aid

  • The UK has committed approximately £10.8 billion in military support so far and has pledged to sustain £3 billion per year through to 2030–31 or “for as long as it takes.” (GOV.UK, House of Lords Library, House of Commons Library)

  • A £2.26 billion loan—part of the G7’s "Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration" (ERA) mechanism—was announced in October 2024, with two-thirds of it disbursed by early 2025. (Wikipedia, GOV.UK, House of Lords Library, House of Commons Library)

  • Total military financing (including direct aid and the ERA loan) reaches roughly £13.06 billion (House of Lords Library, House of Commons Library).

• Non-Military Support

  • The UK has provided around £5 billion in non-military assistance. This includes:

    • £4.1 billion in fiscal support via World Bank loan guarantees, and

    • £977 million in bilateral assistance, plus an additional £282 million committed for 2024–25 (covering humanitarian, energy, stabilization, reform, recovery, and reconstruction efforts) (Gistures, House of Lords Library, GOV.UK).

• Total Combined Commitment
  The combined total of military and non-military aid is approximately £18–18.3 billion since the invasion began (House of Lords Library, House of Commons Library).

---

2. Ukrainian Refugees in the UK & Associated Costs

• Number of Visa Issued & Refugees Hosted

  • As of July 2024, the UK had issued 260,800 visas under Ukrainian refugee schemes such as Homes for Ukraine and Ukraine Family Scheme (Wikipedia).

  • Government statements also note that the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to over 300,000 Ukrainians in total (GOV.UK).

• Costs to the UK Government

  • In 2023, in-donor refugee costs (i.e., support provided within the UK to asylum seekers and refugees) reached £4.3 billion, around 28% of the UK's aid budget (Independent Commission for Aid Impact, The Guardian, House of Commons Library).

  • Although such spending decreased somewhat, in 2024 it remained significant at £2.834 billion, still roughly 20% of aid spending (House of Commons Library).

  • Additional cost breakdowns:

    • The Home Office alone spent an estimated £2.38 billion in 2022 on asylum-related operations (including accommodation, travel, children's support, administration, etc.) (Independent Commission for Aid Impact).

    • The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) spent £520 million in 2022 on Homes for Ukraine support (tariffs to local authorities and hosting-related costs), although tariff rates were later reduced (Independent Commission for Aid Impact).

    • A UK-wide funding allocation of £150 million in mid-2023 was dedicated to helping Ukrainian families move into private rented housing across the nations of the UK (GOV.UK).

    • In Scotland alone, around £294 million was spent to secure hotel accommodation for Ukrainian refugees, with up to £75 million potentially wasted on unoccupied rooms (The Scottish Sun).

---

Summary Table

Category	Value
Military Support	≈ £10.8 billion (+ £2.26 billion loan)
Non-Military Support	≈ £5 billion
Total UK Support	≈ £18–18.3 billion
Ukrainian Visas Issued	~260,800
Ukrainians Hosted	300,000+ (including visa holders)
Refugee Costs (2023)	£4.3 billion
Refugee Costs (2024)	£2.83 billion

---

Key Insights

• The UK has committed substantial support to Ukraine across both military and humanitarian dimensions, totaling nearly £18 billion.

• Ukrainians housed under UK schemes number in the hundreds of thousands.

• Refugee-related spending within the UK is a significant portion of the aid budget (20–28%), encompassing housing, social support, and administrative costs.

---

 

 

•  

1 hour ago, chickenslegs said:

Really?

Does anyone care about gay-related exposé in 2025? I expect that most people don't give a damn - unless there is underage sex involved. 

If true and that's a big if then it goes right to the heart of Trump's carefully constructed and very brittle ego - but then he's been living the LIE his own life so succesfully that he got half the counbtry to voted for him twice. Empire's die when they put a horse into the senate - they've gone more bigly on this - effectivley a Russian agent runs the US who's about to meet the Russian President. What could go possibly wrong.