Western media have finally change course. They are now admitting that the much promoted Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed. In fact, the acknowledge that it never had a chance to win in the first place.
The Hill, the Washington Post and CNN now agree that the Ukrainian army will never achieve its aims.
western MSM has a rare encounter with reality!
That makes it difficult for the Biden administration to get Congress approval for $24 billion in additional 'aid' to Ukraine. It does not make sense to pay for a cause that is evidently lost.
b seems overly hopeful regarding the rationality of US congress, but i think hes right- why would we throw more money at them, US politicians have made it clear they do not support bringing Ukraine into NATO if they do not win this conflict. of course, US politicians are prone to lying and misleading
Nothing has come from the 'peace conference' which Saudi Arabia arranged on Ukraine's behalf
lol. lmao even. props to big dog MBS for trying
Despite the onslaught of bad news the Ukrainian army is still trying to take Russian positions in the south and east of Ukraine. But it simply does not have enough in men and material to break through the lines.
Even if they would manage to get a local breakthrough there are not enough reserves to push for the necessary follow up. Just one of the NATO trained brigades has still been held back. All others have been mauled in their various deployment zones.
nothing has changed it seems
In the northeast around Kupyansk the Russians have started their own offensive which has the Ukrainians on the run. Ukraine has ordered the evacuation of the area
But Kupyansk is a Russian city and people refuse to leave.
show this to the libs claiming Russians are committing genocide in the regions they capture. curious that these civilians are content with Russian occupation when you believe what western media claims
The Russian campaign is slowly speeding up. As the Ukrainian Strana.news reports (machine translation):
Also in Ukraine, it is recorded that from Kupyansk to Bakhmut, Russia has increased the number of attacks.
"Over the past month, the total number of attacks in the Kupyansk, Limansky and Bakhmut directions has grown significantly. In July, during the week there were 6-6.5 thousand attacks, during the last week-9 thousand attacks, " - said the representative of the National Guard Ruslan Muzychuk.
According to him, the Russian Federation does not experience "shell hunger".
Aviation is also actively used, and over the past few weeks, more than 50 air attacks have been taking place every day, and sometimes more than 80.
That is bad news for the Ukrainian side which lacks the reserves to counter the Russian onslaught. There are also less weapons coming in from the West. F-16 fighter jets will be delayed for another nine months due to training issues. Tanks and other material are in short supply.
these supply issues sure bode well for the west’s performance in WW3 
Strana also report of an interview with a knowledgeable Ukrainian soldier (machine translation):
Continuing the topic of the situation at the front, an interesting interview was given by a Ukrainian sniper fighting near Bakhmut with the call sign "Grandfather". On the air of political scientist Yuri Romanenko, he was introduced as Konstantin Proshinsky (this is a pseudonym).
The fighter spoke in detail about his vision of the situation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian army.
- Mobilization. In his opinion, it is conducted incorrectly. Recruits are sent to the front who have never been trained, and they are often over 50 years old and with a whole bunch of diseases.
- No rotation. The soldier says that "the same brigades" are fighting at the front, and people are not taken out of the front line for six months or more. Whereas by Western standards, they can be kept in a war zone for no more than three months.
- Behavior of mid-and high-level commanders. According to Proshinsky, many of them are trying to arrange a "mini-Stalingrad" on the positions, forcing them to go into frontal assaults on well-fortified Russian positions.
- The Russian Army began to fight better.
- Proshinsky believes that Russia has not yet used much of what it has against Ukraine.
The soldier thinks that the Russians will not move from their positions and that a stalemate peace like in Korea would be the end result.
UAF in real dire times— recruiting the elderly, poor logistics, engaging the enemy at inopportune times, and Russia has yet to waver
I believe that to be wrong. Russia's aim is to liberate at least the four regions that it has claimed for itself. For political reasons it can not stop before that is done.
Should the Ukraine continue to fight after that, Russia is likely to set new aims and take more land.
more editorializing, but it doesnt seem unreasonable. i thought Russia would stick to its original goal of Donetsk and Luhansk, but if Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are receptive to Russian governance, it would be foolish for Russia to give them up
Every lib I know says this is a genocidal war (despite no proof of any intent to genocide, they just think Putin wants to massacre every Ukrainian ever) and that, responding to that report about crackdowns on draft dodgers, anyone who tries to avoid conscription is a traitor and should be treated as such.
Absolutely deranged the takes one can dig up when one is not threatened in any way.
I think they saw Bucha and were like yep the whole thing is about genocide. Now imagine if they declared a genocide every time the US committed a war crime lol
The only side that wants to "fight to the last Ukrainian" is the NATO side, so it is kind of a genocide just perpetrated by US empire on its puppet state.
Yeah I'm sure liberals would cheer when they see a headline like "Russia deporting children to country friendly to Russia whose language they can't speak" and wouldn't immediately conclude they were trafficking children and still call it genocide anyway.
“Ukraine bombing the Donbas region from 2014-2022 to eliminate the ethnicity that lived there, killing civilians and children, is totally not genocide. It’s the people who stepped in to stop them that are the real genociders.”
Based on my experience talking to other libs, this interaction may be the first time they heard about a civil war in the Donbas.
Moving unaccompanied children to a safe place until their parents are located isn't genocide.
Are libs up to the task of not trivializing genocide? Probably not.
Never have been
It's my good fortune to know very little about foster care, but I am a parent. Even with perfect execution, foster care sounds like something very difficult for a child to go through.
That sounds really stupid, but unfortunately isn't very surprising.
Now genocide includes crossing an administrative boundary created by a country that doesn't even exist anymore.
Okay, now carry this logic further. By this standard, the US is currently in the midst of a much larger and longer-running genocide of refugees on it's southern border, including forced hysterectomies and untreated outbreaks of disease.
So why should anyone believe such a genocidal government's claims about it's enemies?
But the US is the good guys
Our responsible infant border incarcerations vs. their brutal inhumane warzone evacuation kidnappings
i swear liberals hear the song from that southpark puppet movie and completely fail to understand the satire
It changes everything because your source of news is the world's biggest genocide aficionado and exporter, which should call into question everything they've ever told you about who to hate, if you're being intellectually honest with yourself.
If this was 2002 you'd be bleating about Saddam's WMDs and how we have to invade Iraq. You will repeat this cycle until you figure out who is actually lying to you.
Evacuating kids from an active warzone: genocide
Bombing the fuck out of them with a drone because one person nearby might have been associated to Al Qaeda: just the cost of war
Saying whatboutism is whataboutism. Why are you deflecting from America's crimes?
What should happen to children in a warzone, when their parents are either dead or cannot be located? Would leaving children in a warzone constitute inflicting conditions of life on them that would be likely to bring about their physical destruction? If so, does every war constitute genocide?
"Dima, leave the kids in the rubble, do you wanna be called a war criminal?"
Ukraine has bragged about using child soldiers many times. That's probably what they consider 'not genocide'
Are they really children? Whatsa child really? Im parafrasing but i remember one of the chapo guests responding something similar to a similar question.
In the piss pig grandad episode
answers to a similar acusation " whats your definition of a child? If its anyone under 14 then no we font have any."
And while i dont like the ypg either the example shows that there are cases were child soilders may be justified
That was TrueAnons very own
who talked about his experience with the Kurds against ISIS / Daesh in the levant. The kurds more or less just picked up whatever was left of the villages that Isis was genociding, which included a bunch of 14-17 year olds whose entire families had been wiped out. Brace said that his group had no soldiers younger than 14, but some of the teens were so desperate.
Yes exactly my point. Child soilders are not categorically a reason for condemnation.
For the kids who speak russian, Ukraine is their aggressor's country.
That seems logistically very difficult for not much material benefit to anyone's life, for what seems like essentially PR. Are there other countries waiting to accept Ukrainian war orphans? And would their cultural identity be preserved better in, say, Poland compared to Russia? It's also worth noting that a lot (not all by any means) of people in the occupied territories already have Russian cultural ties. The first priority for war orphans shouldn't be preserving cultural identity, but alleviating the humanitarian crisis.
I'd also like to point out that there are many things that fulfill one or more criteria of the definition you cited that are not considered genocide. For example:
Every war involves killing people who mostly consist of a particular national group, yet not every war is a genocide.
Evacuating children from a warzone, the majority of whom are already Russian speakers is genocide, yeah ok buddy and Britain performed a self-genocide when it evacuated kids to the countryside during the blitz, hey if words don't have meaning let's get wild with it
the russian state is motivated by genocidal intent against ukrainians, which is why ukrainian children were evacuated from the warzone and then returned to the country when requested
They are evacuating a warzone. On the other hand the can-adian goverment really is kidnaping syrian children.
A warzone the us created. And only temporarily into russia. While the children kidnaped into can-ada. Stay there with the dogmen.
Wharaboutism? No. Because one thing is not like the others. If you are so outraged about kids being systematically kidnaped out of their country maybe you should focous on a case where that actually happens. So i pointed you to it. Now go and start pestering other libs about how Can-ada is doing genocide in syria.
Hey buddy try responding to the comment about them returning children instead of pretending it doesn't exist so you can respond to comments not pointing that out instead