AlbigensianGhoul

I wonder why, it’s not that current-day Russia would be anywhere close to communist, in either name or action, why are you taking their side?

I certainly have no side in this war, I only wish for the bloodshed to end however it needs to. I have not even defended Russia from any moral standpoint, and am specifically only arguing about that specific point you made. If you think saying "Ukraine is not winning right now" is defending Russia, you might be conflating (controversial) assessments of war performance with some kind of endorsement for the winning side. Germany defeated France in WW2, doesn't mean they were the goodest good boys.

Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.

Now, if you accept that Europe as a whole has more military might than Ukraine alone, my point stands. I rest my case.

Your point does not really stand because 1) I have never mentioned the rest of Europe myself here and am only attempting to understand and correct a possible misrepresentation of the conflict as if Russia is not "matching" Ukraine itself, which would require Russia to be trying and failing to advance in Ukraine rather than defending conquered positions, and 2) Ukraine is receiving a good chunk of material support from NATO and other NATO countries, which should count against the notion that Ukraine is single-handedly blocking some complete Russian advance.

From my very humble understanding, Russia's official stance is only to maintain their annexation, in which case they already achieved all that they sought to through war, and need only defend their new positions. Can you provide me any source that goes in-depth on how this not true?

An army indeed should be able to match a mercenary company it employs, yes.

The mercs they employ is part of their total forces, but counting a revolt of a corp as some victory for Ukraine seems misguided. Were the mutineer communist soldiers in WW1 in Russia a victory for the Kaiser?

Everything below here is beside the point and tangential.

Do you play chess? You can have long exchanges of moves without one player capturing a piece, yet any observer with knowledge of the game will be able to tell you that one is winning, and the other is losing.

Taking this rather simplistic chess analogy, Russia controls the parts of the board it intends to, and Ukraine has finally started pushing it back. Either way chess is a terrible analogy because there are no peace treaties in that game and it only ends when one side wins definitively or in a complete draw. Since you like Paradox, it's more like if Russia currently occupies the the war goal and is just waiting for the war score to go up while defending counter-offensives. Still simplistic, but I believe it is more appropriate. Real life complexities don't translate well into games though.

Ask the people lying in mass graves in Bucha. Ask the prisoners of war Russians castrated with pocket knives. If Russia is given the territories they will not know peace, they will know genocide and tyranny: No, there cannot be peace as long as Russia is occupying, categorically so precisely because genocide and tyranny aren’t peace.

Taking your word for these, why exactly is the only way to stop that with direct warfare? Has Russia ever denied the condition of free passage of Ukranians in the 4 Oblasts to the rest of Ukraine in case of a ceasefire? How is soldiers dying in the front materially helping those people? And why does Ukraine not evacuate all of their civilians who want no part in the war if they want to avoid such atrocities?

And you wanted to tell me Russia would stand a chance even against, say, France, alone.

I would never suggest such hypothetical as it doesn't even make sense from a geopolitical perspective for either party in my opinion. Neither would ever declare war on each other alone as things stand. My point is that I don't believe you are correct in saying that "Russia can't match Ukraine" given that they have achieved their official war goal a whole year ago. Feel free to correct me with some official Russian statement on how they actually want anything more than those 4 Oblasts and Ukraine out of NATO, things that are already well within their grasps.

The situation you’re looking at right now is nowhere close to a stalemate. The reason we only now see Ukrainian gains is because a) weather and b) Ukraine training troops, receiving hardware from the west, etc, for the last months.

That seems to be the definition of a stalemate, yes. If the stalemate is ending now, we will only be able to tell in the future. If neither side is making gains due to logistics, strategy or elements outside of their control, I don't know what to call it other than a stalemate.

Why would Ukraine start an offensive in unsuitable weather with disorganised forces with cracked tires and reactive armor [sic] replaced by cardboard: They’re not Russians.

Do you dislike Russians as a people or something? That seems like a weird comparison to make on basis of ethnicity alone.

If you have any illusions about that consider their military response to an armed rebellion.

Are the Russian forces supposed to be able to match both Ukrainian and Russian forces now?

I want Russia’s imperial aggression to cease as soon as possible. And as they don’t seem to be willing to leave willingly they will need to be driven out.

But is that more important than ending the war as soon as possible? Can there be no peace so long as Russia occupies the 4 oblasts? In other words, can peace only come if Ukraine wins a decisive victory and not a day before? For the record, I am generally in favour of an immediate cease fire so that negotiations can happen without further spilling of blood.

Are the Democrats/NYT left now? Either way, thanks for that! Are you planning to do more analyses like these in the future? It'd be cool to plot time series of the strings "middle class" , "homeless" and "mentally ill" against each other. Maybe even add in dicier social topics such as "reparations".

Also from a glance at your code, it is not clear to me if the data you collected is for only US news or include worldwide. Did you control for that?

Russia is on the retreat, its defensive lines are soon going to break.

Considering you didn't really push back on the basis of the claim that Russia has very little interest in anything but the formally annexed areas, I don't see why this matters. If Russia needs only to hold onto what they annexed, it's not on them to match the Ukrainian army, but on the Ukrainian army to match and surpass the Russian defence now. They have more or less been holding on the position for 1 whole year, despite sanctions and economic warfare. And they still mainly only lay claim to the annexed territories and demand Ukraine out of NATO (which I'm pretty sure is already a settled deal) in order for peace talks. So if the ball is in Ukraine's court to push out the Russian forces off of those regions, I don't think it's accurate to say that "Russia can't match Ukraine" on a stalemate with Russia on a favourable position for so long, with only now some sign of Ukraine retaking the territory. I don't think it matters too much what speculation we have on what is "going to" happen for the sake of that argument. Also, for the sake of my curiosity, do you want this war to end as soon as possible?

No, because... *checks notes* ... those countries aren't "white". Only those get to demand things like that and be taken seriously.

I think any sort of food imagery that is popular in your country could work too. Not overly prepared bourgeois recipes, just the normal food of normal people.

Have a rice.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to implied you suggested that their plan was annexation, but rather that the general war goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt instead of just keeping the current regions, which was the official war goal from the very beginning. None of the words I've found coming directly from the Kremlin seem to support such notion. Apparently Ukraine has already conceded to all but the land demands for an year now. If those demands are all met, is there any reason to believe Russia would escalate the conflict? Remember, this discussion started because of my disagreement with your following statement on the grounds that Russia doesn't seem intent on controlling any more than the currently annexed areas.

Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.

I'm not claiming I know much about Russia, much to the contrary I wish to learn more. Which is why I'd like it if you recommended some trusted source that replicates and expands your analysis because, as you know, the internet is riddled with disinformation. If the speech you refer to it this one, it doesn't seem to have any issue with an independent Ukraine outside the currently annexed lands. What is wrong in my interpretation there of the war goal then?

Oh, I've been using it for years already, just very miffed at Google banning it and doing their darnest to ruin adblockers in Manifest v3. Except for their pet ones that allow google ads, of course. Thankfully Firefox is still the least terrible modern browser and even has it as "Recommended".

Yes and no. Russia did have a greater goal, and now Putin (no “they”, any more) is left with the goal to stay in power.

Could you please provided me with an extensive source that goes in-depth on this "greater goal". Googling has not provided me with any in-depth results.

So what you're saying is that, despite the main demand for peace from Russia not being met for more than an year being that of accepting their annexations, they actually have some other unstated greater war goal? Am I really incorrect in saying that from the very beginning the main Russian demands were the control of the currently annexed lands and Crimea, demands which are still unmet today? Can you provide me any sources for that? Don't see why it matters so much which side wins in the end for the sake of this argument.

Also I don't think "beelining for Kyiv" is such a big tell, as since you are a paradox fan you know that taking a capital is usually a good move even if you don't intend to control it.

From what I gathered their demands for a peace deal for a very long time are basically for recognition of the new areas, without added land claims. This would imply that their war goal was just those. Am I incorrect there? Could you provide a source, if so?