Ukraine Troops Trapped In Pokrovsk

[alang1216]

I'm not sure why anyone would believe that liar. Spreading Russian propaganda, Russian lies...

Tsk tsk tsk... Zelensky bought a ranch... He may as well have claimed that he bought a zoo!

I think it was Goebbels who said that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

 

[Zavulon]

Demographics​

44 different nationalities live in Pokrovsk Raion. They include: Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Germans, Azerbaijanis, Crimean Tatars, Moldavians, Armenians, Greeks and others. As of the 2001 Ukrainian census:[7]

Ukrainian	32,592	86.8
Russian	4,250	11.3
Belarusian	259	0.7

[th]
Population

[/th][th]
Percentage, %

[/th]​

Basically, Ukrainians (especially Russian-speaking Ukrainians) are Russians.
Like Californians, Rednecks, Hillbillies and Cajones are Americans.

 

[Zavulon]

As a Russian I don't think you would know what an honest politician looks like.

While both Ukraine and Russia have significant corruption issues, recent developments indicate different approaches to fighting it. Ukraine has established anti-corruption agencies and continues to face pressure to reform, while Russia is seeing corruption cases emerge in regions bordering Ukraine, sometimes used to manage public anger over battlefield failures. Overall, many experts argue that fighting corruption is a vital part of Ukraine's struggle against Russia, and Ukraine has made strides in its anti-corruption infrastructure.

Ukraine

• Structural reforms: Ukraine has created anti-corruption agencies like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and established a High Anti-Corruption Court, with international support.
• Ongoing challenges: Despite progress, corruption remains a major issue, and there have been concerns about attempts to undermine anti-corruption institutions. Public protests have occurred in response to potential backsliding on reforms.
• High-profile cases: The country has seen some high-profile arrests, such as the head of the Supreme Court and an intelligence service officer, indicating ongoing efforts to combat corruption at higher levels.

Russia

• Weaponizing corruption: Russia has been accused of using corruption as a propaganda tool, attempting to portray Ukraine as uniquely corrupt while its own officials engage in massive corruption, according to The Global Anticorruption Blog.
• Internal corruption issues: There are reports of large-scale corruption within the Russian military and government, including officials in border regions accused of embezzling funds for border fortifications.
• Suppression of anti-corruption efforts: Officials who have raised concerns about corruption within Russia have reportedly faced elimination, says The Times.

Comparison

• Progress vs. stagnation: Ukraine has been actively building and reforming its anti-corruption framework, even as it fights a war, whereas Russia has shown signs of increasing secrecy and repression regarding corruption within its own borders.
• International standing: Despite its ongoing efforts, Ukraine is still viewed by some as corrupt, a perception that Russia has used to its advantage. However, sources like The Wilson Center and the Atlantic Council suggest that Russia is significantly more corrupt and that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure is a key part of its defense against Russian aggression

I hope you understand how ridiculous are your statements. NABU and HACC are not about fighting against corruption. It is about keeping it under American and European control. Talking about numerical measure of corruption, we can see that Russia with it's 1:30 lesser military budget is successfully and easily fighting in the war of atriction, producing much more shells, tanks, planes and UAVs than the whole NATO alliance.
Is it because Russians are smarter? May be, partly. But mostly it is the result of the Western corruption.

 

[Deadstick]

A knowledge of history is more useful. How many countries has Ukraine invaded?

History is something you should read about where Ukraine is concerned it aint pretty, especially in WW2.

 

[alang1216]

I hope you understand how ridiculous are your statements. NABU and HACC are not about fighting against corruption. It is about keeping it under American and European control. Talking about numerical measure of corruption, we can see that Russia with it's 1:30 lesser military budget is successfully and easily fighting in the war of atriction, producing much more shells, tanks, planes and UAVs than the whole NATO alliance.
Is it because Russians are smarter? May be, partly. But mostly it is the result of the Western corruption.

Pure fantasy. So Russians don't have to buy UAVs from Iran? Why don't we see more T-90s on the battlefield?

 

[alang1216]

History is something you should read about where Ukraine is concerned it aint pretty, especially in WW2.

The Ukrainians were forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin and they had lived through the Holodomor. Only Stalin could make Hitler seem like a better choice.

 

[Zavulon]

Pure fantasy. So Russians don't have to buy UAVs from Iran?

Why not? It is a mutually profitable deal.

Why don't we see more T-90s on the battlefield?

No need yet. Both sides still keep their best cards (including new tanks) close to their chests.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That mentality shows how depraved and morally bankrupt you are and why your society is going to Hell.

LOL. Don't you live in the UK?

 

[alang1216]

No need yet. Both sides still keep their best cards (including new tanks) close to their chests.

So Russia has been essentially stalemated in Ukraine for years and they don't care to use their best to win? I guess they don't care about their soldiers that have to fight and die in tanks from the Soviet era.

 

[Zavulon]

So Russia has been essentially stalemated in Ukraine for years and they don't care to use their best to win?

Russia is not stalemated. Russia is fighting a war of attrition against NATO and earning the capabilities to win the war against the whole alliance. You know, like raise the flags over radioactive ruins of Washington.

I guess they don't care about their soldiers that have to fight and die in tanks from the Soviet era.

Why should we? There is no easy way to win a war against the most powerful military alliance on the planet.
The peace time army has almost one purpose - heroically die in the near-border battles but win time for mobilisation.
The mobilised army has almost one purpose - heroically die in the war of attrition and in some decisive battles, but buy enough time to build the army of victory.
And the war-time built army of victory will crush the spines of the enemies, will effectively defeat them, and keep acceptable post-war peace. And to win a hot war against NATO we need, first of all, nukes.
We had no gigaton class strategic torpedoes back in 2022. Now we have 12 of them. We had no nuclear-powered cruise missiles back in 2022. Now we have them in production. T-90 was a nice tank, and it is still good for the Special Operation, but to win the war against Europe and America we need mass-production of unmanned versions of T-14 with tactical nuclear shells.

 

[Deadstick]

The Ukrainians were forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin and they had lived through the Holodomor. Only Stalin could make Hitler seem like a better choice.

The so called Holodmor where many Russians also died, as for making Hitler look better than Stalin well that is only in the heads of assholes, that is why the Soviets were part of the allies in the War, the Bandera Fascists in Ukraine embraced the Nazis when they invaded even taking part in the Holocaust, the Nazis starting murdering Jews and others in Kiev the day they arrived and those Ukrainian fascists were helping them.

 

[alang1216]

Russia is not stalemated. Russia is fighting a war of attrition against NATO and earning the capabilities to win the war against the whole alliance. You know, like raise the flags over radioactive ruins of Washington.


Why should we? There is no easy way to win a war against the most powerful military alliance on the planet.
The peace time army has almost one purpose - heroically die in the near-border battles but win time for mobilisation.
The mobilised army has almost one purpose - heroically die in the war of attrition and in some decisive battles, but buy enough time to build the army of victory.
And the war-time built army of victory will crush the spines of the enemies, will effectively defeat them, and keep acceptable post-war peace. And to win a hot war against NATO we need, first of all, nukes.
We had no gigaton class strategic torpedoes back in 2022. Now we have 12 of them. We had no nuclear-powered cruise missiles back in 2022. Now we have them in production. T-90 was a nice tank, and it is still good for the Special Operation, but to win the war against Europe and America we need mass-production of unmanned versions of T-14 with tactical nuclear shells.

Here I thought Russia was on planet Earth. My bad.

 

[alang1216]

The so called Holodmor where many Russians also died, as for making Hitler look better than Stalin well that is only in the heads of assholes, that is why the Soviets were part of the allies in the War,

The Soviets were part of the allies in the War only because Hitler invaded their country. Stalin had previously signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, dividing up Poland between them.

the Bandera Fascists in Ukraine embraced the Nazis when they invaded even taking part in the Holocaust, the Nazis starting murdering Jews and others in Kiev the day they arrived and those Ukrainian fascists were helping them.

I'm sure if Hitler had invaded England there would have been English fascists applauding and helping them.

 

[braalian]

At this point nobody cares one way or the other.

Well, I’m guessing the folks in Pokrovsk do.

But, yeah, Ukraine’s definitely waaaay at the bottom of the news cycle at this point

 

[Zavulon]

The Soviets were part of the allies in the War only because Hitler invaded their country. Stalin had previously signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, dividing up Poland between them.

Say nothing that Poland signed a non-aggresion pact with Hitler, dividing up Czechoslovakia between them, before Russia did it. So did England even earlier.

I'm sure if Hitler had invaded England there would have been English fascists applauding and helping them.

Actually, more or less official England have been helping Hitler since, at least, 1933.

 

[alang1216]

Say nothing that Poland signed a non-aggresion pact with Hitler, dividing up Czechoslovakia between them, before Russia did it. So did England even earlier.

I won't since it is Russian disinformation: The premise that Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler specifically to divide up Czechoslovakia is incorrect.
Here are the facts regarding Poland and Czechoslovakia in the lead-up to World War II:

• German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (1934): Poland and Germany signed a Declaration of Non-Aggression on January 26, 1934. This was a standard, public non-aggression treaty intended to normalize relations, resolve bilateral issues diplomatically, and was valid for 10 years. It contained no secret protocols regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country. Hitler sought this pact to weaken Poland's alliance with France and buy time for German rearmament.
• The Division of Czechoslovakia (1938): Poland did participate in the annexation of territory from Czechoslovakia in October 1938, in the immediate aftermath of the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement, signed by Germany, the UK, France, and Italy (without Czechoslovak or Soviet participation), forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to Germany.
• Poland's Annexation of Zaolzie: Taking advantage of the crisis and Czechoslovakia's vulnerability, Poland issued an ultimatum to Prague and annexed the disputed Zaolzie region (Cieszyn Silesia), which had a significant Polish minority and industrial value. Poland had a historical claim to the area, which had been a point of conflict since 1919.
• No Joint Pact for Division: Poland's action in 1938 was an opportunistic, unilateral move that occurred concurrently with Germany's actions, but it was not the result of a secret pact or an alliance with Germany to divide up Czechoslovakia. Poland had refused to allow the Red Army passage through its territory to aid Czechoslovakia, as per existing treaties, but this was a separate decision.
• Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939): The only non-aggression pact that contained a secret protocol for the division of another state was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, signed in August 1939, which secretly divided Poland and the Baltic states into spheres of influence.

In summary, Poland signed a non-aggression pact in 1934 and unilaterally annexed a small part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, but these events were not connected by a single, secret agreement with Hitler to divide Czechoslovakia.

Actually, more or less official England have been helping Hitler since, at least, 1933.

More disinformation: The assertion that "official England" (meaning the British government) was helping Hitler from 1933 onwards is incorrect. The official British policy toward Nazi Germany during the 1930s was appeasement, which was a diplomatic strategy to avoid another devastating war by making concessions to Hitler's demands, not actively helping him build his regime for its own sake.
Key aspects of this policy include:

• A desire to avoid war: The primary motivation was the widespread anti-war sentiment in Britain following the horrific losses of World War I.
• Addressing perceived grievances: Some in the British government and public believed the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany and that some of Hitler's early demands, such as uniting ethnic Germans, were reasonable and could maintain peace if addressed.
• Economic and military weakness: Britain was still recovering from the Great Depression and was not militarily prepared for a new conflict, making a diplomatic approach seem pragmatic at the time.
• Anti-communist sentiment: Some within the British elite hoped that a strong Germany might serve as a buffer against the spread of Communism from the Soviet Union.

This policy manifested in events such as:

• The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935): This agreement allowed Germany to build a navy larger than permitted by the Treaty of Versailles, in the hope of preventing a naval arms race.
• The Munich Agreement (1938): British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the figure most associated with appeasement, agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, believing he had secured "peace for our time".

Appeasement ended in March 1939, when Germany occupied the remainder of Czechoslovakia, demonstrating Hitler's insatiable expansionist aims. Britain and France then guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, and declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in September 1939.
While the policy is now widely discredited as a failure that emboldened Hitler, it was a strategy to prevent war, not a form of support for the Nazi regime's ideology or goals beyond certain territorial concessions.

 

[Zavulon]

I won't since it is Russian disinformation: The premise that Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler specifically to divide up Czechoslovakia is incorrect.
Here are the facts regarding Poland and Czechoslovakia in the lead-up to World War II:

• German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (1934): Poland and Germany signed a Declaration of Non-Aggression on January 26, 1934. This was a standard, public non-aggression treaty intended to normalize relations, resolve bilateral issues diplomatically, and was valid for 10 years. It contained no secret protocols regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country. Hitler sought this pact to weaken Poland's alliance with France and buy time for German rearmament.
• The Division of Czechoslovakia (1938): Poland did participate in the annexation of territory from Czechoslovakia in October 1938, in the immediate aftermath of the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement, signed by Germany, the UK, France, and Italy (without Czechoslovak or Soviet participation), forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to Germany.
• Poland's Annexation of Zaolzie: Taking advantage of the crisis and Czechoslovakia's vulnerability, Poland issued an ultimatum to Prague and annexed the disputed Zaolzie region (Cieszyn Silesia), which had a significant Polish minority and industrial value. Poland had a historical claim to the area, which had been a point of conflict since 1919.
• No Joint Pact for Division: Poland's action in 1938 was an opportunistic, unilateral move that occurred concurrently with Germany's actions, but it was not the result of a secret pact or an alliance with Germany to divide up Czechoslovakia. Poland had refused to allow the Red Army passage through its territory to aid Czechoslovakia, as per existing treaties, but this was a separate decision.
• Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939): The only non-aggression pact that contained a secret protocol for the division of another state was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, signed in August 1939, which secretly divided Poland and the Baltic states into spheres of influence.

In summary, Poland signed a non-aggression pact in 1934 and unilaterally annexed a small part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, but these events were not connected by a single, secret agreement with Hitler to divide Czechoslovakia.

More disinformation: The assertion that "official England" (meaning the British government) was helping Hitler from 1933 onwards is incorrect. The official British policy toward Nazi Germany during the 1930s was appeasement, which was a diplomatic strategy to avoid another devastating war by making concessions to Hitler's demands, not actively helping him build his regime for its own sake.
Key aspects of this policy include:

• A desire to avoid war: The primary motivation was the widespread anti-war sentiment in Britain following the horrific losses of World War I.
• Addressing perceived grievances: Some in the British government and public believed the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany and that some of Hitler's early demands, such as uniting ethnic Germans, were reasonable and could maintain peace if addressed.
• Economic and military weakness: Britain was still recovering from the Great Depression and was not militarily prepared for a new conflict, making a diplomatic approach seem pragmatic at the time.
• Anti-communist sentiment: Some within the British elite hoped that a strong Germany might serve as a buffer against the spread of Communism from the Soviet Union.

This policy manifested in events such as:

• The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935): This agreement allowed Germany to build a navy larger than permitted by the Treaty of Versailles, in the hope of preventing a naval arms race.
• The Munich Agreement (1938): British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the figure most associated with appeasement, agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, believing he had secured "peace for our time".

Appeasement ended in March 1939, when Germany occupied the remainder of Czechoslovakia, demonstrating Hitler's insatiable expansionist aims. Britain and France then guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, and declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in September 1939.
While the policy is now widely discredited as a failure that emboldened Hitler, it was a strategy to prevent war, not a form of support for the Nazi regime's ideology or goals beyond certain territorial concessions.

Bla-bla-bla... Of course, actions of Poland and Germany against Czechoslovakia were well coordinated and been a result of a more or less secret agreement.
Same way, the British policy of "appeasement" was not about preventing the war (the reliable system of European safety, based on Soviet-French-Czechoslovakian-British alliance worked good enough to deter Germany, until deliberately destroyed by Chamberlain government), but enforcement of Germany ("strong Germany means strong Europe") and its turning against both Russia and French.

 

[Deadstick]

The Soviets were part of the allies in the War only because Hitler invaded their country. Stalin had previously signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, dividing up Poland between them.


I'm sure if Hitler had invaded England there would have been English fascists applauding and helping them.

Stalin signed that pact to buy time after Western Countries wouldn't sign a defence pact with the Soviets against the Nazi threat, but the Nazis didn't invade Britian they invaded Ukraine and the Baltic States where the collaboration was as bad, you can't rewrite history like you want to.

 

[alang1216]

Bla-bla-bla... Of course, actions of Poland and Germany against Czechoslovakia were well coordinated and been a result of a more or less secret agreement.

Evidence? Nazi documents seized after the war say you're just making stuff up.

Same way, the British policy of "appeasement" was not about preventing the war (the reliable system of European safety, based on Soviet-French-Czechoslovakian-British alliance worked good enough to deter Germany, until deliberately destroyed by Chamberlain government), but enforcement of Germany ("strong Germany means strong Europe") and its turning against both Russia and French.

Poor rewrite of history (unsupported by any evidence BTW). Hitler was determined to wage war, regardless of what any other country said or did (read Mein Kampf). No one trusted Stalin any more than they trusted Hitler.

 

[alang1216]

Stalin signed that pact to buy time after Western Countries wouldn't sign a defence pact with the Soviets against the Nazi threat, but the Nazis didn't invade Britian they invaded Ukraine and the Baltic States where the collaboration was as bad, you can't rewrite history like you want to.

The problem was Poland, it refused to allow passage of Russian troops through the country. They had reason to assume that once in, the Soviets would never leave.