I'm not sure either, I have one other picture of a Five-Seven like this (maybe by the same guy as this one, dunno) but I have no idea what the purpose is
maybe it's just a "hey, coincidentally the space between the frame and the flashlight is just big enough to put a cartridge in there, isn't that neat?"
I managed to download it via the https://www.downloadhelper.net/ extension (tried yt-dlp first, but it didn't manage it), from the direct https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-09-02/Live-China-s-80th-anniv-of-victory-over-Japanese-aggression-fascism-1GjO3qrjcHe/p.html link (from the page you linked, the video opened in a new tab - otherwise it just downloaded some 1-min long excerpt)
here's the file, it's nearly 7 gigs though: https://mega.nz/file/4jIhiIyK#0ukwIqGomsMDO7x3LllvMrtPfdvhNrbfpwhlmhRLLT8
more
A further complication was the practice of subcontracting. Political scientist Swati Srivastava notes that “a federal contract can go through as many as three layers of subcontracts,” while “companies can refuse to publicly disclose subcontractors for proprietary reasons.” When those four Blackwater employees were killed in Fallujah, it took years for a Congressional oversight committee to determine who had hired them in the first place, eventually finding that Blackwater had been subcontracted by Halliburton. Subcontracting also enabled a stunning prevalence of graft, as the federal government often paid twice for a single contract.
Military contracting in Iraq demonstrates nearly all the shortcomings of relying on private actors to execute a state’s foreign policy. Armed contractors like Blackwater allowed violence to be wielded on behalf of the United States with impunity. Atrocities were committed in the name of the American people without accountability, shielded by the derivative sovereignty afforded to federal contractors. The use of military contractors also allowed the federal government a degree of plausible deniability, insulating it from political consequences. These were not American military personnel, and therefore their conduct was often treated as secondary to the conflict at large—despite the majority of US personnel on the ground being private citizens. Obfuscation for the sake of “national security” led to a lack of regulatory oversight and the mismanagement of federal funds, primarily benefiting firms like Blackwater and Halliburton. Once again, the public-private partnership is a two-way street, and one wonders who is the principal and who is the agent in this relationship.
America has not experienced a “Prigozhin moment,” and it is laughable to imagine Erik Prince crossing the Potomac as though it were the Rubicon. However, mutiny is not the only reason Machiavelli cautions against dependence on mercenaries. One of the enduring lessons of The Prince is that conquest by virtue is far preferable to conquest by fortune—or by the virtues of others. While it is more difficult to rise to power through one’s own skill and resources, Machiavelli notes that self-sufficiency makes for more effective and secure rule. Dependence on the capacities of others may initially seem easier, but it produces a vulnerable prince unlikely to survive. An empire of contractors is eating the foundations of the American state from within. Advocates for the privatization of governmental functions insist that market competition leads to efficiency and innovation. In practice, selling off the state’s monopoly on violence to self-interested actors has undermined the American national interest. Not only is the American public insulated from the consequences of interventionist foreign policy as casualty numbers are deflated and responsibilities deflected onto contractors, but the influence these private actors hold over US engagements abroad is steering the state toward ruin. Just as neoliberalism hollowed out the welfare state, it is now hollowing out the warfare state by substituting market logic for public responsibility in the use of force. If America cannot carry out military interventions without the assistance of external contractors, perhaps the “imperial hat” is best left at home.
Neoliberalism Comes for the Warfare State
‘If so many of these countries around the world are incapable of governing themselves, it’s time for us to just put the imperial hat back on, to say we’re going to govern those countries … You can say that about pretty much all of Africa; they’re incapable of governing themselves.” So claims Erik Prince, the billionaire entrepreneur of the modern mercenary business. Speaking on his podcast Off Leash, the founder of Blackwater Worldwide advocated for the United States to get back into the intervention business, albeit with a twist: Rather than sending American troops to enforce order abroad, the dirty work of empire should be contracted out to private firms. Prince’s provocation is not a relic of colonial thinking but rather a fact of modern politics: a neoliberal model of state violence.
"put the imperial hat on" my guy you haven't even taken the hat off since like the start of your country's existence!
more
Prince’s latest venture has been security contracting in weak countries, primarily Haiti and Peru. He has carved out a niche for himself by offering a market-based option for functions typically performed by sovereign states—in particular, the exercise of violence for both domestic order and operations abroad. In Haiti, Prince’s services have been retained to combat rampant gang violence near Port-au-Prince, where opportunistic non-state actors have all but taken over territories surrounding the capital city. In Peru, Prince’s company Vectus Global recently signed a contract worth $10 million a year to eliminate criminal networks that threaten the country’s gold mines. Governments too strained to monopolize violence within their borders engage Prince, who brings the organization, discipline, and technology that local security forces lack. While Prince’s reputation took a hit in the wake of the Iraq War, he is now back in favor with the US government. The brother of Betsy DeVos and occasional swimming partner of Pete Hegseth, the tycoon has maintained close ties with the Trump administration. Prince has pitched the White House a $25 billion contract for mass deportations, with a plan for privately run processing camps as well as the transportation and manpower necessary for such operations. On the matter of Trump’s deportation goals, Prince commented that “if they’re going to hit those kinds of numbers and scale, they’re going to need additional private sector” support. His vision of contracting out mass deportations shows how the same logic of privatized violence migrates seamlessly between domestic and foreign spheres, where state functions are delegated to private companies. One can imagine Prince having similar proposals at the ready for overseas endeavors should Trump desire to don “the imperial hat.”
Mercenaries have long been derided as disloyal and undisciplined, with Niccolò Machiavelli designating them “useless and dangerous” in his serendipitously titled The Prince. To rely on hired arms, Machiavelli argued, was to put oneself at risk of either incompetence or mutiny. This danger was realized quite recently by Evgeny Prigozhin’s ill-fated march to Moscow with his Wagner Group, the mercenaries on whom Russia relied in Ukraine, Syria, and throughout northern and central Africa. Despite Machiavelli’s warnings, governments have long depended on private actors to supplement state capacity: Queen Elizabeth I engaged privateers to cripple Spanish command of the seas, Hessians were employed to suppress American revolutionaries, and, notably, joint-stock companies ran the business of empire. Historian Philip Stern popularized the term “the company-state” in his eponymous 2011 book to capture the public–private hybridization that characterized imperial projects from the mid-16th century onward. Stern focuses on the innovation of the chartered joint-stock corporation, an organizational form notable for the merchant imperialism of the British Empire. The paragon of this form is the East India Company. Originally formed to manage trade in the East Indies, the Company would later account for half of the world’s trade in the 18th century and govern the Indian subcontinent with an army twice the size of the British military. Alongside the East India Company were other shareholder-owned enterprises granted monopolies over trade in various parts of the globe: The Muscovy Company monopolized trade between England and Russia, while the Hudson Bay, Virginia, and Plymouth companies directed trade and colonization in North America.
Cooperation with private capital allowed the British to expand their political influence and control without exhausting state resources to maintain a far-flung empire. In India, the East India Company performed the dirty work of imperial extraction as a private actor. To do so, it assembled a pseudo-state to administer and coerce. The British Army was not needed to protect the property of European merchants. The Company had its own incentives to maintain order and created a private army to do so. It was this delegation to private actors that enabled the relatively weak British state to transform a minimalist “trading post empire” into the territorial domination of the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, it would be a mistake to view such public–private relationships as purely one-directional. Narratives that cast the state as simply “outsourcing empire” obscure the blurred boundaries between public and private. In the 1770s, nearly a quarter of East India Company shares were held by members of Parliament. As the Company expanded British commerce and power overseas, it also redirected state policy toward shareholder interests and away from the public good. This was not mere delegation of empire’s dirty work. Rather, it was the erosion of the state for private gain. Empowering private actors to wield violence and extract revenues from subject populations creates entities that perform the functions of a sovereign state without the legitimacy that comes from accountability to the people in whose name they rule. The state’s acquisition of territory and its exercise of violence were not directed by the public good but by private profit. Edmund Burke, advocating for more oversight of the Company, argued that Parliament “had not a right to make a market of our duties.” In short, the state had endowed a private entity with a power that was not the state’s to give away.
On September 16, 2007, a team of private security contractors opened fire on a crowd of civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. The contractors, a Blackwater team answering to call sign “Raven 23,” fired upon a Kia sedan that failed to yield to their warnings, believing it to be a car bomb. Seventeen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing chaos and 20 more were wounded, with several of the victims shot in the back as they tried to flee. The shooting only stopped when one of the Blackwater guards drew his weapon on a fellow guard who would not stop firing. The Nisour Square massacre prompted a crisis of jurisdiction. A United Nations report on the event concluded that private security contractors were performing military actions, which are forbidden by the United Nations’s 1989 Mercenary Convention; however, the United States is not a signatory. As private citizens, the Raven 23 guards were not subject to the laws of the US military and could not be court-martialed. The Iraqi government demanded that the perpetrators face criminal charges in Iraq, but Order 17 of the Coalition Provisional Authority—the governing body of occupied Iraq—specified that private contractors were not subject to Iraqi law. The FBI eventually carried out an investigation, the validity of which was disputed by Erik Prince during a seven-hour testimony before Congress. Four Blackwater employees were convicted of murder and manslaughter charges in 2014. All four were later pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020. During the Iraq War, private military contractors outnumbered US military personnel on the ground. When four Blackwater employees were ambushed and brutally murdered in Fallujah by Iraqi insurgents, the deaths of these “private American citizens” led Lt. Col. Gary Brandl to claim that “the enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He’s in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him.” The subsequent siege and aerial bombardment of the city led to estimates that over half of its 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines. Blackwater was far from alone. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, had the largest presence of any US contractor in Iraq, with approximately 14,000 personnel on the ground for logistical support operations. KBR’s actions in Iraq revived a nickname the company had acquired during the Vietnam War: Burn & Loot. The company received over $40 billion in federal contracts during the Iraq War. Private contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc. was found legally responsible by a federal jury for the torture of three Iraqi men at Abu Ghraib in 2004 after 15 years of legal limbo.
continued below
NATO is apparently now in "robbing Peter to pay Paul" mode, desperately shifting equipment around in order to prevent Chinese industry from gaining a foothold https://archive.ph/yRXQy
Argentina Needs 6 More Months to Start Integrating First F-16s It Got Instead of Ukraine
These will be only first six of 24 F-16s sold by Denmark to Argentina with US backing, though they were meant for Ukraine
more
Argentina will only begin the transition period to integrate F-16 fighter jets, purchased secondhand from Denmark, into its Air Force in January 2026. That is one year and nine months after signing the acquisition deal. And this refers only to the first six of 24 jets, preparations for which are now in their final stage, according to Zona Militar. Before that, the country had received only one F-16BM Block 10 for technician training. According to plans, Argentina's operational use of F-16s will start closer to late 2026. The delivery of all 24 aircraft will stretch until 2028, with six aircraft arriving annually. This means it will take over four years to fully implement the program to strengthen the Argentine Air Force with used fighters.
All of this is happening with full support from the program's stakeholders. Argentine pilots and technicians are being trained by the private U.S. company Top Aces, which avoids bottlenecks in government training centers. Denmark, under the contract, is responsible for transporting the jets, as well as providing spare parts and upgrade elements. These peacetime timelines are quite telling, especially compared to Ukraine's fast-track integration and combat deployment of F-16s. The irony is that the very same used F-16s strengthening Argentina were originally meant to reinforce Ukraine's Air Force. But 24 of Denmark's F-16s — out of 44 (around 30 airwothy) became hostages to U.S. decisions.
Argentina urgently needed to renew its fleet, which consisted of about 20 A-4 Skyhawks in highly questionable flight condition. With Western fighters both too expensive and facing long delivery times, China aggressively pushed its Chengdu JF-17s on favorable credit terms. To block Beijing from gaining a foothold in South America's defense market, Washington insisted on the F-16 deal. But instead of U.S. F-16s, it was Denmark's fleet originally pledged to Ukraine that was redirected. Finally, in April 2024, a binding agreement was signed for Denmark to sell 24 F-16s to Argentina for $320 million only about $13.3 million per jet. However, the U.S. placed the cost of refurbishment and modernization at up to $941 million, offering a credit line to cover it.
an older article going over the US-China competition over the Argentine contract: https://archive.ph/1VEOu
In Argentina’s fighter competition, Washington and Beijing fight for regional influence
The global influence struggle between the United States and the People’s Republic of China has quietly arrived in America’s backyard, with Washington attempting to fend off Beijing establishing a sizeable military relationship with Argentina.
more
The competition, as it so often does between large powers, is playing out through a defense industrial decision: Namely, whether Buenos Aries buys second-hand Danish F-16 A/B Fighting Falcons or newly-made Chengdu JF-17 Thunder Block Three fighters from China. ... Meanwhile, multiple local outlets say Washington is putting pressure on Buenos Aires to pick the F-16 in order to deny China an expanded footprint in Latin America. Concern about China increasing its footprint in Latin America is hardly a secret. In August, US Southern Command head Gen. Laura Richardson spelled it out clearly, saying Chinese investment in the region means Beijing is “on the 20-yard line of our homeland, or we could say that they’re on the first and second island chain to our homeland and the proximity in terms of this region.” “There’s not a Chinese base yet in this hemisphere. But I see with all of this critical infrastructure investment,” Richardson added later, “that there could possibly be someday.”
Americans cannot conceptualize of another country engaging in international politics without building military bases all over the place
...
The Chengdu Factor
The continuing motivation to entice Buenos Aires to become the second South America F-16 customer after Chile is “keeping a PRC military presence off the continent. The reason the US F-16 offer is being promoted aggressively is to kill this Chinese JF-17 sale,” a veteran DoD Latin American analyst told Breaking Defense. ... By itself, the jet is no real threat to the US, but this initial JF-17 sale represents the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent,” the analyst said — a way for China to make inroads in what the US considers its backyard. And naturally, any Chinese jet buy would come with Chinese infrastructure — PRC provided contractors and trainers, at the very least — the kind of footprint Richardson raised concerns about over the summer. If the JF-17 lands in Argentina, the analyst added, it’s possible China would offer a cheap deal for the J-10 fighter, a CAC product with a longer range and payload capacity. Or, potentially, the J-20, a design that incorporates a stealthy, blended-shape and can reach targets up to 1,200 miles from base. Either would benefit China’s goal of having a greater military footprint in the region. “The real nightmare for a number of defense planners in Washington would be a customer in the southern hemisphere that would amount to an operating base for the latest Chinese defense and aerospace platforms in the US’s backyard,” the analyst said.
...
The US is walking its own balance. Argentina’s Armed Forces have been almost exclusively aligned with the US in the past century. That “customer intimacy,” as US defense industry marketing personnel describe it, gives Washington an advantage in any procurement. But according to a report from La Nacion, the unspoken quid pro quo is that Buenos Aires would be banking on Washington’s support to resolve its debt repayment problems with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). One other potentially tricky issue is the fact Denmark has also pledged F-16s to Ukraine’s defense. Over the last two months, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway have all agreed to send some of their aircraft: 19 from the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF), 42 from the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) and possibly as many as 10 from the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF). Satisfying both Argentina and Ukraine’s needs would seem to be difficult, the total number of the DSCA notification for Argentina, plus the 19 promised to Ukraine, would likely exceed the available inventory. Officials familiar with the offers to both air forces state Denmark will be allocating aircraft to meet Kyiv’s requirement, as well as the initial tranche offer to Buenos Aires; exactly how this will all shake out eventually remains unclear.
https://xcancel.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1938607536887779553
@yanisvaroufakis
It seems that our rulers, here in the 'liberal' West, have homed in on a new way of turning a person into a non-person. Here is a man, Hüseyin Doğru, a German journalist (of Turkish origins, but not a dual citizen) whom the EU authorities have found a novel, immensely cruel, way of punishing for his coverage of, and views on, Palestine.
The German authorities learned a lesson from my case. Not wishing to be answerable in court for any ban on pro-Palestinian voices (similar to the court case I am dragging them through currently), they found another way: A direct sanction by the EU utilising some hitherto unused directive, one introduced at the beginning of the Ukraine war, that allows Brussels to sanction any citizen of the EU it deems to be working for Russian interests. Clinging to the argument that Hüseyin’s website/podcast used to be shown also on Ruptly (among other platforms), they are using this directive aimed at an ‘anti-Russian asset’ to destroy a journalist who dared oppose the Palestinian genocide.
In practice, this means that Hüseyin’s bank account is frozen; that if you or I were to give him cash to buy groceries or make rent then we would be considered his accomplices and subject to similar sanctions; it also means that if he were a civil servant, he would be fired; if he were a student he would be expelled from his university; if he received a pension it would be suspended; if he received any social benefit it would be frozen. It also, astonishingly, means that he cannot leave Germany! Last, but definitely not least, it means that Hüseyin cannot sue his government for turning him into a non-person but only challenge the European Commission in Brussels – where he is not even allowed to go!
Need I say more? Is it not abundantly clear that we live, today, in a nominally liberal Europe where, in a jiffy, your political and human rights can be rescinded, including your right to challenge your government in a court of law?
normal Western democracy hours 
https://xcancel.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1862865293284192720
Regarding Syria:
- Maintain perspective - as bad as the worst case scenario may seem, Syria had previously been almost entirely overrun before Russia's intervention in 2015 including fighting in and around Damascus itself;
- This is going to shape Russia's calculus regarding Ukraine - clearly any deals made with Western proxies to freeze a conflict toward "peace" will only be used to prepare for more war;
- Russia/Syria still maintain an advantage in military aviation, taking a heavy toll out on advancing US-backed terrorists - a factor that played heavily in their defeat leading up to the long-standing freeze in the first place;
- Escalation in Syria is going to stretch Russia, Syria, and Iran, but also the US and its allies;
- Only time will tell how this plays out, no one should assume one way or the other unless compelling evidence emerges - opensource information only gives part of the picture;
https://xcancel.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1863068727337710071
- be very careful with information coming out. US-backed terrorists use disinformation as a weapon. Believe nothing until it is confirmed;
- That doesn't mean the situation is not dire, but wait for reliable information before drawing conclusions;
- AGAIN - be VERY careful with "opensource" photos/videos which do not provide a full picture of the situation;
- It is very easy to stage a scene and then post it making claims that do not reflect reality, if the Ukrainians do this, surely US-proxies elsewhere can;
- Do not panic. Much of the US' success depends on psychologically overwhelming opponents. Panic aids terrorists and their US sponsors;
- Criticizing the Syrian military for withdrawing is easy to do from a comfortable desk chair. Unless you are on the front holding your part of the line, don't complain about those who are not;
- There are many legitimate reasons why the Syrian army would withdraw from certain areas, just as the Russian army withdrew in 2022 from Kharkov and Kherson, it does not signify the end of the war;
https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1858019192370507904
Wow, looks like Xi was extremely straightforward during his meeting with Biden, probably the most he's ever officially been in a meeting with a US president.
According to the Chinese readout (https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2024_11_17_755645.shtml) here's what he told Biden were the 7 "lessons of the past 4 years that need to be remembered":
- "There must be correct strategic understanding. The 'Thucydides Trap' is not historical destiny, a 'new Cold War' cannot and should not be fought, containment of China is unwise, undesirable, and will not succeed."
- "Words must be trustworthy and actions must be fruitful. A person cannot stand without credibility. China always follows through on its words, but if the U.S. side always says one thing and does another, it is very detrimental to America's image and damages mutual trust."
- "Treat each other as equals. In exchanges between two major countries like China and the United States, neither side can reshape the other according to their own wishes, nor can they suppress the other based on so-called 'position of strength,' let alone deprive the other of legitimate development rights to maintain their own leading position."
- "Red lines and bottom lines cannot be challenged. As two major countries, China and the United States inevitably have some contradictions and differences, but they cannot harm each other's core interests, let alone engage in conflict and confrontation. The One China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués are the political foundation of bilateral relations and must be strictly observed. Taiwan issue, democracy and human rights, development path, and development rights are China's four red lines, which cannot be challenged. These are the most important guardrails and safety nets for China-US relations."
- "There should be more dialogue and cooperation. Under current circumstances, the common interests between China and the United States have not decreased but increased. Whether in areas of economy and trade, agriculture, drug control, law enforcement, public health, or in facing global challenges such as climate change and artificial intelligence, as well as international hotspot issues, China-US cooperation is needed. Both sides should extend the list of cooperation, make the cooperation cake bigger, and achieve win-win cooperation."
- "Respond to people's expectations. The development of China-US relations should always focus on the wellbeing of both peoples and gather the strength of both peoples. Both sides should build bridges for personnel exchanges and cultural communication, and also remove interference and obstacles, not artificially create a 'chilling effect.'"
- "Demonstrate great power responsibility. China and the United States should always consider the future and destiny of humanity, take responsibility for world peace, provide public goods for the world, and play a positive role in world unity, including engaging in positive interaction, avoiding mutual consumption, and not coercing other countries to take sides."
Funnily, all this is summarized in the official US readout (https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/readout-of-president-joe-bidens-meeting-with-president-xi-jinping-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-3/) with this short sentence: "The two leaders reviewed the bilateral relationship over the past four years". Talk about an understatement 😅. The language compared to the readout of the last Xi-Biden meeting in San Francisco one year ago is noticeably more forthright, especially on the U.S.'s lack of trustworthiness ("if the U.S. side always says one thing and does another..."). Looks like he's getting very frustrated with U.S. duplicity... The 4 red lines he enumerates are also new (not new individually as they've each been mentioned before, but packaging them together as "four red lines" and explicitly labeling them as such in a president-level diplomatic readout is new)
...
With the red lines on "Democracy and human rights" and "Development path/system", it looks like China is effectively telling the U.S. it will not humor them anymore in discussions about its internal system and so-called "human rights", and that it will consider any U.S. initiative aimed at interfering with China's internal affairs or otherwise shape China as hostile actions on the same level as Taiwan. This is also clear with Xi telling Biden that "neither side can reshape the other according to their own wishes".
On development rights Xi states that "the Chinese people's right to development cannot be deprived or ignored" and criticizes how "while all countries have national security needs, the concept shouldn't be overgeneralized or used as an excuse for malicious restrictions and suppression". He also said that "great power competition should not be the theme of the era; unity and cooperation are needed to overcome difficulties together. 'Decoupling and breaking chains" is not the solution; mutually beneficial cooperation is the path to common development. 'Small yards with high fences' is not befitting of great powers."
In other words, he's telling Biden that he believes the U.S. is attempting to curtail China's development in the guise of national security, but that this is "an excuse for malicious restrictions and suppression" and a red line as China has a fundamental right to develop as any other country. This is all, of course, also signaling to the upcoming Trump administration. The fact these are "red lines" means they're non-negotiable regardless of who leads the US: he's telling Trump too that attempts to "reshape" China or restrict its development will be viewed as hostile actions. And the emphasis on US "saying one thing and doing another" also puts the future administration on notice that China will judge the US by its actions rather than its diplomatic statements.
Conclusion: by framing these positions as "lessons learned" from the past four years, Xi is effectively closing the book on one approach to US-China relations - which he's obviously very critical about - and very clearly signaling to Trump a change is badly needed, particularly around the "4 red lines" and matching words with actions. The language is very confident, telling the U.S. they need to "treat each other as equals" and that they have no "position of strength" anymore. The US readout on this, as usual for the Biden administration, is very illustrative of exactly what Xi is complaining about: a complete disregard for China's stance on these issues and a refusal to engage with them, or even mention them at all. Not sure that "America first" Trump and the team of China hawks he put together will be much better...
https://xcancel.com/ArmchairW/status/1839453350854853047
There's actually a critical lesson to draw from this and other Ukrainian fiascos, of which the Bakhmut saga and the Zaporozhie Hundred Days come to mind: Ukraine will have ended up losing this war in large part because it consistently tried to fight beyond its means.
The Ukrainians started this war with an enormous army, well in excess of what the Russians could and actually did commit to the fight in 2022. That huge force (the "First Army") was badly mauled in early 2022, but it was rejuvenated later that year by a combination of ruthless mobilization and massive aid from NATO. This convinced the Russian Stavka to transition to the defensive and consolidate their position in Ukraine, withdrawing troops from more exposed positions in east Kharkov and right-bank Kherson. Any serious assessment of the situation at that point would have been that the Russians had consolidated into a basically impregnable position that the AFU was incapable of breaching (lest we forget in the wake of Russia's totally unhindered withdrawal from the area, their attempts at reducing the Kherson bridgehead by force in mid-2022 were bloody disasters), and the correct course of action was to start digging in and negotiate a peace treaty in the meantime.
The Ukrainian leadership instead threw a disturbingly large portion of the "Second Army" into Prigozhin's meatgrinder in Bakhmut and then ordered not one but two large-scale counteroffensives into Zaporozhie and the Bakhmut flanks using the post-Bakhmut remains of the "Second Army" and their NATO-supplied "Third Army." Those failed with enormous losses, opening the way for Russia to transition back to the offensive in late 2023 and begin systematically rolling Ukraine out of the Donbass. The correct course of action at this point was, again, to find a tenable defensive line and start digging. Zelensky instead ordered a "Hail Mary" offensive in Kursk with the remnants of the "Third Army" and significant elements from a lightly-equipped "Fourth Army," hoping Russian border defenses were weak despite their having ample warning of Ukrainian designs on the border region (courtesy of several earlier, smaller raids) and plenty of time to prepare. It proceeded to fail with enormous losses - Ukrainian forces breached the border, began to exploit, and ran square into a Russian haymaker counter-punch that stopped them in their tracks. The Ukrainians then reinforced failure, sending massive reinforcements into a death pit in an attempt to keep a sliver of Russian soil under their flag as a middle finger to Putin.
And while this was happening the front in the Donbass started to collapse with Russian troops making large advances and seizing key terrain, in no small part because the AFU's resources had been systematically redirected to a tertiary operation far to the north. We've seen, again and again and again, that when the Ukrainians got resources and generated forces, rather than admitting they are the weaker power here and working to strengthen their positions and conciliate, they instead squandered them on hugely ambitious and equally doomed offensives. In 2023 these offensives were aimed at restoring their pre-2014 borders when Donetsk may as well have been on the Moon for them, while in 2024 their ambitions transitioned to the outright insanity of conquering southwest Russia despite the fact they'd been on the military back foot for the last year. These are the moves of a power setting objectives beyond its means to achieve, and they will probably end up dooming Ukraine as a sovereign state going forward.
an uneasy feeling but nothing specific to complain about
vibes-based performance evaluation
I just got back from Ukraine, where I was visiting some friends. Everything we have heard about what’s happening in Ukraine is a lie. The reality is darker, bleaker, and unequivocally hopeless. There is no such thing as Ukraine "winning" this war.
- By their estimates, they have lost over one million of their sons, fathers and husbands; an entire generation is gone.
Nazis and destroying the demographics of their own people, name a better duo
- Even in the Southwest, where the anti-Russian sentiment is long-standing, citizens are reluctant or straight-up scared to publicly criticize Zelensky; they will go to jail.
- In every village and town, the streets, shops, and restaurants are mostly absent of men.
- The few men who remain are terrified of leaving their homes for fear of being kidnapped into conscription. Some have resorted to begging friends to break their legs to avoid service.
- Army search parties take place early in the morning, when men leave their homes to go to work. They ambush and kidnap them off the streets and within 3-4 hours they get listed in the army and taken away straight to the front lines with minimal or no training at all; it is "a death sentence."
- It's getting worse every day. Where I was staying, a dentist had just been taken by security forces on his way to work, leaving behind two small children. Every day, 3-5 dead bodies keep arriving from the front lines.
- Mothers and wives fight tooth and nail with the armed forces, beg and plead not to have their men taken away. They try bribing, which sometimes works, but most of the time they are met with physical violence and death threats.
- The territory celebrated as having been "won back" from Russia has been reduced to rubble and is uninhabitable. Regardless, there is no one left to live there and displaced families will likely never return.
- They see the way the war has been reported, at home and abroad. It's a "joke" and "propaganda." They say: “Look around: is this winning?”.
- Worse, some have been hoaxed into believing that once Ukrainians forces are exhausted, American soldiers will come in to replace them and “win the war”.
There is no ambiguity in these people. The war was for nothing - a travesty. The outcome always was, and is, clear. The people are hopeless, utterly destroyed, and living in an unending nightmare. They are pleading for an end, any end - most likely the same "peace" that could have been achieved two years ago. In their minds, they have already lost, for their sons, fathers and husbands are gone, and their country has been destroyed. There is no "victory" that can change that.
Except the peace offer then (see under the The Objectives and Strategy of Russia section) was incredibly favorable for Ukraine (and naive on Russia's part), basically just security guarantees and no NATO membership, without any territorial changes. That ain't happening anymore.
Make no mistake, they are angry with Putin. But they are also angry with Zelensky and the West. They have lost everything, worst of all, hope and faith, and cannot comprehend why Zelenky wishes to continue the current trajectory, the one of human devastation. I didn't witness the war; but what I saw was absolutely heart-breaking. Shame on the people, regardless of their intentions, who have supported this war. And shame on the media for continuing to lie about it.
also lmao at the fucking community note
um actually the US says that only a few Ukrainians have died (based on propaganda fed to them by the Ukrainians)
there were some M16s captured too... real weird how those got there