By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

According to Russian channels that are slightly more critical of the current state of affairs in Kursk:

"I do not recommend relying on the information of the political officers and... who denied the facts of the enemy's presence in Sudzha. I can only advise you to be patient and pray for our guys."

[image or embed]

— NOELREPORTS (@noelreports.com) 7 February 2025 at 08:04

Unlike the attacks a month ago near Berdyn, Russian channels are very quiet after the first wave of attacks. Last month it was clear quite quickly that attacks had been countered, but now Russian sources after 24 hours only speak of 'we are working'.

[image or embed]

— NOELREPORTS (@noelreports.com) 7 February 2025 at 07:55


Around the Network

🇺🇦 Ukraine aims to open all EU accession negotiation clusters in 2025, VP Olha Stefanishyna said. Talks on key clusters, including rule of law & internal market, will start under Poland’s EU presidency in early 2025, with the rest under Denmark’s in H2.

www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2025/02...

[image or embed]

— NOELREPORTS (@noelreports.com) 7 February 2025 at 10:21


Ryuu96 said:

I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying, in regards to the territory concessions. The Kursk invasion happened last year, before that, the West was telling Ukraine they weren't allowed to use Western made equipment on Russian territory and were pushing Ukraine away from that idea, but with the upcoming election there were very real fears that Trump would pull Ukraine's support and pressure them to freeze the conflict on the current frontlines. Freezing the conflict would have benefited Russia more than Ukraine and prior to Kursk, may have been something that Russia accepted, as they would have essentially gained 15-20% of Ukraine and been able to repair their military to try again.

If Russia accepted such a proposal but Ukraine didn't then it would give Trump his excuse to say Ukraine are being unreasonable. However, the Kursk invasion changed things, it put Russia in a position where they would absolutely not accept such a proposal because it would now mean surrendering Kursk. I don't believe it is a coincidence that Ukraine only invaded Russia right before the US Election. It was a strategic goal in more ways than one, I believe one of those goals are related to negotiations.

Oh gods.In what way freezing the conflict benefits Russia,again?

Kiev regime needs to repair their military to try again,not Russia.Kiev regime needs time to rearm,retrain it's forces,mobilize last two million available moreorlessablebodied men,the stuff. Russia is fine as is.

And why would Kiev regime occupying 1% of the province mean Russia surrendering Kursk CITY?!



Phaeton said:
Ryuu96 said:

I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying, in regards to the territory concessions. The Kursk invasion happened last year, before that, the West was telling Ukraine they weren't allowed to use Western made equipment on Russian territory and were pushing Ukraine away from that idea, but with the upcoming election there were very real fears that Trump would pull Ukraine's support and pressure them to freeze the conflict on the current frontlines. Freezing the conflict would have benefited Russia more than Ukraine and prior to Kursk, may have been something that Russia accepted, as they would have essentially gained 15-20% of Ukraine and been able to repair their military to try again.

If Russia accepted such a proposal but Ukraine didn't then it would give Trump his excuse to say Ukraine are being unreasonable. However, the Kursk invasion changed things, it put Russia in a position where they would absolutely not accept such a proposal because it would now mean surrendering Kursk. I don't believe it is a coincidence that Ukraine only invaded Russia right before the US Election. It was a strategic goal in more ways than one, I believe one of those goals are related to negotiations.

Oh gods.In what way freezing the conflict benefits Russia,again?

Kiev regime needs to repair their military to try again,not Russia.Kiev regime needs time to rearm,retrain it's forces,mobilize last two million available moreorlessablebodied men,the stuff. Russia is fine as is.

And why would Kiev regime occupying 1% of the province mean Russia surrendering Kursk CITY?!

A freeze in the conflict would also mean a freeze in western deliveries of military hardware. And since Russia can easily outproduce Ukraine, it would help Russia much more as after the freeze they would have the upper hand again in terms of equipment.

bolded: Russia does the same with the 4 regions they are "occupying". Neither do they occupy entirely or even any of their regional capitals, But Russia treats them as Russian territory. And not just the part they occupy, but the entire regions. So if all things are equal, If Russia can consider the entire region their own despite only occupying a part of them, then the same would apply for Ukraine, too.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

A freeze in the conflict would also mean a freeze in western deliveries of military hardware. And since Russia can easily outproduce Ukraine, it would help Russia much more as after the freeze they would have the upper hand again in terms of equipment.

bolded: Russia does the same with the 4 regions they are "occupying". Neither do they occupy entirely or even any of their regional capitals, But Russia treats them as Russian territory. And not just the part they occupy, but the entire regions. So if all things are equal, If Russia can consider the entire region their own despite only occupying a part of them, then the same would apply for Ukraine, too.

Again,fundamental misunderstandings here.First of all,freeze in the conflict would NOT mean a freeze in western deliveries of military hardware.

More importantly,Kiev regime's primary supplier isn't the West.It's Soviet Union,and supplies from it are one-time.And already happened.

Finally,"upper hand AGAIN"?What?Russia held the upper hand through the entire conflict,Kiev regime just had numerical superiority while Soviet supplies lasted.

SOVIET.Not Western.Nobody cares about thirty Leopards when you need thirty of them PER BRIGADE.Which is more than production run.

Russia doesn't"treat"new regions as Russian territory,they are Russian territory by Russian constitution,which happened as a result of local plebiscites.That NOW Russia doesn't hold provincial capitols is irrelevant-it held enough territory for a plebiscite-Kiev regime never even attempted one.



Around the Network
Phaeton said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

A freeze in the conflict would also mean a freeze in western deliveries of military hardware. And since Russia can easily outproduce Ukraine, it would help Russia much more as after the freeze they would have the upper hand again in terms of equipment.

bolded: Russia does the same with the 4 regions they are "occupying". Neither do they occupy entirely or even any of their regional capitals, But Russia treats them as Russian territory. And not just the part they occupy, but the entire regions. So if all things are equal, If Russia can consider the entire region their own despite only occupying a part of them, then the same would apply for Ukraine, too.

Again,fundamental misunderstandings here.First of all,freeze in the conflict would NOT mean a freeze in western deliveries of military hardware.

More importantly,Kiev regime's primary supplier isn't the West.It's Soviet Union,and supplies from it are one-time.And already happened.

Finally,"upper hand AGAIN"?What?Russia held the upper hand through the entire conflict,Kiev regime just had numerical superiority while Soviet supplies lasted.

SOVIET.Not Western.Nobody cares about thirty Leopards when you need thirty of them PER BRIGADE.Which is more than production run.

Russia doesn't"treat"new regions as Russian territory,they are Russian territory by Russian constitution,which happened as a result of local plebiscites.That NOW Russia doesn't hold provincial capitols is irrelevant-it held enough territory for a plebiscite-Kiev regime never even attempted one.

Why'd you just create an account now, on this forum, of all places and times to argue about the war?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

This dude is giving me bad vibes, I know they're from Russian, Moscow specifically, and not all Russians are bad obviously, I know a Russian on this very website who left Russia and hates Russia but this user is giving me the vibes of someone sucked in by Russian propaganda and the usage of "Kiev Regime" is suspicious given the users location. I'd ask them a simple question, are they in support of Russia's illegal and Nazi-like invasion of Ukraine? Do they support the Russia? Two other things stuck out to me.

"Russia doesn't treat new regions as Russian territory, they are Russian territory by Russian constitution, which happened as a result of local plebiscites."

This is absolute horseshit. 😂😂😂

"Russia held the upper hand through the entire conflict"

This is cope and blatantly untrue.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 07 February 2025

Phaeton said:

Do you support Russia? 🤔



Mirage 2000-5F on their way from Poland to Ukraine. Pictures taken several days ago.

[image or embed]

— NOELREPORTS (@noelreports.com) 7 February 2025 at 16:55

🇱🇹🇱🇻🇪🇪 Tomorrow, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia will permanently disconnect from Russia’s energy system, says EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas.

"Russia can no longer use energy as a tool of blackmail," she added.

[image or embed]

— NOELREPORTS (@noelreports.com) 7 February 2025 at 12:49


Ryuu96 said:

This is absolute

"Russia held the upper hand through the entire conflict"

This is cope and blatantly untrue.

No,user,this is absolute Russian Constitution Article if memory serves 65,publicly available.

And coping is using irrelevant social media accounts for sources instead of something...more grounded in reality.

And yes,i do support Russia.Usage of "Kiev regime"should have made that Danny Crystal-level clear.