Thank you to Ryu and everyone else that contributes to this thread.

Regarding the war, it does appear that the Russians and allied militias have made substantial progress in the Donbass and the Lugansk Oblast in particular. With Severodonetsk largely captured by the Russians, it leaves Lysychansk as the last remaining city of significance in that region. The loss of Lyman places further pressure on the front and the Ukrainians may be considering a withdrawal toward Bakhmut or Slavyansk, lest they find themselves in a repeat of the Mariupol encirclement.
The smoke around the Kherson offensive has yet to clear and it will be interesting to see if the Ukrainians can push the Russian forces back to the east of the Dnieper.

The greatest challenge I see facing Ukraine is that Russia has in those regions air superiority and an advantage in artillery. The Ukrainians have proven formidable in the defence of their cities, but fighting in the open and contesting smaller towns plays into Russia's advantages. The possible loss of the remainder of Ukraine held territory in the Lugansk region could also free up thousands of Russian and or rebel troops which presents additional problems.

Here is some analysis from an Austrian military Colonel of the hostilities in Ukraine. It is in German but nevertheless contains great maps and information regarding the advances and potential encirclements (cauldrons) that are forming in the Donbass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcQ9-asg8gg&t=326s

I have to disagree there. Whilst it’s clearly not happening regardless, sending troops to Ukraine to aide them in defending the country would not be aggression against Russia, as the troops would remain defensive in nature so long as they are only operating on Ukrainian territory. I concede that Russia would certainly spin it as aggression against Russia but this is already how they are interpreting Western arms supplies to Ukraine.

Unless The West/Nato attack Russia directly (ie invade Russia territory) then it is not aggression against Russia.

I think that depends at precisely when Russia went through with that hypothetical scenario. If it was during what was officially the counter-terrorism stage when a new Iraqi regime was in place then sure. If it was during the initial 2003 invasion that really it would have been Russia helping Iraq fight off the invasion.

Putin Treated for Cancer in April, U.S. Intelligence Report Says

I’m also following events on several newspapers, one of which has active comments on all articles. Those in the ‘surrender land’ camp on there range from Russian trolls to those who say Ukraine should ‘compromise’ for the sake of peace, The West should stop egging Ukraine on, Russia has more to offer us so why are we supporting Ukraine and finally the land was historically Russian so should be given back to them.

All of the reasoning is short-sighted and rather pathetic.

Yeah, a common retort when that example comes up is Kaliningrad, which is historically the German city of Konigsberg in East Prussia that only came into Russia possession in the 1940s. They usually dodge the question when asked if Russia should give that location up.

One thing that’s also worth noting is any calls to call of support for Ukraine and end sanctions on Russia so as to relieve the fuel price surge and the pressure on food prices appear to be limited (at least in the newspaper comment-board I’m citing). Sure, there are a few but they are vastly outnumbered by those saying we should maintain support for Ukraine.

Who knows if that may change in the future though, especially as winter approaches.

Let’s give Donbas to Mongolia, they also have a claim. And they can give Crimea to Greece.

Agreed. And European Russia should be French territory, Napoleon once claimed it.

I think the Dinosaurs want their land back too lol