It’s simple, just don’t get shot

I mean you can’t withdraw if you get encircled

But the article says they thinned out the front line for this operation, whatever that means.

Ukraine also had to thin out its own frontline troops to launch the operation in Kursk. Even before the incursion, those troops were vastly outnumbered.

I feel like there is a well-earned reaction to the lemmygrad and hexbear folks that makes any opinion questioning Ukraine get obliterated, and on balance that’s probably fine, but I want Ukraine to win. I am just a little confused about why they did this. Russia has hundreds of thousands of troops in Ukraine. Sending a couple thousand Ukrainian troops into Russia feels like desperation, not strategy

Yeah I mean this is true for both. Ukraine moved troops off the front, where they are slowly losing ground, to make this assault. Unless they can hold that territory and the line in the east I dunno if this was worth it

Oh I didn’t know that. The Ukrainians and Russians have more or less mutually agreed not to mess with the gas supply thus far, since it benefits them both

How? Did they shut off gas to the EU?

I don’t know that I agree about air dominance. Ukraine has been bombarded by glide bombs, and Russia is getting a lot of value out of artillery and air support to soften positions before rolling in their conscripts.

I’m not saying that invading or counterattacking is definitely a mistake. I’m worried that those troops would be better utilized at the front. Either way we will see how this plays out as Russia repositions troops over the next week or so. Hopefully Ukraine can hold the line and keep from getting encircled

It’s also air power. I think we’re all kind of ignoring that Russia IS gaining ground in the east. The long delay in getting Ukraine more ammo and matériel let Russia overrun entrenched positions.

I think the most positive way of looking at this is - you attack where you can and not where your enemy expects you to. Ukraine has never been able to reclaim territory in large amounts. So maybe in a peace deal they can “trade” territory instead.

I sincerely hope they accomplish those things, too

You’re not allowed to come here, it’s private property \s

Other than lines on a map what objectives have been achieved?

I’m no general so of course I have an opinion that means nothing. The analyses I’ve read also suggest the same thing - but caution that Russia already has a huge manpower advantage. If they can more effectively fight on two fronts than Ukraine then in a little while I worry that we’ll see these Ukrainian soldiers isolated and cut off, encircled, and captured or killed. Then Ukraine is worse off than they started unless the gains they make in the east while Russia is distracted are immense and war-ending.

Idk. It just seems like a desperation play.

I think we should be cautious. In the first days of Russias offensive four years ago they made huge gains quickly. The Russians will move assets and warplanes to the area and Ukraine will be stretched thin in more fronts.

I’m not pro-Russia by any stretch. I love to see Ukraine getting wins. I am just worried that they would have been better off being this aggressive on their existing fronts

No. We exchanged eight Russians held in non-Russian prisons for 16 prisoners (some Russian, some not) held in Russian prisons. After Navalny’s death the concern is that people imprisoned for opposing Putin will die in prison.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-gershkovich-whelan-prisoner-swap-354df585ad321ecdbea4c0f2c557f0aa

Your username is not the best ever. Why are you lying?

Do fewer things better. Don’t try to cram a million things into a day. Set a “if we do X and Y today then we will be satisfied “ goal to keep perspective. It is easy to get overwhelmed by all the things you could do, so try and be satisfied with what you did do.

Because being a fringe lunatic insurrectionist fascist is forgivable. Left or right, everyone either assumes Trump is so bad or so good that he is beyond criticism.

Same as it ever was. No one, left or right, expects the Republicans to change or get better.

So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.