Ukraine

First topic message reminder :

Today is first anniversary of the ahem, "special operation" that Russia has mounted against Ukraine. Been several excellent documentaries on it, the BBC Panorama one on Tuesday was superb.
Horrendous what that utter $%"^ Putin is doing.

Can only hope Western backing doesn't diminish. There is opposition to support America is giving from the Republican party apparently. Without support from Nato countries Ukraine won't win, even with it's going to be another brutal year at least.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

That makes me so angry. It's crochet, not knitting.

But what I want to know, and it's so important, is do the cucumber sandwiches come before or after the knitting? Sorry, crocheting.

Don't think in such binary terms.
During!

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Occupying land doesn't mean it's your land, it is still Ukrainian sovereign territory lived in by Ukrainians. He's not fighting for land to use, he's fighting for land to subjugate the Ukranian people.

Now I completely agree that it's Ukrainian land, but I think Putin does see it as his own. That's why I'm surprised if he did it. Not to mention the impact on Crimea, which isn't his either de jure, but de facto is.

Equally, why would Zelensky do the same? It's his land right?

Who do you think it disrupts the most right now in the war? I'd say that's the angle to take.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Occupying land doesn't mean it's your land, it is still Ukrainian sovereign territory lived in by Ukrainians. He's not fighting for land to use, he's fighting for land to subjugate the Ukranian people.

Now I completely agree that it's Ukrainian land, but I think Putin does see it as his own. That's why I'm surprised if he did it. Not to mention the impact on Crimea, which isn't his either de jure, but de facto is.  

Equally, why would Zelensky do the same? It's his land right?

Who do you think it disrupts the most right now in the war? I'd say that's the angle to take.

Maybe Chechen frogmen did it? Some of them might still hold grudges.

Pal Joey wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Occupying land doesn't mean it's your land, it is still Ukrainian sovereign territory lived in by Ukrainians. He's not fighting for land to use, he's fighting for land to subjugate the Ukranian people.

Now I completely agree that it's Ukrainian land, but I think Putin does see it as his own. That's why I'm surprised if he did it. Not to mention the impact on Crimea, which isn't his either de jure, but de facto is.  

Equally, why would Zelensky do the same? It's his land right?

Who do you think it disrupts the most right now in the war? I'd say that's the angle to take.

Maybe Chechen frogmen did it? Some of them might still hold grudges.

Who are they?

the-goon2 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Occupying land doesn't mean it's your land, it is still Ukrainian sovereign territory lived in by Ukrainians. He's not fighting for land to use, he's fighting for land to subjugate the Ukranian people.

Now I completely agree that it's Ukrainian land, but I think Putin does see it as his own. That's why I'm surprised if he did it. Not to mention the impact on Crimea, which isn't his either de jure, but de facto is.  

Equally, why would Zelensky do the same? It's his land right?

Who do you think it disrupts the most right now in the war? I'd say that's the angle to take.

Maybe Chechen frogmen did it? Some of them might still hold grudges.

Who are they?

Maybe read up on the Russian - Chechen conflict. It's only been going on for 232 years.

A couple of nasty bearded Chechen characters have recently backed Putin (so they wouldn't have blown the dam wall) but there's many more who'll never forget nor forgive what Russia did to them and their country... and some of them are volunteering themselves to Ukraine's cause. It's a nessy part of the world.

So on behalf of Ukraine? Or at least some kind of terrorist act to mess up Putin? Interesting.

Careful mind, that kind of speculation will lead you to be called an idiot by our MENSA resident superfly.

the-goon2 wrote:So on behalf of Ukraine? Or at least some kind of terrorist act to mess up Putin? Interesting.

Careful mind, that kind of speculation will lead you to be called an idiot by our MENSA resident superfly.

I forget the actual number but there are about 25-30 different ethnic groups in and around Russia (it might even be 50 or more) and all of the neighbouring republics. For centuries they have been fighting each other one day, then fighting alongside their enemies the next. Depending on which military power holds sway. It's the way wars are fought in "The World Pivot" - and Ukraine is like a central cog in all of that.

Think of Europe to the west; White Russia (Belaya Rus' = white Russia) the Baltic and Scandinavian countries to the north; dozens of various ethnic groups in newly established republics to the east... across all of Central Asia north of the Himalayas... all the way to the Pacific coast; the Caucasus, Iran, Bulgaria, Turkey, Middle East, etc to the south. That's why Ukraine is so important. Whoever controls that area of Eurasia controls the World Pivot.

Well, that was some bloke's theory early last century (Halford John Mackinder) and it appears he was correct. It's also called "the crush zone" or "shutterbelt" of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

That makes me so angry. It's crochet, not knitting.

But what I want to know, and it's so important, is do the cucumber sandwiches come before or after the knitting? Sorry, crocheting.

Don't think in such binary terms.
During!

Exciting!! xx

Can't think why Truss is so against it.

Using that logic, it wouldn't really make sense to destroy the region that you are looking to hold long term, if you meet your objectives...
You being Putin in this scenario.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

That and making the entire area downstream non-manoeuvrable and, presumably, preventing any effective Ukrainian counter offensive there. Not new. Happened in last couple of World Wars as part of defence cf. German invasion, and the Allies did similar around Zeeland after D-Day etc.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Umm, Putin doesn't give a 4X about people. Thought that was obvious.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

That and making the entire area downstream non-manoeuvrable and, presumably, preventing any effective Ukrainian counter offensive there. Not new. Happened in last couple of World Wars as part of defence cf. German invasion, and the Allies did similar around Zeeland after D-Day etc.

The Chinese also destroyed dikes on the Yellow River in 1938 to prevent the Japanese Army getting further inland and protect the Longhai railroad, which was used to transport military supplies from Russia. Up to 90,000 drowned in the immediate aftermath and another 400,000 to 500,000 civilians perished from drowning, famine and plague overall. It took them until 1947 to fix the damage and get things back to normal.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Number one for obesity and shooting up schools.

You ever wonder what would have happened to your little Island if we hadn't have implemented "The Marshall Plan"....$4 billion loan at a paltry 2% over 50 years to a dying Country that came begging....

How much would 4 billion be worth today ???........All because we liked our "little friend"...

Worst investment we ever made....But there is more to life than money...

Were you personally involved in any of that? Seems odd to take pride in something you had nothing to do with, other than to happen to be born in the same geographical location in a later time period.

Thats nationalism for you.

No it's saying if it wasn't for People like me you'd either be speaking German or you'd have been bankrupt and dead on your backside...Although I get being proud of your Country is a notion some people find hard to grasp.

The only thing Truman got wrong with the Marshall plan was not insisting Britain changed its name to "America's little B**ch"..

As for Ukr v Rus..........The Korean war...Vietnam...and most other wars in history end in compromise with very little changing....Especially the Korean..

This one will end in compromise too......So let's not have too many families getting devastated...That's what I say....

Broker a way however hard for both both to claim victory.

God, you're arrogant. We wouldn't be speaking German; we'd likely be speaking Russian you plum. As would most of Europe.

One could easily posit that any support from America was wholly selfish and political in order to stymie the U.S.S.R. America ensured that there'd be no British Empire post-WWII. No problem with that - it's geopolitics, but you can just **** off.

Truss is apparently speaking English. I wonder why?

The dam. It was under Russian control. It was built to withstand air attack, and Ukraine have absolutely nothing in their arsenal that would make a dent in it. (Worth pointing out that the bouncing bombs used in WW2 each carried 3 tons of explosives). There is no way that Ukrainian forces could shift enough explosives to blow the thing, even if they wanted to.

At the same time Ukraine said last October that Russia was mining the dam. It was vulnerable to explosives planted inside rooms within the structure.

They may not have appreciated the full impact of blowing the dam. They do seem to be shelling the efforts to rescue people and animals trapped by rising flood waters, and they also seem to have managed to drown significant numbers of their own troops.

xxxxx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities .... the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is ........

I find it interesting that moralist that criticize other nations constitution and criticize people that defend that constitution every time there is a "mass shooting" resulting in the deaths of four to thirty people (sometimes more) will defend the use of nuclear bombs on cities resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.  Not only do they defend it they say it was absolutely justified and that this is "non-debatable" and that anybody that says it is debatable needs to get their head examined.

The same will also defend the use of depleted uranium shells to support and propagate regime change operations abroad as well as other conflicts abroad and REJECT suggestions that this can and has resulted in very long term contamination and significant health impacts on civilian populations through the spread of uranium dust in that environment.  

The same will defend American and British regime change operations in nations abroad to get rid of leaders and governments considered "illegitimate" and defend or blame others for the negative consequences of those actions of which there are many for the people and the environment of those territories where such operations are conducted.    

They will wholeheartedly accept what their politicians tell them when justifying these foreign policy interventions and yet they are far more critical or outright reject what their politicians tell them when it comes to justifying domestic policies which affects them.    

Wikipedia (paraphrased):

In 2006, Stephen Hawking posed an open question: "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?" .... Hawking expressed concern that life on Earth is at risk from a sudden nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, global warming, or other dangers humans have not yet thought of ....

"I regard it as almost inevitable that either a nuclear confrontation or environmental catastrophe will cripple the Earth at some point in the next 1,000 years" ...

The way things are heading it is looking like the next ten years rather than the next 1,000 and the moralists will be at the forefront urging it on every step of the way.

'Depleted Uranium' Tell us you know nothing of physics and chemistry without actually saying it.

I probably spend far too much time on tw@tter which means my tolerance for these kinds of arguments  is very low, but really this is scraping the barrel, and one that has been hanging around at the dump for a couple of decades.

How did you get so far down the rabbit hole? How do you end up saying regime change imposed by the west is bad but somehow by Russia, noble, caring, communist Russia, is actually OK. (ignoring the rampant corruption, poor living standards, attempted 'regime change' operations in Syria, Georgia, Chechnya etc. the targeting of civilian infrastructure during 'SMO's', the attempted murder of political opponents in the UK with nerve agents, the actual assassination of a political opponent with a REAL radioactive poison (not DU) the attempts to destabilize other countries through funding of stuff like Brexit....

It is perfectly possible to be ambivalent about many things the US (for instance) have done in the past and be grateful for what they are doing now. Big powers are like that. I would say, finding areas where modern Russia have actually helped improved something else in the world is very hard.

lostinwales wrote:The dam. It was under Russian control. It was built to withstand air attack, and Ukraine have absolutely nothing in their arsenal that would make a dent in it. (Worth pointing out that the bouncing bombs used in WW2 each carried 3 tons of explosives). There is no way that Ukrainian forces could shift enough explosives to blow the thing, even if they wanted to.

At the same time Ukraine said last October that Russia was mining the dam. It was vulnerable to explosives planted inside rooms within the structure.

They may not have appreciated the full impact of blowing the dam. They do seem to be shelling the efforts to rescue people and animals trapped by rising flood waters, and they also seem to have managed to drown significant numbers of their own troops.

No, fair that is a valid angle. Putin doesn't care about anyone in the region, Russian or otherwise. No Russian leader has ever had regard for human life, sadly par for the course in Russia.

I don't think this is the limit of how far he wants to push into Ukraine. Whilst it would hamper any counter offensive, it also hampers Russia's further incursions too. Interesting to think who benefits from that more. I guess it be based on who you think is in a better place to make gains in that region.

lostinwales wrote:'Depleted Uranium' Tell us you know nothing of physics and chemistry without actually saying it .... really this is scraping the barrel, and one that has been hanging around at the dump for a couple of decades .... with a REAL radioactive poison (not DU)

Who said anything about radioactivity?   What do you think would happen if we spread uranium dust around your town - or put mercury or lead in your water?

The rest is binary thinking.  However the extent with which you defend these things is not out of the ordinary.

lostinwales wrote:.... How did you get so far down the rabbit hole? ..... communist Russia .... attempts to destabilize other countries through funding of stuff like Brexit....

That is a new one on me. I never knew "communist Russia" was responsible for Brexit. Reading the liberal media as well peoples comments here and elsewhere it was said by many that responsibility lay with racist English people and duplicitous politicians like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg.

lostinwales wrote:The dam. It was under Russian control. It was built to withstand air attack, and Ukraine have absolutely nothing in their arsenal that would make a dent in it. (Worth pointing out that the bouncing bombs used in WW2 each carried 3 tons of explosives). There is no way that Ukrainian forces could shift enough explosives to blow the thing, even if they wanted to.

At the same time Ukraine said last October that Russia was mining the dam. It was vulnerable to explosives planted inside rooms within the structure.

They may not have appreciated the full impact of blowing the dam. They do seem to be shelling the efforts to rescue people and animals trapped by rising flood waters, and they also seem to have managed to drown significant numbers of their own troops.

Last year Vasily Nebenzya (Russian rep to the United Nations) said he had sources that told him Ukraine were ready to blow up the dam for military advantage....

If that's true I guess Ukraine thought they could blow it up.....They blew up the Nord stream pipelines last year.....

"Washington post article last year cites Ukrainian Major General Andrey Kovalchuk discussing a test to bomb the dam to see if it could prevent Russian crossings without flooding villages"...'The Hill' (US newspaper if you didn't know)

Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

Why I added the washington post article....For the corroboration..

Don't bother thanking me...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

He had SOURCES, Julius.

Apparently tomato and barbeque, although no mayonnaise caused a bit of a stir.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

He had SOURCES, Julius.

Apparently tomato and barbeque, although no mayonnaise caused a bit of a stir.

Get your sources to tell me what Diane abbott wrote that was Anti semitic..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

He had SOURCES, Julius.

Apparently tomato and barbeque, although no mayonnaise caused a bit of a stir.

Get your sources to tell me what Diane abbott wrote that was Anti semitic..

This has been answered for you on multiple occasions, Truss.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Russian rep to the UN said so - must be true. GOSPEL!

He had SOURCES, Julius.

Apparently tomato and barbeque, although no mayonnaise caused a bit of a stir.

Get your sources to tell me what Diane abbott wrote that was Anti semitic..

This has been answered for you on multiple occasions, Truss.

Remind me of the answer anytime you like...

OK, it's on page five and page six of the mass shooting thread.

Seems Russia has decided to invade itself. I didnt have “Russian Civil War” on my 2023 bingo card.

Samo wrote:Seems Russia has decided to invade itself. I didnt have “Russian Civil War” on my 2023 bingo card.

Damp squib....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:Seems Russia has decided to invade itself. I didnt have “Russian Civil War” on my 2023 bingo card.

Damp squib....

I’ve ran military coups that lasted longer than that.

It has definitely weakened Putins appearance though.

Rather odd the Yevgeny Prigozhin "rebellion" or whatever it was. In the short time it was ongoing I rather had hopes he'd march onto Moscow and  the Wagner forces could fight it out with Putins thus harming themselves and in turn that would help Ukraine.

Be interesting to know full story of it and what now for Prigozhin. Seems unlikely Putin will let him get away with no sanction seeing as he labelled him a traitor.
Was a it all a ruse to wrong step Ukraine/the West? Unlikely apparently.

If it really was a rebellion then if I was Prigozhin I certainly wouldn't trust Putin to forgive and forget!

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:Seems Russia has decided to invade itself. I didnt have “Russian Civil War” on my 2023 bingo card.

Damp squib....

I’ve ran military coups that lasted longer than that.

It has definitely weakened Putins appearance though.

We'd all like Putin out.....Not sure Prigohzin is someone we want replacing him though...

Got his timing wrong didn't he ??...Should have kept chipping away with his narrative and building support.....But too hot headed.

It's a fact of news life I suppose as soon as another big story emerges coverage diminishes but after blanket news of Ukraine war every day, now it's never even mentioned on BBC etc as all focus on Gaza etc which is understandable given situation there but it's as if the war has ended which it definitely has not.

I would imagine Zelenzky feeling somewhat hard done by in that aspect as without it being in news then support lessens. US support is wavering a bit and without their backing with financial and arms support the prospect of Ukraine winning is less. Not a good prospect for Ukraine or rest of world if Putin isn't stopped.

mountain man wrote:It's a fact of news life I suppose as soon as another big story emerges coverage diminishes but after blanket news of Ukraine war every day, now it's never even mentioned on BBC etc as all focus on Gaza etc which is understandable given situation there but it's as if the war has ended which it definitely has not.

I would imagine Zelenzky feeling somewhat hard done by in that aspect as without it being in news then support lessens. US support is wavering a bit and without their backing with financial and arms support the prospect of Ukraine winning is less. Not a good prospect for Ukraine or rest of world if Putin isn't stopped.

Part of the issue is that the war in Ukraine has reached a sort of stalemate - both sides are in defensive positions and can offensively probe certain areas, but gains in one area seem to mostly be offset with losses in another. Secondly, the conditions in Ukraine make it quite a seasonal conflict, with heavy weapons not being able to operate effectively through the late autumn and early spring months - there may be some operations in the depths of winter when the frozen ground allows tank movement, but the extreme cold conditions still make for difficult operations.

The Gaza conflict / operation / whatever you want to call it, is likely to be short and brutal - Israel have the military equipment and motivation to utterly crush Hamas in Gaza, and are well on the way to achieving this. The bigger question there is what happens afterwards - do they allow a resettlement of Gaza by the Palestinians, and under whose control / Governance?

mountain man wrote:It's a fact of news life I suppose as soon as another big story emerges coverage diminishes but after blanket news of Ukraine war every day, now it's never even mentioned on BBC etc as all focus on Gaza etc which is understandable given situation there but it's as if the war has ended which it definitely has not.

I would imagine Zelenzky feeling somewhat hard done by in that aspect as without it being in news then support lessens. US support is wavering a bit and without their backing with financial and arms support the prospect of Ukraine winning is less. Not a good prospect for Ukraine or rest of world if Putin isn't stopped.

To be honest, wouldn't have put it past Putin to have had a word with Iran, who influenced Hamas, who murdered ~1400 Israeli civilians, which led to the knee-jerk macho Israeli overkill we're seeing now, which distracts 'the West' from Russia-Ukraine. Job done...

Probably not, but...

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:It's a fact of news life I suppose as soon as another big story emerges coverage diminishes but after blanket news of Ukraine war every day, now it's never even mentioned on BBC etc as all focus on Gaza etc which is understandable given situation there but it's as if the war has ended which it definitely has not.

I would imagine Zelenzky feeling somewhat hard done by in that aspect as without it being in news then support lessens. US support is wavering a bit and without their backing with financial and arms support the prospect of Ukraine winning is less. Not a good prospect for Ukraine or rest of world if Putin isn't stopped.

To be honest, wouldn't have put it past Putin to have had a word with Iran, who influenced Hamas, who murdered ~1400 Israeli civilians, which led to the knee-jerk macho Israeli overkill we're seeing now, which distracts 'the West' from Russia-Ukraine. Job done...

Probably not, but...

If this was any other time in history you could easily write this off as conspiracy nonsense. These days? Yeah, I can believe it.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:It's a fact of news life I suppose as soon as another big story emerges coverage diminishes but after blanket news of Ukraine war every day, now it's never even mentioned on BBC etc as all focus on Gaza etc which is understandable given situation there but it's as if the war has ended which it definitely has not.

I would imagine Zelenzky feeling somewhat hard done by in that aspect as without it being in news then support lessens. US support is wavering a bit and without their backing with financial and arms support the prospect of Ukraine winning is less. Not a good prospect for Ukraine or rest of world if Putin isn't stopped.

To be honest, wouldn't have put it past Putin to have had a word with Iran, who influenced Hamas, who murdered ~1400 Israeli civilians, which led to the knee-jerk macho Israeli overkill we're seeing now, which distracts 'the West' from Russia-Ukraine. Job done...

Probably not, but...

If this was any other time in history you could easily write this off as conspiracy nonsense.  These days? Yeah, I can believe it.

I would go a bit farther.  Disinformation has been a key part of Russian strategies from well before 1917.  So, I believe this is exactly what Russia would do.  And I am sure they did, and are also putting out there some of the manufactured outrage at Israel's actions that the Jew-haters, anti-Israelis, and so on have been lapping up.  

It is a real shame the Arabs who live in Palestine have been used and abused by their so-called benefactors and supporters for such a long time.  Otherwise peace (or a peaceful truce) would have taken hold between the local Arabs and the Israelis, causing the other Arab countries (plus Iran) to lose power and influence in the area.  And that's what we are really talking about, not the imagined upset at how people are (or are not) treated.