Your "source" as referenced in [9] is criticizing the territorial gains of the counter offensive without any further information or context.

That's on me - I am the one who didn't provide you context or more of his latest piece.

By the way, Ukrainian news outlets are now state-controlled, just like in Russia. So, yes, there is propaganda on both sides and there is the fog of war, blah, blah, blah...and the Pentagon!

I thought it was quite obvious by now that when I put quotes around something and refer to "my source", everyone here who's been following along should know precisely who I am quoting. Heh.

It may soon be time to post another one of his missives here in its entirety! :)

Your "source" as referenced in [9] is criticizing the territorial gains of the counter offensive without any further information or context. A quick search says that beyond the total area, nine villages were retaken. We, and your "source", don't know the strategy of the Ukrainian forces. Is 130km good? Bad? On plan? Against it? Most of the western press is painting it as slow but showing gains. Your "source" is trying to paint it as a failure which is a take on the story that I only see in the Russian and Russian friendly sources. Sure both sides do propaganda, but from what I have seen, Ukraine is careful that the vast majority of their news releases tie out. Russia, on the other hand is trying to get to Trumpian levels bullshit from Putin all the way down to state controlled news sources.

I strongly suspect that your quote is from William Bradley as UC Berkeley, Sacramento and greater California feature prominently in his bio. Why hide behind "source" when it's pretty obvious where your quote comes from?

I'm not sure what message such a decision would send but, to me it says that desperate situations call for desperate measures.

Cluster munitions? Are you kidding me!?

But, I'm not clear on what your point is in [14] ... would you mind elaborating?

I hope your source is not William Bradley as that guy has more red flags than a communist party rally.

Regardless, wait until your source learns about territorial gains and losses during WWI offensives counteroffensives, not to mention casualties. Beyond that do they tell you what was recaptured? 130km of open countryside is no where as impressive and 10km of city/town/village...

I wish to apologize again for that cheap shot above. Sometimes, I just can't help myself. :(

So, I'd like to share with you a CEIP video discussion detailing the view from Kiev and, more specifically, from the office of the Ukrainian president which was conducted just this morning ...

I'll keep the Scott Ritter interview on Real News I stumbled across, ah, off the table, for now. :)

My source wrote a piece today about the counteroffensive, nearly four weeks on:

"...along with big losses in Ukrainian soldiers and US/NATO weaponry, the Ukrainian counteroffensive has yielded, here and there, 130 square kilometers in claimed territorial gains. That’s equivalent to one-fifth of Lake Tahoe, my boyhood vacation spot in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Or one-half of Sacramento, California’s state capital and America’s 35th most populous city. Or three times the size of Berkeley, home to one of my alma maters.

"But, as the theme song goes, “Tomorrow’s just a dream away.” Indeed!

I don't know what it is about that Biden smile but I just can't seem to get enough of it ...

If he is elected, and lives to 2028, he's likely to declare himself president for life, and to cancel the election. Long before that, starting with his inauguration in 2025, he will have worked tirelessly to corrupt and subdue the US government to make it his personal instrument for dictatorial-style rule. He's shown that by everything he's said and done since taking office in 2017.

Under those circumstances, who among our public and private officials will be honest enough and/or brave enough to declare that his candidacy is inherently flawed and deserves no respect, attention, or publicity beyond what is required by law - and to hell with the entire Republican Party and whoever else says he's a genuine "nominee" for the office of president and must be treated as such.

How about RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson fight it out in a debate and then Biden debates the winner ... it would be fun and Biden could dominate either one and emphasize the points he wants to. Like, for example, why the Republicans are a cult of economic failure. He could pretend he's debating Trump, in other words. And, besides that, what engaged Republican voter wouldn't want to be tuning in to see it! Who cares if any Dem voters watch.

I'm gonna chalk it up to just another missed opportunity.