Low-key hoping that this is real.
https://i.postimg.cc/MZCdZg9K/24ukra...E79-jumbo.webp
Printable View
Low-key hoping that this is real.
https://i.postimg.cc/MZCdZg9K/24ukra...E79-jumbo.webp
There are versions that Kiev will have to withstand a heavier assault that includes lighter tanks for urban warfare. We'll see what happens tonight.
Zelinsky mb SEE knows how to "capitalize" the moment by rallying for more support (4D Fe and former actor).
This will hopefully end in what I perceive to be the path of least resistance. United States installed a puppet Anti-Russian government in Ukraine. Russia now counters by doing likewise by installing a Pro-Russian puppet government. This, for many reasons, makes everyone vaguely unhappy and mildly insulted but otherwise doesn't escalate beyond that. Y'know, Russia doesn't try to invade an actual NATO member state or the U.S./Some NATO state actually send a significant force that the Russians manage to wipe out with hardly a scratch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baqer
Arming up the Ukranians and acting like an open bar for heavy/advanced weapons like stinger missile launchers or mortars for their people is a win-win move however. Hell, this may be the ultimate PR move for us Americans. If ever there was a time to suggest that it is better to arm your entire populace and then some over not, well, this. You can be damned sure no Stalin, Funny Mustache Man, Shorty with an inferiority complex stemming from that, I could go on for days and days... Would ever pull the shit they did if they knew damn good and well that not only were there guns behind every blade of grass in the areas they were intending to colonize/annex/conquer, but that those guns/weapons were just as good as their own objectively?
If you're a European perhaps now you understand why we have 120 guns per 100 people. Yeah, you simply don't invade/attempt to occupy/annex/colonialize/etc. that area of the world. We sought to ensure we'd never be anyone's colony ever again. Best way to do that? Arm the ever-living fuck out of your population. America. 4.25 percent of the World's population. Around 40 percent of the world's civilian owned firearms. There is a good reason why the stereotypical American is depicted as a dumbass Greater Appalachian with a hard on for rebellion. It's that nation's dream to arm everyone up with shit up to and including "recreational" nukes.
Yeah, fuck around with that and find out. If the ancient emperors and great kings faced cultures and peoples who matched them in military capacity merely by existing shit like colonialism and slavery would never have become a thing. Sadly, they did because human nature is what it is and universal master crafted bow ownership does diddly dick against full plate, gunpowder cannons, and Maxim Guns. I would elaborate but that'll derail the thread.
Suffice it to say if you hate Putin and Tyranny in general you ought to oppose any and all forms of Gun Control. Give your fellow man the gift of freedom. Force your government to allow you to own guns. All the guns you can afford in fact. If you got a 3d Printer and a CNC Lathe all the better and if both dear God you are now an arsenal of democracy! Steel barrels and high-grade plastic receivers make functional firearms that, while not the best money can buy, are damnably cheap and will function well enough if only put through a few serious engagements.
And that's just as things stand now. Give that field of tech a few years. Soon the quality of a bootleg S&W pirate gun and the "official" manufactured version will be so small as to make the distinction meaningless in an objective sense.
Hope the PTB don't just hit the big red button and flash-fry all electronics however. I'm currently operating on the assumption they won't send us all collectively back to the 1800's as that also borks their intel networks. Their predecessors were smart but we are currently suffering under the boot of mad idiots. Let us pray and hope they continue to fuck up so badly it hurts from my perspective.
hm.. I do not notice my previouse message posted here. political censorship to hide the truth? :)
I may repeat it:
USA-hithlerists occupation soldiers intentionally place artillery (or other machines) near living houses (hundreds of people may live in a single such house). so RF has lesser wish to attack it or do not attack, to avoid death of many civilians and civil objects destuction. It's terrorism and practically civil population is used as hostages. They do so even in Kiev.
an example of what they do:
Other common terroristic actions of USA-hithlerists occupants, which happen several years (!) in Donetsk and Lugansk regions is intentional fire against civilians - wide artillery fire on towns territories, not against dot military objects, and also did random fire on civil territories, against civil objects.
The similar episode was in 2015 when USA-hithlerists occupants made artillery wide fire on Mariupol with 2 tasks: 1) terror against locals (which were not glad to accept USA-hithlerists overturn in 2014), 2) to make false accusation against opponents.
In now time Mariupol is close to be attacked. And... USA-hithlerists occupants do not allow civilians to go away from it, practically holding them as hostages to reduce possible artillery fire.
OK LSIQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
The pornhub bann is making sol very frustrating ;(
Is Sol Putin's alter ego?
I have no knowledge of Slavic languages butQuote:
Originally Posted by one
Sol wants to live in USSR Gulag.Quote:
The anthem of the USSR was turned on on the Maidan in Kiev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1u7XZ9c8fI
Among noticable events of this year is removing by RF from territory of UkSSR illegal pro-USA regime (got control by military overturn in 2014), which was inaceptably harmful for people of RF and UkSSR. Territories of RF and UKSSR were parts of one state for several centuries until 1991 and were parts of one union in 10-13 centuries. USSR was last name for state common for both.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
Photo has USSR flag on RF machine moving on UKSSR territory. Video has USSR hymn played in center of Kiev. Both were made in this Februrary.
https://www.economist.com/europe/202...dvance-on-kyiv
* Russian progress has been slower than planned, as the Ukrainians have offered stronger resistance than expected. British intelligence believes that the Russian military did not achieve its day 1 objectives.
* However, Russian military doctrine calls for the slow escalation of force; heavy weapons are still being held in reserve. Another possibility is that the slow deployment is due to logistical and supply problems.
* Russian operatives may have infiltrated Ukrainian police and security forces, and they could be activated at any time.
* Ukrainian defenders are massing in cities, which are much harder to take.
* Ukraine claims that the Russians have suffered thousands of casualties, but that number is probably closer to 450 according to British estimates.
I wonder if anyone knows at this point how much manpower and equipment the russians have committed so far and how much they can commit over a week, a month, etc. Obviously Russia is a big country with many possible fronts, but I'd expect that most of the military is concentrated west of Moscow because that's where the population and strategic concerns are at.
Translation of a Ukrainian officer's analysis of the situation, source here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...346220038.html
I'm not familiar with the exact source, but it seems to check out. If anyone knows more about this please let me know down in the comments! Here it is:
1/7 Intel from a Ukrainian officer about a meeting in Putin’s lair in Urals. Oligarchs convened there so no one would flee. Putin is furious, he thought that the whole war would be easy and everything would be done in 1-4 days.
2/7 Russians didn’t have a tactical plan. The war costs about $20 bln/day. There are rockets for 3-4 days at most, they use them sparingly. They lack weapons, the Tula and 2 Rotenberg plants can’t physically fulfill the orders for weapons. Rifles and ammo are the most they can do.
3/7 The next Russian weapons can be produced in 3-4 months – if even that. They have no raw materials. What was previously supplied mainly from Slovenia, Finland and Germany is now cut off.
4/7 If Ukraine manages to hold the Russians off for 10 days, then the Russians will have to enter negotiations. Because they have no money, weapons, or resources. Nevertheless, they are indifferent about the sanctions.
5/7 Alpha Spec Ops have been near Kyiv since the 18th February. The goal was to take Kyiv and instal a puppet regime. They are preparing provocations against innocent civilians – women and children – to sow panic. This is their trump card.
6/7 Russia’s whole plan relies on panic – that the civilians and armed forces surrender and Zelensky flees. They expect Kharkiv to surrender first so the other cities would follow suit to avoid bloodshed. The Russians are in shock of the fierce resistance they have encountered.
7/7 The Ukrainians must avoid panic! The missile strikes are for intimidation, the Russians fire them at random to “accidentally” hit residential buildings to make the attack look larger than it really is. Ukraine must stay strong and we must provide assistance! #StandWithUkraine
8/7 Spread this information so the world would realise how important it is to assist Ukraine right now and without hesitation! It is difficult for Russia, but it is difficult for Ukraine as well if the West does not provide meaningul support!
link doesn't workQuote:
Originally Posted by Baqer
The link works, but it seems the post has been deleted.
If you're in Canada and donate to the Red Cross Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal, the federal government will match your donation. EDIT: https://donate.redcross.ca/page/1002...1?locale=en-CA
Both influential and ordinary Russians are voicing their dissent:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-arrests-putin
Quote:
On Thursday, Ivan Urgant, the host of a popular talk show on state-run Channel One, posted a black square on Instagram with the caption “Fear and pain. No to war.” His show has not gone on air since. Channel One has claimed it is just a scheduling issue, although several reports in Russian media say that they have been blacklisted.
Quote:
Even the family members of some of Russia’s richest businessmen have gone public in their opposition to war. The daughter of Roman Abramovich posted an Instagram picture that read “Putin wants a war with Ukraine,” crossing out the word Russia. “The biggest and most successful lie of Kremlin’s propaganda is that most Russian stand with Putin.”
Quote:
They were not the largest protests that Moscow has ever seen. But they were remarkable as a show of defiance despite threats that the government would crack down harder than usual.
...
That scene repeated itself dozens of times, as protesters mostly waited their turn for police to arrest them. As the protesters were pushed off the square, they began to march down the broad pavement of Tverskaya Street, chanting “No to war.”
Quote:
Muratov released dual editions of his newspaper in both Russian and Ukrainian this week and has said that his newspaper would defy the Russian media watchdog’s rules that they only report official government information about the war, trusting reporting only from their own newsroom.
He believes the war is an unpopular one for most Russians.
“The memory of the [second world] war, and that people have relatives in Ukraine, and that Ukraine is a dear country to us, it holds back even the most rabid supporters of the current leadership,” said Muratov. “There is no enthusiasm for this.”
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...346220038.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
this one works for me
That one works for me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alive
The author of the thread is an Estonian EU deputee, a quick google search on him (Riho Terras) finds the thread in question on his Twitter. He claims he got the information from a Ukranian officer according to the post, and I would assume the info to be legit, unless the source of the info (the Ukranian officer) is actually a Russian leak. I am not saying it is, though, but with the Kremlin's massive disinformation campaign it's good to be prudent.
That said, the info looks legit because it seems to line up with the way the events are shaping out and the way Russian forces are behaving (ie bombing buildings in a rather unsystematic fashion which can only be an attempt to intimadate and demoralize the Ukranian population). Since everything the Kremlin publishes is basically a lie, when information seems to be true, it's probably not from the Kremlin.
Keeping in mind that sweeping statements about public opinion are difficult to verify, the war is deeply unpopular in Russia according to this article: https://www.economist.com/europe/202...not-enthusiasm
Quote:
The protests lacked political leadership and organisation, and were not big enough to prompt the authorities to reconsider the war. But they expressed the dominant feeling among Russia’s educated class. “Pain, fury and shame–these are three words that define our attitude to what is going on,” a statement from the dwindling band of independent media outlets read. While on the surface life in Moscow carried on as normal, underneath for many there was a sense that something had changed. On the streets, people stopped to check their social media and watch video streams. In cafés, young people sat in stunned silence, shocked that their country had unleashed war on a neighbour.
Roasted invading forces (click at your own discretion).
https://twitter.com/i/status/1497550733259857921
Apparently, captured Russian crying. Too much for him.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1497550592478433281
Assuming that Ukraine survives as a coherent entity, this war has already laid down the permanent foundation of Ukrainian nationalism. The Siege of Kyiv will become their Star Spangled Banner, which was based on the real, British siege of Fort McHenry. Zelenskyy, who refused to surrender or leave the capital, is going to be remembered like Winston Churchill.
If Ukraine was ever an "artificial" nation, it isn't anymore.
https://ukraine.ua/news/support-the-...es-of-ukraine/Quote:
Originally Posted by EIE
Site web server just went down. This is also a good source.Quote:
Originally Posted by EIE
https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/nats...potrebi-armiyi
Elon Musk activating Starlink over Ukraine
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...7&d=1645924122
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1497702921521311746
Unconfirmed and only coming from one source, but once mutinies are confirmed Russia is completely and utterly fucked.
Edited. Will create a new thread.
Putin is seething and malding over how united Ukrainians are in their support for ZelenskyQuote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Possible outcomes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
- Putin splits Ukraine into “Western Ukraine” and “Eastern Ukraine”. Putin takes control of Eastern Ukraine while Zelensky/current government in Kyiv controls “Western Ukraine”. Almost nobody besides Russia recognizes these new borders. Fighting continues.
- Putin forces Zelensky to sign an agreement granting Putin much of what he wants (Ukraine promises to never join NATO, Ukraine hands over Crimea and/or Donbas region, Zelensky resigns as President, etc.). Putin threatens maximum civilian casualties and destruction if Zelensky doesn’t go along with this.
- If Zelensky doesn’t go along with the above, Putin carries out his threats. Ukraine is left in total ruins.
- Putin takes control of a large portion of Ukraine (including Kyiv). He removes Zelensky and forcibly implements a pro-Kremlin government with Russian military occupying much of the country.
- Pressures from economic sanctions and growing Russian opposition to the invasion cause Putin to decide that war is too costly. He withdraws his military forces from Ukraine.
Any other ways this could (realistically) end? Which outcomes are most likely?
NATO menaced to put nukes in Ukraine that would obliterate Russia in 4 minutes without possibility of retaliation, this means Russia cannot surrender in this war, even if it turns out to be a meat grinder (which seems to be the case).
Do you want to avoid suffering and deaths? Don't support Ukraine. The faster Russia occupies the less death and pain is generated. Russians cannot "lose" this war, they'll throw everything they have to throw if they have to.
Do you want to avoid a world war? Don't sanction Russia until driving it into the diplomatic situation of best korea. Making Putin have nothing to lose is not a good idea.
Putin already has nothing to lose. This isn't something that can change and the point of no return has been reached because what you describe will happen anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
But if Putin gains control of Ukraine, he will have a foothold in Europe and it will allow him to further enroach and infiltrate the EU. And do you really think he will stop at the Ukraine?
But if Ukraine holds back the Russian forces for long, it's likely that the Russians will have to back off at some point (though the fighting will probably not completely stop), especially with their missile strikes since it should be obvious that the amounts of missiles they have is limited by the fact they are striking in a rather calculated fashion.
And while this is the pragmatic side of things, I also disagree with your rationale since it is coming from a place of fear, no offense - we need to stop fearing bullies like Putin, and the consequences that standing up to them could have. Helping Ukraine is the just thing to do (in my view, but not just in my view) and also the right message to send to other bullies like Xi Jinping.
After USA-hithlerists in 2014 illegally have taken power on okraina by military overturn there has started resistance to them and civil war.
The war was suppressed and should be ended by Minsk ageements which USA-hithlerist occupants has accepted to do. 8 years USA-hithlerists did not do agreements as should and only reduced war actions, terroristically killed thousands of civil people by artillery fire and other ways, destroyed civil structures and made strong harm to population of ex-UkSSR.
Recently USA-hithlerists has rejected Minsk ageements completely and made a threat by nuclear weapon. Then RF to protect own interests and of people living on Russian okraina/borderland (territory of UkSSR) started to solve the problem by military way.
There exist political demands to USA-hithlerists and if they'll accept them or achieved by other ways - there will be no need in military actions.
If someone want to help people living in UkSSR there ways:
1) To help RF to suppress USA-hithlerist occupants by military support and such to help achieve wanted political situation.
2) To influence on USA-hithlerist occupants and their supportes so they'd accepted political demands which are now achieving by military actions.
3) Do other help so were achieved political conditions of RF.
Other ways lead to result which is worse than existing military activity for people of RF, UkSSR and world as whole. The aim of RF is to prevent those results, where military actions would be lesser harm.
Some info to undersand better who is other side against RF army.
>Putin already has nothing to lose. This isn't something that can change and the point of no return has been reached because what you describe will happen anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
That's my point.
But even worse; Putin cannot allow this war to go awry for him and will not capitulate.
If you have followed the buildup to the invasion you'll know Russia's main expressed concern was about nuclear weaponry being deployed near the border, and the danger of nuclear obliteration without the possibility of retaliation. You could say that NATO is only a defensive alliance, but the truth is Ukrainian paramilitaries and the popular republics were violating the Minsk agreements almost daily, shooting at each other, with no clear initiator of hostilities. A skirmish gone wrong if Ukraine was part of NATO could end up in Russia "going extinct" in less than an hour.
During the first part of the "negotiations" Russia asked for Ukraine to not join NATO, and the US refused. The US menaced with "implied" retaliation, and started spreading false information to their allies in order to drive up tensions, which I think prevented Russia from reaching a better understanding with the west in the first half of the buildup.
During the second part, which I would say starts after the bluff of the american invasion alarm, when European leaders started joining the negotiation table... I could talk about how I think the whole war could be avoided with a little effort from boths sides, but first I think the US wanted to provoke the war for Petrodollar reasons and second it would take too much text and is irrelevant to my point.
If Putin capitulates, he has to accept nuclear weapons at the border + Sanctions that are already going to get Russia down to the state of best korea or Cuba if not lifted, such conditions are pretty much unacceptable, this is not like Vietnam or Afganistan where the US had no inmediate threat to the integrity of their country. So, not going to happen, and the more you support Ukraine, the more suffering is prolonged and expanded.
>But if Putin gains control of Ukraine, he will have a foothold in Europe and it will allow him to further enroach and infiltrate the EU. And do you really think he will stop at the Ukraine?
I never considered Ukraine as a barrier for Russian influence, instead, I consider the trade relationship between the EU and Russia as the barrier to a russian agressive expansion of influence. Now, this trade relationship is broken. Putin would have stopped at Ukraine, at most he would have integrated Belarus through diplomatic means, if he had anything preventing an agressive foreign policy.
Right now, he does not only lack incentives to behave with friendlyness, he has every incentive to start a major global conflict. The more difficult the ukrainian conflict gets, the faster the catastrophe clock ticks.
>But if Ukraine holds back the Russian forces for long, it's likely that the Russians will have to back off at some point (though the fighting will probably not completely stop), especially with their missile strikes since it should be obvious that the amounts of missiles they have is limited by the fact they are striking in a rather calculated fashion.
I personally think that if Russia was to lose this war, or end in a stalemate, Putin would push the red button, in fact he might even preentively strike special strategic locations of NATO in Europe, in any case that would probably mean nuclear war. Anyways I think what might happen instead is a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia in one or two weeks because the war is not beneficial to Russia nor it is for Ukraine.
>And while this is the pragmatic side of things, I also disagree with your rationale since it is coming from a place of fear, no offense
Calm, I don't get offended that easily. The thing is a thermonuclear conflict is the end of the west.
A nuclear war would eliminate more than thirty million people, as well as the most developed, significant and central parts of Europe. I think the consequences of that are obvious, from the distortion of demand destroying the last remaining enterprises to the elimination of the west's productive capacity, the destruction of supply chains passing through the contamination of the few arable land we have outside of eastern europe as well as the waters and air fucking up food production to the extreme. When you have no food nor water and survival becomes the first priority the state and it's laws are a nuisance even for the very same people who were enforcing them (AKA police force and military) let alone for the population. There's massive racial differences in the US and sufficient ethnic division in Europe for such an anarchic state of things to go even uglier. That is, not to mention levels of starvation not seen since Holodomor.
I sincerely think it would be plainly wrong to unleash such an event for the integrity of the Federal reserve's money printing machine. But even if this actually were about stopping an expansionist government I think the threat is too much to act in an agressive manner.
>we need to stop fearing bullies like Putin, and the consequences that standing up to them could have. Helping Ukraine is the just thing to do (in my view, but not just in my view) and also the right message to send to other bullies like Xi Jinping.
First I want you to think about who wins in an open nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia. Do you think NATO would win, or would Putin find a way to come up on top? I think I have a clear winner for such a conflict, and that winner is Xi Jinping, if China can avoid entering the war.
I think going personal, or relating events from geopolitics to daily life occurrences can easily lead to confusion and personal animosity, and you should never hate your enemy, that clouds your judgement. So the idea of Putin being a "bully" of sorts doesn't appeal to me, even more if the Baltic states or Romania have joined NATO without Russian meddling a decade after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact without a sight of russian troop.
But if we have to relate this to personal events I cannot see Russia as the "bully", this reminds me more of when in high school I had only one very fat friend and the other teens would throw chalks or erasers at his head when the teachers weren't paying attention, until the kid grabbed one of the other teenagers on the neck and stomped him on the wall breaking a TV, and after that the kid received lots of insults from the rest of classmates and almost got expelled. If that kid had a gun and the food on his table was dependent on the rest of the class, then he would have had every incentive to start a school shooting.
Anyways I suggest to abandon partisan positions and personal animosities on the table, to be able to see things clearly as they are. And the fact is Ukraine seems to be on the path or becoming a meat grinder, and if Russia and Ukraine do not come to terms with one another (and I think they could do so) that is ill news for the rest of the world.
@Suspiria sorry for derailing the thread but I was answering @Uncle Ave and this is somewhat relevant to the topic, if it is good to materially support Ukraine or not.
Also if anyone wants to help with the war effort he or she can directly follow your guide, any other sort of comment to, dunno, say something possitive towards Ukraine or "show written support" strikes me as useless virtue signaling, which is the opposite to what you're doing. If there's no special utility in the comments of this thread, why not discuss the matter?
What the fuck is a "hithlerist"? :thinking:
Germany is now rearming.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-commit...ing/a-60933724
Hope this ends in an European military coalition and we can kick out the Yankees.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
@Sol refers to the AZOV paramilitary group as if it represented the ukrainian goverment proper. In fact it represents a jewish oligarch's interest. They might use national socialist imagery, but their goals and specially their actions point towards the opposite direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toro
I would separate own opinions from patriotism, personal partisanism or the media's histerics and try to see things for what they are, this goes for both sides.
Lol. The Yankees would kick out the rest of the world, but when we look around, we see that we ARE the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
Except for those Irish.
Don't want to have anything to do with those worthless, lazy, brawling drunks. My god, my grandfather was one.
Weirdly enough, I share most of his names.
Just let the dictator have what he wants and maybe he won't hurt us. Victim mentality at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
https://scontent.fvno2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...Iw&oe=62216FA8
Vilnius, 2022.
Something doesn't add up.
For such a large and technologically advanced army, Russia is doing badly. Very badly. Logistical issues and poor Russian morale is being blamed, which really does seem like the obvious and likely explanation.
But if the war tweets and footage are correct, and if I'm reading the situation correctly, even some Russian attempts at taking isolated strategic targets (like bridges and airports), using special forces, have been repelled. Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) are really, really good. Their morale and loyalty, like all special forces, are superior if not outright fanatical.
Not to diminish the fighting bravery of the Ukrainians, but I'd strongly consider the possibility that American, British, French, and other NATO special forces have been secretly deployed to Ukraine. Ukraine's call for an 'international brigade' seems like the perfect cover for deploying extranational troops with plausible deniability.
I'd even speculate that hawks within Western administrations were intending to trigger Russia via NATO expansion, and that it was never a defensive alliance but a deliberate maneuver to provoke Russia into a strategic blunder. They got what they wanted, for the moment, which is to give their enemy a bloody nose.
@xerx, I don't think that other nations have undercover forces in Ukraine. I don't think anyone in the West thought that Putin was stupid enough to attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
From what I've seen, the Russian troops were told they were on maneuvers in the Ukraine, and were surprised when it turned into a live-fire exercise.
https://twitter.com/aliostad/status/1497519061554630658
As for the Russians not preparing enough food and fuel for the invasion, that just seems like terrible logistics to me, but entirely possible. I just read that in WWII, the Allies thought they had good records of all the fuel that the Germans had and were surprised when they attacked Poland with almost no surplus. The Allies were convinced that Germany had hidden stores, but no. They just attacked and hoped that there would be no resistance and that the world would respond with appeasement.
Sort of like what our former president, Appeasement Monkey Trump, would have done.
Also, while some chickenhawks might want war with Russia, I seriously doubt that anyone else does. Really, lets say that Putin shoots himself tomorrow and is replaced by a competent, liberal democratic government (not that that's likely). Who wants to rule over a nation that is an oil state the size of Russia with an economy smaller than Italy and has 1950's technology?
You could pour money into that place forever and not get a dime back.
Ah yes, immature and white trash breeder boys blaming gay people.
Nah, this is all the fault of a patronizing and condescending narcissistic str8 male with insecure penis issues. Like most problems in the world.
The New York Times reports that Ukraine agrees to talks with Russia.
Putin tries to buy time for the invasion to work, and Ukraine is being polite.
Ukraine's terms should be that Russia can have it's soldiers back, but not their weapons.
It came from plenty of videos and interviews made on this topic. Zelensky's government wasn't actively controlled by them, but it was in the least turning a blind eye to activities of these groups that nationalistic Ukranians decided to use to target, kill and maim people of the independent republics of LNR and DNR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
These white supremacist guys are marching out in the open on the streets and it seems to be well tolerated.
There's also the pesky fact that Poland wouldn't accept refugees from Middle East, since they are Middle Eastern, but their doors are wide open to Ukrainians since they are white - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/w...es-poland.html
The West with its colonial past is of course also happy to turn a blind eye to this and continue funding these white supremacists indirectly. Supporting terrorists and extremists is nothing new to the gov of United States, as long as these groups are against whomever they deem an enemy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4
This is motivated by the fact that Ukraine is neighbouring Poland (so it's more reasonable to seek asylum there), and the fact that Ukrainians and Poles are culturally more similar. Presumably it's easier to get them integrated, getting jobs and paying taxes. My country (Sweden) is well-acquainted with the risks of letting in huge amounts of Middle Easterners with little incentive to integrate, and it's understandable that Poland didn't want to take the same route.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Officially they are going to denounce it, ofc, but Chechens are sending a battalion of their own into Ukraine for special ops. In their own words, "to clear up the Nazis", since middle eastern Islamic ideology is in a lot of conflict with Ukranian and Polish white supremacists movements.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2dmfe6
https://tinyurl.com/abechr76
That's the conservative traditionalist typically Republican pov here in US as well. Let's only 'import' people from countries similar to ourselves and screw the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInternet
Your post also doesn't explain why there are effectively Nazis marching openly on Ukrainian streets.
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
I don't know anything about that, which is why I didn't quote that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Wowzers, "is this a real life?" moment for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
didn't foresee this huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberpunk
Fuck taking in "refugees" from the middle east.
I like how russia is using the nazi narrative, seems a bit odd when you look at their beloved history, which they glorify
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molo...ibbentrop_Pact
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale...n%20Federation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popu...20deportations.
Ooooooh, so Iraq was invaded and bombed by gnomes, and it was gnomes pulling out of Afghanistan this past year. It wasn't the liberal democracy of United States, but it was the gnomes who invaded those countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Later on, two of those gnomes by names of Hilary and Bill Clinton were discussing how it would be nice to bomb the people of Iran.
If this is what "exchange of ideas" looks like then count me out of it, smh, sounds too genocidal.
An adult wouldn't confuse snottiness for maturity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
The US government operates for the benefit of the wealthy class in the US, no question about it. Every other government also operates almost entirely for the benefit of it's own wealthy class. I really can't think of any exceptions.
Still, if I had to be at the mercy of either the US government or the Russian government, I'd choose the US. You seem to have made that choice, too, @silke.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Not only am I unsurprised, I also don't care.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...1&d=1646005039Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
The story of one militia does not represent the views of 44 million Ukrainians.
The dictator wants Minsk agreements to be respected and to not have nukes on the border capable of obliterating his country in 4 minutes. Do you think that's enough of a reason for starting a worldwide nuclear catastrophe? Or to keep Ukrainians dying and suffering on an unwinnable war turned into a meat grinder? Its absurd. As always, emotional arguments "muh victim mentality" in order to justify the unjustifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
AZOV can claim whatever it wants and can use the symbols it wants, but follow the money trail, their leadership and their actions and you'll notice how things usually are not how they're presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
This is what your argument boils down to. It says if you don't want Putin to throw nukes at you, indulge in either the propaganda that his baseless paranoia that the west is going to attack is what's driving him or clear the way for his true imperialist ambitions. The west has no interest in attacking Russia. Russia is a defeated enemy with very little power outside of their nukes. The only thing they want to do is stop Putin's bullshit craziness where he is playing off the same playbook as every indefensible dictator. That is not something we should or can do by laying down and taking it, and we don't have to, so fuck him.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
:thumbsup::hello:Quote:
Ukraine must join the European Union, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyenen said in an interview with Euronews
Putin's torn up the Minsk agreement by invading Ukraine. He breached the Budapest agreement long before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
You seem to be saying the the Ukrainians should give up sovereignty so that they can be Putin's meat shield.
This is what your argument boils down to. It says if you don't want Kennedy to throw nukes at you, indulge in either the propaganda that his baseless paranoia that the Warsaw pact is going to attack is what's driving him or clear the way for his true imperialist ambitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
The situation is similar to the Cuban missile crisis, in which the US tried to invade through Bahia de Cochinos (rightfully). There's a fundamental difference though; Ukrainian paramilitaries alongside Novorrosiyan separatist kill each other in skirmishes and shootouts caring very little for Minsk's agreements, usually there's no clear initiator of hostilities, and in the case of Ukraine joining NATO, a skirmish gone sour can end in Russia's obliteration.
It is absurd for even the world's security to get a country in the middle of an ongoing civil conflict near a nuclear powerhouse into NATO, even more if you take into account that Russia is as you say, defeated already.
Personally, I want Russia to survive and to prosper. I just don't want this for Putin.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
And before you say anything, let me add that I also don't want this for Trump, either.
Maybe Russia shouldn't back paramilitaries in UkraineQuote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
>Putin's torn up the Minsk agreement by invading Ukraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Putin has already declared that the Minsk agreements no longer exist, and in his view have been broken by Ukraine. This is very doubtful as I'd like to see to what extent the militias serve the Ukrainian goverment and to what extent were the Donetsk and Lugansk popular republics responsible for the hostilities. Initially one of his core demands for resolving the crisis were to respect the Minsk agreement.
>You seem to be saying the the Ukrainians should give up sovereignty so that they can be Putin's meat shield.
Ukrainians should seek cooperation with the west as much as it doesn't pose a nuclear threat to it's neighbors and as much as it doesn't lead to a wider conflict in Europe. Which means Ukraine shouldn't enter NATO, although the EU or the US should ideally be able to guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty.
He probably shouldn't, that doesn't change the fact that Ukraine's NATO membership is a serious threat to european and russian security.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
I doubt it ever was. Now, it's much too late for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
Russia and the USA have nuclear missiles that can travel across whole continents, and you're worried about nukes on the border of Russia - a state which has persistently invaded its neighbours over the last 20 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
From what everyone can see, Russia is less likely to invade a country if it is a member of Nato or the EU.
It was, because the country is in the middle of a civil war with an armistice that wasn't being enforced, near Russia, and with the possibility of obliterating the Kremlin in 4 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
If this was a formal test question, I would probably also write down that Russia's failure is primarily due to incompetence. Incompetence is usually the simplest and best explanation for any sort of failure in any context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
But while I'm not a psychologist or an expert on the behaviour of military strategists, I do recognize an opportunity when I see one. And the NATO allies have been gifted an enormous opportunity to inflict damage on an adversary. We already know that they're sending lethal military equipment (it has been explicitly admitted by mainstream news and in Pentagon press briefings). What's so unlikely about sending so-called "volunteers" to join Ukraine's international brigade?
Russia should have fully recovered by now, but that was preempted by a series of unfortunate economic and political decisions. Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union had recovered (from World War I and the Russian Civil War) within a generation. Both France and Germany recovered, also within a generation, from the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, respectively.Quote:
Also, while some chickenhawks might want war with Russia, I seriously doubt that anyone else does. Really, lets say that Putin shoots himself tomorrow and is replaced by a competent, liberal democratic government (not that that's likely). Who wants to rule over a nation that is an oil state the size of Russia with an economy smaller than Italy and has 1950's technology?
You could pour money into that place forever and not get a dime back.
Hungarian man copy paste #3:
Let's talk a bit about the Russian military, i.e. how the f could this "superpower" be completely rebuffed by Ukraine?
Some say that Russia wanted to win this war mostly through conscripts, and that the "elite" with the "good equipment©" are yet to be deployed. This is not quite true.
Russia did deploy their elites, their best in fact, the paratroopers. The problem is, those paratroopers are dead. Killed at Hostomel Airport, or blown out of the sky in those two IL-76 transport planes (2-300 instant KIA).
That being said, Russia still does have a large number of modern equipment that hasn't been deployed yet. The problem is, deploying them isn't easy. You need well-functioning, robust logistics chains to get your hardware moving on such a large scale. Judging by the fact that Russian soldiers are running out of fuel and rations for the second day in a row now, Russian logistics are a complete catastrophy.
Case in point, their air force: if you look at the difference in size, it's overwhelming. Russians should have achieved air superiority from day 1. And yet, the sky above Ukraine is still contested (the famous pilot called Ghost of Kyiv is now at 10 kills btw).
They did start sending in some advanced hardware today, like T-90 tanks (a column of which a bunch of villagers blocked, forcing them to turn around), but Western countries also started pumping Ukraine with latest generation weapons. Even Germany is giving them their newest Panzerfaust now, designed to punch through the T-90s reactive armor.
If anything, this war exposed Russia as a paper tiger. A global superpower with a world-class army, and yet they cannot take a single city in 4 days of invasion? Also keep in mind, rolling through the countryside is the easy part. The hard part is going inside cities and doing urban battle. Russians are stumbling at the easy part. How well would they fare during the latter?
The moral of the story: you can have huge numbers, mountains of hardware and a sea of troops, but you need the logistics and economy to match it. Russia has neither of the latter two.
And we haven't even talked about morale, which is a whole other story, one I feel like I've covered enough already.
Russia is fucked. Glory to Ukraine.
I’m disturbed that Putin ordered his nuclear forces to go on high alert today. Wtf
This shit just sucks
Yeah it really is terrifying. It means "Russia will nuke and someone with nukes will retaliate". If this doesn't put him in league with Kim Jong-Un and his ilk, I don't know what does. Actually nuking, probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
I heard it was just to give the negotiators a bargaining chip, let's hope that's what it is.
>Russia and the USA have nuclear missiles that can travel across whole continents, and you're worried about nukes on the border of Russia - a state which has persistently invaded its neighbours over the last 20 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Nukes that can hit under the time limit of 4 minutes can go undetected, meaning most vital Russian infrastructure could be destroyed without response, that's a serious threat.
>Russia is less likely to invade a country if it is a member of Nato or the EU.
When Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, or the baltic states joined NATO, Russia didn't intervene. But they did intervene in Ukraine after Euromaidan, and have intervened again, it seems like it is for the very same reason. Might that be because Russia is reacting agains't a serious threat to their security? Because NATO has kept expanding into Eastern and Southeastern Europe since the fall of the Warsaw pact.
Ukraine's NATO application isn't worth all this conflict, specially in economic terms Europe is going to be hit very, very hard.
Oh yeah, I heard about that. I read that it's about 7000 troops, but I could be way off.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
And in all seriousness you meant the UK, a state that has colonized and, well, callously screwed around with everyone else due to being a desperado isolated island nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Hoping this is ringing a bell, else you might not find enough bellboys to do your bidding.
Hm the wealthy like yourself Adam and your family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
You don't have to play the Chashire cat with anyone on this forum.
Someone, perhaps you or perhaps a person in your family, is working for the US industrial-military complex and that makes your interests well ingrained.
I've never made a choice yet. And in all likeness Adam - with your rejection of traveling around and seeing new places and meeting new people - you've never had a free choice either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I am definitely working for the military-industrial complex, mainly because they pay well and generally don't give me shit. That doesn't mean that I'm in agreement with what they do on everything. I'm not, actually, but as I said in a previous post, I'd rather work for the US government than Russia's.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Why do you think I reject traveling around? I'm not sure what you are saying here. I've been in every state in the US except Alaska and Hawaii, in Canada many times, in Mexico several times, in China twice, in Japan, and Taiwan, and Argentina, and Chile, and Brazil, and South Africa, and Zimbabwe, and England, and France, and Germany, and the Czech Republic, and Turkey. I basically travel all the time. I like to travel. What I really like is meeting new people and finding out just how different people in other cultures can be and still be human. For a science-fiction fan such as myself, it's like traveling the galaxy. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
I've also had a chance to see a lot of the governments in all of those places, and I can tell you one thing; I prefer the US. And not just because I was born in the States.
Theoretically, I could choose to live almost anywhere I wanted, so I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
So.... assuming that something called 'Ukraine' survives this war, is there any possibility that it won't immediately join the EU, join NATO, or install the finest anti-Russian kill-missiles? (Rhetorical question)
Now, neither the West nor Russia has a way out. Whoever shows weakness and takes a step back first, the other side will confirm that they have more to gain by applying extreme pressure.
However, at this stage both sides are just exerting pressure. Zakharova says Russia's relations with the West are approaching an irreversible tipping point. But she said "approaching," not that the tipping point has been reached. Therefore, at this stage the parties have not yet reached the point of irreversibility.
Maybe the Ukraine will petition to join Russia because they would be much more free if they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
But the trend line is against it.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/vis...of-government/
I’ve been wondering if, when the war is over, Ukraine might invade Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
The Russian people might take it as an opportunity to get rid of Putin and his kleptocracy. By doing nothing, they could get rid of the kleptocracy and institute a worker’s paradise.
Then, Russia and Ukraine would be united again, as so many Russian nationalists seem to desire.
I don’t think that Russian soldiers were given a clear purpose for their mission. Or once they entered Ukraine, they realized that whatever they were told beforehand wasn’t actually true. It’s hard to carry out a mission when you don’t understand the purpose, especially when unexpected challenges (like the Ukrainians putting up a tough fight) throw a wrench in the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
EDIT: That’s just my guess. I don’t really know anything about war or military strategy tbh I probably shouldn’t be commenting in this thread.
Sure, I'll buy that it's one of the causes. They're also probably especially anxious about fighting their ethnic cousins. Conscription is also a thing in Russia, and unwilling conscripts aren't very determined killers. Old fashioned logistical incompetence combined with corruption (officers stealing and selling supplies) are also probably a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
I think the logistical issues probably demoralize the soldiers they affect and then that plus the fierceness of the Ukrainian soldiers and populace is making those soldiers feel like "oh, are we the baddies?" I'm curious how much of the west's opinion of all this gets through to Russia, too. I feel like having news coming from non-state sources is probably another factor that makes it seem silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
I don't really know though. In most of the videos they look pretty docile in front of Ukrainian civilians.
I love that the civilians are not just rolling over in the face of injustice.
During the Vietnam war, the US military drafted men into the armed forces whether they wanted to fight or not. The 50,000+ American men and women who died in that war were some family's kids and this created tremendous opposition to the war. In addition, it was possible to buy your way out of the service if you, like our former president, Bone Spurious, had enough money, and this created further resentment and opposition to the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
When Nixon was trying to get elected, he proposed ending the draft and did so several years later when the war was almost over. Ending the draft had two results. One, it resulted in a paid, professional military force that was motivated to do its job. Most military commanders would never want to return to a force made of low-grade conscripts. The quality of a paid force is much higher than the quality of a conscripted force.
The second effect of ending the draft was the end of popular protests against senseless wars instigated and maintained for pride and profit. The family members of the people dying in these wars really couldn't complain about the fact that they lost a family member, because that person volunteered for the job. Hence, you get a forever war in Afghanistan that was opposed by 95% of US citizens but never vehemently enough to cause the politicians to end it. Certainly not vehemently enough to offset political contributions to senators and representatives by war profiteers.
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2021/09...-9-11-profits/
Going to an all-paid, all-volunteer military was a radical innovation in US warfare, and I'm surprised that Russia didn't copy it.
I couldn't tell you, but I assume that some Russians do get their information from the Internet. A lot of Russians have been protesting the war, though, which means that they either don't believe the government's claim about "H!tlerists" being in charge of Ukraine, or that they believe it but are opposed to the war anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
To be fair, Ukraine does have a problem with far-right vigilante militias, and they've made progress in infiltrating the police force, the army, and the interior ministry. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1GV2TY) But that's neither here nor there, because the Ukrainian government itself doesn't appear to be neo-Nazi. And even if it were, the invasion would still be an unwarranted act of aggression against a sovereign entity.Quote:
I love that the civilians are not just rolling over in the face of injustice.
I don't know how fast these missiles can be at a target so sorry if this is a bit ignorant, but I imagine that if you were planning to use them on someone you'd want to decrease the distance they need to travel in order to shorten the travel time enough that their being shot down is unlikely. The fear may be if you launch a nuke at a nuclear power you had better be sure you destroy your target completely lest they nuke you back. If they can shoot your nuke down and launch their own then you're in real troubleQuote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Let me say, as a person who has worked on this problem on and off for the past ten years, that it is almost impossible to shoot down a ballistic missile, no matter how much advance warning you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
Your best bet for surviving a nuclear attack is to be far away from it, preferably in the center (not near the surface) of a big in-or-underground swimming pool, because water is actually very good at absorbing radiation.
I remember reading the claim (which I *think* is still considered credible today, but I'm not sure) that 75% of conscript soldiers couldn't even fire a weapon at the enemy during WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Why? Because, uh, most men are blue-pilled beta male pussies. Or something like that.
Good thing I have a mile-deep underground swimming pool. Any tips for surviving the irradiated wasteland above?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange