@Adam Strange
As a serious question though, what makes shooting them down so difficult? It seems like something countries like the US or Russia should be able to do
Printable View
@Adam Strange
As a serious question though, what makes shooting them down so difficult? It seems like something countries like the US or Russia should be able to do
Nope. In that case, we're all fucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
This scenario is getting uncomfortably likely. Belarus looks like it may declare war on Ukraine as early as tomorrow https://www.defconlevel.com/news/202...edium=referralQuote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
The relative speeds of the two missiles are very high. Imagine that you are living in the real world and not the Matrix, and now shoot down a bullet that someone just shot at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
The Navy shot down an ICBM in a recent (2020) test, but what they don't tell you is that the ICBM was very likely a friendly target.
No, it's because most men are not sociopaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
If they manage to get back crimea and the donbass without any border disputes, I'd say they'll join the EU. Maybe NATO too, though they might just decide not too because they would've just proved that they didn't need to be a part of NATO to defend from Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
The value of the ruble has dropped 40% tonight so far. Russia just got a whole lot poorer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDApcDmxR0
Latvian pilots were trained in Michigan.
The helicopters follow the arrival in Latvia of about 800 troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade.
It's amazing how lethal these things look.
Putin threatened the use of nukes, and Biden did not provoke him. I'd call that a very smart reaction, since the goal here is to defuse a war, not provoke one.
See, this is why so many people (myself very much included) didn't think that there would be a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Putin better have one heck of a trump card up his sleeve ---- e.g. that Russia-China's SWIFT replacement is nearing mass adoption, that Russian exports (esp. gas, oil and weapons) are highly resilient, and that the strength of Russia's economic self-sufficiency was badly underestimated, to name just a few.
Putin is counting on Trump's return.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
But seriously, I think that Putin has held absolute power in his world for so long, he thought it extended everywhere, and he badly miscalculated.
You might see some people saying that Putin is playing ten-dimensional chess, but there are reports that he just fired Gerasimov, chief of the general staff and, if true, would indicate that the game is not going well.
Putin is straight and narrow and apparently quite short.
AnnaLynne McCord (random c-list actress) has blessed us with this beautiful poem she wrote for Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsXOgoGN2wE
“Dear President Vladimir Putin
I'm so sorry that I was not your mother
If I was your mother, you would have been so loved
Held in the arms of joyous light
Never would this story's plight
The world unfurled before our eyes
A pure demise
Of nation sitting peaceful under a night sky
If I was your mother
The world would have been warm
So much laughter and joy
And nothing would harm
I can't imagine the stain
The soul-stealing pain
That the little boy you must have seen and believed”…
“Dear Mr President Vladimir Putin
I’m so sorry that I was not your mother
If I was your mother, I would send you straight to timeout
So you can sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done to Ukraine
AND DON’T YOU DARE ASK FOR DESSERT OR ELSE YOU’RE GETTING DOUBLE TIMEOUT”
It doesn't matter if African americans are violently protesting the police, or Syrian children are being killed by arab rebels, or most recently, if ukrainians in Kiev are forced to die in an already lost battle, with no way of getting food or water, and being killed in the streets if they try to escape the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
Some white teenage girl will find a way to make it be all about herself.
If I were Putin and Gerasimov launched an invasion lying to the troops, without logistic chains developed, without fuel and completely disorganized even when the intention was to Blitzskrieg through Ukraine, I wouldn't fire him and be happy about it, too soft on his part really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
Actors generally are the dumbest people on the planet.
There've been Catholic blessings and prophesies on another subforum here. Maybe you should head out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
wow, such fakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
Well if somebody didn't know that NATO is governed by a bunch of sociopaths ...Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
You don't happen to have Germanic ancestry @xerx? Germany still has weapons with which their leadership intended to kill every human being on this planet, like 6 times over for that lethal overkill.
Not sure what false information you are referring to. Not saying that there isn't any going around, I'm just not aware of what you are referring to exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
I agree with you that NATO hasn't always been used defensively, but I wouldn't paint Putin as a victim here either. His demands that the Ukraine not join NATO, while somewhat understandable from a pragmatic standpoint, are in reality an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine as a country, and he knows it.
Putin will have to capitulate at some point because he is already in a corner and knows it. His threat to use nukes is mostly a way to free up some wiggle room in the international politics scene by trying to instill fear in other countries. Which is why we shouldn't take it at face value, IMO.
I agree that the petrodollar will largely benefit from this though. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that Russia has invaded the Ukraine militarily, using force, and is doing so because his motives is to de-legitimize another sovereign nation. I think neutrality is not the right attitude to have here, because clearly Putin crossed a line - in contrast, I have a hard time imagining that if the US gains from this economically (which they will), that this was all an accident. But these questions are two different issues, even if they are somewhat related. I wouldn't paint Putin as a victim regardless of any US attempt to regain control of EU markets because Putin knows that his motives are different from self-defense and also because I doubt the US wanted him to invade the Ukraine, or somehow orchestrated this war. I suppose you could argue that is an economic defense on Putin's part but it's mostly an ideological and military attack on the Ukraine.
I think we are ultimately speaking from different values here.Quote:
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.
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?
I agree that nuclear war would be catasptrophic (which is kind of a non-statement anyways since I think everyone would agree on that) but I doubt Putin would use the atomic bomb. I also think that it's worth taking the risk of standing up to him, especially since he is at a moment weakness, it feels like now or never.
I agree with @ouronis that what you are saying here sounds like "let's give the aggressor what they want and maybe he'll leave us alone". I can't agree with that.
Man, someone tries to share something with good intentions, and people pile-on because…whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
Moreover, why judge the intentions/intellectual capacity of the actor in question, if you don’t seem to know anything about them?
Also, while I agree that Western countries were overall pretty cold to refugees coming from Syria and Afghanistan, and that they changed tone when it came to welcoming refugees from the Ukraine (though the situation in Syria was also a bit different) and that this revealed an attitude of hostility towards refugees from the Middle East, I also think using this as an argument to say we shouldn't welcome refugees coming from the Ukraine is coming from a place of "bad faith".
Bad faith in the sense of it being a rhetorical tactic rather than a sincere argument. Stop repeating arguments that amount to whataboutism and other forms of Soviet propaganda techniques because you just become a useful idiot for the Kremlin that way.
Could you explain your neo-con position a little further?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardware Punk
How does a country that won't join some some global conglomerate that doesn't concern with that country's interests, compromise its own borders?
I'm saying it should be up to the Ukraine to decide whether they want to join NATO or not. If it wasn't obvious to you, I was referring to Putin's demands that the Ukraine not join NATO. This demand on Putin's part already shows an attitude of de-legitimization towards Ukraine's sovereignty. I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, as my position that you quoted (out of context, but I digress) was pretty clear, but I sense I am going to have to do that alot today, ie repeat myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Please stop framing this issue as one it is not. You're twisting the situation by being deliberately vague. Stop being Putin's little propaganda bot.
Also, nice ad hominem but it's not gonna work with me.
It's because you're too arrogant and you don't explain your positions well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardware Punk
Why should NATO and Ukraine adopt authoritarianism and be the sole actors in making this decision?
Explain yourself.
No, I don't feel like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
aww, well whenever you're feeling like it come back and let's have a discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by Hardware Punk
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/fe...rmy-logistics/
Article from November 2021 about Russian logistics.
"The Russian army will be hard-pressed to conduct a ground offensive of more than 90 miles beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union without a logistics pause."
lol Putin's theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDozvVOHjw
"Why should NATO and Ukraine adopt authoritarianism and be the sole actors in making this decision?"
Any country that doesn't have it's own authority or real power will get easily blown up by others who do. Big fish eat little fish etc- it's not really hard to understand. Ukraine in 1994 sadly traded in their real tangible power for a naive ideal it seems. Authority is never pretty- but it's almost always a necessary evil. Unless you trust the average Karen and Ken to be the sole enactor of justice- and I as sure hell don't. I don't like authority, but I would still want an authority to stop Bundy and Dahmer. etc. But if somebody uses their power inappropriately- like killing civilians and others unprovoked - than a greater authority must stop them.
In gay koombayah land we wouldn't need this shit and everybody would just hold hands and be friends and we would allow other people to have their own identities and culture without being insecure about it, but as a human race we are not there yet. Obviously. Putin in the past was better at keeping his true evil hidden but this thing pushed him over the edge now everybody is seeing what he's really like. I always saw it, but 4D Ni people often don't have the confidence to convey to this the plebs. And that whole thing about how it's easy to fool other people than convince them they are being fooled.
At political conferences he was able to use his 4D Demo Si to manipulate homophobes into thinking he's this righteous and good guy. Some evil dictator douche making a 'protect the children' line and the masses of unwashed breeders get in line and say 'Heil ******.'
ROFLMAO @ STR8 FEMALES THINKING THEY CAN CHANGE PUTIN BY BEING NICE TO HIM. I'm sorry- that poem was sweet, but come on now. I'm not trying to knock heterosexuality too much, sometimes this really does work- but I think it's too little too late....
The Q anon people on my fb feed actually think Putin is the good guy (like Trump) and is fighting the Satanic NWO Deep State...by sending troops to bomb civilians and run over civilians with tanks.
Yeah, okay. That's a brand of crazy I haven't even touched yet and hope never to.
Let this be a lesson for all us:
Say you and another person has a knife. The other person with a knife tries to make you a deal and say if you give up your knife, they promise they will never use their knife against you. You naively and stupidly AND SANSA SEASON 1 STARK ISHLY agree. Look, there's even a contract!
A few years later ((or whenever)), the other person campily smiles and stabs you in the throat and watches in glee as he stabs you with in the neck with both knives. Blood squirts out in a gory fashion and u drop over dead.
Maybe that's not exactly what happened - but looks that way to me.
The problem with free and unfiltered information exchange is that you get to hear everyone, and all the voices are equally loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by aixelsyd
When I first encountered people like this, I assumed that they were merely stupid and might, just possibly, be educated with more information and some sympathetic understanding.
But no.
Most of them are extremely damaged and they want to share their experience with you, by damaging you, too.
My advice: Don’t give these guys oxygen.
My theory is that fanatic religious conspirationist are actually very bored with life and like to imagine they live in a TV show or movie. Not talking about sane Putin or Trump supporters but people who actually believe satanic reptilians run the world from the 7th dimension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Never trust Russians, never. They are experts at lying and disinformation. Both my grandfathers killed them when they invaded us in 1939, with very similar sounding bullshit to justify their actions. Hell, they had the nerve to claim they were dropping food on "poor starving finnish people" when they in actuality were bombing us. This is the origin for Molotov's cocktail btw. I'm fully on Ukraine's side on this, when Russians say they are your "friends", just wait for the knife to your back.
I'm not Germanic. But if it's any consolation, I do believe that hawkish elements within Western governments helped create this crisis; that history will describe NATO as an offensive rather than defensive alliance; and that the West is also responsible for Russia's economic problems during the Yeltsin era, following Russia's adoption of extreme privatization as delineated to them by Western economists, setting the stage for Russia's diplomatic isolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
Maybe I’m cynical and not giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I assume that celebrities do shit like this for attention :shrug:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manatroid92
I mean, writing a poem for a dictator—“if your mom loved you the way I would have loved you, then you wouldn’t have to hurt”—not only is it self-absorbed and tone-deaf, it feels like she’s blaming this war on his hypothetical mommy issues. Putin is a 70 year old man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardware Punk
It is perfectly reasonable for a country to join any coalition it wants. It is perfectly reasonable for a country which sees it's security compromised by another country's coalition to intervene, even more so if the threat for security is nuclear.
>Putin will have to capitulate at some point because he is already in a corner and knows it. His threat to use nukes is mostly a way to free up some wiggle room in the international politics scene by trying to instill fear in other countries. Which is why we shouldn't take it at face value, IMO.
Putin cannot capitulate because that would mean Russia being practically done, with sanctions and nukes at their doorstep. Russia is not likely to capitulate under any situation without a coup and negotiations with the said coup to at least lift sanctions. The whole russian central bank's currency reserve is almost useless and the other half has been freezed in western banks, capitulation is impossible at this point.
And the nuclear threat is very present, in fact I fear we might be meeting Mr' Oppenheimer soon enough (Let's all hope its not the case). Russia has literally nothing to lose and it's subsistence as a state is at stake by sanctions...
https://politicalwire.com/2022/02/26...war-coalition/
https://youtu.be/TgwavrWZFp4
Attachment 17803
>I agree that the petrodollar will largely benefit from this though. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that Russia has invaded the Ukraine militarily, using force, and is doing so because his motives is to de-legitimize another sovereign nation. I think neutrality is not the right attitude to have here, because clearly Putin crossed a line - in contrast, I have a hard time imagining that if the US gains from this economically (which they will), that this was all an accident. But these questions are two different issues, even if they are somewhat related. I wouldn't paint Putin as a victim regardless of any US attempt to regain control of EU markets because Putin knows that his motives are different from self-defense and also because I doubt the US wanted him to invade the Ukraine, or somehow orchestrated this war. I suppose you could argue that is an economic defense on Putin's part but it's mostly an ideological and military attack on the Ukraine
My personal take is that the US wanted some small scale skirmish, or the recognition of Novorossiya, as a way to impose sanctions on specially Russian gas, metal and rare earth exports. Putin recognized this and saw a more calm rethoric from the west during the second half of diplomatic tensions but NATO would still not agree to reject Ukraine's application for joining, so that was his moment to invade.
The entrance of Ukraine in NATO assured a war with Russia, it has been evident for decades and only at 2014 serious attempts at it started, were halted by the civil war and the rest is history.
Through the twoo weeks of negotiations the only compromise to keep the Status Quo that we needed to adopt was to not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, and other nation's sovereignty doesn't seem to be a top priority for NATO judging from how it's most prominent member has behaved towards Libya and Syria (both cases because of Petrodollar's integrity).
So it's my personal guess that this conflict is a result of the USA's strategy of securing it's own financial system, but it has gone awry.
>but I doubt Putin would use the atomic bomb. I also think that it's worth taking the risk of standing up to him, especially since he is at a moment weakness, it feels like now or never.
I'm pretty sure he's willing to throw his nuclear arsenal, because a "world war" between NATO and Russia cannot end without the use of nuclear weaponry. Neither Europe, nor Russia, nor the US can be properly occupied, if Ukraine itself seems to be very hard to occupy, imagine trying to take over NATO on a conventional battlefield.
I think nukes would be used atleast against major cities and military objectives.
Russia might be militarily or economically weak right now, but it still has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
I agree with @ouronis that what you are saying here sounds like "let's give the aggressor what they want and maybe he'll leave us alone". I can't agree with that.[/QUOTE]
The agressor is asking for Ukraine to not join NATO, a cause for which I think it's absurd to unleash a great war.
It even sounds hypocritical for me to start such a conflict while sharing coalition with the US, which is pretty much known for it's coups and funding for rebels in opposing countries to drive them towards the path they see fit (thus "proxily" vulnerating other countries sovereignty).
From a purely pragmatic standpoint you could say that NATO itself was built to contain Russia and that it should be our goal to dismantle the country, as a way of securing our power and eliminating a potential threat. But I think even on those terms it isn't worth such a large scale conflict.
She is lucky she is hot. But she needs to stay out of the sun her fair skin is starting dry out like leather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
It seems that the Russian troops were not told that they were invading the Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1498323215621533698
The dangers of Authoritarian leaders of any philosophy:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...u-X_bigger.jpg
Illia Ponomarenko
@IAPonomarenko
Yes, Kyiv and Kharkiv have been shelled for the first time since 1941. Two men gave such an order — Adolf ****** and Vladimir Putin.
Which message? This one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
That is response #195. You're not being censored, you silly goose. In fact, having an actual Russian talking here is enlightening in some ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
---------------------------------
Mildly related to the above, I keep reminding myself that this is Information Age warfare. Perhaps we are moving into another age, but it remains that information =/= truth.
If I know anything, it's that no one can know everything, even what's just relevant to this situation.
---------------------------------
If people are saying that we should give Ukraine to Putin because otherwise we'll be guilty of destroying the world... why not say the same to Russia? Roll over and give up or you're just perpetuating world war. I feel like that line of thought doesn't give aggressors responsibility and I see similar lines of thinking when it comes to domestic abuse. "If you just gave him what he he wants he wouldn't hit you. So it's your fault you're hurt."
I don't know how a person could be on Russia's side on this unless they were:
1. Incredibly naive/gullible/easily manipulated
2. A troll
3. A douchebag
There is this mentality some people have that anything the news reports on is 'manipulation' or something to get you on a certain side of something ((and they in turn need to always rebel and always choose the opposite side etc.)) ... and well, while the Elites don't care about us, doesn't mean he's gonna be your savior against SJWs/globohomos/The Deep State and all the people you don't like either but it seems both Putin and Trump have been on that manipulative traitorous game for quite a while. Saying what people want to hear and then stabbing 'em in the back etc.
Stumbled upon this report - “Russia’s Possible Invasion of Ukraine” (published Jan. 13, 2022)
The report is long but worth reading if you’re interested in this sort of thing. I’m including a section of the report below:
Russian Prospects of Success
Mechanized attacks are not always as rapid as attackers hope. Two of the quickest movements of armored forces in history—German general Heinz Guderian’s punch through the Ardennes and seizure of Dunkirk in May 1940, and the U.S. and coalition advance from the Kuwait border to Baghdad in 2003—each averagedapproximately 20 miles per day. Movement against a determined foe in winter conditions with limited daylight could reduce that rate of advance significantly.
With enough troops, firepower, logistics, time, and national will, as well as no outside interference, Russia could grind forward until its military achieves the Kremlin’s political objectives. Russia’s military outnumbers Ukraine’s military in the air and on the ground, Russia gained extensive experience in conducting combined-arms operations in Syria, and the terrain favors offensive mechanized warfare. However, the true calculation of military success can only be taken after a clash of arms begins. In addition, there are several intangibles—such as weather, urban combat, command and control, logistics, and morale—that may play a significant role in the initial stages of a war.
Weather: An invasion that begins in January or February would have the advantage of frozen ground to support the cross-country movement of a large mechanized force. It would also mean operating in conditions of freezing cold and limited visibility. January is usually the coldest and snowiest month of the year in Ukraine, averaging 8.5 hours of daylight during the month and increasing to 10 hours by February.8 This would put a premium on night fighting capabilities to keep an advance moving forward. Should fighting continue into March, mechanized forces would have to deal with the infamous Rasputitsa, or thaw. In October, Rasputitsa turns firm ground into mud. In March, the frozen steppes thaw, and the land again becomes at best a bog, and at worst a sea of mud. Winter weather is also less than optimal for reliable close air support operations.
Urban Combat: While much of the terrain east of the Dnepr River includes rural fields and forests, there are several major urban areas that a Russian mechanized force would have to either take or bypass and besiege. Kiev has almost 3 million inhabitants, Kharkiv has roughly 1.5 million, Odessa has 1 million, Dnipro has almost 1 million, Zaporizhia has 750,000, and even Mariupol has almost 500,000.9 If defended, these large urban areas could take considerable time and casualties to clear and occupy. In the First Chechen War, it took Russian forces from December 31, 1994, to February 9, 1995, to wrestle control of Grozny, then a city of less than 400,000, from a few thousand Chechen fighters.10 In the Second Chechen War, the siege of Grozny also took six weeks.
Therefore, the best course of action for Russian troops would be to bypass urban areas and mop them up later. However, Kharkiv is just over the border from Russia and is a major road and railroad junction. If Russian forces did not control Kharkiv, it would seriously diminish their logistical capability to support a central thrust toward the Dnepr River and beyond. Furthermore, Kiev poses a similar challenge and, as the nation’s capital, possesses great symbolic value for whichever side holds it. Russia may be unable to avoid sustained urban combat in several major metropolitan areas (and the resulting high casualties) if it attempts more than a punitive incursion into Ukraine.
Command and Control: There is a Russian expression: “the first blini is always a mess.” In the case of an invasion of Ukraine, Russia will be conducting its largest combined arms operation since the Battle of Berlin in 1945. The 2008 Russo-Georgian War saw just five days of combat and engaged 70,000 Russian soldiers.11 In Syria, the primary maneuver forces included Syrian ground units, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah, militia forces from neighboring countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, private military companies such as the Wagner Group, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Forces. But Russia did not deploy significant numbers of conventional forces. Approximately 120,000 Russian soldiers are mobilized near Ukraine, with tens of thousands more ready to deploy into combat.12 It will be a challenge for Russian command and control to first move all of these forces into their attack positions with proper march discipline. It will also be difficult for Russia to maintain that discipline during the attack so that the massive amounts of vehicles and soldiers moving on a limited number of slippery and poor roads and often at night do not become one gargantuan traffic jam.
The coordination of airborne and amphibious assaults will prove another challenge. While airborne forces could be dropped along the Dnepr River to seize crucial bridges, how long would they be able to hold out while armored forces try to reach them over winter roads? The same applies for amphibious forces attempting to outflank Ukrainian defenses near Mariupol or to seize Odessa. Black Sea hydrography and coastal topography provide few good landing sites for amphibious forces, and once landed, they would be hard to sustain.13 Without proper coordination and rapid advance of armored forces, any airborne or amphibious assault as part of the invasion could become a “bridge or beach too far” for Russian forces. Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c highlight ships from the Russian navy’s Black Sea Fleet, including landing ships and corvettes that could be used in an amphibious assault into Ukraine.
The Russian military also has limited experience in coordinating a large number of aircraft that will support the ground attack. Russian air operations in Syria and Chechnya do not compare with the number of sorties that could be required in Ukraine across a front possibly several hundred miles wide. This will be the first time since World War II that Russia’s ground forces will face a modern mechanized opponent, and its air forces will face an opponent with a modern air force and air defense system. Consequently, Russian forces will likely face notable challenges in command, control, communications, and coordination.
Logistics: The initial attack will likely be well supported with artillery and air support, leading to several breakthroughs in Ukrainian defenses. However, once combat units expend their initial stores of ammunition, fuel, and food, the real test of Russian military strength will begin—including Russia’s ability to sustain the advance of a massive mechanized force over hundreds of miles of territory. Kiev and the Dnepr River crossings are at least 150 to 200 road miles from the Russian border, and its army will require at least several days of fighting to reach them. Before that, they will undoubtedly have to resupply, refuel, and replace combat losses of men and material at least once, which will require an operational pause.
In his article “Feeding the Bear,”Alex Vershinin argues that there are serious logistical challenges to a Russian invasion that is supposed to roll over the Baltic states in 96 hours and present the West with a fait accompli. Russia has built an excellent war machine for fighting near its frontier and striking deep with long-range fires. However, Russia may have trouble with a sustained ground offensive far beyond Russian railroads without a major logistical halt or a massive mobilization of reserves.14 As the operational depth in Ukraine is far greater than in the Baltics, a Russian invasion of Ukraine could be a longer affair than some anticipate due to the time and distance to bring up supplies. If the invasion is not concluded quickly due to a combination of weather, logistics, and Ukrainian resistance, how might this impact Russian morale?
Morale: There are two levels of morale on each side to consider: the morale of individual soldiers and the morale of each country and its people. At the individual level, will a Ukrainian soldier who believes he or she is fighting for their homeland have an advantage over a Russian soldier whose motivation for fighting may vary? For the Ukrainian nation as a whole, how strong is their sense of a unique national identity to resist what could be a long, destructive, and bloody struggle? The answers cannot be known until the war begins. However, should war come, one factor influencing morale will be time. The longer the Ukrainian army resists the Russians, the greater its confidence may grow as well as its institutional knowledge of how to fight this enemy. In addition, the longer the war continues, the greater may be the level of international support and the greater the chance of increased arms transfers to help turn the tide on the battlefield.
For Russia, the longer the war continues and the greater the casualties, the greater the chance of undermining Russian morale from the level of the basic soldier to Russian society writ large. Approximately one-third of Russian ground forces consist of one-year conscripts.15 These conscripts serve alongside professional soldiers, or kontraktniki, under a system of hazing known as the dedovshchina. This system is infamous for its abuses up to and including murder, which can erode unit cohesion. Additionally, heavy casualties will need quick replacements, and reservists brought to reinforce frontline units have received little recent training. As the number of professional soldiers decreases due to casualties, and reservists and conscripts increase on the front line, the chance of poor unit cohesion at the soldier level will rise. If casualties and even defeats mount, problems of cohesion at the front could be reflected in public unrest at home.
Every Kremlin ruler knows that one of the quickest ways to end a Russian dynasty or regime is to lose a war. While early Soviet assessments of the war in Afghanistan were hopeful, they eventually turned gloomy. At a Politburo meeting on October 17, 1985, for example, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev read letters from Soviet citizens expressing growing dissatisfaction with the war in Afghanistan—including “mothers’ grief over the dead and the crippled” and “heart-wrenching descriptions of funerals.”16 As the Soviet war in Afghanistan dragged on, the costs—including in blood and money—were too high and outweighed any geostrategic benefits. Over the course of the war, nearly 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and another 35,000 were wounded.
Russian families are sure to resent their soldiers being used as cannon fodder, and the ubiquitous presence of cell phone cameras and videos in today’s world will expand soldiers’ complaints beyond their units. Therefore, the question for the Kremlin will be: the longer the war grinds on and society reacts to casualties and economic duress, how much are their initial objectives worth to them?
There are exceptions to this!Quote:
Originally Posted by leckysupport
Nothing to discuss. I’m sure Putin was quite off put by the Ukrainians shuttling off water supply to Crimea.
Or intimidated / bullied / coerced. I expect for many (especially those within Russian borders) it could be... inconvenient... to speak too much counter the official narrative and talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazaam
It's interesting, for example, to watch Sol waver off into independent thinking earlier only to more recently adhere much more tightly to what Putin and Russian officials are saying.
Putin has successfully manipulated anti-gay people into agreeing with him and Sol has made about 567969 posts here about the virtues of opposite sex relations and how same sex relations are a thing that Just Shouldn't Be® All sins can be forgiven if somebody is advocating for the origin of creation-givers (ie straights)) I know ppl get tired of me ranting about gays so much- but when a manipulative douchebag is using us in order to fulfill his world domination agendas I have a right to rant about it.Quote:
It's interesting, for example, to watch Sol waver off into independent thinking earlier only to more recently adhere much more tightly to what Putin and Russian officials are saying.
The media just posted something how a lot of right-wingers are abandoning Putin cuz of what he's doing but I think that's also a kinda leftie manipulation where they are *hoping* that will be the case but a lot of others haven't yet - like in the past when they said how Hillary was creaming Trump but Trump ended winning anyway. ((and I think Hillary was equally a poor choice of course but I'm just saying so much media attention backfires cuz of people's sickening anti-gay hatred.)) Once again like George R R R R ® Martin would say while farting loudly: People are still being so naive to how cruel and violent and hateful/bigoted others can really be. Kinda off topic but this is why I hated Stranger Things as a TV show it was so cheesy and idealistic and ppl in my school never acted so friendly like that - maybe only if u were a certain kind of person.
Putin has written and talked of restoring the Russian empire for many years. It's his life ambition. Conquering Kazakhstan etc. has nothing to do with the policies of the EU or NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
He sees the West as corrupted by homosexuals and Jews and sees Russia as the last bastion of Christianity.
The countries that join NATO begged to, and of their own choice, because they felt threatened by Russia. And they were quite correct. Russia invading its neighbours is not respecting the sovereignty or security of anybody.
You obviously haven't been very observant. The UK has been giving up its empire since WW2, and has not had any imperial ambitions in the last 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by silke
You mention the UK because I'm British, as though I support what the British government does. That's not a very effective strategy. I'm opposed to imperialism regardless of who is doing it, the UK, Russia, or anybody. It's just that it's the Russian president who speaks of restoring the Russian empire.
The West has submarines that can fire nukes too, at much shorter distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
If Putin goes, and the Russian people actually get what they want, sanctions will end and Russia will most likely have a bright future.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
BS propaganda. They were told to say they didn't know otherwise they could get lynched by Ukrainians. Now some Ukrainians have adopted their line to try to humanize this mess, but not true at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Putin is sending Chechens, Dagestanis to invade and kill people who have never done anything to them. He is demented. He's going to wreck Europe.
@Sol you twisted little old turd. This is what is Ukrainian TV is brodcasting, a small child that later died and of course there's more we're not seeing. How is this going to help 'UkSSR' or make them accept the Russian's peferred solution?
https://i.ibb.co/fqcct17/hh.png
And as these images keep coming up the following weeks, months and repercussions blow up in your face, what are you going to say? That the world has become 'hithlerist'?
I’m really hoping this is the case, but doesn’t Russia still have oligarchs other than Putin to contend with? From what I understood (and I could be very wrong) he has a weird tug-of-war situation with them, but if he goes, couldn’t just insert another corrupt leader to replace him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
My guess is in that situation, they would just replace him with one of their own and then that dude's predilections would come to define Russia's status with the rest of Europe and the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manatroid92
God says through His prophets that this war on Ukraine is not what we think. He says the real reason will soon be exposeed. meanwhile, we can expect lies and mroe lies from our media on this!
The media news is not the news, they are a paid arm of propaganda. They are fake news. They are liars. They know they are coming down, and that exposures of their lies and evil deeds are coming, so they want to distract us from the real news that is about to come out in our country. Don’t believe what they say about Ukraine.
Prophets said in September that we would see two major news networks crash forever this year. CNN and MSNBC were named. At the time of that prophecy, there was no sign this would happen! But God said it. And now we can see it will happen. As of January, CNN viewership is down 90%, and that happened in 2021! Yes. Google it. God says now that soon, CNN will be lights out, forever.
God says next is MSNBC and their parent company NBC. They will go bankrupt.
Because they lie. They don’t tell the news.
God says what the media is now telling us about the Ukraine is not true. I have already heard this elsewhere, as had Johnny Enlow, as he explains in the link below. Probably, instead, Putin is SAVING Ukraine from the nefarious and very evil use of their country by the worldwide evil deep state. The media is trying to make it look like something else is going to happen, because they want war, as they need money and want death, so they are telling FAKE STORIES with FAKE PICTURES, explained below. Whatever the real truth is on that, God says that the truth about what is happenign there will soon be fully exposed.
For reasonable intelligent discussion that you won’t hear on the news about what is going on, see Johhny Enlow on Elijah Streams:
https://rumble.com/vvw10k-johnny-enl...-going-on.html
To narrow that video down to the topic at hand, see explanations of the media starting at 22 min.
When it veers off to another topic, skip ahead to 1 hr., 5 min. where he talks of Kasarian [sp.?] Mafia/ Jews (= NOT real Jews) and their Ukraine connec tion. I think that is the very explanation you will hear when the truth that God promised will be exposed comes out.
Sol uses 'hithlerist' to blame Ukr for the invasion and destruction and Eliza says 'Jews' are lying because there is no destruction. They could run Russia Today together.
That is NOT what I said. I said NOT Jews. Fakes pretending they are Jews. NOT Jews, the chosen people of God. It is reckoning time for these fakes. They lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal
XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
@Rusal,
It looks funny but if I click on it I might blue screen....
Dumb self-righteous fucks blaming the victim.
"When we do shitty things in life we don't think we're not righteous - we think we have the right." Sol and Eliza's own self-imposed righteousness is blinding them to the fact they are very wrong about this. Your imaginary friend telling you that it's "God" talking isn't really God, but the Idea of Stupidity.
Part of how you are so dumbly manipulated by people is that their is a lot of confusion between the Illuminati and the Deep State. In a campy way, people talk about the Illuminati being evil but the Illuminated Ones are actually very ethically superior. I am an Illuminated One actually - cuz my natural aura is so bright and shiny. I became a moderator on this forum because I'm an Illuminated One. The Deep State - yes , are the dark forces trying to stop the Illuminati and take light out of the world and descend us into true darkness. Satan is the misunderstood scapegoat and figure you're meant to LOVE instead of HATE - he Is the Light and Lord and actually good and part of the Illuminati. By hating Satan, you really only hate yourself. That is why you are so LOST my child- but it's not too late.
God loves Satan because Satan is one with him and God is the Non-Dualistic Part of the All - and Satan actually loves God, too. The Deep State are the true enemy, but a big part of why you are so confused about this is because you are confusing the two VERY different entities way too much.
@Shazaam, this is real, not pretend.
I thought we were talking about Ukraine... :shrug:
@Eliza Thomason
Of course it is. That's what we've been trying to get through to you. You were projecting there because you're realizing what you thought was 'God' was just fake. The douchey victim blaming you and Sol are doing is very real- and the situation is very real and serious, but nothing is that truly serious to the real God and Satan.
That occurrence more or less defines the end of empires. When Rome was sacked for the X'th time the Praetorian Guard could, at that moment, not be bothered to give a fuck. When the "fragging" of commanders becomes not just commonplace but a celebrated act among the infantry you've well and thoroughly lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baqer
This is the big problem I foresee the Chinese will face upon attempting to annex Taiwan within the next few weeks. Tofu-Dreg military hardware will meet with soldiers and officers more interested in self-preservation and personal advancement over more primal things like defending one's homeland from the despoiling and genocidal hands of communists.
I could be wrong but let's just say that if Taiwan is ready, willing, and able to fight back against an invader as hard as Ukraine is well... Xi should have picked a much softer punching bag if ya catch my drift.
China is way more on the sauce than Russia is. I doubt they'll have mutinies.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Ok, now I'm preparing the pyre. For a witch. I doubt you'd pass that test as, like I've pointed out many times before, you can't even utter the words in obvious jest and bad faith and I'd still take that as passing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazaam
Yes, God does (in a very real sense) love Satan even as he (Satan) hates him. No, Satan does not actually love God even with that caveat attached. If he did he never would have rebelled in the first place.
I am, sadly, no Priest or Theologian and thus am fully unqualified to speak about how and why this question and the doctrine of the church makes complete sense to any rational being.
I can tell you that it does, and that you ought look into it.
I can and will tell you that God does not and will not forget any of our sins. Yet he loves us so much that he forgives them so utterly and completely that the phrase "God forgets your sins" is not true. He does not. Indeed, at the end of time even the sins of the saints will be enunciated to all who ever existed. Though at that time we'll all have the gift of hindsight. Indeed, this is a time of great tribulation for the faithful. To "merely" have become that degenerate may well become a badge of honor.
Most saints we can think of grew up and lived in a world where the faith was unquestioned and universal and their lives reflected that. Imagin what could have happened to an ancient and venerable saint if ya handed them a smartphone. Perhaps they would have fallen...
https://www.economist.com/europe/202...also-temporary
* The Russians seem to have been unprepared for the stiffness and determination (and sheer bravery, quite frankly) of Ukrainian resistance.
* They are having logistical problems, hence the slow speed of the advance (e.g. it's hard for them to rebuild bridges that the Ukrainians have dynamited, their supply lines are overstretched whereas the Ukrainians' aren't).
* The Ukrainians aren't short on weapons.
* The Russians haven't deployed all of their air power and don't yet have air supremacy; they haven't deployed all of their ground forces.
* The Russian deployment may actually be too big, and a lot of necessary equipment may be spread too thinly. Some Russian units aren't able to detect Bayraktar TB2 drones, which have proven to be incredibly effective.
But it's still day 5-6 of the war, and it's too soon to make predictions about how this war will end (literally anything can happen at this point, including a negotiated settlement). The Russians will likely learn from their mistakes, take their weaknesses into account, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
No, but that's hardly the biggest problem you'll be facing if your tanks aren't exactly made of High-Carbon Steel if ya catch my meaning. Cheapest and best steel in world granted to you for half price!Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
Again, if anyone here is unfamiliar with the term "Tofu-Dreg" get familiar with that. Taiwan thinks it can win for good reason. Say what you will about "Western" militaries, they are at least (if only just) fit for purpose. Pretty much everyone else? Not so friggin' much.
Losing this war could be the best thing to happen to modern Russia.
Losing the Crimean war (1853-56) against the Ottomans, France and the UK, forced the Russian leadership to accept the need for modernization. The loss triggered a massive drive of industrialization, infrastructure building, and social reform (like the ending of serfdom). A renewed zeal for reform (especially WRT. limiting the powers of the executive), while Ukraine joins both NATO and the EU (irreversible demands at this point), would be a good outcome for the current crisis.
But what is losing? If they're aiming to keep Eastern Ukraine and trying to force Western Ukraine's hand through invasion and then a deal, that's not losing. We don't know where we stand, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
-----------------
This is interesting. From April 2021. Russian analysts on TV.
“We will be forced to step onto the battlefield in a fight for which they think we’re not ready,” he added. The host asked: “A fight against whom?” and Sidorov clarified: “Against the collective West.”
“You can’t turn a wolf into a vegetarian.” The host further claimed that Russia “will be destroyed very quickly” if it “loses Donbas”—a Ukrainian territory that is not Russia’s to lose or to keep—because “Putin’s electorate won’t stand for it.”
Rather than to risk Putin’s eternal presidency, Soloviev suggested that the fight over Ukraine’s Donbas will end in a “nuclear conflict” between Russia and NATO. Senior military analyst Mikhail Khodaryonok, a former colonel from the Soviet air defense force, opined “I think that any conflict could be stopped by the threat of at least a tactical nuclear strike from our side. The main question is how convincing our message will be.”
“The same state of war that we have right now would have started within the first 6 months of the Clinton presidency,” asserted Dmitry Kulikov—member of the Zinoviev Club, instituted by the Kremlin-controlled media giant Russia Today—said on Soloviev’s show. He added: “America was much stronger then.” The host, Vladimir Soloviev, pointed out: “And Russia wouldn’t have had four years.” Kulikov emphatically agreed: “That’s why they [Americans] are furious with Trump. He stole those four years from them and gave them to Russia and China.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia...ainst-the-west
I suppose that an obvious loss would require Russia to surrender all Ukrainian territory (including the Donbass region and Crimea) to the current Ukrainian government, permanently drop all claims on Ukrainian territory, permanently drop support for the independence of the Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, pay massive reparations and financial compensation to Ukraine, fully recognize the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government, and unconditionally accept Ukraine's admission into NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal
But you're correct in indicating that the result may turn out to be ambiguous (especially if they get to keep pockets of Ukrainian territory).
I doubt that we have the military strength to demand anything stronger (certainly not the type of Carthaginian peace that was imposed on the German Empire).
Supposedly the FSB has a large sway over Russian politics, so a new dictator could come from there who no more represents the Russia people than Putin does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manatroid92
True. Typically the ones that go on to be producers, writers and directors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
USA-hithlerist occupants use civilians as hostages, what is terrorism and war crime. They place military machines near buildings with living civil people to reduce or void return fire. USA, which controls army of Russian borderland/okraina does not care about lifes of people living there.
In some places USA-hithlerists directly forbid to leave towns and hold people by force, for the mentioned usage as shield/hostages. I've mentioned before about Mariupol.
The same happens in town Volnovakha. Recent day a group of civilians tried to go away from blocked city. They were attacked by direct fire from USA-hithlerists side, some should be killed.
In other towns to which RF army have come USA-hithlerist occupants use the similar terrotistic approach - they do not allow civil people to go away from those towns. RF has asked to stop military actions near towns on some time to make civilians passing safer and then to allow civilians to leave towns. USA-hithlerists has rejected this offer and hold civilians inside of towns, while food becomes a problem in some places. Examples of rejected offer are: Kiev, Harkov, Sumi. For Mariupol USA-hithlerists has agreed to do this, but when assinged time came they did not allow people to go away.
Another "nice" thing what USA likes to do in military conflicts and also overturns. Besides using civil objects and people as hostages by hiding behind them, it may do an attack by themselves and then accuse other side. This is made to justify own aggression, for propaganda against opponents, to initiate conflicts etc. Examples of this were Mariupol 2015, Donetsk region airplane 2014, Syria Ghouta 2013.
USA establishes censorship in medias. Blocks RF medias to hide truth about what happens. Many falsifications and lie are spreaded by USA side, what is common for it.
USA removes people of own nation from Belorussia and seems RF. The similar do other NATO states as Germany. I suspect USA begins diversion-terroristic war on territory of RF. Terroristc part is attacks against civilians and civil objects. Small bands as were in Syria should pass the border, some of them should be here already. Besides from okraina territory they may come from Afganistan (through Asian USSR republics) where USA gave recently many weapon to islamists and created large trained army of them. USA controlled syrians and representeters of Europe states took part in civil war on okraina since 2014. Now their quantity and number of available weapons, military machines arises.
The war of USA (with its satelites) against RF which happens now, would happened later with more intensivity. In essence sense, the war of USA against Russians started in 2014; besides other wars organised by USA where Russians needed to took part. USA illegally placed by military overturn own people to power on Russian okraina territory, provoked civil war to inspire hate to people of RF there. Before 2014 USA also developed anti-Russian propaganda on okraina.
When was said USA's intention to give nuclear weapon to their forces on okraina, RF has started miliatry operation to remove illegal regime fo USA-hithlerists there. This should be done in 2014 and could be easier, but RF wanted to keep peace. USA rejected peace. USA want desctructions anywhere in the world to stay as most developed territory by this way, to easier compete with others. USA is world cancer.
USA is a simplification in the process. It's controlled by "elites", not only by national ones - by related to world. These elites follow antihumahistic hithleristic-alike ideology of artistocratism/socialeugenics to rationalize their interest to power and doing harm to people, in much they are egocentric psychopaths by ideology and have higher such personality trait as inborn. They are satanists from christianity view, which keep the power by lie and terror/violence. USA is used as a tool to get and have power over the world, mainly military and propaganda tool.
Disheartening pictures and news coming from Ukraine. 70 soldiers were killed at the same time. Some suggest dormitories must've been hit for such a great quantity of people to be killed at the same time. Is that even allowed?
Europe (and America to some extent) need to be more creative with oligarchs. Not just freeze their assets but warn selected transnational money and capital holders abroad to pull out beforehand if they fear reprisal and then seize money and property from oligarchs and auction them to aspiring local bourgeoisie that will jump at the opportunity. Use the money to rebuild Ukr. Sanction new emergency laws, use anti monopoly and anti price speculation legislation as justification. A struggling Polish family's right to basic heating in Winter is a human right, businessmen's ability to move their fortune around the world after Europe helped them amass it is not. Go Piketty.
The sanctions on Russia. I'm from a Latin American country. First-worlders might see currency depreciation as such a game-changer. But it's not and experience has made governments resilient and people expert navigators. If Putin planned this final move for at least a year, then a contingency plan has been sleeping in a drawer in Moscow all along. Europe might want to tread those waters.
Declare streamlining of gas to key cold areas from already established pipelines a basic right. I can think of at least 4 countries in South America that have been trying to reach some kind of food autarky. Europe should set foot more firmly in LA and selected African countries and help them with modified seeds, machines and grants. Open Erasmus scholarships to students from those areas and establish ties. Use all that to generate votes at the UN to make Russia ‘share’ the wealth of an expanding empire. America shouldn't fear this as much as Mexico lives below them. Or promote people like Greta Thunberg more aggressively to push for bigger funds to transition to greener energies with the bigger contribution coming from the countries with the highest royalties from traditional energies and natural reserves. If Russia gets a larger chunk of natural resources in the Black Sea that belong to Ukraine through occupation then Europe should latch onto it like lice through the UN. Get your arse moving, Europe.
>Putin has written and talked of restoring the Russian empire for many years. It's his life ambition. Conquering Kazakhstan etc. has nothing to do with the policies of the EU or NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Never found anything significant about that, other than the claim that Ukraine and Belarus were soviet inventions (which is partially true to a certain extent although it ignores lots of nuances, and strikes as a self justification).
>He sees the West as corrupted by homosexuals and Jews and sees Russia as the last bastion of Christianity.
This is directly bs on Qanon levels, but if it serves the propaganda effort...
Homosexuals are not protected by law in Russia, and sometimes the legal system, the media, the "superstructure" in marxist terms discriminates them. That doesn't mean Putin is any sort of "traditionalist" or "neoreactionary". Putin hates jews so much that his daughter was married to one, and Russia partakes in financial transactions with the rest of the world. He's so antisemitic that he does not persecute jewish oligarchs but in fact even favors them sometimes.
>The countries that join NATO begged to, and of their own choice, because they felt threatened by Russia. And they were quite correct. Russia invading its neighbours is not respecting the sovereignty or security of anybody.
To this day, Russia has intervened in Ukraine (against a nuclear obliteration threat) and agains't Georgia in favor of breakaway republics. That is two wars, and the west has been untouched even though close neighbors like the baltic states were joining NATO, so the agressive tendency towards the west is false.
You could actually make a case for the similarities between this conflict and the russo-georgian war, but it still doesn't justify the idea of Russia being an expansionist monster, rather Russia acts as a geopolitical realist most of the times, and due to the trade relationships it has with the EU their tendency towards the west has been quite peaceful until this point.
>Russia invading its neighbours is not respecting the sovereignty or security of anybody.
My freedom stops where your freedom begins. Severe violations of a neighbors security concerns are a just reason for military intervention.
We are coming from the place of using international law for our own benefit, discarding or not applying it to ourselves on the sly, financing terrorist organizations and starting civil wars anywere in the world, not even because of wanting to control our neighbors but because of wanting to stir a country's direction regarding oil reserve currency, we are the least indicated to accuse anyone in meddling in their neighbor's sovereignty when we don't respect the sovereignty of most of the civilized world and we have repeatedly demonstrated it with states far away from our own territory
And this war, again, has been bred for securing Petrodollar's subsistence in a world were rare earth or microchips are becoming almost as essential as oil for a modern economy to function. Sadly, Putin might realize this, and push the red button obliterating the west, in fact he has every incentive to do so.
If Russia lost this time, Russia might no longer exist in the world. The west is trying to eliminate Russia from the world. So now the situation is very hard for Putin and his colleagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Russia controls the situation a few days ago but now the west is gaining control. This is due to the fact that Russia fails to respond to the SWIFT threaten effectively. What Putin should do is to start joining China's CIPS immediately because this means that the dying of USD and EUR will speed up. However, Russia fails to do this so the west get the information that Russia is still dreaming at the union of Russia and EU, the west is now sure that Russia still doesn't want to fully switch to China. So they are now much bolder and they are gaining control again.
Now Russia still have some time to adjust. However, the real problem is that as far as I observe, too many Russians believe in the west instead of the east. Also, many Russian businessman has financial connections with.the EU instead of China. This makes Russia finds it very hard to switch to China in this situation.
I seriously doubt that anyone wants Russia to not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR400AF
What most people want is a neighbor who doesn't invade them or shell their cities and send squads of soldiers to their country to assassinate their elected officials.
That would be nice, right?
Russia and the Russian people are fine. Putin is not fine.
Really, the whole reason the US took over the world economy was because it didn't try to turn other countries into colonies, like Spain, Portugal, Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Japan, and other countries did. When people saw that the US didn't want to run their country but just wanted to trade with them on fair terms, they gave their loyalties to the US over the colonialists.
It is not efficient to try to run a country that doesn't want to be run by foreigners. It's far better to let them run their own business and to simply buy stuff from them. The US won because it reduced the costs of trade and left people alone. It's just that simple.
(It left people alone with their own governments, usually, but that's still better than what the Belgian Congo had.)
So why would anyone want to run Russia, when the Russians themselves are willing to live there and run the place? Personally, I'd rather just buy stuff from them.
I was just describing the optimistic scenario. I'm aware of the alternative, very real, possibility that a weakened Russia could fracture. And that the loss of its outlying territories is a potential geopolitical nightmare; a scenario that could easily include, among other things, the capture of unsupervised nuclear weapons by Islamist groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR400AF
That's what terrified me about NATO expansion, even if we grant that Russia is acting irrationally paranoid in its opposition to Western encroachment, even if we accept that Ukraine has every sovereign right to select its alliances, even if we believe (as many liberals do) that Russia is a quasi-fascist dictatorship. That's all academic, though, since Ukraine's westward shift is now more-or-less politically irreversible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ukraine-moscowQuote:
It’s long been known that Putin hankers for a lost age of Russian dominance over its neighbours. Calling the collapse of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century” is one of his most-quoted (and most misunderstood) historical judgments.
In his speech, Putin reached back far further than the cold war to find his grievances. He stated clearly that the processes that led to Russia losing territory a century ago must be reversed. He pointed out what he said were catastrophic mistakes by the Bolsheviks in recognising Ukraine as a republic, and ceding land to end the war with Germany in 1918. He lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”.
NATO and Putin's Russia are two nuclear powers in opposition to each other, but it's only Russia invading countries up NATO's border rather than the reverse.
None of Putin's wars are justified in international law.
The guy who has assassinated his own people is now using illegal weapons on Ukranian civilians who have been deliberately targeted.
God Te treaties seem so stupid to me when a narc douchebag will easily violate them anyway. Any consequences they endure for doing so - well to them, those consequences can be manipulated regardless or they don't give a shit if it means becoming An Idea Of Theirself. Plenty of people are so sadistic they don't care if they get blown up as long as they get to blow up some cute little fags.
((this is just polr- I'm sure Te documents are still good and all Idk, but we just live in a world where it's so much paper work and enough ppl don't see the essence of anything anymore.))
I'd gladly die in a war to destroy china. Not because I think they're a huge human rights violator (I actually don't) but because they're our blood enemy and our biggest threat.
What do you mean by blood enemy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
Think they're better than everyone else, always have, since dynastic age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toro
Source: I'm right you're wrong cope cringe seethe dilate mald etc
Notably Natalie PortmanQuote:
Originally Posted by leckysupport
narli is a shrink too apparentlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
So that I don't seem like that crazy homeless person shouting at people passing by, here are the opinions of two influential American strategists, both of whom argued for a policy of compromise with Russia.
George Kennan's plea to not expand NATO (this is from 1998, well before the current crisis):
https://i.imgur.com/B89YsT7.jpg
Here is Henry Kissinger's plea to keep Ukraine neutral, just as Finland was throughout the Cold War (or Austria, which he doesn't mention), and to respect some of Russia's defense imperatives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0b9_story.html
The last paragraph I quoted will rub liberals the wrong way. Why should anyone, let alone foreigners to Russia, care about Russian national pride or the glorification of Russian history, notions that must seem deeply reactionary? The reason is that many "antiquated" beliefs tend to be very persistent, especially when they inspire feelings of reverence, and cannot realistically be bulldozed through. It would take massive social change in a liberal direction (something that only the Russians themselves can do) for beliefs like these to wane in importance and adherence.Quote:
A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction. Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
......
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
George Kennan was the man who inspired the 'Truman Doctrine' of containment against the Soviet Union. He wasn't some bleeding heart hippie and neither is Kissinger.
I largely agree with you in regards to the how and why the U.S. became what amounts to an economic hyperpower. It followed, at least up until recently, flawless logic. It sacrificed control for efficiency and achievement of purpose. I've said this to others but I'll restate a primary reason why I oppose the current PTB and how I simply cannot stand it/them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
They want total control, full-spectrum dominance in every sphere that matters, and they don't care how much that costs on all fronts. I can only attribute such thinking to demonic forces in the end given how much better things work out if you're willing to surrender that control aspect.
Say you got a problem. You may not know how to best solve the problem but you have an idea as to how. Say it's a huge problem in your mind as well. This shit needs be dealt with. Now consider someone you've never met, a low-level employee for instance, hears about it and gives you a solution somehow. It would require that you essentially relinquish direct operational control over others and let each "sector" come up with a solution that works for them. Bonus points: it likely does not align with your general idea as to how to solve it.
Do you relinquish control and let people/your subordinates solve problems as they will or insist on them all following your plan above all other considerations? With the obvious/given threat that if by giving them this authority you trust they won't do anything morally objectionable and if they, say, murder civilians in cold blood or allow their troops to rape and pillage you're going to publicly execute their asses most slowly and painfully?
Before you make an obvious counter I'll answer as I did my own mum. No, they didn't intentionally bomb a hospital. Propaganda is what it is and it mostly depends on an ignorant populace to work as well it does. People tend to not know how military command actually works but, in the instance of the United States, you must be a "Major" or higher officer to order a "Danger Close" bombardment in the example I used to shut her down.
What's that mean? Well, artillery isn't exactly an exact science. Once you accurately solve all the equations you get a "general area" shall we say. "Danger Close" means the position of your own troops is within that general area. It could land on top of the heads of your enemies and solve the problem. Hell, it's a 60-40 at the absolute worst. That 40 or less percent includes the possibility of it landing right on top of your own people!
Meaning the margins are so close there's a significant chance of you inadvertently helping out the enemy by blowing your own dudes up for them(or in this case, handing your enemy an easy propaganda win by blowing up a hospital). After all, when it comes to propaganda there are two things you are aiming to create. Mass and Unjustified Murders by the Enemy and Heroes. Both serve the same purpose. Blowing up hospitals fits the former archetype. The "Ghost of Kiev" is the latter. As most modern Jets and missiles have cameras on them, well, I'm still waiting on that footage before I issue my final opinion on that matter.
So yeah, gotta make sure someone with a bit of experience is deciding to roll such a serious set of dice no matter how "minor" the chance is of it coming up snake eyes is. I do not hold that unfortunate Ruskie all that responsible in this instance. 5% chance of it landing on the hospital? That's good odds eh? Let's roll those dice! (Hospital eats the bombs) FUCK!
Russia will be able to occupy the Ukraine through pure brutality. Westerners didn't have that option in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liked this post cuz you both bolded and underlined the word 'efficient' like a true LIE. You could have put it in all caps as well with a couple exclamation points and trademark symbol after it but that would just be campy. And 3D or 4D Fe instead of 2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Here I'll do it for everybody:
" We have to be more EFFICIENT!!™ "
I feel like they are both brewing a war. NATO and Russia. I don’t think the US is entirely innocent and the main stream media is almost as brain washing as what they simultaneously accuse the Russians they are doing, while I’m watching tv and feeling brainwashed by mainstream media. Putin- bad man. Bad man Putin. That about sums it up. I seriously think they want this war, and they are backing Russian in a corner after invading Ukraine to say, look, they made us do it. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my honest feelings on the matter.
So if someone can make me understand here… Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but Russia didn’t want them to. This seems understandable to me, and I can see why this would be crossing a red line. Ukraine is right there, and the more forces join with NATO, the more threat there is to Russia. So it seems like a big loss if they did join nato, and their only choice would be, at that point, to take back Ukraine before they join, and then absolutely have to deal with NATO since Ukraine would then be a part of that….and mainstream news is all like (scream) this makes no sense, Putin is mad man. Bad man. But that does make sense to me, why they would want Ukraine. It seems world war 3 is inevitable, since Putin doesn’t seem to me to be the type to back down. And considering where we are at in America right now, socially, economically…it doesn’t seem like a bad time to try to start something.
so someone who knows about this, explain to me where I’m wrong. Maybe I’m confused about what the hell is going on. And I’m not being shitty. I’m generally curious. I also didn’t read the previous comments because there is a lot.
As for casualties, maybe a bit insensitive, but this is a part of war, and they are show casing it on tv to garner major sympathy. God only knows what our own American troops do. Or our politicians ok. Total hypocrites, the lot of them, it seems to me.
idek what to think. I’m just preparing for a war. Maybe plant a garden. I’m prob going to get nuked.
Well Putin really *is* that bad of a person. It might be campy and annoying but it's true- pls don't do the stereotypical IEI str8 female thing and defend the fucked up bad boy too much and say like 'well both sides are equally bad' because they're not.
Ukraine is really too naive and overly trusting though to think evil d-bag narcs will just let you be your own person. In 1994 I think so many people were dumb and agreed to things they shouldn't. Too much idealism and not being aware enough of how people can betray you. There's nothing wrong with them wanting power, every country needs to have power or it will obviously be fucked over by those that do... they basically traded in their real power for a naive ideal stupidly.
Well yeah, ppl who are fucked up get tortured/killed cuz they are fucked up - kinda the way the world works. We can't shine a beam of pure love at Putin with a sappy poem like that one actress. God I know I was too much of an asshole to women in 2015 and I'm sorry but come on. Putin isn't allowing himself to be saved by str8 female compassion and forgiveness. He's just super gay - for himself.
My personal view is that Putin asking NATO countries to promise that the Ukraine never join NATO is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. And if you listen to Putin's recent speeches it is pretty clear he considers Ukraine to be a part of Russia (not a sovereign state). Putin's whole attitude towards Ukraine is problematic, IMO. That said, I do understand why Putin is upset about the Ukraine joining NATO - for him, it's a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by asterr
I don't disagree with the other points you make, I pretty much agree mainstream media in the west has an "us vs them" narrative on this issue here, with really simplistic rhetoric from politicians like Biden (but this is how Biden always talks). That said, I don't think the brainwashing is nearly as effective, because while certain things may be omitted and downplayed, lying by commission is much more scarce in Western msm than in Russian controlled media outlets (though some of those are rebelling against the Kremlin in part too right now).
I don't know if the US wants a war with Russia. I think @RBRS summed it up pretty well earleir: this is simply a question of the US trying to sever ties between Russian and EU energy markets, in the hopes of the EU becoming dependant on OPEC oil as opposed to the Russian energy market. This is how US foreign policy has been working for decades. That said, I don't know if they wanted a war since it is a huge risk if Putin sets off the atomic bomb. Putin has enough nukes to blow up the planet and then some, so a war might not be in America's interests either, because if we're all dead, who is the US gonna sell to? I think the US probably just hoped to get Russia out of EU markets by imposing sanctions, and then Putin decided it was a good time to strike the Ukraine, maybe because he's losing his marbles a bit.
That said, let's not pretend Putin is innocent here (and I am not saying that is what you said). What he has done now is basically worthy of a war criminal. Like I said I do think he's losing his marbles, perhaps not completely but enough to do things he wouldn't normally do and unwittingly turn everyone against him.
If someone comes with weapons, invades your house and threatens to nuke you, your family and your neighbourhood (or actually the whole world), it would be considered illegal as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by asterr
That's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazaam
I think Aster is asking some valid questions, but we have to be careful not to unwittingly fall into whataboutism. This is something the Kremlin benefits from worldwide, especially over the internet - people saying "well, perhaps Putin did X or Y, but what about such and such's [insert western politcian here] doing this and that" (and equating whoever with Putin).
So while I think we need to stay lucid and not kid ourselves into thinking Biden, US foreign policy, or Western media are perfect, we have to keep in mind Putin is an enemy from a geo-political standpoint for most of us on here (most people on here are citizens of NATO countries and are therefore Putin's targets for manipulation, disinformation, and possibly military force if it ever came to that- not that I wish it would). Putin is the same way to his own people, when they oppose him. So I agree, lets not kid ourselves into thinking he is somehow the victim because that is just bs.
ok, thank you. I didn’t know about that m. That does explain some things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardware Punk
yeah, I don’t think he is innocent. Def not. I read an article saying they think he has some terminal illness (idk if that true, but it’s an interesting theory). But I don’t think America is innocent either and it’s super annoying watching them act like it.Quote:
That said, let's not pretend Putin is innocent here (and I am not saying that is what you said). What he has done now is basically worthy of a war criminal. Like I said I do think he's losing his marbles, perhaps not completely but enough to do things he wouldn't normally do and unwittingly turn everyone against him.
Tbh, I’m a bit confused by your statement here, but it does allow me to bring up another question I had about all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn
if someone nuked me during a war, I wouldn’t exactly consider it illegal. Maybe illegal under the terms of the current government I am living under. I mean, what are these international laws of war?? War crimes?? War criminal. It seems like anything would go in a war. Dirty tactics. What’s stopping them from doing that and who made this stuff up. Idk. I need to google it.
you might all consider me awful, but I’m generally curious about this. Is there laws in war? I’ve never given much thought to it. Who makes the rules, who enforcers them? Is that just NATO, and is that such a good idea?
LMAO XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Shazaam
when and if I can’t get coffee anymore, and it’s Putin’s fault, he is in some deep shit.