Oh yeah, I heard about that. I read that it's about 7000 troops, but I could be way off.Originally Posted by silke
Oh yeah, I heard about that. I read that it's about 7000 troops, but I could be way off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Poptart; 02-28-2022 at 03:27 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-28-2022 at 04:23 AM.
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.
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.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 trouble
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell猫が生き甲斐
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.
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.
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?
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
@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
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Nope. In that case, we're all fucked.
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=referral
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-28-2022 at 05:51 AM.
See, this is why so many people (myself very much included) didn't think that there would be a war.
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.
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.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
AnnaLynne McCord (random c-list actress) has blessed us with this beautiful poem she wrote for Putin.
“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”…
Last edited by Poptart; 02-28-2022 at 06:40 AM.
“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.
Some white teenage girl will find a way to make it be all about herself.
Last edited by RBRS; 02-28-2022 at 07:49 AM.
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.
Actors generally are the dumbest people on the planet.
ἀταραξία
There've been Catholic blessings and prophesies on another subforum here. Maybe you should head out that way.
wow, such fake
Well if somebody didn't know that NATO is governed by a bunch of sociopaths ...
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.
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.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.
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?
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote