Topic: Everything is so logical the russia is the bad guy (Read 286 times)

LOL, you're blaming me for repeating mainstream media propaganda, but whole your post is just cliches from Russian propaganda. Counteroffensive wasn't succesfful, there is several reasons behind this. First is time. Ukraine had wait for weapons from West for so long that it was enough time for Russia to built several defense lines in Tokmak direction. And still, they started counteroffensive without much support from air as they still yet to recive F-16. I know maps perfectly, maybe better than you, there is no need to teach what I should look.
I'm wondering from where you took these numbers of hundreds of thousands troops killed in counteroffensive? Only Russian officials are constantly repeating it. But yeah, it's not Western propaganda, they never lied, how you can't believe them (sarcasm).
Russia never used T-55, really? It took me few seconds to deny your statement. They didn't just used it, they got some tanks damaged or destroyed:
https://postlmg.cc/9ryL62n8
https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1670510694838546436
Bradleys or F-16 is old, so what? If it serves it's purpose, I don't see any issue about it. And after all, it's not so old as post-WWII tank .
Russia destroyed Ukrainian air defense, in what alternative rality you live? If it was destroyed, I'm wondering why so little % of missiles and drones reaches it targets. And meanwhile Ukraine effectively hitting targets in Russian territory and occupied regions with Patriot system, which is already destroyed long time ago according to Russia.
And against, that stupid cliche about pushing narrative that Ukraine is winning, I'm wondering from where you Russians took it? And how you managed to see in my post that I'm pushing this narrative. Probably you just see what you want to see.
And again ''Russia has occupied and annexed 90% of the territories they wanted'', putting some random numbers will make it look that you're telling facts. But I can ask you again, from what ass you're taking these numbers?

Sir you have no proof,you're just repeating mainstream media propaganda,the west equipped Ukraine and effectively built 3 armies that have been destroyed,their planning and tactics are so great yet the counteroffensive was defeated without achieving anything other than the loss of hundreds of thousands of troops,since then Russia has taken marinka,many villages around bakhmut,avdivka has almost fallen,same goes for all the villages bordering kupiansk and liman,or talk about the rabotino axis which was where Ukraine sacrificed most of their troops,go check out what's happening there
And I'm not being pro anything just do your research instead of repeating propaganda talking points, check maps of the battlefield pro-ukrainian maps and see for urself eg u can checkout deepsate map or any other of ur liking
PS Russia never at any point used t55,the fact that a t90 was destroyed is testament to how modern their equipments are,the Bradleys and tanks supplied to Ukraine are all a couple decades old,the f-16s especially from Netherland are over 50years old a complete clown show

Furthermore,you're pointing to Russian losses as if they're fighting themselves,just in this suicidal counteroffensive, Ukraine lost thousands of tanks and military equipments,Russia has effectively destroyed their air defences and are practically hitting everything in all parts of Ukraine,the uaf are effectively out of artillery shells and guns(heck the whole world is out of 155mm artillery shells) and yet somehow you still pushing the narrative that Ukraine and the west are somehow winning
Russia has occupied and annexed 90% of the territories they wanted and in the process have demilitarised NATO as a whole and yet somehow you want to claim Russia is weak and obsolete

Yea, right... That's probably why they have to use ammo from North Korea and send their old T55s into battle, because they have so much modern equipment.
Let's also not forget that Russia, although it's producing a lot, is also losing a lot every day. Just a few days ago there was a video of their most advanced version of T90 being shot to pieces by a Bradley.
[/quote]
If everything would be so good in Russia, then probably they wouldn't have to use weapons and missiles from North Korea. C'mon, asking for military help from North Korea looks quite desperate move.
Let's look at basic thing like artillery shells. If they're making about 100k shells month, that's enough just for a week (various reports tells that they use about 20k shells daily.
Let's go to more complex things like tanks. No way that they can enough tanks to cover losses in Ukraine. If you think that they can make more than 20 tanks daily, you're living in alternative reality. I'm not even talking about things like fighter jets, ships or planes like A-50.
Added well trained and equipped troops - yeah, we all saw how well they're trained and prepared.

In 2023 NATO had over 3 million active soldiers and another 1,7 million in reserve, compared to only 830k of Russians.
In all war scenarios, the attacking force must be greater than the defenders to advance because it's much easier to defend. Attacking forces have to face difficulties like supply chains, minefields, fortifications, and they are going to fight on unfamiliar battlefields.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/


Yea, right... That's probably why they have to use ammo from North Korea and send their old T55s into battle, because they have so much modern equipment.
Let's also not forget that Russia, although it's producing a lot, is also losing a lot every day. Just a few days ago there was a video of their most advanced version of T90 being shot to pieces by a Bradley.


Are you comparing these Russian elite troops that fight in Ukraine in plastic helmets? The famous Russian soldiers that dig holes in the dirt to hide in and get grenades thrown on their heads from a drone?
The heroes of Russia that eat old military rations and catch cats and dogs to stay alive? The ones that had to rebel because they weren't getting enough ammo last year because Russia is outproducing the whole NATO and soldiers abandon their own tanks when they run out of fuel, because Russia has so much of it that it could reach Germany and France with its tanks, but couldn't reach Lviv...
And recruitment in Russia? Don't even start with this because I'm sure you know where Russia takes its recruits from.

Yes, Congress authorized the president to have broad leeway in conducting various operations. They could revoke it at any time. And yes, Congress authorizes all payments to countries, either directly or in a broad way e.g. specifically allowing the president to have discretion.

And yes, Putin is a dictator. His "elections" are clearly window dressing and there is no chance he will ever lose these "elections", just like Xi in China, Kim Jong Un, and so on. The Russian people in fact have no choice.

The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress and the States nearly unanimously. It is part of our Constitution, but if you desperately want an insurrectionist to be president, and there are enough like you, you can repeal the 14th Amendment with a vote by Congress and the States.

The Supreme Court is appointed by the President, who is elected. They will interpret the 14th Amendment and determine whether Trump should be on the ballot, based on the laws the people of the United States approved.

The US is a democracy. Russia is not.

Which part did congress give permission for exactly,Syrian occupation which till date the USA denies,troops in Iraq which are never mentioned,I guess congress also gave permission for the recent strikes in Yemen or for the billions spent on military aid(bombs,artilerry shells and guns,air defence) being sent to Israel weekly.plus congress is owned by defence contractors that's y they never have money to develop america or to alleviate poverty or curb homelessness but they always have money for military spending and interventions around the world

Also by saying your president is elected I take it you're kinda saying Russia doesn't have elected leaders since that's the narrative the mainstream media projects "Putin's a bad dictator and the Russian people have no choice and or are unhappy"
I guess saying you should do your own research is in order
Yeah Trump is being dragged up and down,facing court cases and being removed from the ballot in states,so much so for democracy

So no difference between a dictatorship and a democracy, as far as you are concerned?

I wouldn't call any country a bod one or bad guy as you say but the truth can't be hidden for long. Every country will show there true identity when they have lesser country to face or bully.
The US has committed so many crimes against humanity but are still not touched maybe because of their influence but the truth is every country has its own flaws but Russia only showed it's while others are hiding theirs

Without NATO, all of Europe would part of the Soviet Union.

Since is like NATO was against Russia federation, the Russia has no option than to fight back. The establishment of NATO from the start was to fight the Russia and make the powerless but because Russia is one time world power, that was very difficult for the NATO countries. I think the world would realize what's happening by the time Russia take over territories along it borders.
Poland should be very careful on the kind of decisions they make because it might be the next to be hit hard

It's quite democratic, yes. Congress specifically authorized the president to do that. And in our country, the president is elected.

Democracies aren't always right and they aren't always perfect, but they are far better than the alternative.

It's simply unfathomable that the US could engage in a war like Putin is waging now in Ukraine because our government is accountable to the people.

How many us troops are in Iraq,Syria,cyprus,turkey,egypt,philipines,germany,japan,many parts of Africa both those officially reported and those they can't disclose their presence including plausible in Ukraine and or Israel/Gaza
Get ur facts straight,the president has provisions to deploy up to 90,000 troops without congressional jurisdiction
Does that sound democratic to you?
Many us servicemen and women have been sent into harms way that you don't hear in the mainstream media until public opinion shifts to such issues or until they take casualties and they can no longer hide the reports

What parameters did you base your argument on?
Britain is effectively out of arms and has no military stockpile(check out articles in the daily telegraph which is a British media company or others like it),Germany is planning to train and field 5,000 -30,000 troops to be sent to the Baltics by 2027,
According to and admitted by western intelligence Russia is outproducing the entire west ie USA and all it's allies NATO inclusive in artillery,drones,missiles,tanks,aircrafts,ships,submarines,practically in everything Russia outproduces the west and in terms of troops,well simply put last year Russia added 500,000 plus troops well trained and equipped to the smo in Ukraine something none of the western countries is able to do
The USA is experiencing up to 65% fall in recruitment targets,all European militaries are a joke,they've never at any point in history been able to stand in the way of the Russian military so where are you getting your claims from or is it just wishful thinking

Also nuclear weapons are for deterrence and you thinking a conflict with a nuclear armed power means the other nation will be nuked means you're ill informed for instance Iran very recently had clashes with Pakistan and nukes weren't even mentioned so you need to stop all this fantasy and focus on reality

War also involves economy to sustain it,if a war were to break out between NATO and Russia ,the entire eurozone is in recession,Germany has been de-industrialised,France and Britain essentially have no standing army of more than 100,000 troops and that's me exaggerating,the USA's economy is a joke cos it's more of a virtual economy focusing on stocks and shares and outsourcing production to other countries and Russia which effectively produces everything it uses en masse backed by China the largest economy in the world,not mentioning iran, north Korea,Belarus and India
How exactly is it that you see NATO being able to even engage in not to talk of winning such a conflict



Were there any international sanctions imposed on Russia in connection with the smo in Ukraine or were they just us and the collective west sanctions?
Your analysis is very flawed and is very funny to read,you're implying that Russia an economic powerhouse,the largest country in the world in terms of land mass,the country with the largest deposits of oil,natural gas and other natural resources(till date america still imports uranium from Russia and even LNG),the largest producer of oil,natural gas,fertilizers,grains,a technological hub,a nuclear armed superpower with one of the if not the largest military industrial bases since recorded history of wars especially the 2world wars able to defeat Nazi Germany and  liberate all of eastern Europe
You're trying to make the argument that that same Russia is somehow a proxy and is being funded and or controlled albeit behind the scenes by China?
Totally laughable claim and devoid of reality


[moderator's note: multiple posts have been merged]

It's a double negative. If nobody will not use them then somebody will

Jokes aside, I'm not sure if Putin is completely sane. He uses nuclear arsenal as a deterrent saying that if attacked he will use them, but at the same time attacks other countries hoping that they won't. I'm also pretty sure that Ukrainians would nuke Russia if they had access to nukes, the same way that Palestinians would nuke Israel.
Knowing that, I think it's not a question if but when.

Take your idea of a war with NATO. NATO is much stronger than Russia, even if Russia was using Chinese weapons. It could prolong the war, but it wouldn't win it, mainly due to untrained army that would have to fight well trained artillery and tank crews from Germany, France and Sweden. Russia sends convicts to Ukraine because that's all they can do without weakening their borders. They expected a war that would last weeks and it's been years. What would happen if they started a war and lost it? Do you think NATO would push them back to the border and stop there? Defeated Russia might try to cover their escape with nuclear weapons.

Im not afraid of nukes nobody will not use them.
It's more just fear but not for real.

Donald Trump even hired a private company to evaluate the allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, if I recall correctly those were two companies specialized in auditing.
Some weeks ago, I recall one of the CEOs of those companies personally hired by Trump to appear on Television and relate their experience working for Trump.
The CEO admitted there was not evidence of widespread Fraud in the election and all Trump said was non-sense.
And to me it certainly makes some sense, because had those private firms found something incriminating the election workers or something which helped Trump to build a case against the federal government, then he would have already shown it all around Truth Social and even on Twitter/X.
Since he does not have anything to show, he does not mention those companies he hired.

I get what you are saying now.

I would say that Russia is the third most important actor in the world after the US and China. They still have thousands of nukes, and a formidable army--and geographically, they are very strategic.

And Russia is aligned against us just as China is, so I'm not sure what difference it make: we have to win in Ukraine or it will go very, very badly for us. No different than if we let Hitler take England and the rest of Europe. (Or actually far worse, because the world is more globalized now).

As a father I know that if Trump is elected and he surrenders Europe to Putin, my son will go to war a few years later. This is what happened in the 1930s and a big political faction in the US (half of the Republicans, it looks like to me) is intent in repeating history.

It did not make Russia Ukraine, but it supported that military operation and did not declare its opposition to it from the beginning, as most countries in the world did. It also did not abide by the international sanctions imposed on Russia and expressed its approval to buy Russian petroleum products. Isn't this considered declared support?

You can imagine what the situation would have been like if China had not been an ally of Russia, or it can be said that China is the one moving things behind the scenes on the Russian side, just as the United States plays the same role on the Ukrainian-western side.

So China made Russia invade Ukraine? How did they pull that off?

Currently, Russia does not pose a clear threat to other countries except Ukraine, but Western provocations may push it to do so. The expansion of the conflict outside Ukraine is what is causing turmoil in the global economic market and is what has compounded the crisis. The policy of economic sanctions on Russia had the opposite effect.

If you believe that Russia is the most important actor in the world, then your conclusions are completely inaccurate. There is a war between two camps, one led by the United States and the other led by China, and the Ukrainian war is only one manifestation of that conflict. Those forces that lead the alliances are the ones capable of causing the global economy to contract or stagnate.

Except that most of Trump's former staff said the opposite.

Isn't it weird how almost everybody who ever works with Trump eventually turns on him?