Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 300. (Read 73604 times)

Why do you want to start a war with the facts I present? You've lost your war from the get-go.

---

You forgot to read the article. Civilians die in wars just like soldiers. For the past 8 years, Russian civilians were dying at the hands of Ukranians by the thousands. And Putin is supposed to stand for the US not listening to his pleas for the US to stop supporting the Ukraine? Click the links to the article, above.

It's still mind blowing to me the fact that, with very few exceptions, the people that defended Trump the hardest are the ones defending Putin the hardest.  Such a gullible bunch of skeptics you guys are.

Ever thought how those ratings are checked? They call random people and ask them questions, but the trick is that if they know the number, they know who they're calling. Russians fear repressions so they either say they support Putin or act dumb and say they don't care about politics.
What repressions? Those that get you arrested for every little thing. A guy was arrested for wearing shoes in the colors of the Ukrainian flag. An old lady was arrested for walking with a "no to war" card.
A commander of the fleet was arrested when Moskva sunk and a local mayor of a town where a couple houses burned due to forest fires was also arrested because in Russia when things go wrong somehow you look for someone to blame and put in jail.

That's why Putin's troops attacked and tried to conquer Kyiv, while "accidentally" murdering civilians, yes?
"special military operation" my ass!
You're delusional, my brainwashed friend.

That seem to be the odessa catacombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_Catacombs

Time to look at the rest of the story. You are missing it.


'Russia Started the War' and Other Fallacies

Mostly. Unfortunately what Trump does affects the US and the rest of the world and it is not possible to ignore it. A few of the things you mention, like the "police was welcoming people" do not match with the police dead. Perhaps the party got out of control or what's the cover for that?

If Russia wants friendly relations with his neighbours that's what they should be aiming for. They failed and used violence (they did not get the chick and decided to rape).

Anyway, back to Ukraine. I hope you slept well too.


Unlikely, a 0.0001% chance of that.

Congratulations. You are still alive, even though you are living with politics.

Trump's method of communicating isn't a problem for anyone except himself, maybe. Anybody who doesn't like it can stop listening.

Now you are simply lying. Trump didn't shoot or attempt to shoot anyone.

The videos show the Capitol police welcoming everyone in on January 6.

Trump was promoting free trade with Russia and the Ukraine and the US. Putin liked it. No war there.

Biden stopped the free trade with Russia. War is the result.

Putin doesn't want war. How do we know? He hasn't nuked the free world as he could if he were a war monger.

The whole thing is about bringing countries into NATO, countries that are bordering Russia. Quit threatening Russia. If there had been no serious threat to them, there would be no war right now, just like there was no threat to them with Trump.

Canada and Mexico have no strength to oppose Russia. If Russia moved into Canada or Mexico, and had friendly relations with them, wouldn't that irritate the US government?

Stop irritating Russia. Pull the US out of the Ukraine before the war goes worldwide with no chance of stopping it.

Did you have a good sleep?

It's another proof of constant denials by Russians. You can clearly see a bus with V on it so that Russians would not shoot it. There's no reason for Ukrainians to use that mark as it would draw fire from their own troops.
Russian answer - our soldiers don't drive in vans, you're stupid. They don't mark cars with V, it would only drive attention.

In reality:
Russian special forces use 'Red Cross' ambulances to practise brutal ambush techniques
Belarusian journalists received numerous photo and video reports of cars without licence plates, but marked with the V sign on the sides and bumpers driving on Belarusian roads.

When they catch you stealing, tell them it's all propaganda and you were not really there.
This is a prime example of how Russians really are. Lie when you get caught and maybe you'll make it somehow.
2 russians try to trick ukrainian police officer

I know nothing about what the US is not saying about their real capabilities (particularly in stealth and interception). The Russ military is so infiltrated that one of these days the specs of the S-500 are going to be published in a Brit tabloid along with the marital affairs of Jonny Deep. If you care to look at these specs you will find out that they are intended to intercept ICBM, not even Russia dares to claim intercepting a hypersonic missile - I mean a serious claim, not blah blah. (e.g. "we can intercept hypersonic cruise missiles because our missiles goes at this much speed" - basically ignoring why is it actually difficult to kill these boys - detecting on time.

They US guy is absolutely right - it does present difficulties as does the real threat: China. It is simply that you are claiming capabilities from the Russ systems that are simply not there (e.g. interception of hypersonic missiles) and then saying that "you do not need to convince" - AKA providing false information. I know you are trying to assure Russian people that they are safe on the basis of "superior weapons", but anyone with a VPN knows better. I really hope that people in Belgorod, now in artillery range from Ukraine, are not the first ones to find.

Indeed, hypersonic missiles are a serious problem, even with a limited "hypersonic" capability. Very difficult to detect and very difficult to stop, perfect for carrier killing. The US military is very open about it for one reason: they want funds to deal with this threat and they will get them.

Will Russia keep up the spending pace under sanctions that include electronic components and a GDP that is more than 10 times less than US? Not to mention NATO's full budget which ranges in the 20 times more? Who do you think is going to get to the NW and hypersonic interception capability before? And now the US citizens are even more keen into chipping in the coin to do it - thanks to who?... you know.

Russia Pulls Back From Another Big City, Kharkiv
The withdrawal represents one of Russia’s more significant setbacks since its retreat from Kyiv. Finland’s declaration that it will join NATO is a further blow to the Kremlin.

Moscow is withdrawing forces from around Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, where it has been losing ground, Ukrainian and Western officials say, in one of Russia’s biggest setbacks since its retreat from Kyiv last month.

Officials say the Kremlin will probably redirect troops to the southeast, where it is said to be bolstering its forces in Izium, a city it captured last month. Izium, about two hours southeast of Kharkiv, has become a crucial operations center for Russia, which is said to be making gains in the eastern Donbas region, where fighting has been relentless.

One of President Vladimir V. Putin’s stated war aims — stopping NATO expansion — became an even more remote possibility on Thursday as Finland’s leaders declared unequivocally that it would join the alliance. Sweden is likely to be next. Russian officials said they would consider the countries’ entry into NATO a security threat.

You know nothing about Russian missiles, but I see no reason to try to convince you - so be it. The main thing is that the Pentagon knows this, whose head Lloyd Austin recently said that in the present and future, the nuclear arsenal that Russia has presents serious difficulties for the United States.

Of course, Russian soldiers on a minu-bus, ridiculous lol... what is going to be next? Them trying to scape a drone in a Lada ... that cannot be!

If NATO wanted to have nukes at less than 500 miles from Moscow, it would be perfectly possible already. Vilnus is quite close....

False, Russia has no capability to intercept hypersonic missiles.

On the nuclear threat, the existing S-400 missile stands some chance of stopping an small number of warheads if placed in large numbers and very close to the warheads targets. S-500 at most can intercept short range ballistic missiles and there are only very costly few units (I wonder how will they be produced without semiconductors in the future). Russia does not have an advantage on NW delivery platforms by sea or air. The North Pole and the South Pole are there for everyone to use - confers zero advantage. A hypersonic missile, as of now, can deliver one warhead at mid-range only, as opposed to ICBM that can deliver multiple (even 40) warheads both real and decoy.

EDITED TO CORRECT: S-400 can at most intercept short range ballistic missiles, other than re-entry stage ICMB warheads with low certainty.

In sum, there is no Russian weapon that can protect a large city from a determined attack. I am not aware of US having one either, I am just suspecting that THAAD is not all there is.

The argument of Putin trying to avoid nukes in close proximity is completely flawed, that ship has already sailed (like the Moskva). Putin psychologically, is a gangster. He understand only the language of threats and intimidation and somehow he is convinced that his intimidation power is reduced if UKR joins NATO. But I am wondering, what is the real underlying strategic issue behind the war. It could be:

- Nuking to close to Russia would backfire. Russia would be affected. Having Ukraine between Russia and NATO makes a nuclear threat more credible.
- There is some interception system in NATO that is not widely known but could potentially work in early launch stages.

An the reason I think is correct, and that battle is lost with Finland joining NATO: Putin's Russia cannot economically defend a very large border with NATO at the same time as with China and control the extremists in Georgia and Syria. Unfortunately, he got most of this wrong.

NATO's strategy is to get closer to Russia and thus reduce the reaction time for the Russian missile defense system. Russia's strategy is to have a significant advantage in the means of delivering nuclear weapons, by increasing the range and speed of missiles. NATO and Russia are both quite successful in their strategies, but whose strategy is more effective I hope I will never know in practice.

In simple words, Russian missiles are now so fast and long-range that NATO does not have adequate countermeasures. They can fly over the North Pole, bypassing NATO missile defense systems, they can even fly over the South Pole. This is if we are talking about land-based missiles, and Russia's nuclear triad also includes sea- and air-based missiles, which are on constant combat duty. In the event of a serious mess, I would not hesitate to bet on Russia. To effectively intercept missiles, you need to be twice (and preferably four times) faster. At the moment, any NATO missiles are noticeably slower than Russians. As Biden said about the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, it's an ordinary missile, it's just almost impossible to intercept it. And Russia has missiles two to three times faster than Kinzhal, as well as the S-500 missile defense system, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles, which NATO, in principle, still does not have. It is technically not easy to make a rocket for which flight in a cloud of hot plasma is a regular mode of operation, well, Russian engineers succeeded. Old school rocket science has no unsolvable problems.

You seem to be a sane person, but you eat all sorts of shit and don’t even wince. Tank special forces on a minibus lol.

Ruble Surpasses Brazil’s Real as year to date best performing currency

Fair enough, it may be not a lie in the sense that Putin et al may honestly believe it, but the fact is that no one wants to fight Russia. A resource-rich country with nuclear weapons... it's in everyone's best interest for it to be stable and friendly, so much so that even in the face of aggression (like 2008 in Georgia and 2014 in Ukraine) the rest of the world was like "nah, Putin's actually a good guy and if we buy enough gas from him, everything will be fine".

As for interception... considering that NATO deployed Patriots only in Romania (AFAIK) in the 20+ years since the expansion eastward began, and it was Romanians buying it, not NATO "donating" it, doesn't seem like it was a huge concern, at least not geographically. Now probably NATO will stack missile defence three rows deep along the entire border, again a great victory for the geopolitical genius Vladimir Vladimirovich.

I can live with Trump politics and I can live with Biden's. The problem is how Trump tends to communicate and respond to criticism by trying to shoot anyone opposing. Seriously, even getting near to supporting a mob assaulting the congress would have been science fiction before him.

No, you have stated that the Russian invasion would have not happened with Trump. That is a quite bold guess. My guess is that it would have happened anyway, but due to his "experience" with Ukraine and his narcissistic personality it would have ended either letting Putin take Ukraine or on a full scale NATO intervention with a clear risk of nuclear war. Your guess, my guess. And now, guess who is going to sleep.  

Isn't this the guy that was supposed to be dead?
I remember reading a posts in this thread where some of our supporters of Russia were saying that Azov or whoever kidnapped and killed this "independent journalist".

It's common for Russian trolls to use fear and misinformation tactics. For instance, Lukashenko did an interview yesterday and staged it so that the journalist of a state-owned TV channel would ask if he's prepared for an attack by Poland, so that he'd be able to make an unwarranted threat towards that country, a country that Belarus was attacking since the beginning of the year with the use of migrants from Africa and their own military, disguised as civilians.

Putin tries to make it look like NATO and Ukraine are the aggressors, yet NATO is not issuing any threats. I'd like to remind everyone than NATO is not flying its bombers into the air space of Russia, or Belarus, it's not staging attacks on any borders, it's not sending military personnel to blind border patrols with lasers in hope of provoking them to fire and last but not least, it's not waging a war (and losing).


Makes me think how many more are swimming at the bottom. In the picture with a closeup of T72 tanks that managed to cross the river you can see a lot of scrap right under the surface and then the water gets too deep to see anything. Probably a bunch of their tanks went looking for Moskva. 

You miss the point entirely. Anybody can predict this or that about Trump and any future. But since Trump isn't the POTUS, those predictions don't matter one bit.

What matters? The thing that matters is that Biden is POTUS, and all the bad things Trump naysayers predicted about Trump are happening under Biden... and probably worse.

I will give you half a point on this one. Russia does know what doesn't - is just that they keep on doing it.


Well, it certainly seems that YOU can make YOUR bold assumptions, but I am not granted that opportunity. Very typical of a Trump supporter. Anyway, Trump is not the POTUS and there is another thread in politics where you can rant as much as you like.

You may want to read about the scenarios that are built around the possibility of using nuclear weapons. While it is something that I would not like to test, it is not an immediately "all nukes in", there is escalation and chances to stop. Again, there are YOUR bold assumptions, that cannot be wrong because they are inspired by your God (Trump I assume).

Your argument about Russia being a country that could be fully autonomous industrially is right in the principle. The USSR was quite disconnected (apart from the COMECON, which was not of much use). The problem is that the rest of the world is perfectly able to grow faster by commerce, growing on the exchanges of strengths, etc... Which is one of the reasons why the USSR disintegrated, despite having all natural resources at their disposal.

As simple as this, interconnexion creates competitivity and markets, autarky brings corruption, kleptocracy, inefficiency and the inability of keeping up with an adversary. Again, many of those traits exist in Russia and that is why it has been unable to bring more countries into its sphere of influence pacifically and the reason why Ukraine is being invaded.


I am not sure it is a lie TBH, it is probably the only "reason" that may have, from Putin's view, at least some coherence. However it is mostly a flawed argument, since NATO has not invaded any country. In fact, many countries did not support US stance on Iraq other than US a a few lightweights.

I am still wondering if there is out there a system of early nuclear interception that works in a 300 or so km range from the launch point. That could explain all the fuss about security.