Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 348. (Read 76663 times)

There is nothing left of Mariupol. It is gone. They did shell it nearly to flatness and Putin's ships are now destroying a massacring what's left.

No Ukraine is not in control, but, at this point, looks like Putin isn't either. He cannot withdraw without achieving significant objectives or his reputation would be gone and his Russia would, under his own vision, humiliated.

As harsh as it is to speak of the balance between human life and territory, I am afraid that yes, there is balance to be considered. The basis of this war is that Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Putin and are willing to die for it.

On the weaponry, I think it is not a magic wand, but it is a game changer. With a man portable tank destroyer you have to get really close to a big nasty and ready to kill main battle tank - I would not want to be there honestly. If you can send a drone from 20 miles away and do the job at zero risk to the guy, it changes the game and - my point - it changes the economics. It makes destroying very expensive weapons relatively cheap.

Putin will push forward, but, as impressive as his army may appear, it has a limit. Producing good war stuff is really expensive and eventually does lead to the economical impossibility of waging war or doing so with some effectiveness.

English is not my native language, although I have a decent command of it. I do not quite understand the meaning of your message, what exactly do you want to convey to me? That there are people who adhere to ultra-right views in the People's Militia of Donbass? Well, it is possible - eight years of life under shelling from Ukraine probably contribute to the radicalization of views. As Domitius Ulpian said, "a way of thinking is not punishable." Inside your head, you can hold whatever views you want, whether right or left, and you can even go as far as you want in your ideological radicalization. In Russia there is no Ministry of Truth, which indicates how to think. It is not thoughts that are punished, but illegal actions. If there are illegal actions on the part of the people's militia of Donbass, they will also be punished. If these actions threaten Russia, they will be punished by Russia. Otherwise, this is an internal affair of the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

You're referring to these type of events?

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/ukrainian-civilians-stripped-tied-up-and-beaten-by-vigilantes-in-shocking-videos/news-story/3a2abcc0a87815925dce0db9cee1c09a

Sure is news to me. Maybe it's not widespread and it appears this phenomenon is recent. War usually brings out the animalistic and tribalistic side of people. There is no police, no law and order, so people resort to retribution by mob. And it usually involves a lot of violence, apparently including tying women to a pole and beating them senselessly. There isn't much to understand, when civil society collapses under war so do social norms. I consider what these Ukrainians are doing to be tame compared to what goes on in middle eastern societies, where the punishment of being raped is being killed for having brought upon so much shame. Some might even be stoned to death for being gay. Of course, there is no logic or humanity under consideration. For the vast majority of human history, we've been pretty terrible to our fellow humans.

can anyone give me a real explanation for why people are tied up on poles in Ukraina?
I saw a lot of that, they are often marked with a "moroder" inscription. (I understand what the name itself represents). what confuses me, is probably two different sources Russian/Ukrainian, so everyone interprets it in their own way.
On one side, these are people who are against the Ukrainian government and the Nazis, while the other side claims to be thieves trying to take advantage of the current lawlessness.
I have also seen it go from humiliation to torture and ill-treatment. women are also not spared all this.

isn't there a more civilized solution to punishing criminals? the war will end once, that's for sure, who will then be recognized as a criminal. "moroder" or the hand of justice that brought judgment in the street?

My point wasn't that there are zero Nazis defending Ukraine right now.  Obviously there are Nazis on both sides of the battle.  In Ukraine, they basically have no political power and are really only relevant because they are pretty good at fighting and have been recruiting others to join (like any 'good' Nazi anywhere in the world).  

Then there's the Nazis on the other side:


Here's a pretty detailed paper, I've only gotten through part of it so far https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rnv95_uk_likhachev_far-right_radicals_final.pdf


(It won't let me copy paste the text)

Is a month too long for you to cover an area the size of the UK? Do not relax there, given the rich traditions of Bandera in Ukraine, there are at least a few more months of total cleansing ahead.

Totally agree with you. There were especially many of them in the maternity hospital, the Nazis (lots of which are jewish, of course, like their clown President) pretended to be pregnant so that they would not be suspected, but noone can fool the majestic russian army like that.

Only here such a question arises. How did russia, which has been declaring such a desperate struggle against the Nazis for so many years that they even have killed Stepan Bandera several times, miss the moment when there were so many of nationalists in Ukraine that entire cities had to be destroyed just to "denazify" them? Didn't they promote their pro-russian rats in the Ukrainian parliament? Didn't they give orders straight from moscow? How did it happen that they had to use such a powerful army for such a long time (after all, a month is not three days) to arrange a massacre of the Nazis? Probably, Azov has been secretly recruiting people all this time, only the stupid one will not understand this. But how could the liberating russia not notice this, if they have everything here "under control"? That`s a tricky question...

You are walking on very thin ice trying to justify Nazism. In Russian cities there are no streets of Stepan Bandera, as in forty cities of Ukraine. There are no Nazi torchlight processions in Russia. In Russia, it is not customary to glorify Nazism. If there is something similar in other European countries, the current events in Ukraine are a chance to wonder if they want to continue doing this, risking running into a "denazification" operation. Russian troops are not liberating Ukraine, they are engaged in its "demilitarization". Without an army and weapons, you can jump as much as you like.

In short, it always arrives strictly only at the place where reconnaissance drones or space satellites recorded firing at the positions of Russian troops. An exception to this rule is military infrastructure objects confirmed by intelligence (military airfields, fuel and ammunition depots, etc.). This operation is also Putin's performance for NATO combat generals, who are closely watching what is happening and they are not brainwashed by inspiring propaganda, they soberly assess what is happening. Putin shows NATO the capabilities of modern Russian weapons and how to fight - without general mobilization, without numerical superiority and without burning entire neighborhoods with fire.

NATO does not get involved in this war - so the lesson is learned correctly. Biden said yesterday that the Kinzhal hypersonic missile is basically nothing special, it's just almost impossible to stop. It flies for 1000 kilometers at a speed of Mach 10 in a cloud of hot plasma, invisible to missile defense radars and at the same time able to maneuver. It is capable of hitting buried objects protected from nuclear weapons or, for example, an aircraft carrier. NATO thought it was a cartoon, because they have nothing like this in their arsenal, but it turned out to be a reality. Didn't the Russian Solntsepek system impress you? This is the one that destroyed the barracks at the express training center for reservists the night before yesterday. For the townsfolk, what is happening is a tragedy, but for the military, it's just work. And the Russian military is doing a good job.
Of course it's a success. What makes you think that a blitzkrieg was planned? From Russia, about 200 thousand soldiers take part in the operation, against 300 thousand soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (whom the West has been pumping up with weapons for many years and trained by NATO instructors) and with a total length of the front line of 3.5 thousand kilometers. Now look at the map of hostilities (if you do not believe the data of the Russian Defense Ministry, take the data that is published in the West). Or is it presented in the Ukrainian media as a tactical lure of Putin's soldiers to their territory before a decisive march on Moscow?  

Really?

Inside A White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine (by Time)

Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government (by The Jimmy Dore Show)

Ukraine's far-right children's camp: 'I want to bring up a warrior' (by The Guardian)

This is not Russian propaganda, these are investigations and reports from the Western media. Enjoy.

There is no indication that "the West" can influence Ukrainians to stop or continue fighting. Giving them weapons gives them a chance.


My strategy? And how far do you think I am LOL. I hope it's the figurative "you".

Now the real "me" has no doubt that the only way to make the conflict worse for Ukrainians and Eastern (and probably all of) Europe is to not support them and/or try to convince them to surrender to Putin. Carpets or no carpets, Ukrainians don't want to live in Putin's Russia, and for a good reason. So much so that they consider dying while defending their land as an acceptable alternative.

So the choice isn't escalation vs no escalation, the choice is Ukrainians using Javelins vs using rocks and potatoes. I don't think that rocks and potatoes would result in fewer Ukrainian casualties. It would also likely result in Putin marching on to other countries.

There are no good options left here, I believe Ukraine is stuck between bad and worst. Fighting should only go on for as long as there's a chance to change the outcome. Ukraine doesn't benefit from additional loss of life once the the outcome becomes inevitable. West sending in encouragements and military weapons, rarely means that its in that nations best interest, just means that its to the West's benefit.

Do you think that Ukrainians stand to win if escalations lead to true carpet bombings and a huge loss of life? US set a terrible precedence on how to get a nation to accept its terms (and culturally Japan was much more reluctant), and your whole strategy on escalations based on Russia not doing the same (minus the nukes)? When you're far away it's easy to encourage Ukrainians and send them weapons you're not risking your life, with the added bonus of undercutting Putin, but is it ethical? History is written by the winners, just look at US/Japan relationship now.

Interesting links Tash, good to see you aren't only relying on unsourced youtube videos and images of words on twitter anymore:


So basically, Putin is trying to do the opposite of de-nazification.  

Some other fun facts:

That would imply that the Chinese government is dumber than Putin, which I really doubt. China will sit on the sidelines for as long as they need to so that they can get Siberia on the cheap.


What are you still babbling about? What "terms"? Denazification? Putin lied about everything and is still lying so there isn't any trust in him that would make some mythical "terms" feasible.

Funny how you talk about "pawns" in the same sentence where you're implying that the Ukrainians can be just told to accept "terms" and stop fighting. At this point it's very unlikely they would do so and it's getting less likely with every civilian death. Threatening them with more civilian deaths is not going to make them want Russian "terms".

Pretty sure we'd see millions of casualties if Russia wanted to carpet shell a city. There's also no point of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks when there's a Father of All Bombs in your arsenal. Plus the hypersonic missile kinda proved that if Russia didn't care for civilians they could've take out Zelenksy on day one just with a press of a button.

Very doubtful of effectiveness of those switchblades, but sure lets imagine that they're a game changer as claimed. US litters every meter of Ukrainian soil with them along with ATGM and MANPADS. But what's the point, what's the end goal, is it to maximize damage on Russia at a cost of Ukraine or someone believes that Putin will just turn around and leave? Taking Afghanistan as an example, do you think civilians benefited from all of the advanced weapons Afghani soldiers received to fight Taliban? The benefit for US is pretty clear, US gets to fuck with Russia with minimal cost and zero risk to itself, sure why not, lets do another escalation. Now what options will Russia have? Either fold and go home to a guaranteed economical, political and possibly (physical?) suicide, or in a mirror reply to escalation with escalation. Either start getting military help from China, or raise the stakes that's where real carpet bombing will start, go full scorched earth like US in Vietnam. Cost/benefit for US is pretty clear, but is anyone still thinks that Ukraine is in control of any of this? Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen?

If you're still not disillusioned that this is about Ukraine. Here we have Macron saying
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-22-22/h_7c10a14208a9646586b8dc400c9a51f5

And then Biden saying That we're at inflection point for new world order can't imagine any of this is good for Ukraine and if warmongering will make things any better for Ukraine

Yeah there must be hundreds of thousands of those "nationalists" in Mariupol alone because Russian forces had attacked nearly every building and they still haven't been able to take the city.

In other news, Putin the great liberator is determined to kill civilian Donbas population on "his" side as well, by making them into cannon fodder:

https://kyivindependent.com/national/russia-throws-untrained-civilians-from-occupied-donbas-into-hot-spots-of-its-war-in-ukraine/

Success? Bruh, you must have experienced such a serious failures in your life that this looks like a win of some short. Precise munition? WTF, you are carpet-shelling cities... unless you mean precise within +/-10km or the like.

Russia is achieving some territorial "gains" (gains of a hostile territory, not something sustainable) at the cost of equipment that is costly and that, due to sanctions and isolation, probably not easy to replace. If anything is clear on this war is that Putin failed spectacularly in his assumptions (e.g. they won't resist, EU will not act united, ...)

On the rumour front, a large contingent of troops that were near Kyiv seems to actually been cut-out of supplies. Unconfirmed, but plausible.

I made a post on the economics of war mentioning:


A switchblade drone costs 6000 USD, it can be used by a nearly untrained grunt and can destroy a 5 million USD tank or even a multi-million S-400 system. And that is without the guy having to even get close to the target. Guess what? USD has sent a very large batch Putin's way. I would be f**ng scared to be on one of Putin's tanks right now. A javelin or a MLAW have the same rate of "economic effectiveness".

It is not only about winning territory or cities, is about having a win that does not leave your army half-destroyed and unable to respond to revolts in other parts of Putin's Tzardom or with such a number of dead soldiers or POWs that he can no longer propagandize his way out of the fiasco.





And with that answer you are implicitly confirming that even yourself considered it as propaganda 

Tell me more about their high-precision weapons... Is that Grad, Uragan or Smerch? These "high precision" weapons probably hit civilian objects way more times than they hit military infrastructure. Offcourse, you can always use excuse that civilian object was base of nationalists.

It means that someone was attracted from the second group, mostly the letter Z flashes on military equipment.

The uniqueness of this operation is that Russia does not have a numerical superiority over the well-armed and motivated regular troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and this contradicts all the canons of military science (the attacking side must have a three-sixfold numerical advantage). The success of the operation is largely due to Russia's dominance in the air and preventive strikes with high-precision weapons on military infrastructure.

Ukraine's plan was to attack the Donbass in early March and have NATO declare a no-fly zone. Putin struck a preemptive strike when he realized that a clash was inevitable, and he himself declared a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Plus, he struck not from the east, where he was expected, but from the north and south, confusing all the cards for the generals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ukraine lost this operation even before it began.

You are absolutely right

In winter, military exercises took place on Russian territory near the border with Ukraine, in which two groups participated - Z and V (west and east). Now a group of Z is involved in the operation. And where is the second group V? Probably in operational reserve, polishing uniforms for the parade, but this is not certain.