Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 351. (Read 78223 times)

And the over 16000 deaths in the last 8 years?

How the Nazis defend

The Yunarmiya exists in Russia, has a patriotic ideology and a power orientation. But this is not Nazism - simply because Russia is a very multinational country, different religions, different language groups, Russia's ideology is supranational and its political ambitions are more of an imperial nature.

Ukraine has a birth trauma from the break with Russia after the collapse of the USSR, and it elevated its nationalism to the absolute, making it radical. Ukraine had a chance to build its own future - original and free, if it overcame its inferiority complex and did not rely on anti-Russian rhetoric. You yourself became dependent on the United States and chose the path of a puppet.

It looks like you are a Nazi vulgaris, which in principle is not surprising. I respect the Ukrainian people, their rich history of music, art and literature, but the ultra-right nationalist propaganda that has been implanted as the dominant ideology in the western regions of Ukraine since childhood is turning your people into a herd of mindless jumping baboons, openly chanting anti-Russian chants. I don’t understand what’s the point of setting up this zoo in the center of Europe and instilling in fragile minds the idea of ​​the superiority of the Ukrainian race and that everyone owes you something. Bullying prisoners is the current level of your civilization, and this is very sad.

And the people in Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic have voted to break away, and have the own country.
Zelenskyy, Putin, you, I or anyone else has no say in the matter.
Let me remind you coercion is not legal.

They have a limited say, but an attack on any member is an attack on all. If that is not honoured, NATO would cease to exist. US and other members would take a"proportional response" as it is the standard in diplomacy and war. The choice of means and targets could vary - but certainly the nuclear response is not the first choice to respond to a non-nuclear aggression.



Biden has already enough trouble with his popularity and chances of re-election to do that. He needs something he can sell as a successful peace and there is no way he can do so giving away Ukraine. Also, that would be a huge strategic error for the future and US analysts know that it would leave a less safe - thus more expensive - world behind.


I think that it is very clear which side I am on: best case for Europe and Ukraine. US & China are only getting stronger with this and Putin's Tzardom, insofar as most of their population seem to be quite apathic about how they are governed, is not of my concern other than their ability to cause problems to others.

Certainly, not a war with WMD would fit a desirable solution to any party, which is the point of my post.

Again, I think that my position on this is very clear, but if I have to make it even more clear: a solution that causes a low number of civilian casualties, something the parties can live with given the damage inflicted to both sides, something that can be politically accepted for the relevant stakeholders, and, above all, a solution that does not encourage or that makes economically unfeasible any further conflict in the future.

On regards to your comments on EU, of course, ideally Europe wants this gone ASAP. While short term Germany chose to interlink with Russia, I think their leaders have gotten the message quite clear and the strategic exposure to Russia, while unchangeable short term, can and will be changed during the next five years. You cannot feed the bear no mater how nice he looks when asleep.

On your comment on Ukraine, people all over the world want to progress and "live better" in the ample sense. They know that this is not happening if they are part of the Tzardom. Also, people tend to like feeling free, even if freedom is never perfect something that, again, does not happen under a despotic foreign power's direct control.


As said many times, if you go back in time enough you would have to give it all to the Mongols. Whatever historically happened to a territory is not the base of who and how should hold the legitimate right to govern - that is simply medieval philosophy and justifying ruling and submission "by the grace of God" or on "historical rights of conquest".

In the world today, that right belongs only to the people who actually live in there.

I understand that you being a Kremlin Troll cannot grasp the concept of people choosing their own leaders and governments.

Din't take long for the vultures to turn up and grab a slice of the Ukraine carcass.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/27/poland-will-quietly-take-lviv-ivano-frankivsk-volyn-rovno-if-the-russians-do-not-stop/

Woulda been smarter to let   Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic break away, and thats it.
Heart and soul Dnepropetrovsk and Kirovohrad Oblasts.

I've always somehow just 'sensed' that Russia will arrange for Kiev and Odessa to be easily under their grasp then use them as bargaining chips for a settlement which makes Eastern Ukraine an autonomous or maybe full state (and obviously a client state or protectorate).

My 'instinct' about this might be mostly because it would be about what I'd do to the degree that I understand what Russia probably wants and needs, and what they probably have no interest in.  e.g., trying to deal with a bunch of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist miscreants who are strategically more desirable to have as the West's problem.

It would not surprise me at all of the wrath of the ultra-nationalists would be much more raw toward the West who totally fucked them up the ass.  It's pretty understandable even to them that the Eastern people (even if their grandparents were Soviet era stay-behind settlers) did what they had to do to avoid the attempted genocide that the nationalists were implementing in Donbass.  OTOH, the West promising them the moon and then leaving them high and dry to be decimated when the going got rough has got to sting.  They are already pre-disposed to blame 'the Jews', and it isn't hard to make that case.  I'm not expecting these people to be easy-going and friendly toward anybody for quite some time.  That's not to say that they won't be 'useful' for a variety of operations though.

I think Russia is now in no hurry to invade Western Ukraine, because the ideas of radical nationalism have penetrated very deeply into the mentality and they are almost all Nazis there, demilitarization can transform into mass genocide. It is necessary at least first to completely defeat the regular army of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass in order to demoralize the militants in the Lviv region and try to push them to Poland to the maximum so that this becomes Europe's problem with refugees on its territory.

We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right? So in reality, US, who's officially not a party to this conflict, and under no obligation whatsoever, deciding to attack Russia under whichever flag, would probably lead to Nuclear Winter. I mean Putin would have to be a saint to just stand down and save the world. Frankly i just don't see it happening. I'm not an expert on this by any means so imagining that within minutes of the attack a single hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere in Poland EMP frying some airplanes and troops stationed there getting radiation poisoning. Auto MAD system and Russian Dead Hand are activated. Hundreds of thousands die, and some idiots whom humans somehow bestowed with such powers, pick up the red phones and decide if they should end our civilization.

Realistic case: US sells out Ukraine with some backhanded deal with Russia. Covered in such a way so everyone saves face

Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head:
-Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence
-US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing
-EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter
-Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba.
-China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another Marshall Plan for Europe.



Russia is in survival mode. It tried to compete on the soft power field, but its sphere of influence was being taken away with cookies faster than it could grow. They were playing a game that they were meant to loose. Boat was rocked too far, and we're seeing Russia take its last stand.
Truth Is the First Casualty in War always was, and probably will be. Information warfare is a thing and is just another front. US has control over mass media and social networks, so they can just censor unfavorable coverage like this (not safe for life!) and majority would never know about this, if Russia had such soft power it wouldn't have rolled tanks into Ukraine in the first place. Yeah it's fucked up and unfortunately I'm afraid it's only the begging and I fully expect them to follow in US's footsteps like with Kent State massacre

The complaints are Russia making it a crime to call the war a war.  Look at all those media outlets that had to close up shop and leave the country because they were afraid if they reported on the war truthfully they would be arrested or worse.
 Don't you think that's fucked up?  Wouldn't it be nice if Russian news was independent of the government and the people were free to disagree with Putin?

Now Russia stated that more limited goal of this war, or ''special military operation'' how they call it is liberation of Donbass:
https://globalnews.ca/news/8709579/russia-donbass-ukraine-war-kyiv/
Question - liberate from what? Since 2014 Donbass is controlled by Russian separatists
And also, Ukraine regained control of Kherson - first big city that was occupied by Russia in the beginning of war.

I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda.

As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution?

On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia. First step NATO will have to do is control the sky, to do that it needs to take out all Russian planes and try to take out all Russian anti-aircraft missile systems and ships with AA capabilities, many AA systems are located on Belarus and Russian land. If all of these countries in their great wisdom decide to make this regional war into global, stop pretending to be a defensive pact and start shooting down Russian planes, and if i somehow survive initial blasts as a radioactive ghoul, my sole mission in life (?) would be to hunt down and eat the brains of any remaining survivors who participated in that decision making!

Hope surviving astronauts would be able to transmit out a last message into space that the Great Filter is maniacs in power, and send out our world's history finishing it with

World is unfair, care to estimate civilian deaths from US embargo on Cuba? They're commies but somehow totally different from Chinese commies which are the biggest trade partner, despite literally whole world (except Israel) asking it to stop for like 30yrs now.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612

US couldn't care less and justifies it as an existential threat, i fail to see why same logic cannot apply to Russia and Ukraine. Yeah unfair, still I bet any Cuban wishes to have it as good as Ukraine did, but sucks for them both. Putin will take Ukraine, easy way or the hard way, or Russia will collapse, or of course we all die in a nuclear winter. There's also a good chance of Russia taking Ukraine but then still collapsing afterwards. I put chances of scaring Russia out of Ukraine with escalations at the same level as scaring US into letting Russia go into Cuba.

Edit: i can't spell

Lynx Vehicles at the Checkpoint in Mariupol
https://youtu.be/DkjqW5O44KY

Biden warns of "real" food shortage following sanctions on Russia
https://youtu.be/tIg96D2lhbw

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

The whole world is frankly laughing at the fakes of Ukrainian propaganda. You're leaving out one simple thing - wars are won by planes, missiles and tanks on the battlefield, not by videos with editing and graphics from video games on TV and on the Internet.

https://youtu.be/VgsVJADK8jg

The transition to personalities in forum discussions is always evidence of the weakness of the interlocutor's argumentation, but I will answer you to this as well. There is no war in Russia either, there is a special operation on the territory of Ukraine. There is no general mobilization in Russia, professionals are doing well without my help.

You can be awarded a medal: "Not as absolute killers as you could be."
the russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties -> means you haven`t killed everyone in Ukraine yet. Some of us, thank God, you just can't reach.





Your so-called soldiers are taken prisoner by whole platoons with equipment and their snotty generals. They do not understand what they are fighting for and hate those who sent them to die in Ukraine. They know that they are murderers, they know that they are killing unarmed people and even children, they are just shooting those who are standing in line for bread or for humanitarian aid. Their deaths are in vain, they don't even realize why they lived at all.

I see you are a big supporter of war. Believe in your righteous cause. I have a question: do you have such a great internet catch from the tank that you write here every ten minutes? Or do you still prefer to sit in a warm apartment (until you cut off the latest resources and the Internet) and write here, how well you understand the war and the politics of your low state? If the second option is yours, then why not change the situation and enlist in the army (until you are forcibly mobilized, it's still not far off), do not go to Ukraine and look at what your adorable army are doing here? An unforgettable experience will be guaranteed.

Of course I understand this correctly. Russia is conducting a military operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine and, as part of achieving its goals, strikes at everything that shoots. If the shooters are hiding in residential buildings, strikes are made on residential buildings. The strikes will continue until the desire and ability of Ukraine to continue to shoot will not completely disappear.

The appearance of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is a farce, negotiations are going on without a ceasefire. The negotiators essentially do not decide anything, their composition makes one doubt their authority to decide anything at all. The operation will end when Russia reaches its goals in full, and the attempts of the Ukrainian side to negotiate better terms of surrender are ridiculous. I regret the losses on both sides, but it is unacceptable for Russia to show pity now, because it will be perceived by the West as a sign of weakness. Anyone who does not lay down their arms will be killed. I respect the Ukrainian soldiers who continue to fight without a chance to win, their death will be heroic, although in vain. Russia offers Ukrainian soldiers to surrender and save their lives, but cannot forbid them to die for their ideals, even if these Nazi ideals are unacceptable to Russia.

Except for the whole decision to bomb cities while cutting off their food, gas and electrify for weeks now.  These aren't things a military that's trying to minimize civilian casualties does.  Remember, they're in Ukraine.  The Russians are the ones invading Ukraine.  You realize that right?

Buddy, it's better for you not to know the alternative scenario, because instead of houses with broken windows on your video there would be only craters from rockets and air bombs and nothing else. During the month of the special operation, the losses of the personnel of the Russian troops exceed the losses among the civilian population. You seem to have problems with propaganda, because instead of understanding that the Russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties, screams are heard that the blitzkrieg failed. There would have been even fewer losses if the Ukrainian army had defended its people (and why else would an army be needed?), and not hide behind their backs. If Ukraine does not understand such simple things, well, it will no longer have its own army.

Russian warship fuck you? Go fuck yourself.