The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

594,419 Views | 8561 Replies | Last: 16 min ago by movielover
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not only have sanctions on Russia not worked, their economy having been largely unscathed, but these sanctions were also very counterproductive, accelerating the global south's shift away from the US dollar with countries like Saudi Arabia starting to move away from their century-old tight alliance with the UK/US.



Trump would have prevented the war simply by forcing Kiev to implement the Minsk Agreements, and he can stop the war by negotiating a peace treaty with Russia that would save Ukraine from further human and territorial losses.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Not only have sanctions on Russia not worked, their economy having been largely unscathed, but these sanctions were also very counterproductive, accelerating the global south's shift away from the US dollar with countries like Saudi Arabia starting to move away from their century-old tight alliance with the UK/US.





A feature, not a bug
American Vermin
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Empty quips are an acknowledgment of poor argumentation and a lack of substance.

Ukraine's probing/shaping attacks in preparation for a larger Spring Summer offensive along the southern front have failed so far, the flat, open field terrain with no ground cover exposes them to heavy artillery and air fire from the Russians.



"[url=https://twitter.com/MikaelValterss1][/url]Mikael Valtersson
[url=https://twitter.com/MikaelValterss1][/url]@MikaelValterss1

ANALYSIS UKRAINIAN OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS JUNE 4
June 4th UkrAF scaled up offensive operations on the Southern Front, but the losses are too high for long time success. Earlier operations were mainly reconnaissance in force with platoon and company sized combat groups. Yesterday the ukrainian forces seemed to be battalion sized combat groups. According to Russian MoD 8 UkrAF battalions was involved in offensive operations SE of Mala Tokmachka (1), at the Vremivka salient (2) and East of Vuhledar towards Velikonovoselovka (3). The fighting was intense, but on most places ukrainian forces was turned back, mainly by intense russian artillery and air attacks. On some places UkrAF succeeded in capturing a couple of hundred meters.

There are two different media stories about the fighting. The ukrainian side is very quiet about both the attacks and eventual losses on their side. Russian sources are much more liberal with information, both in text and videos. IF the russian information is correct, this explains the ukrainian silence, since the ukrainian side seldom concedes major losses on their side and tries to shift attention to other subjects.

According to the russian side, ukrainian losses amount at least 10 tanks, nearly 40 IFVs or APCs and at least 250 eliminated (KIA or very badly WIA). With this number of eliminated, the number of wounded would probably be 750-1000.

Are these numbers true, the prospects for a ukrainian counteroffensive looks very dim. This is even if we don't take into account the ongoing intense russian air and artillery offensive against UkrAF troop concentrations, ammunition and fuel depots.

With losses of over 1000 KIA and WIA that means that a ukrainian brigade of 4000 man loose at least 25 percent of its manpower. That's on the brink of making a brigade unusable. Two days fighting with such losses would destroy a brigades battle capability. 24 days with such losses would in effect destroy the entire fist of 12 brigades UkrAF has gathered for the counteroffensive. With losses of around 12 brigades, 25 000 KIA/WIA, 250 tanks and 1000 IFVs/APCs all the strategic reserves UkrAF has built during the last 6 months would be gone. In exchange the ukrainian side could have advanced maybe 10 km on some places or more generally 2-3 km along maybe half the southern front.

Once again, IF the russian claims are true, RuAF must feel relieved and UkrAF very worried by the results of the fighting on the Southern front June 4th."

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Head of Ukrainian military intelligence (GUR) Budanov, a brash young officer who bragged about blowing up journalist Daria Dugina's car and killing her, has not been heard from since the Russian missile attack on the GUR headquarters last week.





Goldener Bar
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Quote:

KYIV, Ukraine Since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine last year, the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.

In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups.

The photographs, and their deletions, highlight the Ukrainian military's complicated relationship with Nazi imagery, a relationship forged under both Soviet and German occupation during World War II.

Quote:

In November, during a meeting with Times reporters near the front line, a Ukrainian press officer wore a Totenkopf variation made by a company called R3ICH (pronounced "Reich"). He said he did not believe the patch was affiliated with the Nazis. A second press officer present said other journalists had asked soldiers to remove the patch before taking photographs.

BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Quote:

Current status:
The Russians are winning the war. Ukraine had the upper hand in 2022 but Russia has it in 2023. The Russians have not won yet, but Mearsheimer believes they are winning and will win the war. Why?
This is a war of attrition similar to WWI. The goal is to bleed out the other side. "This is Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier standing toe to toe and beating the hell out of each other in the center of the ring."
Who wins a war of attrition? 3 factors decide: (1) Balance of resolve. (Both sides are resolved.) (2) Population. (3) Artillery.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Key points:

(1) Current status:

The Russians are winning the war. Ukraine had the upper hand in 2022 but Russia has it in 2023. The Russians have not won yet, but Mearsheimer believes they are winning and will win the war. Why?

This is a war of attrition similar to WWI. The goal is to bleed out the other side. "This is Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier standing toe to toe and beating the hell out of each other in the center of the ring."

Who wins a war of attrition? 3 factors decide: (1) Balance of resolve. (Both sides are resolved.) (2) Population. (3) Artillery.

Russia had a 3.5 to 1 population advantage at the beginning of the war. This has grown to about 5:1 as a result of 8+ million Ukrainian refugees, 3M of which have gone to Russia.

Artillery is the "king of battle." Balance of artillery is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in Russia's favor. The US doesn't have enough artillery to give Ukraine; that's why we're talking about tanks and planes. "Two armies standing toe to toe trying to destroy each other with firepower." Russia has a lot more men and artillery.

Casualty Exchange Ratio is at least 2:1, meaning that two Ukrainians are likely dying for every Russian. The Ukrainians' claim of 7:1 CER in their favor is ludicrous. The Russians are not doing mindless frontal assaults. Recent RUSI report shows that Russian tactics have improved.

Ukraine pushed large numbers of troops into Bakhmut in a losing effort. Ukrainians are becoming desperate to conscript men. Russia has not fully mobilized yet.

(2) What's likely to happen next:

Russia will take the 4 oblasts they already annexed plus (if they can) another 4 oblasts to the Dnipro River including Odessa and Kharkiv. The goal would be to bring all the ethnic Russians under their control to avoid another "Donbas problem."

Russia doesn't want to take western Ukraine (trying to conquer ethnic Ukrainians who hate them would be like "trying to swallow a porcupine"); but their goal is to turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state so it can't threaten them or be used as a Western bulwark on their border.

There's not going to be a peace agreement. Best case is a frozen conflict. Why? (1) the parties can't agree on territory. (2) they can't agree on neutrality. (3) Hyper-nationalism. Hatred on both sides makes a deal impossible. (4) No trust. Western leaders and Zelensky admitted that they had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreements and entered them just to buy time.

George Kennan, Adm. Bill Perry, Amb. Jack Matlock, and Gen. Shalikashvili said that NATO expansion was a prescription for disaster. They were right. It's only going to get worse. Mearsheimer hopes to be wrong about this, but this is his prediction.

F16s won't make a difference because it takes a long time to train good pilots. Also the Russians have very good air defense, and their own Air Force is ready to engage. Biggest risk of F16s is that Ukraine uses them to attack targets inside of Russia, creating an escalation, which could draw the US deeper into the war.

Mearsheimer believes that if the Russians are losing the war, the likelihood of nuclear use to rescue the situation is high. (The war is existential for the Russians.) But as it stands now, the odds of nuclear use are very low because the Russians are winning.

I agree completely with Mearsheimer's points, there is practically no daylight between my analysis and his. This is where JM's background as a West Point graduate sets him apart from ideology-driven run of the mill neocon policy wonks.

Notes on Mearsheimer's points:

-The population imbalance is currently closer to 9 to 1 in favor of Russia, 150M vs 17M. The Ukrainians have been drafting more heavily from cities in the east and south like Kharkov and Odessa, perhaps in anticipation of those russophone cities eventually getting annexed by Russia. NATO troops from Poland, and a few other countries including the US have participated in ground forces and in the operation of NATO equipment, but not in sufficiently large numbers as this would be a major escalation threshold.

-Biggest risks with supplying Ukraine with F-16s is not so much them attacking Russia proper, these jets being very vulnerable to AA defense, but the fact that they would have to use Polish, Romanian air bases as staging grounds, as the big 2km asphalt strips with clean wide shoulders and adjoining hangars within Ukraine are going to get pummeled. This almost guarantees escalation.

-Nuclear escalation would be an unlikely last resort for Russia, because they have high-powered thermobaric weapons with a near 100% kill zone of 0.5-1 square km per salvo. As well they wouldn't want to irradiate areas that are inhabited by russophones that they could possibly annex.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Quote:

Key points:

(1) Current status:

The Russians are winning the war. Ukraine had the upper hand in 2022 but Russia has it in 2023. The Russians have not won yet, but Mearsheimer believes they are winning and will win the war. Why?

This is a war of attrition similar to WWI. The goal is to bleed out the other side. "This is Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier standing toe to toe and beating the hell out of each other in the center of the ring."

Who wins a war of attrition? 3 factors decide: (1) Balance of resolve. (Both sides are resolved.) (2) Population. (3) Artillery.

Russia had a 3.5 to 1 population advantage at the beginning of the war. This has grown to about 5:1 as a result of 8+ million Ukrainian refugees, 3M of which have gone to Russia.

Artillery is the "king of battle." Balance of artillery is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in Russia's favor. The US doesn't have enough artillery to give Ukraine; that's why we're talking about tanks and planes. "Two armies standing toe to toe trying to destroy each other with firepower." Russia has a lot more men and artillery.

Casualty Exchange Ratio is at least 2:1, meaning that two Ukrainians are likely dying for every Russian. The Ukrainians' claim of 7:1 CER in their favor is ludicrous. The Russians are not doing mindless frontal assaults. Recent RUSI report shows that Russian tactics have improved.

Ukraine pushed large numbers of troops into Bakhmut in a losing effort. Ukrainians are becoming desperate to conscript men. Russia has not fully mobilized yet.

(2) What's likely to happen next:

Russia will take the 4 oblasts they already annexed plus (if they can) another 4 oblasts to the Dnipro River including Odessa and Kharkiv. The goal would be to bring all the ethnic Russians under their control to avoid another "Donbas problem."

Russia doesn't want to take western Ukraine (trying to conquer ethnic Ukrainians who hate them would be like "trying to swallow a porcupine"); but their goal is to turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state so it can't threaten them or be used as a Western bulwark on their border.

There's not going to be a peace agreement. Best case is a frozen conflict. Why? (1) the parties can't agree on territory. (2) they can't agree on neutrality. (3) Hyper-nationalism. Hatred on both sides makes a deal impossible. (4) No trust. Western leaders and Zelensky admitted that they had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreements and entered them just to buy time.

George Kennan, Adm. Bill Perry, Amb. Jack Matlock, and Gen. Shalikashvili said that NATO expansion was a prescription for disaster. They were right. It's only going to get worse. Mearsheimer hopes to be wrong about this, but this is his prediction.

F16s won't make a difference because it takes a long time to train good pilots. Also the Russians have very good air defense, and their own Air Force is ready to engage. Biggest risk of F16s is that Ukraine uses them to attack targets inside of Russia, creating an escalation, which could draw the US deeper into the war.

Mearsheimer believes that if the Russians are losing the war, the likelihood of nuclear use to rescue the situation is high. (The war is existential for the Russians.) But as it stands now, the odds of nuclear use are very low because the Russians are winning.

I agree completely with Mearsheimer's points, there is practically no daylight between my analysis and his. This is where JM's background as a West Point graduate sets him apart from ideology-driven run of the mill neocon policy wonks.

Notes on Mearsheimer's points:

-The population imbalance is currently closer to 9 to 1 in favor of Russia, 150M vs 17M. The Ukrainians have been drafting more heavily from cities in the east and south like Kharkov and Odessa, perhaps in anticipation of those russophone cities eventually getting annexed by Russia. NATO troops from Poland, and a few other countries including the US have participated in ground forces and in the operation of NATO equipment, but not in sufficiently large numbers as this would be a major escalation threshold.

-Biggest risks with supplying Ukraine with F-16s is not so much them attacking Russia proper, these jets being very vulnerable to AA defense, but the fact that they would have to use Polish, Romanian air bases as staging grounds, as the big 2km asphalt strips with clean wide shoulders and adjoining hangars within Ukraine are going to get pummeled. This almost guarantees escalation.

-Nuclear escalation would be an unlikely last resort for Russia, because they have high-powered thermobaric weapons with a near 100% kill zone of 0.5-1 square km per salvo. As well they wouldn't want to irradiate areas that are inhabited by russophones that they could possibly annex.



"I agree completely with Mearsheimer's points, there is practically no daylight between my analysis and his."

And movielover also agrees completely with Colonel McGregor's takes.

I wonder why that is.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

oski003 said:

golden sloth said:

Cal88 said:

golden sloth said:

Cal88 said:





In that time period, Ukraine has lost over half its population, one fifth of its territory,
and almost all of the 600,000 strong army it started the war with.

All of this could have been avoided with a Minsk III type agreement over a year ago, if it weren't for Boris Johnson, cookie monster Nuland and Co.


More blatant lies.

Putin doesnt have any interest in a Minsk agreement. They claim they do, but they dont. You keep saying they do, but they dont. Putin would not have said Ukrainians are not a people if he wanted a Minsk agreement.

All 3 non-Russian signatories of the original Minsk agreements, Merkel, Hollande and the Ukrainians came out and flat out stated that they had no intent of abiding by that peace treaty, that it was only signed in order to gain more time to rearm Ukraine. I've provided plenty of conclusive evidence to that effect.

Unfortunately the members of the Ukraine death cult somehow are not able to absorb this basic fact, or other evidence of Russia wanting a negotiated settlement in Istanbul, with facilitators like Israeli PM Bennett stating that NATO has scuttled these peace talks.

Former Israeli PM: West Blocked Russo-Ukraine Peace Deal


Your counter argument does not address the point I am making.

Vladimir Putin would not have honored a Minsk agreement. His invasion has been on going since 2014, first in Crimea, then in the donbass, now in the whole of ukraine.

When Putin says he wants a Minsk agreement he is lying. Just like when he lied about performing military exercises on the Ukrainian border and had no intention of invading Ukraine.


How could your statement possibly be true if Russia annexed Crimea prior to the Minsk agreement?


The russian invasion of Ukraine started in 2014 with the illegal annexation of crimea. Russia then signed the Minsk accords. But Russia had no intention of honoring the Minsk accords, as they were continuing to finance and support separatists in the donbass with the intention of annexing the donbass. Putin lied when he signed the Minsk accords, just like when he lied about not having his special military operation.

Illegal according to who?

Crimea is a Russian province, inhabited by Russians, a province that was latched onto Ukraine by Khrushchev for arbitrary Soviet internal reasons in 1954, its population is over 3/4 ethnic Russian. Crimeans like other Russian parts of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovich, part of the majority of Ukrainians who had elected him as president of Ukraine. That democratically-elected president was then overthrown by the Maidan Coup, a coup planned and supported by NATO featuring armed neo-nazi thugs who shot up the crowd and muscled their way into government, setting up a nationalist west Ukrainian government that considered their large Russian minority as second class citizens.

Crimeans wanted nothing to do with the Maidan Coup regime, they have voted overwhelmingly to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. 19,000 of the 21,000 Ukrainian army troops stationed there at the time switched sides, they being almost all locals who refused to take orders from Kiev to suppress their own kin. That's why the Crimean transfer to Russia was bloodless.

Since then, Crimea has thrived economically, with multi-billion infrastructure investment from the Russian government - roads, ports, airport, tourism and agriculture infrastructure. Crimea's airport is the busiest in Russia after the main airports of Moscow and St Petersburg. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been a crumbling oligarch-infested economy since the 90s, the poorest, most corrupt country per capita in Europe, while Russia had cleaned up its economy, becoming 3 times richer per capita than Ukraine (before the start of the war).

Ukraine is a dumpster fire with which Crimeans want nothing to do. Not just because of its corruption and poverty, but also because Kiev wants to de-Russify Crimeans, suppressing their native language and cultural heritage. Kiev regime leaders (and even some NATO pundits) are on record stating that they will ethnically cleanse Crimea of its Russians. Head of Ukrainian military intelligence Budanov has stated that he would "physically eradicate" 3 million Crimeans of Russian descent:



This is the true nature of the hardcore Ukrainian nationalism that western MSM hides from its public.

That is but one of the major disconnects that the western public has about Crimea. The other disconnect about Crimea is the thought that Ukraine could actually reconquer that province by force, Russia is never going to let that happen. In the highly unlikely event that NATO manages to break the land bridge and start moving on Crimea, the Russians will throw their full military might into its defense.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal88 said:

Key points:

(1) Current status:

The Russians are winning the war. Ukraine had the upper hand in 2022 but Russia has it in 2023. The Russians have not won yet, but Mearsheimer believes they are winning and will win the war. Why?

This is a war of attrition similar to WWI. The goal is to bleed out the other side. "This is Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier standing toe to toe and beating the hell out of each other in the center of the ring."

Who wins a war of attrition? 3 factors decide: (1) Balance of resolve. (Both sides are resolved.) (2) Population. (3) Artillery.

Russia had a 3.5 to 1 population advantage at the beginning of the war. This has grown to about 5:1 as a result of 8+ million Ukrainian refugees, 3M of which have gone to Russia.

Artillery is the "king of battle." Balance of artillery is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in Russia's favor. The US doesn't have enough artillery to give Ukraine; that's why we're talking about tanks and planes. "Two armies standing toe to toe trying to destroy each other with firepower." Russia has a lot more men and artillery.

Casualty Exchange Ratio is at least 2:1, meaning that two Ukrainians are likely dying for every Russian. The Ukrainians' claim of 7:1 CER in their favor is ludicrous. The Russians are not doing mindless frontal assaults. Recent RUSI report shows that Russian tactics have improved.

Ukraine pushed large numbers of troops into Bakhmut in a losing effort. Ukrainians are becoming desperate to conscript men. Russia has not fully mobilized yet.

(2) What's likely to happen next:

Russia will take the 4 oblasts they already annexed plus (if they can) another 4 oblasts to the Dnipro River including Odessa and Kharkiv. The goal would be to bring all the ethnic Russians under their control to avoid another "Donbas problem."

Russia doesn't want to take western Ukraine (trying to conquer ethnic Ukrainians who hate them would be like "trying to swallow a porcupine"); but their goal is to turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state so it can't threaten them or be used as a Western bulwark on their border.

There's not going to be a peace agreement. Best case is a frozen conflict. Why? (1) the parties can't agree on territory. (2) they can't agree on neutrality. (3) Hyper-nationalism. Hatred on both sides makes a deal impossible. (4) No trust. Western leaders and Zelensky admitted that they had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreements and entered them just to buy time.

George Kennan, Adm. Bill Perry, Amb. Jack Matlock, and Gen. Shalikashvili said that NATO expansion was a prescription for disaster. They were right. It's only going to get worse. Mearsheimer hopes to be wrong about this, but this is his prediction.

F16s won't make a difference because it takes a long time to train good pilots. Also the Russians have very good air defense, and their own Air Force is ready to engage. Biggest risk of F16s is that Ukraine uses them to attack targets inside of Russia, creating an escalation, which could draw the US deeper into the war.

Mearsheimer believes that if the Russians are losing the war, the likelihood of nuclear use to rescue the situation is high. (The war is existential for the Russians.) But as it stands now, the odds of nuclear use are very low because the Russians are winning.

I agree completely with Mearsheimer's points, there is practically no daylight between my analysis and his. This is where JM's background as a West Point graduate sets him apart from ideology-driven run of the mill neocon policy wonks.

Notes on Mearsheimer's points:

-The population imbalance is currently closer to 9 to 1 in favor of Russia, 150M vs 17M. The Ukrainians have been drafting more heavily from cities in the east and south like Kharkov and Odessa, perhaps in anticipation of those russophone cities eventually getting annexed by Russia. NATO troops from Poland, and a few other countries including the US have participated in ground forces and in the operation of NATO equipment, but not in sufficiently large numbers as this would be a major escalation threshold.

-Biggest risks with supplying Ukraine with F-16s is not so much them attacking Russia proper, these jets being very vulnerable to AA defense, but the fact that they would have to use Polish, Romanian air bases as staging grounds, as the big 2km asphalt strips with clean wide shoulders and adjoining hangars within Ukraine are going to get pummeled. This almost guarantees escalation.

-Nuclear escalation would be an unlikely last resort for Russia, because they have high-powered thermobaric weapons with a near 100% kill zone of 0.5-1 square km per salvo. As well they wouldn't want to irradiate areas that are inhabited by russophones that they could possibly annex.



"I agree completely with Mearsheimer's points, there is practically no daylight between my analysis and his."

And movielover also agrees completely with Colonel McGregor's takes.

I wonder why that is.

Mearsheimer is widely recognized as the dean of American IR scholars, he is well informed, smart and not driven by ideology. He's a realist who is not swayed by BS Hollywood narratives, or a professional pundit who makes his livelihood by amplifying that narrative like your man Zeihan. JM's prediction from 2015 turned out to be right, the reason that lecture now has 30 million views, totally unheard of for an academic IR lecture.

Macgregor is the leading American military expert on modern tank warfare, and is in a minority of retired military brass who aren't on the MIC revolving door. He was also privy to NATO EE policy intricacies by having advised POTUS Trump.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FAFO.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because Mearsheimer and Colonel McGregor use facts, logic, and historically relevant facts.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're in interesting times when liberals are war mongers, and Conservatives push for peace.



Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Col. Macgregor: over the weekend, there were three major Ukrainian attacks on the southern front, these resulted in 4,000 Ukrainian casualties and big losses of materiel - 54 tanks , 210 APCs, 134 trucks, several jet fighters, 2 helicopters lost. On the other side, the Russians had 71 killed and 210 wounded, and their defensive lines are largely intact.

This doesn't bode well for Ukraine's Spring offensive.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How quickly can Russian engineers fix the dam? Airlift in borders, then quick dry cement.
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

How quickly can Russian engineers fix the dam? Airlift in borders, then quick dry cement.

Can't conduct a complex construction project in the middle of a warzone, Ukraine would bomb it again.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A sign of desperation, payback to Crimea, or part of the 'spring offensive'?

Is Zelensky really stupid enough to share details with Lindsey Gramnesty?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

How quickly can Russian engineers fix the dam? Airlift in borders, then quick dry cement.
Hard to say, but Russia has lots of experience in moving borders.
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

We're in interesting times when liberals are war mongers, and Conservatives push for peace.


TUCKER EP 1: The Ukrainians likely blew up Karkhovka Dam. It was an act of terrorism.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearHunter said:

movielover said:

We're in interesting times when liberals are war mongers, and Conservatives push for peace.


TUCKER EP 1: The Ukrainians likely blew up Karkhovka Dam. It was an act of terrorism.

I guess Russia shouldn't have invaded.
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearHunter said:

movielover said:

We're in interesting times when liberals are war mongers, and Conservatives push for peace.
TUCKER EP 1: The Ukrainians likely blew up Karkhovka Dam. It was an act of terrorism.

I guess Russia shouldn't have invaded.


Russia keeps busy.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:




"The veteran noted that his unit had a casualty rate of 50% and 20% of his teammates were killed in action.

According to the volunteer, his platoon was "annihilated twice" and he was the only member to come out unscathed."

These two sentences, written one after the other, can't both be true.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Russia blew up a dam, wreaked catastrophe, and is turning on the propaganda.





In other news, Belgorod is still a fight.



I recommend Thomas Theiner (@noclador) because he brings a lot of interesting content, including some fairly technical analysis. On the other hand, I think he may be burning a lot of his credibility because I don't see this tweet aging well.



Couple of examples of recent interesting threads he's had:


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Russia blew up a dam, wreaked catastrophe, and is turning on the propaganda.


...

This creep Anton, one of the ukrainian fanatics who have started the Myrotvorets kill list program, was actually boasting about Ukraine hitting the dam with HIMARS last year, which they did repeatedly, and he even made a celebratory post about the dam falling apart and flooding the downstream Russian-occupied shallow left bank of the Dniepr:








Ukraine-controlled dams upstream from the dam they just busted are wide open, it's as if they didn't mind at all that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on the other side of the new border are being flooded:



Russia has no interest in blowing up this dam, which supplies the water to Crimea and much of the southern Ukrainian lands which Russia has annexed. The left bank of the Dniepr being marshy lowlands, most of the areas flooded by the dam break are under Russian control, and featured a lot of defensive installations (mine fields, trenches, bunkers storage areas etc) which are now under water.

The dam explosion is also a convenient diversion from the disastrous start to the Ukrainian offensive, in which they've lost 52 tanks and 4,000 men in a 2 day span, nearly 1/6th of their entire tank fleet and about 10% of their manpower dedicated to that offensive.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The reality is we don't know who did it.

The country that did it know who did it. The other country believes they knows who did it, and the probably do but that likely isn't 100%.

Whoever did it, the two countries are left with an array of humanitarian and military implications ... just like with the rest of the war.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

The reality is we don't know who did it.

The country that did it know who did it. The other country believes they knows who did it, and the probably do but that likely isn't 100%.

Whoever did it, the two countries are left with an array of humanitarian and military implications ... just like with the rest of the war.
1. I'm not sure Ukrainians actually did it.

2. If they did do it, then my moral philosophy goes like this: Terrorism in a vacuum? Bad. Terrorism in service of repelling an invading enemy that seeks to wipe out your country? I'll allow it.

3. If Russia doesn't invade, none of this happens.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

The reality is we don't know who did it.

The country that did it know who did it. The other country believes they knows who did it, and the probably do but that likely isn't 100%.

Whoever did it, the two countries are left with an array of humanitarian and military implications ... just like with the rest of the war.
Russia clearly benefited, or at least perceives that they have. They aren't hiding it.



Claiming that "we don't know" is a recurring problem in western media's coverage. Russia is wreaking havoc on Ukraine and had they not decided to start this war of unprovoked aggression, none of these tragedies would have occurred. This sort of reminds me of the Russian propagandists who try to claim that when fragments from a Ukrainian defense missile (which destroyed a Russian projectile) cause damage to Ukrainians, it's actually Ukraine's fault instead of Russia. If Ukraine had not defended against that Russian projectile, sure an apartment building may have collapsed and hundreds of other people may have died, but not the specific person who was caught in the crossfire. These shills think that's a good argument and the media sometimes goes along by giving air time to "Russia's MOD denies ...". It's garbage and we can acknowledge it as such.






Goldener Bar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

tequila4kapp said:

The reality is we don't know who did it.

The country that did it know who did it. The other country believes they knows who did it, and the probably do but that likely isn't 100%.

Whoever did it, the two countries are left with an array of humanitarian and military implications ... just like with the rest of the war.
Russia clearly benefited - there is no debate there.




How many times do people have to be lied to that Russia did something, only to found out later that it was someone else before they stop being clueless.

"Russia interfered in the 2016 Election!" = Russia bought $100K worth of Facebook ads.
"Russia hacked the DNC e-mail server!" = No evidence of remote hacking
"Russia blew up Nordstream!" = U.S. blew up Nordstream
"Russian bots are flooding the Internet with disinformation!" = Not only aren't they bots, they're American accounts
"Russia blew up Russian dam!" - Probably will be Ukraine in about six months.

Some people are just easy to lie to.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

tequila4kapp said:

The reality is we don't know who did it.

The country that did it know who did it. The other country believes they knows who did it, and the probably do but that likely isn't 100%.

Whoever did it, the two countries are left with an array of humanitarian and military implications ... just like with the rest of the war.
Russia clearly benefited, or at least perceives that they have. They aren't hiding it.




A bit tone deaf here, this ultranationalist Ukrainian member of parliament here, Anton Gerashchenko, founder of the Ukrainian Myrotvorets kill list, actually gloated about the Ukrainian HIMARS bombing of the dam in question earlier last year. This quote below is from his telegram channel:



Ukraine bombed the dam this week for the same reasons they've bombed it earlier last year, they know that the flooding downstream is mostly going to affect the Russian-controlled regions and the "collaborators" living there. And now Anton is pretending that he's outraged at the destruction of this dam, trying to pass it as an act of the Russians, who are so evil that they just can't help but bomb themselves over and over again...


More on the failure of the early stage of the Ukrainian Spring offensive, per a pro-Ukrainian German journalist:

Goldener Bar
How long do you want to ignore this user?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goldener Bar said:

How many times do people have to be lied to that Russia did something, only to found out later that it was someone else before they stop being clueless.

How many times do you guys have to be lied to by the same people who insisted Russia would never invade before you stop being clueless?
First Page Last Page
Page 152 of 245
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.