The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

861,449 Views | 9883 Replies | Last: 14 hrs ago by sycasey
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to juarezbear • 4:45a, 12/27/22
I don't want Russia to "win this war".

Like many Americans, I am late to this game and not an expert. I knew there was a conflict in the Donbas, there were some strong Russian cultural ties, and I thought Russia was a declining power with oil reserves. I was unaware of the Minsk II Accords. I periodically hear how NATO wants to expand eastward - towards Russia - and previous Soviet Republics keep joining NATO.

An elderly relative tonight commented how Putin is a bad guy. I'd describe said relative as an Independent with a very liberal wife, a military veteran, and only consumes MSM. No awareness of the Minsk Accords.

It sounds like some kind of independence for the Donbas region was a reasonable solution, but continuing conflicts and Nazi elements make it more complicated. I believe Cal88 and Scott Ritter say Russia has modernized their military the past decade.

On top of that, repeated intentions to expand NATO (USA) into the region is a provocation. We didn't stand for missiles in Cuba.

The apparent vast corruption in Ukraine can't be ignored, and our military and political leaders in charge (Blinken / Rice / Sullivan / Obama) oversaw our abandonment / destruction / transfer of $80 Billion worth of military goods in Afghanistan to our enemies. (And the DOD apparently lied to the Trump Administration about how many troops are in Syria and Africa.) MIC gone wild?

There are also assertions that Obana / Biden Administration overthrew a duly elected president in Ukraine.

It seems to me China is a vastly bigger threat, as well as our wide open southern border. Our MIC seems to be playing us, and fighting a 1980s conflict while our streets are littered with drug-ravaged citizens courtesy of China, Mexico, and our pro-drugs Left. Some leaders are focused on boogeymen like "white Supremacists" while drug cartels are expanding their insidious grip on large swaths of America... aided by the Liberal MSM.

So we add Trillions more to our "self-licking popsicle" MIC / DC Swamp, fueling further inflation. It seems insane.
Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to coachdeke • 6:03a, 12/27/22
coachdeke said:
Cal88 said:
juarezbear said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
Which means the war will continue and human and infrastructure costs will rise.

Is giving up the south / Donbas and keeping NATO out of Ukraine that repulsive?

NATO can fortify Poland and the Baltics. But that essentially mean our proxy war w Russia failed.

What indication do we have that Putin is willing to stop at Donbas or that Ukraine will be satisfied with losing that territory?

What indication do you have that any side of any war is willing to honor a peace treaty? Like many posters have stated here, Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.

The Minsk Agreements was the peace treaty that was supposed to hold the country together and stave off war. It called for Donbass autonomy, along a federal system and political structure similar to those of Spain or Canada, with full cultural/linguistic autonomy for the Donbass.

The Minsk Agreements failed because Ukraine failed to uphold them, a point which is no longer up for debate since both former Ukraine president Poroshenko and Angela Merkel (under which the accords were concluded) recently came out and stated that they had no intention of abiding by the agreements and wanted just to gain time in order to rebuild Ukrainian armed forces with the intention of reconquering the Donbass and Crimea.

Quote:
Russia is going to have a hard time holding hostile territory. It may not be in their interest to pursue territory beyond the Donbas.

The territories that would be mostly hostile to Russia are in orange here:



The areas in blue could be integrated into Russia, that would be politically feasible. I think this is where this conflict is headed, and this outcome was predicted back in 2014:
Quote:
The case for partition

Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, argues that separation is beginning to look "inevitable". That separation may come about in two possible ways: either through "paramilitary groups establishing local supremacy" or as a result of Russian intervention.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/57569/why-partitioning-ukraine-may-keep-peace

Quote:
Could partition solve Ukraine's problems?

In the light of Ukraine's election result, Ethan S. Burger offers a proposal for the creation of a new Ukrainian state. Partition would do more than better reflect the country's national/ethnic composition, he suggests. It could also make the country economically viable, while enhancing European stability.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/could-partition-solve-ukraines-problems/

Russia is slowly destroying Ukraine`s army, once they reach its breaking point (somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 Ukrainian military casualties), they will be able to move across the blue regions with much greater ease.

The current ratio of military losses in the Donbass has been around 8 to 1 in favor of Russia, according to analysts like Col. McGregor.

Please explain why you want Russia to win this war.

Russia is going to win the war, and what you or I think or want has no impact on this outcome.

Most of the war coverage in the West amounts to gaslighting. This war is a one-sided massacre, it should have been stopped when the window of opportunity for a truce or a settlement presented itself, but that moment seems to have lapsed.

Ukraine's best course of action, if its current government actually cared about their country and its citizens, is to sue for a peace on realistic terms, rather than keep throwing its men into the meat grinder. If you're against this, you're really rooting for the death of another 100,000 Ukrainian men, or more. This suits policymakers like Lindsay Graham or Chuck Shumer just fine, as they are more than happy to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian...

So who is really rooting for Ukraine here?

FoxNews is worse than crack.

...agreed, and so are CNN, MSNBC, and the other networks, which are even more pro-war than Fox.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 7:57a, 12/27/22
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
golden sloth said:
movielover said:
Colonel Douglass McGregor today claims:

1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death)
2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.)
3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed.
4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left.
5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd.
6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military.
7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.






As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:

1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.

2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.

3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?

We might not know some intricacies like the real reasons for WW1, how much of it was a Thucydides impulse by the British to stave off a rising power, or a battle for global resources by European powers, or an escalation of commitments set off by interlocking alliances and so on, but we do know how many soldiers died in WW1, as there are accurate, comprehensive full lists of casualties that were even published during the war.

That information about the war in Ukraine is known as well, and has been largely hidden, for political reasons.

The most relevant and important information about this war is the number of military casualties. This number is fairly well known by both military authorities. Until recently, Ukrainian officials tried to sell the world that the number of Ukrainian KIAs was little over 10,000, a figure they have stuck with for months on end. The recent public statements made by officials like Ursula von er Leyen and Mark Milley where they both said that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war caused the Ukrainian officials to ratchet up their official KIA number tenfold...

In fact the 100,000 KIA is likely an undercount. I think if people understood how deep Ukrainian losses have been, they would view this war as the one-sided massacre that it really is and would sue for a negotiated settlement, instead of pouring tens of billions every few weeks into a hopeless cause that is already wrecking the world economy and might spiral into something even worse, like world war 3.

People do view it as a one-sided massacre which is why there is so much sentiment in favor of Ukraine and a desire to inflict maximum pain upon Russia for all of this senseless death and destruction.

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?

Ukrainian soldier in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" front calls out his commander in chief Zaluzhny while loading body bags from his platoon:


Ukraine has Soviet-style "anti-retreat units" stationed behind the front in charge of picking off retreating or deserting soldiers:


Resentment growing in Ukrainian ranks from being used as canon fodder:
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 8:22a, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
golden sloth said:
movielover said:
Colonel Douglass McGregor today claims:

1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death)
2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.)
3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed.
4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left.
5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd.
6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military.
7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.






As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:

1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.

2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.

3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?

We might not know some intricacies like the real reasons for WW1, how much of it was a Thucydides impulse by the British to stave off a rising power, or a battle for global resources by European powers, or an escalation of commitments set off by interlocking alliances and so on, but we do know how many soldiers died in WW1, as there are accurate, comprehensive full lists of casualties that were even published during the war.

That information about the war in Ukraine is known as well, and has been largely hidden, for political reasons.

The most relevant and important information about this war is the number of military casualties. This number is fairly well known by both military authorities. Until recently, Ukrainian officials tried to sell the world that the number of Ukrainian KIAs was little over 10,000, a figure they have stuck with for months on end. The recent public statements made by officials like Ursula von er Leyen and Mark Milley where they both said that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war caused the Ukrainian officials to ratchet up their official KIA number tenfold...

In fact the 100,000 KIA is likely an undercount. I think if people understood how deep Ukrainian losses have been, they would view this war as the one-sided massacre that it really is and would sue for a negotiated settlement, instead of pouring tens of billions every few weeks into a hopeless cause that is already wrecking the world economy and might spiral into something even worse, like world war 3.

People do view it as a one-sided massacre which is why there is so much sentiment in favor of Ukraine and a desire to inflict maximum pain upon Russia for all of this senseless death and destruction.

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?

Ukrainian soldier in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" front calls out his commander in chief Zaluzhny while loading body bags from his platoon:


Ukraine has Soviet-style "anti-retreat units" stationed behind the front in charge of picking off retreating or deserting soldiers:


Resentment growing in Ukrainian ranks from being used as canon fodder:


Why does Russia have 8x more firepower than NATO? Why isn't NATO providing more?
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:50a, 12/27/22
Maybe decades of Europeans not living up to their NATO commitments? Imagine whete they would be without President Trump's strong push for 4 years.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:58a, 12/27/22
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:



Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?

Why does Russia have 8x more firepower than NATO? Why isn't NATO providing more?

8 to 1 is an estimate of the KIA ratio, the firepower ratio is larger. Basically boils down to military doctrines and cultures, this is well explained in this article from a leading British military think tank, RUSI, that has made the rounds earlier this year:

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare
Quote:
The war in Ukraine has proven that the age of industrial warfare is still here. The massive consumption of equipment, vehicles and ammunition requires a large-scale industrial base for resupply quantity still has a quality of its own. The mass scale combat has pitted 250,000 Ukrainian soldiers, together with 450,000 recently mobilised citizen soldiers against about 200,000 Russian and separatist troops. The effort to arm, feed and supply these armies is a monumental task. Ammunition resupply is particularly onerous. For Ukraine, compounding this task are Russian deep fires capabilities, which target Ukrainian military industry and transportation networks throughout the depth of the country. The Russian army has also suffered from Ukrainian cross-border attacks and acts of sabotage, but at a smaller scale. The rate of ammunition and equipment consumption in Ukraine can only be sustained by a large-scale industrial base.

This reality should be a concrete warning to Western countries, who have scaled down military industrial capacity and sacrificed scale and effectiveness for efficiency. This strategy relies on flawed assumptions about the future of war, and has been influenced by both the bureaucratic culture in Western governments and the legacy of low-intensity conflicts. Currently, the West may not have the industrial capacity to fight a large-scale war. If the US government is planning to once again become the arsenal of democracy, then the existing capabilities of the US military-industrial base and the core assumptions that have driven its development need to be re-examined.

Before the war started, France had one week's worth of ammunition, and while its Caesar howitzers are outstanding, their numbers were very limited and Ukraine has already gone through half the inventory. The situation is the same in Germany, UK, Italy etc. It takes years to replenish this stock, The military of these countries depend on very solid air forces and small contingents of highly capable elite troops, and their resources are invested in high technology, high cost development like fighter jet programs, as opposed to manufacturing basic artillery in high volume.

Russia's military is geared towards fighting this very kind of war, their military doctrine has always favored the heavy use of artillery, as does their MIC. It is the kind of war that is adapted to their terrain, to be fought on a wide front in the open steppe.

As well the Russians are the best at AA missile systems, partly because their air force is no match for the combined air force of NATO, which has a huge numeric advantage over Russia. This also meant that Ukraine has managed to largely limit the role of the Russian air force through the effective use of Soviet era S-300s, which means that artillery is even more important.

This war is basically WW1 with drones and missiles, the Ukrainians have built up an impressive network of fortification lines in the Donbass that are more modern versions of the Maginot Line. The Russians were pretty poor in the drone department early on but have now closed the gap with their experience over the last 300 days and the help of Iranian technology, which has proved to be devastatingly efficient both in cost/production and in operational use.


Reply Quote
2
1 edit
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07a, 12/27/22
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger
Reply Quote
5
4 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to smh • 9:28a, 12/27/22
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger


Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.

Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to smh • 9:50a, 12/27/22
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger

White phosphorous bombs are not banned by the Geneva Conventions, only their use against civilians, which is not the case here, as Donbass villages in the front in places like Bakhmut have long been deserted.

One positive characteristic of this war is that the overwhelming majority of deaths have been military deaths, contrary to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the majority of deaths were civilians. Russia has not been deliberately targeting civilians, while Ukraine has, notably bombing the Donbass' largest city, Donetsk (not a military target), almost continuously. Russia did target civilian infrastructure more recently, especially the power and rail grids, but those are also military targets.

Far more troubling than phosphorous would be the use of depleted uranium, which isn't as tightly regulated by the Geneva Conventions, and which have been used on a large scale by NATO in Iraq, Syria and Yugoslavia, highly toxic ammunition whose half life is over 50,000 years. Some Russian tanks do use depleted uranium shells.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:54a, 12/27/22
New insights from Colonel McGregor:

1. Our goal has been to "harm Russia"
2. We can't fight a war -> the services exist to provide jobs for generals
3. We now have 40 4-star generals and admirals for 1.1M military; 7 4-star generals for 12 M men in WWII.
4. Overhead / bureaucracy has a corrupting effect
5. We only have 30k combat Marines (65k in aviation); should have weaned the services down in 1990s
6. Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC)
7. China / Russia have lean senior command, we don't have the combat troops
8. President Trump was thwarted in pulling troops out of Afghanistan and elsewhere
(No mention of the Military leaving $85B worth of gear, trucks, weapons, ammo, etc.)


Reply Quote
3
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:57a, 12/27/22
Can you share your sources for current information?
Reply Quote
1
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 10:21a, 12/27/22
movielover said:
New insights from Colonel McGregor:


MacGregor has been wrong about this war from the getgo, just like the other purveyors of mass disinformation who you gravitate toward. He's an anti-semite to boot, although I don't suppose that matters to you.

As Liz Cheney says, MacGregor is in the Putin wing of the GOP. So the question is: why do you continue to listen to and amplify the opinions of people who have been wrong every step of the way and have shown themselves to be horrible people?

Quote:
He has received backlash from both Democrats and Republicans for seeming to take a stance favorable toward Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. In multiple interviews, Macgregor has confidently predicted that the conflict will end with Russia "annihilating" Ukrainian forces and winning the war. One such interview, with Carlson, was aired on Russia's state-controlled TV.

Macgregor also said that Russian forces were "too gentle" in the early stages of the Ukraine invasion, and referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "puppet." Those comments prompted Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney to describe Macgregor as part of the "Putin wing of the GOP."

Macgregor has also come under fire in recent weeks after media outlets resurfaced antisemitic remarks he made last year, in which he referred to Jewish people as "rootless cosmopolitans" who "have no connection to the country," referring to the U.S.

As the war in Ukraine continues into its fourth week, here's a look at some of the comments Macgregor has made since the start of the conflict.

"If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them."

Speaking to Fox News three days after the Ukraine invasion began, Macgregor suggested that the conflict was already nearing an end:

"The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over, all of the Ukrainian troops there have been largely surrounded and cut off. You have a concentration down in the Southeast of 30 or 40,000 of them, and if they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them.

...

That interview ultimately prompted Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin to fact-check Macgregor and say he sounded "like an apologist for Putin."

Reply Quote
3
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:34a, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
golden sloth said:
movielover said:
Colonel Douglass McGregor today claims:

1. Brigades in Ukraine asking Zelensky to stop sending them on impossible missions (death)
2. Normal Ukraine military decimated? (Reduction of 60-70%.)
3. Most people would have assumed the US President would have asked for a cease fire after 1-2 weeks. No negotiation could lead to the end of Ukraine. We now have 8-10 Million refugees and mass bloodshed.
4. Russian military told eastern Ukrainians they were there to destroy military equipment, and leave. Therefore pro-Russian Ukranians didn't support the Russian military as they'd be hunted down when Russia left.
5. Rumors we may activate the National Guard this summer, and may send special forces to the Kiev Embassy? Both odd.
6. Rumors Poland has sent two brigades into Ukraine, and are now part of the Ukrainian military.
7. Our DOD previously lied to the Trump Administration - we had more troops in Syria and Africa than we were told.






As an fyi, we dont need daily updates from one person. I say this for a few reasons:

1. I feel more comfortable checking in with multiple sources as you can cross check the information to help understand how accurate the reporting is.

2. All the military experts I follow say that the day to day ups and downs arent what matters, rather the larger macro trends are what need to be understood.

3. Fog of war is real, and the commanders on both sides dont have a great understanding of the day to day events. Therefore bloggers pretending they can competently report on the daily or weekly updates are providing suspect information at best. As a Michael Kofman said, military analysts are still debating what happened in World War I, how are bloggers supposed to know what happened today?

We might not know some intricacies like the real reasons for WW1, how much of it was a Thucydides impulse by the British to stave off a rising power, or a battle for global resources by European powers, or an escalation of commitments set off by interlocking alliances and so on, but we do know how many soldiers died in WW1, as there are accurate, comprehensive full lists of casualties that were even published during the war.

That information about the war in Ukraine is known as well, and has been largely hidden, for political reasons.

The most relevant and important information about this war is the number of military casualties. This number is fairly well known by both military authorities. Until recently, Ukrainian officials tried to sell the world that the number of Ukrainian KIAs was little over 10,000, a figure they have stuck with for months on end. The recent public statements made by officials like Ursula von er Leyen and Mark Milley where they both said that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war caused the Ukrainian officials to ratchet up their official KIA number tenfold...

In fact the 100,000 KIA is likely an undercount. I think if people understood how deep Ukrainian losses have been, they would view this war as the one-sided massacre that it really is and would sue for a negotiated settlement, instead of pouring tens of billions every few weeks into a hopeless cause that is already wrecking the world economy and might spiral into something even worse, like world war 3.

People do view it as a one-sided massacre which is why there is so much sentiment in favor of Ukraine and a desire to inflict maximum pain upon Russia for all of this senseless death and destruction.

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?

Ukrainian soldier in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" front calls out his commander in chief Zaluzhny while loading body bags from his platoon:


Ukraine has Soviet-style "anti-retreat units" stationed behind the front in charge of picking off retreating or deserting soldiers:


Resentment growing in Ukrainian ranks from being used as canon fodder:


NATO is not inflicting pain on Ukraine! Russia is!

That you won't acknowledge that fundamental fact and blame the West for this conflict is straight out of Putin's propaganda. Let's be clear, if NATO actually wanted to get involved militarily in this conflict and attack Russia like Putin asserts this would have been over a long time ago and not in Russia's favor. However, the West is not seeking conflict with Russia and Putin know that. He's just looking for excuses.

Ukraine is fighting to defend their nation and Russia is the aggressor, not the other way around. It is Ukraine's decision whether to continue to fight against Russian aggression and the only party that can end this war anytime they want to is Russia, but they are so stubborn they are willing to kill thousands of their own young men for no good reason.

If Russia was worried about NATO expansion then this wasn't a solution because all of the countries on Russia's border are going to join NATO as a result of this ill-conceived invasion.

Reply Quote
8
4 edits
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 11:12a, 12/27/22
Unit2Sucks said:
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger


Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.



You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?
Reply Quote
2
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:13a, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
White phosphorous bombs are not banned by the Geneva Conventions, only their use against civilians...blah blah blah Ukrainians are Nazis and Russia is entirely justified...blah blah blah.
Is there ANY amoral depraved atrocity or abdication of human decency you will not defend, misrepresent, or paint with false equivalency? We get it. You have a hard on for Russia and excuse all her actions. You do not need to post again. We get your position. It bears no more repeating.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 11:57a, 12/27/22
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?
NATO is not inflicting pain on Ukraine! Russia is!

That you won't acknowledge that fundamental fact and blame the West for this conflict is straight out of Putin's propaganda. Let's be clear, if NATO actually wanted to get involved militarily in this conflict and attack Russia like Putin asserts this would have been over a long time ago and not in Russia's favor. However, the West is not seeking conflict with Russia and Putin know that. He's just looking for excuses.

Ukraine is fighting to defend their nation and Russia is the aggressor, not the other way around. It is Ukraine's decision whether to continue to fight against Russian aggression and the only party that can end this war anytime they want to is Russia, but they are so stubborn they are willing to kill thousands of their own young men for no good reason.

If Russia was worried about NATO expansion then this wasn't a solution because all of the countries on Russia's border are going to join NATO as a result of this ill-conceived invasion.

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.

This war could have and should have been prevented, the Russians would never have gone in had Minsk been respected. The red lines were known and well-defined, much the same way the US would have invaded Cuba had the Soviets not backed down from the US red lines and pulled out their missiles from there (concurrently with the US pulling out its ballistic nuclear missiles from Turkey).

If you zoom out and consider basic US/NATO doctrine as outlined by Brzezinski, the leading intellectual figure in modern American politics, in The Grand Chessboard, basically a white paper on US policy in Eurasia (a modern continuation of the Mackinder Great Game/Land Island political model), you will understand that it calls for using Ukraine to bleed Russia the same way Afghanistan was used to weaken the USSR.

The problem with this cynical approach is that most of the bleeding will come from the Ukrainian side. I would also refer you to the list of 70+ highly regarded politicians and analysts who have warned against NATO encroaching into Russian borders, crossing clearly defined red lines, that I've posted several pages ago on this thread.

https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/04/24/ukraine-is-a-pawn-on-the-grand-chessboard/

Quote:
Hillary Clinton recently summed up the wishes and dreams of Washington hawks: "The Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980 … a lot of countries supplied arms, advice and even some advisors to those who were recruited to fight Russia….a well funded insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan…. I think that is the model people are now looking toward."

US foreign policy has been consistent from Brzezinski to Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton and on to Victoria Nuland. The results are seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine.

As with Afghanistan, the US "didn't push Russia to intervene" but "knowingly increased the probability that they would." The purpose is the same in both cases: to use a pawn to undermine and potentially eliminate a rival. We expect the US will make every to prolong the bloodshed and war, to bog down the Russian army and prevent a peaceful settlement. The US goal is just what Joe Biden said: regime change in Moscow.

Like Afghanistan, Ukraine is just a pawn on the chessboard.


Furthermore, Ukraine or at least the army of the central government of Ukraine has been the primary aggressor in the Donbass. Ukraine's modern brand of nationalism calls for the forced de-russification of that region inhabited by russophones. Nearly half of the losses on the Russian side have come from the DPR and LPR, rebel armies of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. This tells you where the local Donbass loyalties lay; the population of these provinces view Ukraine as an occupying power.



This documentary series, Roses Have Thorns, from a British journalist, a collage of raw footage, official statements and interviews with locals from 2014-15 provides a great insight into the nature and genesis of the Ukraine war:

https://www.watchdogmediainstitute.com/p/blog-page.html





The confrontation between a Ukrainian army tank crew and locals that you see at the beginning of this episode illustrates the nature of this conflict, which is not unlike the kind of confrontations we saw in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague between Soviet tanks and locals:


Reply Quote
2
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:11p, 12/27/22
Oh, this is good.

Unit2Sucks said:
movielover said:
New insights from Colonel McGregor:

MacGregor has been wrong about this war from the getgo, just like the other purveyors of mass disinformation who you gravitate toward. He's an anti-semite to boot, although I don't suppose that matters to you.

As Liz Cheney says, MacGregor is in the Putin wing of the GOP.

Neocon Liz Cheney of the warhawk Cheney Clan? I thought your like called them chicken hawks?

So the question is: why do you continue to listen to and amplify the opinions of people who have been wrong every step of the way and have shown themselves to be horrible people?

I figured irrational people couldn't assimilate new facts. Six times the four star generals with 1/11th the military sounds rational to you? McGregor also calls the Deep State the bureaucracy.

Quote:
He has received backlash from both Democrats and Republicans for seeming to take a stance favorable toward Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. In multiple interviews, Macgregor has confidently predicted that the conflict will end with Russia "annihilating" Ukrainian forces and winning the war. One such interview, with Carlson, was aired on Russia's state-controlled TV.

If I say Oregon would destroy the Cal Bears, am I favorable to Oregon, or simply a realist? Both sides in agreement is true UniParty. What percentage of the $1.6 Trillion gets kicked back to the politicians through NGOs and military contractors?

"Macgregor also said that Russian forces were "too gentle" in the early stages of the Ukraine invasion, and referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "puppet." Those comments prompted Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney to describe Macgregor as part of the "Putin wing of the GOP."

Yes, he sounds like a military man, not a woke therapist. We'll see.

"Macgregor has also come under fire in recent weeks after media outlets resurfaced antisemitic remarks he made last year, in which he referred to Jewish people as "rootless cosmopolitans" who "have no connection to the country," referring to the U.S.

"As the war in Ukraine continues into its fourth week, here's a look at some of the comments Macgregor has made since the start of the conflict.

"If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them."


I'm not the expert, he is. We'll soon find out if he and Ritter are paid propagandists, or realists. Don't forget, Angela Merkel and others have admitted the Minsk Accords were a sham. Maybe he simply doesn't want to see 500k chess pieces (lives) ended when we already knew who would be victorious.

What can we think when Obama's C Team runs the show - Blinken, Rice, Sullivan, Obama. And we allegedly overthrew a daily elected President. Our MICC meddles all over the world where we're not needed - Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Vietnam.

Speaking to Fox News three days after the Ukraine invasion began, Macgregor suggested that the conflict was already nearing an end:

"The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over, all of the Ukrainian troops there have been largely surrounded and cut off. You have a concentration down in the Southeast of 30 or 40,000 of them, and if they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them.

...

That interview ultimately prompted Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin to fact-check Macgregor and say he sounded "like an apologist for Putin."

Reply Quote
3
3 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:22p, 12/27/22
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger


Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.



You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?


To be clear, I was speaking to Russia's reliance on war crimes writ large, not specifically the incident which smh shared. Lol to anyone who still relies on Cal88 for factual information in this thread given how wrong he's been for the past 10 months. I continue to urge people to invite him, not to read his posts or to respond to them ever since all of those things just encourage his spread of Kremlin propaganda and other disinformation.

There has been a lot of chatter about Russia's use of phosphorus bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, for which he's never indicated any desire to adhere to, but I don't know whether this particular incident was a violation. Putin has overseen the commission of numerous war crimes during this campaign so far and there is no reason to think they won't continue, even more so because Russia's conventional military force continues to woefully underperform. As much as people like to say that the US and NATO have prolonged this war, everyone who isn't a Kremlin propagandist knows that Russia is and has been Ukraine's top arms supplier, predominantly from weapons left behind by fleeing Kremlin forces. There is a reason the apologists try to use smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly this war is going for their hero Putin.

Furthermore, I don't think Putin murdering his fellow kleptocrat politicians in order to stifle dissent and advance his fascist control is a war crime although it's obviously a crime (I mean except in corrupt sh)thole petrostates like Russia where the authoritarian regime has no checks).
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:28p, 12/27/22
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger


Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.



You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?


To be clear, I was speaking to Russia's reliance on war crimes writ large, not specifically the incident which smh shared. Lol to anyone who still relies on Cal88 for factual information in this thread given how wrong he's been for the past 10 months. I continue to urge people to invite him, not to read his posts or to respond to them ever since all of those things just encourage his spread of Kremlin propaganda and other disinformation.

There has been a lot of chatter about Russia's use of phosphorus bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, for which he's never indicated any desire to adhere to, but I don't know whether this particular incident was a violation. Putin has overseen the commission of numerous war crimes during this campaign so far and there is no reason to think they won't continue, even more so because Russia's conventional military force continues to woefully underperform. As much as people like to say that the US and NATO have prolonged this war, everyone who isn't a Kremlin propagandist knows that Russia is and has been Ukraine's top arms supplier, predominantly from weapons left behind by fleeing Kremlin forces. There is a reason the apologists try to use smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly this war is going for their hero Putin.

Furthermore, I don't think Putin murdering his fellow kleptocrat politicians in order to stifle dissent and advance his fascist control is a war crime although it's obviously a crime (I mean except in corrupt sh)thole petrostates like Russia where the authoritarian regime has no checks).


You were wrong here, but in other instances they have committed war crimes. Got it.
Reply Quote
3
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 12:32p, 12/27/22
blungld said:
Cal88 said:
White phosphorous bombs are not banned by the Geneva Conventions, only their use against civilians...blah blah blah Ukrainians are Nazis and Russia is entirely justified...blah blah blah.
Is there ANY amoral depraved atrocity or abdication of human decency you will not defend, misrepresent, or paint with false equivalency? We get it. You have a hard on for Russia and excuse all her actions. You do not need to post again. We get your position. It bears no more repeating.

Your outrage lacks substance.

Contrary to the low-info, emotionally-driven narrative that has been very successfully sold to the mainstream, my posts have supporting content and the articulation of concepts or ideas that are lacking from the MSM coverage of this war.

And as far as amoral depraved atrocities, there is no equivalence to what the Ukrainian nationalist militias who rode into Odessa in May 2014 from western Ukraine and burned 40+ peaceful anti-Maidan protestors to death and beat to death another two dozen more.



This video is only 10min long, you can watch the last 6min by clicking on the arrow above.

I would very much like to have your feedback here.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:37p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?
NATO is not inflicting pain on Ukraine! Russia is!

That you won't acknowledge that fundamental fact and blame the West for this conflict is straight out of Putin's propaganda. Let's be clear, if NATO actually wanted to get involved militarily in this conflict and attack Russia like Putin asserts this would have been over a long time ago and not in Russia's favor. However, the West is not seeking conflict with Russia and Putin know that. He's just looking for excuses.

Ukraine is fighting to defend their nation and Russia is the aggressor, not the other way around. It is Ukraine's decision whether to continue to fight against Russian aggression and the only party that can end this war anytime they want to is Russia, but they are so stubborn they are willing to kill thousands of their own young men for no good reason.

If Russia was worried about NATO expansion then this wasn't a solution because all of the countries on Russia's border are going to join NATO as a result of this ill-conceived invasion.

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.
My crazy notion is that Russia has thwarted prospects for peace in Ukraine by continuing to send troops in.
Reply Quote
9
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:44p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?
NATO is not inflicting pain on Ukraine! Russia is!

That you won't acknowledge that fundamental fact and blame the West for this conflict is straight out of Putin's propaganda. Let's be clear, if NATO actually wanted to get involved militarily in this conflict and attack Russia like Putin asserts this would have been over a long time ago and not in Russia's favor. However, the West is not seeking conflict with Russia and Putin know that. He's just looking for excuses.

Ukraine is fighting to defend their nation and Russia is the aggressor, not the other way around. It is Ukraine's decision whether to continue to fight against Russian aggression and the only party that can end this war anytime they want to is Russia, but they are so stubborn they are willing to kill thousands of their own young men for no good reason.

If Russia was worried about NATO expansion then this wasn't a solution because all of the countries on Russia's border are going to join NATO as a result of this ill-conceived invasion.

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.

This war could have and should have been prevented, the Russians would never have gone in had Minsk been respected. The red lines were known and well-defined, much the same way the US would have invaded Cuba had the Soviets not backed down from the US red lines and pulled out their missiles from there (concurrently with the US pulling out its ballistic nuclear missiles from Turkey).

If you zoom out and consider basic US/NATO doctrine as outlined by Brzezinski, the leading intellectual figure in modern American politics, in The Grand Chessboard, basically a white paper on US policy in Eurasia (a modern continuation of the Mackinder Great Game/Land Island political model), you will understand that it calls for using Ukraine to bleed Russia the same way Afghanistan was used to weaken the USSR.

The problem with this cynical approach is that most of the bleeding will come from the Ukrainian side. I would also refer you to the list of 70+ highly regarded politicians and analysts who have warned against NATO encroaching into Russian borders, crossing clearly defined red lines, that I've posted several pages ago on this thread.

https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/04/24/ukraine-is-a-pawn-on-the-grand-chessboard/

Quote:
Hillary Clinton recently summed up the wishes and dreams of Washington hawks: "The Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980 … a lot of countries supplied arms, advice and even some advisors to those who were recruited to fight Russia….a well funded insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan…. I think that is the model people are now looking toward."

US foreign policy has been consistent from Brzezinski to Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton and on to Victoria Nuland. The results are seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine.

As with Afghanistan, the US "didn't push Russia to intervene" but "knowingly increased the probability that they would." The purpose is the same in both cases: to use a pawn to undermine and potentially eliminate a rival. We expect the US will make every to prolong the bloodshed and war, to bog down the Russian army and prevent a peaceful settlement. The US goal is just what Joe Biden said: regime change in Moscow.

Like Afghanistan, Ukraine is just a pawn on the chessboard.


Furthermore, Ukraine or at least the army of the central government of Ukraine has been the primary aggressor in the Donbass. Ukraine's modern brand of nationalism calls for the forced de-russification of that region inhabited by russophones. Nearly half of the losses on the Russian side have come from the DPR and LPR, rebel armies of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. This tells you where the local Donbass loyalties lay; the population of these provinces view Ukraine as an occupying power.



This documentary series, Roses Have Thorns, from a British journalist, a collage of raw footage, official statements and interviews with locals from 2014-15 provides a great insight into the nature and genesis of the Ukraine war:

https://www.watchdogmediainstitute.com/p/blog-page.html





The confrontation between a Ukrainian army tank crew and locals that you see at the beginning of this episode illustrates the nature of this conflict, which is not unlike the kind of confrontations we saw in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague between Soviet tanks and locals:




Again with the BS and blatant lies.

Russia actively thwarted any chance for peace when they voluntarily invaded a sovereign country. NATO was never expanding to Ukraine. NATO has also never invaded a foreign country in its 70ish years of existence. The only threat Ukraine posed to Russia was by being a democratically elected government. Putin hates democracy as it threatens his power, having a democracy on his border, particularly one with similar cultural ties could inspire the Russian people to want a democracy as well. This war is all about russian insecurity, and nothing else. It is a shame the Ukrainians pay the price for Russian weakness.
Reply Quote
8
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:45p, 12/27/22
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.
My crazy notion is that Russia has thwarted prospects for peace in Ukraine by continuing to send troops in.

It's a lot easier to fall back on a simplistic narrative than to take the time to seek out the underlying international and domestic causes of this conflict, I'll grant you that.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:47p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.
My crazy notion is that Russia has thwarted prospects for peace in Ukraine by continuing to send troops in.

It's a lot easier to fall back on a simplistic narrative than to take the time to seek out the underlying international and domestic causes of this conflict, I'll grant you that.
It's not a narrative, it's just the truth. Russia sent the troops in and started the war, and is prolonging the war by continuing to send more troops in.

The rest of this stuff might be interesting, but ultimately it's just window dressing for the facts on the ground.
Reply Quote
6
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:50p, 12/27/22
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
smh said:
snapshot from the dark side..

^ click pic for bigger


Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.



You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?


Honestly, this is just my realist take. The idea of war crimes is a bit trivial to me. The idea that you can wage war with rules in place doesnt make sense to me. It doesnt make sense because war is a fight for survival, and the desire to survive is going to trump any desire to adhere to prescribed rules. If the choice is between dying and breaking the rules, most people will break the rules. In my opinion war should be the war crime as every war will inevitably have war crimes. The simple act of invasion should constitute a war crime because it creates the environment where war crimes will inevitably happen.
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:52p, 12/27/22
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:

Ukrainian soldiers have been dying at a rate of 8 to 1 in a war that has basically consisted of an artillery duel where one side has over 10 times as much firepower. That is the basic nature of this conflict. In order to inflict pain on Russia, you're inflicting far greater pain on Ukraine.

Knowing this, do you want this war to go on?
NATO is not inflicting pain on Ukraine! Russia is!

That you won't acknowledge that fundamental fact and blame the West for this conflict is straight out of Putin's propaganda. Let's be clear, if NATO actually wanted to get involved militarily in this conflict and attack Russia like Putin asserts this would have been over a long time ago and not in Russia's favor. However, the West is not seeking conflict with Russia and Putin know that. He's just looking for excuses.

Ukraine is fighting to defend their nation and Russia is the aggressor, not the other way around. It is Ukraine's decision whether to continue to fight against Russian aggression and the only party that can end this war anytime they want to is Russia, but they are so stubborn they are willing to kill thousands of their own young men for no good reason.

If Russia was worried about NATO expansion then this wasn't a solution because all of the countries on Russia's border are going to join NATO as a result of this ill-conceived invasion.

NATO actively thwarted all prospects for peace in Ukraine, so the responsibility for this war falls primarily on them. From the non-enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, to Boris Johnson flying in during the Istanbul talks in early Spring where Zelensky was initially receptive to a practical settlement with Russia in order to scuttle these prospects.
My crazy notion is that Russia has thwarted prospects for peace in Ukraine by continuing to send troops in.


What prevents Russia from stopping their invasion?

Oh yea, Putin not wanting to appear weak or wrong.
Reply Quote
5
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:54p, 12/27/22
Any truth to Zelensky being well paid (off), and holding property in Florida?
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:58p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
blungld said:
Cal88 said:
White phosphorous bombs are not banned by the Geneva Conventions, only their use against civilians...blah blah blah Ukrainians are Nazis and Russia is entirely justified...blah blah blah.
Is there ANY amoral depraved atrocity or abdication of human decency you will not defend, misrepresent, or paint with false equivalency? We get it. You have a hard on for Russia and excuse all her actions. You do not need to post again. We get your position. It bears no more repeating.

Your outrage lacks substance.

Contrary to the low-info, emotionally-driven narrative that has been very successfully sold to the mainstream, my posts have supporting content and the articulation of concepts or ideas that are lacking from the MSM coverage of this war.

And as far as amoral depraved atrocities, there is no equivalence to what the Ukrainian nationalist militias who rode into Odessa in May 2014 from western Ukraine and burned 40+ peaceful anti-Maidan protestors to death and beat to death another two dozen more.



This video is only 10min long, you can watch the last 6min by clicking on the arrow above.

I would very much like to have your feedback here.


Your posts also feature many false narratives which you continue to repeat time and time again even though they have been disproved. Your posts also feature incorrect information from dubious sources. Just because you write a long post, does not mean it is anymore accurate.
Reply Quote
6
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 12/27/22
Joe Biden's "gaffe" about regime change

The Atlantic, March 26, 2022:

"But Biden broke his long streak of message discipline during a speech in Poland today, when he added an apparently unscripted ending: "For God's sake, this man"meaning Putin"cannot remain in power."

"The sound that could not be captured by the cameras after Biden spoke was dozens of staffers slapping the palm of their hand against their forehead. Predictably, media in America and elsewhere seized on this statement as if it were some new policy or a NATO war aim and asked if the president of the United States was calling for regime change in, of all places, Moscow...."

Newsweek: Joe Biden Is Calling for Regime Change in Russia and This Time It Isn't A Gaffe

BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 4/04/22

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-russia-this-time-it-isnt-gaffe-1694867

How US-backed 'regime change' in Russia made Ukraine invasion possible

openDemocracy
www.opendemocracy.net

Biden wants regime change in Russia & removal of Vladimir Putin, claims ...

www.republicworld.com

Reply Quote
3
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 1:13p, 12/27/22
golden sl said:
Quote:

The confrontation between a Ukrainian army tank crew and locals that you see at the beginning of this episode illustrates the nature of this conflict, which is not unlike the kind of confrontations we saw in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague between Soviet tanks and locals:

Again with the BS and blatant lies.

Russia actively thwarted any chance for peace when they voluntarily invaded a sovereign country. NATO was never expanding to Ukraine. NATO has also never invaded a foreign country in its 70ish years of existence. The only threat Ukraine posed to Russia was by being a democratically elected government. Putin hates democracy as it threatens his power, having a democracy on his border, particularly one with similar cultural ties could inspire the Russian people to want a democracy as well. This war is all about russian insecurity, and nothing else. It is a shame the Ukrainians pay the price for Russian weakness.

NATO invaded Yugoslavia in 1999, carrying a ruthless aerial bombing campaign that lasted 3 months straight, 35,000 sorties and nearly half a million bombs, in a war that was illegal (not sanctioned by the UN) and that targeted all civilian infrastructure from day 1, including schools, hospitals, churches, museums, and made heavy use of depleted uranium on urban targets, the most toxic and dangerous compound used in warfare today, with a half life of 50,000 years. Hundreds of Italian NATO soldiers who were involved in this campaign came down with cancer. Of course local civilians bore a much heavier toll, which has not abated since.

Quote:
The consequences of DU munitions have been most clearly revealed in Iraq. The US fired almost 944,000 rounds of DU ammunition in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 war. Congenital birth defects in Iraq are reported to have increased to three times their post-war levels and there has been a dramatic increase in cancers and childhood leukaemia. Last year, British experimental biologist Roger Cohill warned that the use of DU weapons against Yugoslavia was likely to result in an additional 10,000 fatal cancer cases in the region.





Reply Quote
3
2 edits
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 1:17p, 12/27/22
movielover said:
Any truth to Zelensky being well paid (off), and holding property in Florida?


Do you realize that the US and NATO countries pressured Zelensky to flee Ukraine in the opening days of the war? He declined and instead asked for weapons to fight. If the west was pressuring him to flee and set up a government in exile, why would they pay him off now to keep fighting?

The fact is Ukrainians support resistance to Russia, and the attacks on civilian infrastructure have increased the Ukrainian desire to fight back as the Ukrainian people are now experiencing the pain of russian aggression.

When Russia hits your house with a rocket, people tend to say **** you let's fight, not let's make peace.
Reply Quote
5
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:25p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
golden sl said:
Quote:

The confrontation between a Ukrainian army tank crew and locals that you see at the beginning of this episode illustrates the nature of this conflict, which is not unlike the kind of confrontations we saw in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague between Soviet tanks and locals:

Again with the BS and blatant lies.

Russia actively thwarted any chance for peace when they voluntarily invaded a sovereign country. NATO was never expanding to Ukraine. NATO has also never invaded a foreign country in its 70ish years of existence. The only threat Ukraine posed to Russia was by being a democratically elected government. Putin hates democracy as it threatens his power, having a democracy on his border, particularly one with similar cultural ties could inspire the Russian people to want a democracy as well. This war is all about russian insecurity, and nothing else. It is a shame the Ukrainians pay the price for Russian weakness.

NATO invaded Yugoslavia in 1999, carrying a ruthless aerial bombing campaign that lasted 3 months straight, 35,000 sorties and nearly half a million bombs, in a war that was illegal (not sanctioned by the UN) and that targeted all civilian infrastructure from day 1, including schools, hospitals, churches, museums, and made heavy use of depleted uranium on urban targets, the most toxic and dangerous compound used in warfare today, with a half life of 50,000 years. Hundreds of Italian NATO soldiers who were involved in this campaign came down with cancer. Of course local civilians bore a much heavier toll, which has not abated since.

Quote:
The consequences of DU munitions have been most clearly revealed in Iraq. The US fired almost 944,000 rounds of DU ammunition in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 war. Congenital birth defects in Iraq are reported to have increased to three times their post-war levels and there has been a dramatic increase in cancers and childhood leukaemia. Last year, British experimental biologist Roger Cohill warned that the use of DU weapons against Yugoslavia was likely to result in an additional 10,000 fatal cancer cases in the region.







More of Cal88's impeccable facts. Yugoslavia was not even a country in 1999, so how the hell could they have been invaded? Yet, we should disregard the mountains of information out there and only listen to your sources because they are the only sources that are true and right and untouched by propaganda and bias. Just like how Al-Jazeera is a pro-Western news outlet on par with the BBC.

Facts by Cal88.
Reply Quote
6
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:27p, 12/27/22
Cal88 said:
golden sl said:
Quote:

The confrontation between a Ukrainian army tank crew and locals that you see at the beginning of this episode illustrates the nature of this conflict, which is not unlike the kind of confrontations we saw in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague between Soviet tanks and locals:

Again with the BS and blatant lies.

Russia actively thwarted any chance for peace when they voluntarily invaded a sovereign country. NATO was never expanding to Ukraine. NATO has also never invaded a foreign country in its 70ish years of existence. The only threat Ukraine posed to Russia was by being a democratically elected government. Putin hates democracy as it threatens his power, having a democracy on his border, particularly one with similar cultural ties could inspire the Russian people to want a democracy as well. This war is all about russian insecurity, and nothing else. It is a shame the Ukrainians pay the price for Russian weakness.

NATO invaded Yugoslavia in 1999, carrying a ruthless aerial bombing campaign that lasted 3 months straight, 35,000 sorties and nearly half a million bombs, in a war that was illegal (not sanctioned by the UN) and that targeted all civilian infrastructure from day 1, including schools, hospitals, churches, museums, and made heavy use of depleted uranium on urban targets, the most toxic and dangerous compound used in warfare today, with a half life of 50,000 years. Hundreds of Italian NATO soldiers who were involved in this campaign came down with cancer. Of course local civilians bore a much heavier toll, which has not abated since.
NATO did that because the Serbs were busy trying to genocide the Kosovars and the Western powers felt they had to intervene for humanitarian reasons.

That sounds EXACTLY like the justification you have been offering up for why Russia had to invade Crimea and the Donbas. Interesting how it's illegal and a crime against humanity when Western democracies do it.
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 1:28p, 12/27/22
But it could have all been prevented. Notice this didn't happen when POTUS Trump was in office?

Ukraine appears to be pawns, and we appear to be fighting an enemy from 1980. The end result may be a crippled Ukraine.

If Ukraine is taking heavy losses in our proxy war, how does our Deep State take a loss and save face?
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:30p, 12/27/22
Crimea was long ago and Obama was a weak leader, hence Putin pounced.
Reply Quote
2
First Page Last Page
Page 77 of 283 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.