|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
You can call anyone neo-nazi but you need to have actual evidence to show that. I do not see anything nazi on him, the article calling him neo-nazi does not have anything to back this claim up. However, for Azovs you can see clearly the wolfsangel on their uniform.
|
|
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On May 02 2022 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 21:49 Ardias wrote:Wow, didn't expect my posts to get this much response. I'll be trying to answer everyone in my spare time. On May 02 2022 20:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
This smells like yet another way to call people russophobic, like Russian propaganda wants us to do, even when they're talking about war criminals, rapists and genocidal monsters. If a Russian invades another country, we can and should curse them for it. If Russia is illegally invading its neighbour with genocidal intent, Russia needs to be cursed for it. They can get their good name back when they stop tarnishing it with their filthy behaviour and repent. This is not the time for virtue signaling with sensitive language, we have a genocide to stop. About "genocidal" intent - let's say I disagree that such was the intent. My belief is that the best case scenario Kremlin hoped for is that Ukrainian leadership will be scared at the prospect of all-out war, quickly surrender, goverment will be made pro-Russian, Russian will be second official language, Ukraine won't be trying to go into EU or NATO, Donbass and Crimea are recognized, water from Dniepr and electricity from Zaporozhie nuclear plant flow into Crimea without problem. Hip-hip hooray, home before the leaves grow. Putin's narrative from the start was "that we come to liberate people from Kiev regime", and I believe he wanted to be seen not only by Russian, but also by Ukrainian (especially Russian-speaking) population in such regard. Such attitude got a lot of our soldiers killed or captured in the first days. Though as the Ukrainians started to fiercly resist, amount of civilian casualities went up, that is true. But my point is that if Putin's objective was to kill as many Ukrainians (military or civilian) as possible - after two months Kharkov would be already flattened without any building left in one piece. As for antagonization - oddly enough, I think it plays well for both yours (I mean Western) and our political leadership. In the eyes of the West Russia will be the only scapegoat for any economic and social problem (wheter we guilty of it or not) for years to come. Same could be said about us, plus our leadership will be glad that Russian people would be turned off from the West and its values more and more since they aren't welcomed there. About repenting - many Russians still feel humiliated by the fall of Soviet Union, so I doubt that they would like to be humiliated even further (even if for a good reason). Though there is, as I mentioned before, disagreement in our society regarding the war. I often visit local pubs with friends, so I can see and hear a lot of heated arguments in the matter, sometimes even turning into fights. Though it's not large enough to mount large-scale protests (and there are also harsh punishments for that). First of all, I appreciate your willingness to come here and discuss these topics in such a calm and well-argued manner. I think you don't realize that genocide from a legal perspective is a combination of several things. The bar is lower than you might think. Showing intent is important but not necessary. Yet, even destroying Ukraine as a nation or replacement of the government could be sufficient. So, what you say isn't really a counterargument. But, more damning, is the premeditated aspects of extermination. There's increasing evidence of RU having pre-war lists of people to exterminate, both military and administrative. Paratroopers shooting at Zelensky on the 25th is the latest example of this. This almost certainly counts as part of the puzzle to call it genocide. Now you just need something additional. Deportations are a huge one, and we've seen a large number of deportations into Russia. Rape is another, and once again, you have wide-scale rape and discussions of rape from Russians as a tool of terror. So, it's not clear how the international criminal court will establish genocide in the end, but it's very likely (in my mind, and from lawyers I've discussed this with) that genocidal intent will be determined in the end. I do agree with you that RU troops started targeting civilians more after the first few days. And especially during retreats (mirroring retreats in Syria).
Well, I've understood genocide in the manner of Holocaust in WW2 or Tutsi cleansing in Rwanda. As for the current Russian policy on Ukraine - I added it into my post on the previous page (discussing RIA article).
Regarding lists - there sure are, but I think our government would prefer to take those people alive, so they could make something resemling Nurnberg trial. It would fit well into "denazification" narrative.
As for shootout at Feb 25th - I quite doubt that these were our forces, simply because if it was an assasination attempt on Zelensky, it failed. And in no way our forces would manage to leave center of Kiev alive. Hence the bodies of our soldiers would be shown all over news with headlines "These people tried to murder our President!". But it didn't happen. My take is that (and a lot of other shootout incidents in the Ukrainian rear) are the case of inexperienced and nervous territorial defence, under the influence of info from Ukrainian authorities that Russia use diversion groups dressed in UA uniform. There is at least one UA source backing this up:
https://focus.ua/ukraine/510316-territorialnaya-oborona-ubivaet-ukrainskih-voennyh-prinimaya-ih-za-drg-rf-bondar
though generally such incidents are refered as "shootout with Russian infiltrators".
As for war crimes - well, I agree there are, sadly. Though probably I will be at disagreement with many who posting there about the scale of them, as well as about the question "Do both sides actually commit them?".
|
|
|
On May 02 2022 23:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:16 xa2652 wrote:You can call anyone neo-nazi but you need to have actual evidence to show that. I do not see anything nazi on him, the article calling him neo-nazi does not have anything to back this claim up. However, for Azovs you can see clearly the wolfsangel on their uniform. Just google Nazi Russia or Russian Nazi and you can find all sorts of images. There has even been esports people and athletes banned for making the salutes. It is a stupid argument and given the low post count and it all being here, being pretty darn dumb, and oh so edge makes it very likely you are a PBU. Hope this was "fun"?
Those that you are talking about are individuals, for Ukraine it's embracement on state level.
Anyway, I think we all agree that Ukraine contain nazis, and the call by Putin to denazify isn't that out of nowhere right?
Also, about Russian energy income, there's one thing you people got wrong tremendously. It's not whether European buying them or not that matters, but the actual price of oil & gas that makes or break the Russian energy income. Because oil & gas are lifeblood of industry and daily life, if European refuse to buy they can always manage to find other customers. By refusing to buy Russian energy you actually push the price up, so they can sell their stuff at a higher price to other customers making them even richer. So by boycotting Russian gas, you are actually helping them out.
However now I'm going to talk a little bit more of the whole situation. Currently it's not really about nazis anymore, since a huge portion of them is dead now anyway. Now what matters is that this operation/war is becoming a proxy war between US and Russia, and this will have profound effect on the world. It is going to create a bipartition and put an end to globalization, and cause massive inflation in US and Europe. Putin is counting on all this, so on contrary to what most people believe he is not seeking quick victory but instead a prolonged tug of war to keep the price of energy and food high to make more money to fund the Russian army while destablising and weakening Europe through high food and energy price for future possible military operations. So the longer this war/operation drag out, the more he win, making conventional winning actually not winning in this case.
|
On May 02 2022 23:36 Ardias wrote:
As for war crimes - well, I agree there are, sadly. Though probably I will be at disagreement with many who posting there about the scale of them, as well as about the question "Do both sides actually commit them?".
You want to be careful with phrasing it like this, as it can easily be misunderstood as a justification / defence of it ("look you guys are doing it as well!"). It is also easy to hit a nerve there since whataboutism, although widely used, is considered a remnant of soviet propaganda by most people. So its a quick way to get others to stamp a label like kremlin troll on you, based on what might have been a disagreement.
But yeah, the scale of them is a topic of contention, as well as the question if its the military stepping out of line, or ordered from above. So far we only have definitive proof that they def happened, but I am very interested if we ever get to know more.
Regarding 'if the other side commits them as well', yeah, there has been evidence for war crimes committed by ukrainian forces both during the war in donbass as well as during this conflict, though I think the term 'war crimes' is as complicated here as the term 'genocide'. The legal definition can differ from an individuals understanding of the term. For example, the filming of captured russian troops against their will can fall under the definition of war crimes, though I doubt its something many civilians would agree with. And ofc not all warcrimes are created equal, even someone who agrees that filming prisoners of war against their will is a war crime, will probably not see it as being as bad as killing civilians. Kinda how deliberately destroying the identity of a culture/group falls under the term of a genocide.
I think its best to not make any comparisons when it comes to warcrimes and rather look at all of them on their own, admit that they are bad and hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice in accordance with the severity of the crime and the circumstances they happened in, but to never excuse them.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On May 02 2022 23:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:16 xa2652 wrote:You can call anyone neo-nazi but you need to have actual evidence to show that. I do not see anything nazi on him, the article calling him neo-nazi does not have anything to back this claim up. However, for Azovs you can see clearly the wolfsangel on their uniform. Just google Nazi Russia or Russian Nazi and you can find all sorts of images. There has even been esports people and athletes banned for making the salutes. It is a stupid argument and given the low post count and it all being here, being pretty darn dumb, and oh so edge makes it very likely you are a PBU. Hope this was "fun"?
He is Chinese. Check his first two posts of 2017.
Regarding your question from the previous page - I saw those posts, just didn't have time to write a proper response (since I prefet to do fact-checking and adding links to sources to support my statments, which takes a lot of time).
In short - no, my opinion didn't change much. I've seen all those sources and arguments before, since I was closely watching the situation since January 2014. As I said before, I generally don't read our state media other than to check if it acknowleged some event, my opinion is formed by other sources. I'll futher elaborate in answers to the respective posters.
On May 02 2022 23:51 JimmiC wrote:
Yes they do, but people tend to think the invading force digging the mass graves are more responsible because of them from both sides would not happen if that army did not invade.
The Ukrainians committing war crimes should also be prosecuted. I'm not sure if the number would be 1000-1 Rus to UA in war crimes or 10-1 or 10000000000-1. It is however very clear that the Russian side is committing way more and also that they have the power to stop more from being committed, by simply ending their invasion.
On May 02 2022 23:57 Artesimo wrote:
I think its best to not make any comparisons when it comes to warcrimes and rather look at all of them on their own, admit that they are bad and hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice in accordance with the severity of the crime and the circumstances they happened in, but to never excuse them.
Points aknowledged.
Just want to say about "ending the invasion" - sadly, don't think it's gonna happen. Both by reasons mentioned by xa2652, and the fact that this would probably lead to social explosion. A lot of people here sort of adjusted to the fact that we are shamed and sactioned by the West and are at a state of war. But now they are expecting at least some sort of victory, so deaths of our soldliers wouldn't be comepletely in vain.
We had same situation during the First Chechen War, when military finally started to push Chechens to the brink of collapse, albeit with heavy losses in the process. But Eltsin wanted to boost his popularity before 1996 elections and decided that image of peacemaker will help him better. Thus Hasavyurt agreements were signed, which made Russia as defeated side in the war. A lot of people later became really salty about that, especially after the 2nd Chechen War started. Considering the fact that Putin's initial popularity was due to him swiftly winning the active part of the war as a strong leader (though partisan and terrorist actions remained for years), I doubt he would back out now. Plus the stakes is much higher now, than in Chechnya. People will be genuinely mad that all these sacrifices were completely for nothing.
|
|
|
On May 02 2022 23:16 xa2652 wrote:You can call anyone neo-nazi but you need to have actual evidence to show that. I do not see anything nazi on him, the article calling him neo-nazi does not have anything to back this claim up. However, for Azovs you can see clearly the wolfsangel on their uniform.
How about Dmitry Utkin, then? He was awarded the Order of Courage. Blatant enough? What excuses will you use now? There are several neo-Nazi/fascist battalions fighting on the Russian side, such as Sparta, Rusich, Svarozich, Ratibor, etc.
|
On May 02 2022 23:58 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On May 02 2022 23:16 xa2652 wrote:You can call anyone neo-nazi but you need to have actual evidence to show that. I do not see anything nazi on him, the article calling him neo-nazi does not have anything to back this claim up. However, for Azovs you can see clearly the wolfsangel on their uniform. Just google Nazi Russia or Russian Nazi and you can find all sorts of images. There has even been esports people and athletes banned for making the salutes. It is a stupid argument and given the low post count and it all being here, being pretty darn dumb, and oh so edge makes it very likely you are a PBU. Hope this was "fun"? He is Chinese. Check his first two posts of 2017. Regarding your question from the previous page - I saw those posts, just didn't have time to write a proper response (since I prefet to do fact-checking and adding links to sources to support my statments, which takes a lot of time). In short - no, my opinion didn't change much. I've seen all those sources and arguments before, since I was closely watching the situation since January 2014. As I said before, I generally don't read our state media other than to check if it acknowleged some event, my opinion is formed by other sources. I'll futher elaborate in answers to the respective posters. Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:51 JimmiC wrote:
Yes they do, but people tend to think the invading force digging the mass graves are more responsible because of them from both sides would not happen if that army did not invade.
The Ukrainians committing war crimes should also be prosecuted. I'm not sure if the number would be 1000-1 Rus to UA in war crimes or 10-1 or 10000000000-1. It is however very clear that the Russian side is committing way more and also that they have the power to stop more from being committed, by simply ending their invasion.
Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:57 Artesimo wrote:
I think its best to not make any comparisons when it comes to warcrimes and rather look at all of them on their own, admit that they are bad and hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice in accordance with the severity of the crime and the circumstances they happened in, but to never excuse them. Points aknowledged. Just want to say about "ending the invasion" - sadly, don't think it's gonna happen. Both by reasons mentioned by xa2652, and the fact that this would probably lead to social explosion. A lot of people here sort of adjusted to the fact that we are shamed and sactioned by the West and are at a state of war. But now they are expecting at least some sort of victory, so deaths of our soldliers wouldn't be comepletely in vain. We had same situation during the First Chechen War, when military finally started to push Chechens to the brink of collapse, albeit with heavy losses in the process. But Eltsin wanted to boost his popularity before 1996 elections and decided that image of peacemaker will help him better. Thus Hasavyurt agreements were signed, which made Russia as defeated side in the war. A lot of people later became really salty about that, especially after the 2nd Chechen War started. Considering the fact that Putin's initial popularity was due to him swiftly winning the active part of the war as a strong leader (though partisan and terrorist actions remained for years), I doubt he would back out now. Plus the stakes is much higher now, than in Chechnya. People will be genuinely mad that all these sacrifices were completely for nothing.
Yes, i don't think anyone here believes that Russia will suddenly stop invading Ukraine. That would be the best solution which doesn't include changing the past. (The real best solution would have been to simply not invade in the first place).
However, it is still a fact that if Russia were to decide to stop, this would all end, immediately. Thus, Russia is more at fault here, because they could make the decision to stop this, and choose not to. If the Russian troops simply went home, there would no longer be a war.
With regards to "the sacrifices being for nothing", that reminds me strongly about stuff i read/listened to about WW1. In WW1, countries also couldn't justify ending the war, because then all those horrendous losses they suffered would have been for nothing. So they continued to suffer more and more horrendous losses for years and years.
Yes, Russia has had a bunch of losses (entirely preventable ones, as they would have zero losses if they simply didn't invade). But focusing on that is a sunk cost fallacy, and will only cost you more and more. It sucks. It sucks if people die. But letting more people die in the same way does not honor those dead. (Also, if you worry that much about those dead, maybe don't send them into a war in the first place)
|
On May 02 2022 22:42 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 22:07 maybenexttime wrote:
Being completely sceptical of the media is the desired effect of Russian propaganda. And journalists being personally involved in what they're reporting on usually affects their objectivism negatively, not positively.
Also, it is key to use multiple reputable sources, not just sources presenting different points of view. If you read an article about the Earth being flat and another one about it being round, the truth is not somewhere in the middle. The same applies to the Russian narrative about the MH17, the "genocide" in Donbas etc.
As for the genocidal intent, have you read the infamous articles by RIA? They are pretty open about it. As are many Russian politicians, including Putin himself. Question is, what is "reputable"? And who is "independent"? As I've read threads on US politics, there is a contnious debate that "Fox News are fake because they are Republican" or "Washington post tells everything in favour of Democrats". Or opinions on agencies like Dailymail or Bild being "the yellow press". And why would, for example, accounts of Russian volunteer serving in LPR and posting info in his Livejournal blog would be a bad source (i'm occasionaly reading few such people)? Yes, he is biased, yes, his opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, but he is actually living there and serving for years. He sees things directly from his trench. Of course it's unwise to think that his opinion is the only right one, but it should be taken into account. As well as those from the other side, and then from neutral ones. Plus due to the fact that Russia is at war not only with Ukraine, but de-facto, in a cold stance, with whole western world (considering all the sanctions, military supplies, financial, recoinassance and media support to Ukraine I wouldn't believe its a long stretch), it's hard to expect full objectivity in media on your enemy. Edit: about RIA - you mean this one? https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.htmlYeah, that is the reason why I don't read our state media on political questions, stuff like that makes me puke. But, if we are completely objective, while it looks like a page fron 1984 book, it doesn't talk of the physical genocide of the Ukrainian population. I'll try to briefly translate "the first necessary denazification measures" part: "- termination of all Ukrainian military forces and structure that supplies it; - creation of Peoples militia and local authorities: - installation of Russian information bubble; - ban on any education that is considered nazi; - mass investigations to find those who is responsible for the war crimes and support of nazi regime; - making information about the supporters of the nazi regime public, making them to pay for it by force labor; - forbiddance of any form of nazi ideology; - installation of monuments for those who died fighting nazism; - implementation of anti-fascist and anti-nazi provisions in the constitutions of the new Peoples republics; - creation of acting denazification bodies for 25 years" So this article promoted dismatling Ukraine as a state, creation of a few new republics, with Russian-controlled governments, and russification of the population. But bear in mind, that this article appeared on 03.04.2022. I believe that after the plans for quick war failed and negotioations went to nothing, people in Kremlin decided to go for plan B (as "home before the leaves grow" which I wrote about in my previous post didn't happen). My theory is based on the fact that for more that a month nobody (not including one case with Kadyrov troops in Hostomel) was removing Ukrainian flags from the occupied cities, and nobody was changing local authorities to the Russian-backed ones. This happened only in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which Russia considers as parts of DPR and LPR. But in the end of March suddenly we started to change flags and appoint our mayors all over Kherson and Zaporozhie regions. My guess is plan B will be to take as much territory as possible, at least before winter, and then freeze the conflict for the time being, while doing all measures mentioned above on Russian controlled territory to either integrate it into Russia later, or create some new republics there.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
This one is from the very start of the invasion. It is clear that the goal was eradication of the Ukrainian identity and physical extermination of anyone opposing that. And "Nazi" is used as a synonym for "Ukrainian".
Bear in mind that even the Nazis used euphemisms when talking about genocide.
|
On May 02 2022 23:58 Ardias wrote:
Just want to say about "ending the invasion" - sadly, don't think it's gonna happen. Both by reasons mentioned by xa2652, and the fact that this would probably lead to social explosion. A lot of people here sort of adjusted to the fact that we are shamed and sactioned by the West and are at a state of war. But now they are expecting at least some sort of victory, so deaths of our soldliers wouldn't be comepletely in vain.
We had same situation during the First Chechen War, when military finally started to push Chechens to the brink of collapse, albeit with heavy losses in the process. But Eltsin wanted to boost his popularity before 1996 elections and decided that image of peacemaker will help him better. Thus Hasavyurt agreements were signed, which made Russia as defeated side in the war. A lot of people later became really salty about that, especially after the 2nd Chechen War started. Considering the fact that Putin's initial popularity was due to him swiftly winning the active part of the war as a strong leader (though partisan and terrorist actions remained for years), I doubt he would back out now. Plus the stakes is much higher now, than in Chechnya. People will be genuinely mad that all these sacrifices were completely for nothing.
I have no sympathies to the people who believe victory is more important than doing right thing. If your county believes that global power pride is more important than ending the bloodshed Than i believe it deserves whatever dark fate awaits you. I assume you realise that Russia will suffer the consequences of your action just as my country is completely aware we will most likely end suffering consequences for making what is right.
Just take it to your consideration. You wanted prevent NATO being pushed off from borders. Consequences of your ukrainian "adventure" is very likely NATO expending to Finland and Sweden, unless Hungary blocks it.
You want have your "western flank" demilitarised. Now every single of your eastern neighbours is PARANOID of you, ended their low military spending policy and started arming themselves over the red line.
Your less than impressive, but devastating for world order war effort makes us also more and more beligerent and hostile.
Some of your stupid talking heads in TV are threatening us with nuclear weapon, the effect of this is growing acceptence to potential nuclear weapons stored in Poland, and if your gouverment will ever be retarded enough to use it even on tactical level against non-nuclear power like Ukraine, you may be sure we will not pull off from our positions, but would rather start our own efforts to get nuclear weapons and you can be sure that this time world public opinion won't stop us. Don't be delussional that we don't have enough technological or economical capabilities to make it so, it will take decades but if we start it, we will finish it sooner or later. And your country won't stop us by any other means short of declaring war and hoping that NATO is just a bluff card.
All your gouverment is doing now is throwing your down to misery, bringing misery to other countries too. You are clinging to this unjustified war in hope of hollow victory that doesn't make you any good. And than after many decades you will start blaming the West for the woes you brought on yourself, just like you did after crimean war.
|
United States41976 Posts
On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
Anyway, I think we all agree that Ukraine contain nazis, and the call by Putin to denazify isn't that out of nowhere right?
No lol. He made it up to trick morons.
|
On May 03 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
Anyway, I think we all agree that Ukraine contain nazis, and the call by Putin to denazify isn't that out of nowhere right? No lol. He made it up to trick morons.
Every country contains a small amount of nazis. There is not a single country in the world which has absolutely no nazis.
But that does not justify invading it, and Putin clearly doesn't really care about nazis, he cares about invading neighbouring countries which do not do what he wants.
You could also call for a denazification of Germany because we have a tiny amount of neonazis here. Or a denazification of GB, because they also have a tiny amount of neonazis. Or a denazification of Russia, because they have a lot of neonazis there.
|
United States41976 Posts
On May 03 2022 01:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 01:10 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
Anyway, I think we all agree that Ukraine contain nazis, and the call by Putin to denazify isn't that out of nowhere right? No lol. He made it up to trick morons. Every country contains a small amount of nazis. There is not a single country in the world which has absolutely no nazis. But that does not justify invading it, and Putin clearly doesn't really care about nazis, he cares about invading neighbouring countries which do not do what he wants. You could also call for a denazification of Germany because we have a tiny amount of neonazis here. Or a denazification of GB, because they also have a tiny amount of neonazis. Or a denazification of Russia, because they have a lot of neonazis there.
Hence the call is out of nowhere. It’s not a real justification. Putin also offered like 4 different reasons which had nothing to do with Nazis so that people could take their pick which implies that he didn’t really believe the Nazi thing. If you don’t like the Nazi explanation then why not go with the oppression of Russian speakers. Or COVID bio weapons. Or NATO threats. Or any other.
If he actually believed in any of the reasons he offered he would stick to that one. People armed with truth don’t need to offer you lies as alternatives. The truth stands for itself.
|
On May 02 2022 21:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 20:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2022 20:10 Ghanburighan wrote:Russia wouldn't be spending nearly 3 billion dollars on propaganda a year if it didn't work. It cannot be just "countered" with information. It's meant to distract, enrage, and otherwise derail discussion so we cannot focus on what's important. That's why most countries outright banned Russian state media and others placed warning labels on them. You should really only cite it when particular caveats apply such as looking for evidence of Russian intent. Otherwise, it should be treated as the maliciously designed disinformation that it is, and ignore it. On May 02 2022 19:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
Orcs and cockroaches aren't used to refer to Russians as a whole. Orcs are Russian troops inside Ukraine. Cockroaches are useful idiots (or agents) working in the West. For example, Le Pen, with large loans from Russian banks is a cockroach. I understand that nuance as much as I understand that it often gets lost along the way. Amazing that I have to defend 'just don't dehumanize people'... This smells like yet another way to call people russophobic, like Russian propaganda wants us to do, even when they're talking about war criminals, rapists and genocidal monsters. If a Russian invades another country, we can and should curse them for it. If Russia is illegally invading its neighbour with genocidal intent, Russia needs to be cursed for it. They can get their good name back when they stop tarnishing it with their filthy behaviour and repent. This is not the time for virtue signaling with sensitive language, we have a genocide to stop. There are currently, by a rough estimate, 150k Russian troops in Ukraine. Some of those are genocidal maniacs committing atrocities in Mariupol, Bucha and elsewhere. A lot more of them are clueless consumers of the propaganda machine, there to liberate their Ukrainian brothers from evil nazis. Are they brainwashed? Undoubtedly. Are they naive? Maybe some. Are they evil genocidal orcs? ... no. I'm sorry, but they are all committing genocide. Whether they agree with it or not. Whether they themselves have raped or killed civilians. They are enemy combatants in an illegal genocidal war, they are fair targets for killing, and also being called orcs.
No, they are not all committing genocide. Just as not all German soldiers in WW2 were committing genocide. They are fair targets for killing, because they are soldiers engaged in combat. That doesn't make them orcs, just as little as American soldiers deployed in Afghanistan were orcs.
|
On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
However now I'm going to talk a little bit more of the whole situation. Currently it's not really about nazis anymore, since a huge portion of them is dead now anyway. Now what matters is that this operation/war is becoming a proxy war between US and Russia, and this will have profound effect on the world. It is going to create a bipartition and put an end to globalization, and cause massive inflation in US and Europe. Putin is counting on all this, so on contrary to what most people believe he is not seeking quick victory but instead a prolonged tug of war to keep the price of energy and food high to make more money to fund the Russian army while destablising and weakening Europe through high food and energy price for future possible military operations. So the longer this war/operation drag out, the more he win, making conventional winning actually not winning in this case.
Be glad to getting richer by trading with powers like Vietnam or Guinea, surely it will make you a lot of good. It worked so well for USSR, its surely gonna empower you too. You will surely get stronger by losing hardwere and being sanctioned at the same time on every possible level, including electronics. Frankly, I am exited to you arming yourself with your own no-hight tech hardwere or becoming leash dog for China and still believing you can starve the Europe of food and energy to make it break down in the long run. Just don't be surprised if in few decades your so-called "well funded" army will end with outdated, unrelable stuff based on cheap reap-off of taiwanese electronics and state-of-an-art russian missiles being traded for a fucking banana quotas.
|
On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
Putin is counting on all this, so on contrary to what most people believe he is not seeking quick victory but instead a prolonged tug of war to keep the price of energy and food high to make more money to fund the Russian army while destablising and weakening Europe through high food and energy price for future possible military operations. So the longer this war/operation drag out, the more he win, making conventional winning actually not winning in this case.
Here's what would have happened by not invading:
- Russia had extra decades left to extract the maximum amount of money from Europe for fossil fuels before green energy forced them to transition their economy to something else
- They wouldn't have bled resources to keep the rouble and stock market from imploding
- They wouldn't have lost a big chunk of their military personnel and equipment
- The mythos of their conventional force would have remained intact
- Finland and Sweden had no reason or opportunity to join NATO
- Central and EE countries had no reason to strengthen their defense
In hindsight it's easy to see where the miscalculations came from. Putin and Duma members have parroted Dugin-like statements numerous times in the past, they convinced themselves that:
- Ukrainian identity isn't real
- The west are decadent degenerate hedonists unwilling to give up any comfort for anything
Which translated to underestimating Ukraine's willingness to fight and European sanctions and divestment by several orders of magnitude.
So no, this wasn't some galaxy brain move from Putin as you suggest. It was a collision between smell-your-own-farts philosophy and reality.
|
On May 03 2022 01:52 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 23:54 xa2652 wrote:
Putin is counting on all this, so on contrary to what most people believe he is not seeking quick victory but instead a prolonged tug of war to keep the price of energy and food high to make more money to fund the Russian army while destablising and weakening Europe through high food and energy price for future possible military operations. So the longer this war/operation drag out, the more he win, making conventional winning actually not winning in this case. Here's what would have happened by not invading: - Russia had extra decades left to extract the maximum amount of money from Europe for fossil fuels before green energy forced them to transition their economy to something else - They wouldn't have bled resources to keep the rouble and stock market from imploding - They wouldn't have lost a big chunk of their military personnel and equipment - The mythos of their conventional force would have remained intact - Finland and Sweden had no reason or opportunity to join NATO - Central and EE countries had no reason to strengthen their defense In hindsight it's easy to see where the miscalculations came from. Putin and Duma members have parroted Dugin-like statements numerous times in the past, they convinced themselves that: - Ukrainian identity isn't real - The west are decadent degenerate hedonists unwilling to give up any comfort for anything Which translated to underestimating Ukraine's willingness to fight and European sanctions and divestment by several orders of magnitude. So no, this wasn't some galaxy brain move from Putin as you suggest. It was a collision between smell-your-own-farts philosophy and reality.
I bet that when the sanctions start to really bite, they'll claim that Putin made Russia weak to make it seem weak and trick the West. ;-)
|
Russia confirming that they have lost several hundred tanks, destroyed, since the invasion started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/BMZtYFu.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iWzQZf0.jpg)
