Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 203

On September 03 2022 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The main we can do is give Ukraine enough advanced weaponry for them to defeat the invasion and send home enough dead Russians.

On September 03 2022 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh, the only thing I'm sure has any effect on support for the war is how the war is going. Economic sanctions can be justified if they reduce russias capacity for war - but I don't think they work from a 'let's cause a revolt in Russia'- perspective. Taking oligarch property is fine - they were essentially high level criminals in the first place, but I don't think it has seemed to make much of a dent in how the war is going.

The main we can do is give Ukraine enough advanced weaponry for them to defeat the invasion and send home enough dead Russians.

On September 03 2022 07:59 Acrofales wrote:

Insofar as I understood things, the sanctions significantly hamper Russia's ability to manufacture or buy replacement parts for a lot of the material that is being rapidly used up in the war. Obviously they have reserves, and are ramping up their own production of parts, but the first will run out before the second is ready if the war keeps going the way it is. So in that sense, the sanctions are absolutely helping.

On September 03 2022 07:14 raynpelikoneet wrote:

I am curious how would you then reduce the support of war in Russia?

On September 03 2022 05:39 Oukka wrote:
Finland's military spending should have some asterisks on it for the next few (or 10 or 20) years, there are some very large one-off equipment purchases happening right now. Mainly the f-35 fighters and some new ships.

Also on the the regular there should be an asterisk for the army being conscription based, so regular expenditure is likely (a lot) lower than it would be for maintaining a standing army with similar capabilities.

On September 03 2022 07:14 JimmiC wrote:

If you believe that Russia is the victim you were already on Putins side to begin with. This is about the people that know that it Russia that started the war, they are not happy about it but not that mad because there lives did not change.

This is about the people that know that it Russia that started the war, they are not happy about it but not that mad because there lives did not change.

On September 02 2022 23:20 xsnac wrote:


Hello from Romania.
I don't understand what you mean by "failure as a leader".

The entire USSR was a big failure by the time he became its leader (cernobyl indicent and their failed go to moon space program only to name a few).

Moreover, I don't think there is a eastern and a western point of view.
To have the greatest genetician/botnist in the entire freaking world imprisoned and have him die of starvation is only one of what the great USSR was capable of. This is not west point of view. It is the sane vs insane.

Yuri Kondratyuk - probably most visionary aerospace engineer (gulag)
Nikolai Vavilov - best botanist in the modern age. (death by starvation)
Lev Landau - Nobel Prize winning physicist. (gulag)

here, only a few names, the list can go on until the end of the world.


I also think if you have a closed economy controlled tightly by the state, and want to transition to free market, it will come with some painful moments, change is difficult. That I am pretty sure nobody in the world can mitigate.

I am wondering what you base your claims on? Imagine having a failed state and blame it on the leader that wanted to fix this illusory wishful thinking perfect state that never existed.

p.s. you knew when stalin took the best farmers in the empire and forcefuly moved them in factories? you know what happened? Around 8 milion people died of starvation because only retards remained in agriculture and the cream of the crop were moved from houses into small 2 bedroom apartments and forced to work in factories. oh the great great country you were russian empire

On September 02 2022 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Gorbachev can be viewed as a bad leader because he wanted to save the Soviet Union and failed at that. On the other hand, he presided over the dissolution of USSR which went relatively peaceful. Had someone different be in his position, Eastern Europe might have ended ten times worse than the Balkans. He wasn't a murderous thug (as some previous Soviet leaders) and kept thugs away from power. Thanks to that it all ended rather well.

Of course, for Russians giving up land without a fight amounts to treason, so they view him as traitor.

On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote:

I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once.

On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote:

I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once.

On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote:

I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once.

On September 03 2022 13:04 Ghanburighan wrote:


Why are those asterisks? The f-15 purchases are one time? And do you mean to say that a conscription based army is actually worth more than equal expenditure standing armies? So you consider the second asterisk positive?

Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Russia’s Chechen region, said on Telegram on September 3 that he deserves to take an “indefinite and long” break from his post, sparking speculation about whether he was seriously considering stepping down or seeking some favor from the Kremlin.

Kadyrov, 45, has ruled Chechnya with an iron fist since 2007 and is the longest-serving leader of a Russian region.

“I realized that I have been sitting in my position for a long time,” he said in a video statement peppered with laughs. “I think my time has come [to leave power]."

It is unclear what Kadyrov, who is one the most powerful figures in Russia, would do next if he were to step down.

Kadyrov has close relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, meeting with the Kremlin leader regularly. The two last met on August 5 in Sochi.

Kadyrov has made similar comments in the past, only to remain in his post, raising questions about whether his unexpected announcement was a ploy.

“I'm skeptical. He has said things like this in the past," said Ivan Klyszcz, a Caucasus expert and doctoral candidate at the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies in Estonia.

"These typically arrive when he wants to get something out of Putin, at the very least a public expression of support.”
...