Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Using phosphorus on civilians now:
Barbarians.
Barbarians.
I’m a little bit lost for words….where do you even start with that
I've never directly watched it, but didn't RT keep their propaganda ever so thinly veiled so more people would buy it? Like the ones who happily shared war justifications from RT journalists on the caf? Who is this even aimed at? Asians and Africans?
Terrible sight, but it still isn't phosphorus. That would be chemical warfare and so far even Russia didn't dare to escalate to this kind of forbidden weapons.
Crass for starters. They really make Alex Jones saner in comparison. I don't need to remind anyone on how impossible that should be.
But the irony in that "Christmas 2023" depicts the reality for many Russian families living outside of Moscow. Go figure how many people die freezing every winter because the jackasses working in the Russian Ministry of Energy do not give a flying F about improving heating and electricity supply for the entire population.
My thoughts exactly were, “I bet this is actually more representative of Russia than Europe”. Was this really produced by state media? The mind bogglesCrass for starters. They really make Alex Jones saner in comparison. I don't need to remind anyone on how impossible that should be.
But the irony in that "Christmas 2023" depicts the reality for many Russian families living outside of Moscow. Go figure how many people die freezing every winter because the jackasses working in the Russian Ministry of Energy do not give a flying F about improving heating and electricity supply for the entire population.
Remember when people argued that we should still allocate broadcasting bandwidth to accommodate this?
In other news, Russia attacks civilians it currently claims. Tells you everything you need to know. The thread contains casualties.
I really fecking hope my parents have sorted out a hamster-powered Christmas tree for tomorrow though, got to enjoy that at least!
Feel like this sort of drone could be quite effective for the odd role.
Very fast so chance of being shot down is slim, though much louder than a dji.
Not plug & play though, you'd need a good chunk of practice to fly effectively but you could build 10 of these for less than a k.
Range,Jamming, Battery life & weight limits would limit it though but a good pilot could fly it in forests/buildings etc.
If it explodes on impact like a switchblade... gulp.
Just had a joy of being liberated a few weeks ago then this.
Last edited:
You could at least spoiler that Raoul. It is Christmas.
The fallacy of “withdrawal before negotiation”.
Firstly, if you are true in your intent to negotiate, post-withdrawal, then that which you are negotiating is the very same thing, from the Russian regime’s point of view, which led to the war in the first instance.
a) NATO
a) Security Agreement.
b) Status of Crimea and Separatist Regions.
That’s the entirety of the Russian side. All three are the same thing.
If, for instance, Russia was to withdraw, what basis do they have, then, for assuming that said withdrawal will ensure the third? None. You cannot possibly insist upon a condition of withdrawal prior to ceasefire when the very means of ceasefire presuppose agreements which cannot come about prior to ceasefire (and negotiations).
It isn’t a truthful position. Whatever the intent, it isn’t a true state.
You can reason it – that is, from the Ukrainian point of view: you invaded us; thus, we cannot speak of ceasefire until you withdraw. But there isn’t merely a Ukrainian point of view in isolation – if that were true, we would have no war in the first place. It merely feeds back into the very tautological state of falsity which ceasefire-to-negotiation is the only means of breaking. That is, it becomes “we invaded because…”, “we don’t care why you invaded or what your concerns are because you invaded”. It’s insane. Only those who wish to exploit this situation – I look at all nations directly or indirectly involved – will perpetuate the idea of “withdrawal before ceasefire” (it is designed very much in the war-as-game mode as a “move”, not a genuine nor honest attempt at resolution).
Victory for Ukraine is ceasefire which leads to peace. There is no other victory which it can achieve. Withdrawal which leads to ceasefire will not happen – the sequence is wrong and intentionally so on the part of those who have designed this talking point. That is, any who preach this line you may judge by the fruit, which is evil, (bad, minimally), just as you judge the Russian invasion itself by the same metric. Ceasefire-which-leads-to-withdrawal-which-leads-to-peace is the only sequence which herein “works”. It is only war-as-game which seeks to play Ukraine off Russia and Russia off a series of other variables; and true, (which is to say, murderously false), in reverse yet overlapping order. It’s nonsense and falsity which would be farce if not for the fact that war-as-game implies rape, murder, torture, and a series of other hells which those playing life as if it were a game do not care about. They may flatter themselves, in state departments around the world, that what they do, in war-as-game, is the remedy but, in truth, it (war economy) is the primary cancer. Worse than cancer, for cancer is natural though terrible whereas war is an unnatural state of affairs which presupposes “choice”.
“Withdrawal before ceasefire”. Those who use it are acting in no one’s interest; not even their own unless they are self-consciously evil. Which, in almost all cases, I doubt.
Firstly, if you are true in your intent to negotiate, post-withdrawal, then that which you are negotiating is the very same thing, from the Russian regime’s point of view, which led to the war in the first instance.
a) NATO
a) Security Agreement.
b) Status of Crimea and Separatist Regions.
That’s the entirety of the Russian side. All three are the same thing.
If, for instance, Russia was to withdraw, what basis do they have, then, for assuming that said withdrawal will ensure the third? None. You cannot possibly insist upon a condition of withdrawal prior to ceasefire when the very means of ceasefire presuppose agreements which cannot come about prior to ceasefire (and negotiations).
It isn’t a truthful position. Whatever the intent, it isn’t a true state.
You can reason it – that is, from the Ukrainian point of view: you invaded us; thus, we cannot speak of ceasefire until you withdraw. But there isn’t merely a Ukrainian point of view in isolation – if that were true, we would have no war in the first place. It merely feeds back into the very tautological state of falsity which ceasefire-to-negotiation is the only means of breaking. That is, it becomes “we invaded because…”, “we don’t care why you invaded or what your concerns are because you invaded”. It’s insane. Only those who wish to exploit this situation – I look at all nations directly or indirectly involved – will perpetuate the idea of “withdrawal before ceasefire” (it is designed very much in the war-as-game mode as a “move”, not a genuine nor honest attempt at resolution).
Victory for Ukraine is ceasefire which leads to peace. There is no other victory which it can achieve. Withdrawal which leads to ceasefire will not happen – the sequence is wrong and intentionally so on the part of those who have designed this talking point. That is, any who preach this line you may judge by the fruit, which is evil, (bad, minimally), just as you judge the Russian invasion itself by the same metric. Ceasefire-which-leads-to-withdrawal-which-leads-to-peace is the only sequence which herein “works”. It is only war-as-game which seeks to play Ukraine off Russia and Russia off a series of other variables; and true, (which is to say, murderously false), in reverse yet overlapping order. It’s nonsense and falsity which would be farce if not for the fact that war-as-game implies rape, murder, torture, and a series of other hells which those playing life as if it were a game do not care about. They may flatter themselves, in state departments around the world, that what they do, in war-as-game, is the remedy but, in truth, it (war economy) is the primary cancer. Worse than cancer, for cancer is natural though terrible whereas war is an unnatural state of affairs which presupposes “choice”.
“Withdrawal before ceasefire”. Those who use it are acting in no one’s interest; not even their own unless they are self-consciously evil. Which, in almost all cases, I doubt.
Except none of the three reasons you have provided were actually behind motives of the Russian invasion unless someone is dumb enough to believe Russian propaganda. The invasion conducted by Russia is solely attributed to nationalistic, genocidal, and imperialistic elements which makes it impossible to achieve a ceasefire before the withdrawal.
I think the only way either side will negotiate will be if it’s on their preferred terms, which won’t happen until one side believes it has exhausted it’s military resources to fight to where negotiations become the lesser of two evils.
It’s critical therefore that Ukraine make tangible gains to reclaim as much territory as possible, and possibly everything except Crimea, at which point Putin would be left with a choice of only losing Donbas or the more comprehensive domestic humiliation of having lost both Donbas and Crimea.
The Ukrainians on the other hand, aren’t likely to negotiate until they believe they have all their territories back, which suggests we’re not going to see a cessation of hostilities anytime soon.
This. Taking the "official" reasons of the regime in good faith is braindead at best.
The Catholics said the same about the Protestants in Northern Ireland. They had to let go of that "they are evil and we are without all blame, even if be assymmetrical in order" mentality so that peace could come. It was after negotiations that arms were forever laid down and decomissioning began. Not prior.
The same was true in South Africa. Mandela sought reconciliation though all you could say of Russia could be said of the Apartheid South African regime, too.
It's not just that I disagree with the statement you make, it's that I know it's false. You will never get peace by such means.
The only victory Ukraine can and should achieve is peace. It can only get this by a de facto ceasire along the frontline which allows negotiations to take place wherein they come to terms on Crimea, for example, and you see mutually assured deescalation along that part of the line. That, more or less, repeated until all problems which prevent a full withdrawal back to pre-February lines is the only way forward which doesn't perpetuate war. It's there now. It might not be in a few months. The only element of war you can control is that part of it where you seek peace. The rest is beyond anyone's control and it always threatens to spill over.
The days of total war and total defeat are gone. And that is a good thing in evolutionary terms for it implies the mobilization of entire nations against entire nations.
The ceasefire, de facto, along the line is that which equals the off-ramp everyone has been speaking about since February. Only it is not merely Putin's (his regime's) offramp, but an offramp for the entire world insofar as war-economy goes. Everyone directly and indirectly involved, which is everyone, needs the offramp. But "withdrawal before ceasefire" is intentional nonsesnse which runs contrary to the idea, floated about constantly by the very same people, of an "off-ramp" which allows the regime to transition, over a period, into something everyone with a brain wants Russia to become. Democratic relative to a renewed economic base. The playbook of Franco with a Northern Ireland consociational twist insofar as cessation to hostilities go.
The Russian security agreement is also the Ukrainian security agreement. It's what allows Ukraine to join the EU and receive an immense amount of Marshall style aid and enjoy the prosperity it deserves. It cannot happen without this mutual agreement and that is true whatever one thinks of Russia.
All Ukranians I have listened to have said the same thing: we want peace. They say, "we hope for victory" because they think that is how peace shall come. But total victory in that sense is not possible and most people know that. Ceasfire, negotiations, withdrawal, step-by-step, security agreement, mutually beneficial, EU entrance, Marshall aid, and so on and on. That's the way to get peace. That is victory for everyone.
Ah, a nice word salad after a heavy christmas dinner.
ideological entrenchments are hard to overcome. heavy, indeed.
Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.
It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.
Just my thoughts.
It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.
Just my thoughts.
And not flirting with Nato would have prevented this exactly how? Because all Putin wanted is to conquer Ukraine, so I’m not sure where Nato fits into your picture?
Not this shite again…
They are an indepenedent nation and have a right to align with whoever they want. Also, Putin doesn’t give a shit about NATO, Finland and Sweden will be joining soon, thanks to his own war.
Don’t you know that russia were forced to invade Ukraine? The threat from NATO is so huge that they literally withdrew all their forces and tech from the borders with NATO countries. But the poor guys just couldn’t watch Ukraine being taken over by Nazis, satans and whoever else so decided to start this holy special military operation to save the world. That’s what they say anyway, and it sounds real enough for some people to believe.
The morale of the Russian mobilized must be through the roof:
As opposed to....rolling over and being conquered by Russia?
Christ.
Yes, of course. Russia has shown since WW2 its compassion for states in its sphere of influence. Just ask the Hungarians and Czechs.
I literally haven't met a single Ukrainian that would trade "peace" for territorial losses for a few very simple reasons:
- they'll never be truly at peace with Russia as long as Putin is at power — there have been many peace treaties before and there's nothing that stops Putin from ignoring another one
- they've seen what Russians did in the occupied territories — killed and tortured civilians, even kids. They're not leaving their compatriots behind and it's their choice to make
This. Esentially there are 3-4 reasons for wars to end:
A) One side accomplishes all of their military/strategic goals and impose their conditions to the other side (AKA inconditional surrender).
B) One side gets overwhelming superiority so the other sues for peace in order to not lose all military/strategic goals and/or avoid a bloodbath.
C) One or both sides have exhausted their military/economic/political/moral resources to a point in which they can't keep fighting.
D) Political turmoil in one side that leads to a pro-peace regime change.
Russia failed to achieve A in March and has failed to achieve B throughout the year. Since D isn't a realistic option (Ukranians aren't supporting a leader who wants to surrender now), pushing for C is their last option. And that's what it looks like they're doing.
Depending of how the situation evolves in Russia, the D scenario could happen on the opposite end if the entire Putin regime is overthrown by a combination of military mutinies and hordes of angry civilians overtaking the streets (and overhwelming any deployment of police/loyalist forces).
The Russo-Japanese War ended in 1905 because of scenarios B and C, but it set the stage for scenario D to happen in 1917. If Putin knows his Russian history, then he should know what happened when Nicholas II pushed his luck way too far against resolute enemies.
The Russo-Japanese War ended in 1905 because of scenarios B and C, but it set the stage for scenario D to happen in 1917. If Putin knows his Russian history, then he should know what happened when Nicholas II pushed his luck way too far against resolute enemies.
Last edited:
The whole video is hilarious but the bit about media is so ironic its painful.
Is this one of those 'I'm not pro Russia but' posts.
Northern Ireland is not even a remotely comparable situation to that of Ukraine and Russia. The British essentially installed and propped up a colony in Ireland for 100 years or more populated by zealous folks of a different culture and branch of religion to the locals. If Crimea were invaded tomorrow all those Russians who've been parachuted in since 2014 would scarper sharpish, they wouldn't stick around and fight because it's not their home.