Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

We will have to see how the new guy will do. My opinion is that without much equipment support from the U.S., he probably won't do better. Zaluzhny was very good in the early stages of the war. Who knows if he was the one who was solely responsible for the massive failure counterattack last year? The decision to open multiple fronts simultaneously was pretty dumb, even at that time.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any leak, info about the real reason(s) why Zaluzhny was dismissed? It looks to me like Zelenskiy shot himself a missile in the foot.

No leaks, only opinions. Everyone convinced it's a political decision, because Syrskiy is more loyal to Zelenskiy and his crew.

Zaluzhny has massive support from both soldiers and the regular folk. To fire him right now, when morale in Ukrainian society is so low is crazy.
 
Putin rambling on about Russia/Ukraine in the 15th century with Carlson looking even more confused than normal
 
Syrsky is not liked by many accounts that I follow. Odd choice.



Only one man's opinion below, but it's worth reading if you're also a history buff.



Considering what I have read about George Patton over the years, I see the rationale behind the change. A general who is good at defending (like Zaluzhny) may well be not as good at attacking, and we are now in a situation where Ukraine is in need of a new attacking strategy in order to go further beyond the current front lines. My analogy with Meade vs. Grant/Sherman from the other day was made in the same vein as well.
 
Last edited:
Heard Putin said stop giving weapons to Ukraine and it will all be over soon.
 
Last edited:
I mean if you put a plastic bag and a gun to Putin's head it would be over quickly too.
 
Yeah, has the same look entire team. :lol:

Not one provocative question, just gave Putin a platform for more lies and propaganda.

He shits on the US whenever a Democrat is POTUS.
He purposefully pushed the Big Lie about the 2020 election results.
He shat on Canada, which is still ranked 2nd best country to live in.
He fellated Orban, who is the most undemocratic leader of all Europe.
And now he parrots Putin's lies and propaganda.

Tucker is basically Lord Haw-Haw 2.0.
 
Seriously though, watching Oppenheim kind of put it back in my mind how crazy paranoid America was with everything related to Russia, socialism or being sympathetic to the working class only a relatively short time ago. It took very little time for half the country to make a complete U-turn and openly embrace a Soviet style Russian dictator, because he isn't woke.

Tucker would've surely been shot for this 50 years ago? Maybe the world really was a better place back then... Not that I would wish harm on Tucker Carlson, that would obviously be wrong...right?
 
It's less about disliking Ukraine as such, but about disliking being involved in foreign problems. Trump's "America first" is exactly that - focus on domestic issues and basically ignore the world, because the state of the world doesn't matter when you are the bestest and greatest country anyway.

I thought it was more political than that and that the republicans will just go against anything that may look the democrats good, regardless of consequence. Like voting down the border bill that republicans want but just don’t want Biden to get any positive feedback from it.
 
It took very little time for half the country to make a complete U-turn and openly embrace a Soviet style Russian dictator, because he isn't woke.

Republicans/republican voters who actually know what they vote for will get a boner whenever they hear the word "freedom", but they don't really like freedom. They only care about the freedom to do 3 things:

1. The freedom to do whatever you want with your wealth (quasi slavery allowed obviously)
2. The freedom to buy whatever gun you want
3. The freedom to be bigoted towards anyone who isn't straight, cis, white or conservative

Beyond this they are authoritarian as feck and would gladly take a dictator if the 3 above are fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, has the same look entire team. :lol:

Not one provocative question, just gave Putin a platform for more lies and propaganda.

Makes me think of the hunger games

1200px-Tucker_Carlson_%2853067283901%29_%28cropped%29.jpg
Untitled-1222.jpg
 
Seriously though, watching Oppenheim kind of put it back in my mind how crazy paranoid America was with everything related to Russia, socialism or being sympathetic to the working class only a relatively short time ago. It took very little time for half the country to make a complete U-turn and openly embrace a Soviet style Russian dictator, because he isn't woke.

Tucker would've surely been shot for this 50 years ago? Maybe the world really was a better place back then... Not that I would wish harm on Tucker Carlson, that would obviously be wrong...right?

He would not. Even being a spy on Soviet payroll wasn't considered treason, which is the charge several people in this thread wants to push.
 
He would not. Even being a spy on Soviet payroll wasn't considered treason, which is the charge several people in this thread wants to push.
Just jailed then? I must admit, the line between embelishment and truth is a bit vague from this side of the pond.
 
Just jailed then? I must admit, the line between embelishment and truth is a bit vague from this side of the pond.

Would probably be on a list, maybe spied on, but no jail or charges. He's not doing anything close to illegal, now or then. McCarthy tried to push for treason charges in general, but that was probably just political rhetoric rather than anything he thought he could realistically achieve.

Not a single person was convicted, or I believe even charged, with treason during the Cold War. You have to be actually at war with someone for treason to apply, and the US wasn't at war with Soviet then and are not at war with Russia now.
 
This wasn't a critical interview but a terrible joke. What was this Carlson guy idiot thinking of awarding Putin 2 hours to spread his lies and propaganda during prime time.
This idiot must be on Putin's payroll surely or is the worst journalist I ever witnessed.

Imagine giving Hitler such a platform back then during WW2. Totally unthinkable. This guy is more of a traitor than Snowden.
 
This wasn't a critical interview but a terrible joke. What was this Carlson guy idiot thinking of awarding Putin 2 hours to spread his lies and propaganda during prime time.
This idiot must be on Putin's payroll surely or is the worst journalist I ever witnessed.

Imagine giving Hitler such a platform back then during WW2. Totally unthinkable. This guy is more of a traitor than Snowden.
The interview ended up being a total disaster so much that the only talking point MAGA / and all the Musk types in the US have going is “at least Putin has a good memory, on the other hand Joe Biden”… :lol: Putin had a perfect opportunity to align himself with all those conspiracy loons, but instead he made himself look totally pathetic rambling old guy.
 
What exactly is wrong with the idea of highly motivated and well paid professional EU army to deter bad actors?

I actually personally don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it and I think I'm probably relatively atypical in the UK for not minding the idea of a genuine USA/Australia style federated United States of Europe in the long run (and did even when the UK was in too).

However, how exactly would an EU army work? Would it be in addition to national armies? If so, who is joining this army and what is its purpose? Or would it replace national armies? If so, again I have no personal issues with that but the foreign policy wants and needs of...say France for instance, as well as what their military does outside of its borders, does not particularly closely align with those of say Malta or Republic of Ireland. So are Irish or Maltese or Swedish pilots going to be conducting strikes in Libya, Syria or the Sahel? Or will the French no longer be able to conduct this type of activity?

Depends really on what the ultimate end goal of the EU is and how much power the individual nation states are willing to give up.
 
I actually personally don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it and I think I'm probably relatively atypical in the UK for not minding the idea of a genuine USA/Australia style federated United States of Europe in the long run (and did even when the UK was in too).

However, how exactly would an EU army work? Would it be in addition to national armies? If so, who is joining this army and what is its purpose? Or would it replace national armies? If so, again I have no personal issues with that but the foreign policy wants and needs of...say France for instance, as well as what their military does outside of its borders, does not particularly closely align with those of say Malta or Republic of Ireland. So are Irish or Maltese or Swedish pilots going to be conducting strikes in Libya, Syria or the Sahel? Or will the French no longer be able to conduct this type of activity?

Depends really on what the ultimate end goal of the EU is and how much power the individual nation states are willing to give up.

You'd imagine they'd second parts of their national armies to the EU army so that they can train together and focus on complementary capabilities during war? How big such an army woukd actually be is the question I suppose. Most nations probably wouldn't want more than 10-20% of their militaries tied up in an EU army you'd think but perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
You'd imagine they'd second parts of their national armies to the EU army so that they can train together and focus on complementary capabilities during war? How big such an army woukd actually be is the question I suppose. Most nations probably wouldn't want more than 10-20% of their militaries tied up in an EU army you'd think but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Actually during the last years we have seen more and more real integration between armies and I think it is reasonable to assume that these will grow over time.

Let's take for example the Dutch and German militaries:
The German "1. Panzerdivision" (1st Tank Division) incorporates the Dutch "43 Gemechaniseerde Brigade" (43rd Mechanized Brigade) in its structure. Part of that Brigade is the German "Panzerbataillon 414" (Tank Batallion 414). A quarter of that Batallion actually consists of Dutch soldiers. Who are the only Dutch troops to operate Main Battle Tanks, and actually German ones, the Dutch have a lease contract for those they use.

Similar cooperation exists in the area of special forces (Dutch "11. Luchtmobielen Brigade" - 11th Air Mobile Brigade became part of the German "Division Schnelle Kräfte" - Division Fast Forces), air defence (German "61. Flugabwehrraketengruppe" - 61st Air Defence Missile Group became part of the Dutch "Defensie Grondgebonden Luchtverdedigingscommando" - Ground Based Air Defence Command) and the German "Seebataillon" (Sea Battalion, essentially our Marines/SEALs) is currently integrated into the Dutch marine
 

I claim Königsberg for Germany based on this logic. I am also quite sure that Sweden could rightfully claim all of Ukraine and Russia, as the first rulers of the Kievan Rus were Swedish vikings.
 
Ah yes ... conscription for our kids too
I'm sure you'd be the first to sign up.

Russia will always be our neighbor and it will always be hungry for land (the only thing that keeps such diverse population most of whom living in poverty, is their pride of belonging to a country whose military prowess terrifies everyone. That military prowess can only be tested through war). On top of that no one wants it to go tits up. That's because a fragmented Russia is the stuff of nightmares. Can you imagine were the mountain of nukes they have would go given such circumstances? So Russia will never go away. What can go away is the US's support who have a tendency to occasionally go full isolationist. The US had already made it obvious that their no 1 priority is Asia. The Israeli war vs the Ukraine war showed that given the choice they'll probably choose Israel over us as well. So can we really depend on such partner?

Now what benefits an EU army has

1- An EU army brings loads of smaller armies (Germany 181k, France 118k, Poland 292k etc) under one banner. Thus there's a smaller chance of conscription given this situation.
2- There's a myth that the EU doesn't spend enough money on military. That's silly considering that we are the third highest military spenders and we barely ever at war anywhere (bar the UK but they are not in the EU). The issue is not military spending but waste. To give you an idea the US has 1 main battle tank while Europe has 17. Overall, the US has 30 separate types of weapon systems versus 178 for the EU. Each weapon system is costlier both in terms of actually buying them and its ammo (economy of scale), it needs specialized people to operate and maintain etc. That goes away with a well coordinated EU army.
3- It will make us less dependent on US support which is massive but can be unpredictable especially if nuke threats are involved (will they swap New York for Warsaw, London or Dublin?)
4- It will allow the EU to shape its foreign policy. For example is it within our interests to get bogged down in Taiwan? Can't a deal be made with China were we close our eyes on Taiwan in return of them keeping Russia at bay? China is no friend to Russia. Sure they hate the US more but we're not the US right? Meanwhile shouldn't we have a tougher stance on Israel? Should we always toe in line to the US foreign policy? Are we allowed to think with our heads for once and act accordingly?
5- It will reignite interest from the military industry to invest in Europe. That will bring new business into Europe but it also plays a key role in ammo supply. The Ukraine war is burning ammo like crazy and all European stock (cause of 2) is at a all time low. If there's a war in Europe then we need to be able to produce ammo ourselves.

On top of that and the most important point is that the Russians hate losing. Their country tolerate almost everything but not an humiliating defeat. Thus an organized Europe will keep Putin and his ilk at bay

That's not me saying it but the likes of General Capitini and Graziano.
 
What exactly is wrong with the idea of highly motivated and well paid professional EU army to deter bad actors?
Aside from America never in a million years allowing such a thing to happen?

https://www.ft.com/content/ad16ce08-763b-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201


NATO is one of the primary ways the US maintains its military, economic and political dominance over Europe. An EU army is not happening, not even now when the US is giving Ukraine the same patented "as long as it takes" treatment it gave the Kurds and the Afghans. It COULD happen one day if and when the major EU countries elect leaders with actual spines who place Europe's interests above America's, but not while these servile lackeys are running the show.