Уeah, one thing really scares Londoners, getting bombed. Worked wonders for one chap in the 40s.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Уeah, one thing really scares Londoners, getting bombed. Worked wonders for one chap in the 40s.
They like making threats these Russians don’t they. Empty vessels and all that
I swear they invent new names for their enemies every few months. Anglo-Saxons is the trending one at the moment — sounds a bit different than NATO & is more inclusive than Europe & USA on their own... even though historically it doesn't make any sense.
Well he's been talking with Macron a lot, just saying...
These guys are bonkers.Russia running low on ammunition?
Sounds like the Himars are in full use now. By the looks of it they are only being used in night time, this is probably to avoid detection from drones while moving into position.
Modern usage of the term, as in used to refer to contemporary people rather than a historical group, is actually fairly popular in some online white supremacist places. I can't remember seeing it used as an insult, though.
This isn't meant as apologism, just as a curiosity, if a certain 39 year old Messi is worried.
I don't get it. Barrel changes are a normal part of artillery life, and should be done before the inaccuracy starts. It's a non issue.
Maybe they don’t have replacement barrels in Ukraine? They did think this war would be over in a matter of days.
But what do you think about Putin and his buddies pillaging all that should belong to the Russian people? About their gangster club? About their apparent double lives with other women? Aren't these just the worst kind of men, pissing on the rest of the world for their own gratification? Utter cnuts basically. I'm sure the US and the UK and the West generally have some (necessary) dodgy dealings with them, but these cnuts are really the lowest of the low..... comment on that please rather than answering the question by referring back to the west.
Given the US role in this war and Ukraines position, do we really think Zelensky is making his own independent decisions here? That would be extremely naive.
The only independent decision Zelensky probably made was not listening to U.S warning of an imminent Russian attack and playing it down in January when he shouldn't have
This post is backed by nothing. Why do you retweet every fringe theory I don't get it.
It's backed by facts and figures, including the fact that artillery barrels do wear out. If you think the figures given are wrong (and I don't know either way), then say why.
At the very least, the notion that artillery barrels do wear out, coupled with the fact that Russia forces are very artillery dependent and use artillery very heavily, is a pertinent factor in the war.
I'm not really sure why that's naive? I haven't seen any direct evidence of U.S. controlling Zelenskiy and Ukraine's politics. Zelenskiy had openly criticised U.S. and Biden personally.
U.S. is Ukraine's key ally in this conflict and it obviously has some influence over its politics. I also don't share @Raoul 's idealistic sentiment that U.S. helps out mainly to help out the struggling democracy against ruthless authoritarian regime — U.S. obviously has its own geopolitical interests as priority and at the moment they seem to coincide with Ukraine's. But the only claims of Ukraine acting as a proxy for U.S. imperialism without any agency of its own come from Putin and his propaganda and they don't look convincing at all.
Based on advice from his military advisors (and no doubt advice from foreign military advisers too) Zelensky is deciding which weapons to press most for. He is also deciding on which international political (and other) forums to appear and what he will say in each case. And no doubt he is approving or not approving (as the case may be) recommendations about military strategy within Ukraine, again based on advice received as balanced against political and other considerations.
Do you seriously imagine that he receives a daily phone call from Biden or the Pentagon telling him what he must do every day?
I think the "downplaying" needs a little bit of nuance because I think Ukraine was going to be fecked either way, and the downplaying was a strategy to minimize damage rather than avoid it.
First: the pre-invasion rhetoric and increasing panic was probably hurting the Ukrainian economy. I guess in that sense the Kyiv regime downplayed the threat to somewhat save their economy.
Second: if the Ukrainians had very publicly and openly started military preparations, the Russians would likely spin that and say that Ukraine started the fighting.
I remember reports coming out that Ukraine's military were disciplined in not returning fire as small-scale shelling already appeared in the days before the invasion.
And knowing how many people already sympathize with Russia (NATO expansion, defending pro-Russians, Ukrainian nazi's etc), the Russians would absolutely have loved to make Ukraine out as the aggressor.
I'm not saying Ukraine's downplaying was the smartest thing to do but I do think they were fecked either way and they tried to avoid PR damage as well as minimize economic damage.
Let's face the facts here, without American support Ukraine would have been and will be toast. Zelensky is not a fool and he knows this. The only independent thought he is granted is within what the U.S allows him. You can call it being a puppet or controlled but to me that's basic geopolitics.
What do you think is a factor in Zelensky's "decision" on what weapon to get? It's basically what he can ask for that will be reasonable.
Biden is not calling him daily but I have no doubt US forces are in contact with Ukraine on a daily basis (if not live). You really think US is pumping billions in Ukraine to just go "have at it kid, lemme know how it goes!".
The second point makes no sense to me. Why would I not prepare for an imminent attack just because I'm not somehow deemed as the aggressor? So by not preparing, have they stopped any of the propaganda? Your first point is probably why Zelensky downplayed it to save the economy but it was a poor decision.
These quotes of his have aged like milk:
Zelensky telling common folks to stay put when he kept getting warned does not reflect well at all. Common citizens are more at risk and who knows how many lives would have been lost because of this. Just because it was done in the interest of the economy, doesn't make it right.
I don't really know what your point is here. Listening to and working with your allies who are helping you protect yourself against an existential threat makes you a puppet?
All this "sovereignty" guff leads to such infantile discssions. Every single nation on earth makes compromises in order to be able to trade, ensure their security, or advance their regional or global policies and agendas. It's a bit like how reasonable people sometimes do nice things with and for their friends and family, and don't only act directly in their own interests. It's because collaboration leads to better outcomes than constant struggle. Clearly nations in a bad position might need to cede more "sovereignty" and make more concessions than ones in good positions. Just the nature of the game.
Fair play, seems pretty ambitious. 10k trained troops every 4 months - be interesting to know how that’ll work and what their training would consist of. (Are we talking training totally green recruits or updating the current Ukrainian army?).
I'm sure the Ukrainians were preparing for a fight, their military isn't stupid. They saw the Russian buildup too. However, I don't quite remember how much of those preparations were publicly reported. The Ukrainians kept that rather quiet, both for strategic reasons but possibly also to avoid the optics of being the potential aggressor.
As for the civilians, I tend to agree. I wonder whether the Ukrainian population will demand answers to that after the war is over.
It’s gotta be the latter, surely, and with an eye on specific pieces of equipment. I can’t see the logic of just doing basic training, which an army like Ukraine could surely manage on its own.
By your description here, the UK was a puppet of the US from 1940 to December 6, 1941.
My whole point was that it doesn't make you a puppet and so me saying it isn't some terrible thing
Well I just said you (someone) can call it (perceive it) as being a puppet but to me thats basic geopolitics i.e not being a puppet meaning Zelensky is pretty much under U.S control here which isn't the worst thing given his decision of not raising alarm
Yet more meaningless nuclear threats from Putin. Shortening the flight-time-to-target of a nuclear missile makes no difference. There will still be more than enough undetectable submarines with nuclear missiles that can incinerate Russia from end to end if deterrence should fail.
Well, you have a very odd way of arguing that someone isn’t a puppet.
"You can call it being a puppet or controlled but to me that's basic geopolitics."
That's my original sentence. Thought its pretty clear that's saying that he follows the US but I wouldn't put a puppet label on it
They already have Iskander-M launchers in Königsberg so I don't think this makes any difference to response times and flight distances anyway. I also don't think Putin will trust Lukachenko with any nuclear warheads, they will probably just give them the launch platforms and missiles armed with conventional warheads.
Haven’t looked at this thread in weeks, what’s the update?
The issue is that you offer the description of “a puppet” and then claim “I’m not calling him a puppet”
The front line hasn’t really moved much this month.
Well that's why I said it because to me that's not being a puppet. A puppet is usually following a higher powers orders against the will of their people or more deserving candidates. Something like the Afghan government up until a few years ago.