Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

People in our own media here are sure poking fun at France for all of their talk about military resources, how many contracts they have for hardware sales to other countries, and so on.



Only roughly $230 million in military aid from France, really? :lol:
 
A pet peeve of mine...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...many-more-military-hardware-counter-offensive

‘What is Berlin afraid of?’ Ukraine presses Germany for more military kit

Ukrainian foreign minister accuses German government of ignoring requests for military hardware

The Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, accused the German government of ignoring Kyiv’s requests for Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles.

He said Berlin had only given “abstract fears and excuses” over why it was not providing more equipment.

Germany can and, I think should, provide more. I'm not 100% sure that this is the way to go about it though!
 
People in our own media here are sure poking fun at France for all of their talk about military resources, how many contracts they have for hardware sales to other countries, and so on.



Only roughly $230 million in military aid from France, really? :lol:


And how much of that was spent on Zelensky cosplay get-up for Macron?
 
People in our own media here are sure poking fun at France for all of their talk about military resources, how many contracts they have for hardware sales to other countries, and so on.



Only roughly $230 million in military aid from France, really? :lol:

France and Germany together provided less than Poland!!!
 
If a failed invasion could mean the desintegration of your country, you should be wondering if your country should be integrated the way it is.

In order to say who could "win", we have to determine what "winning" is in the first place. According to Russia's initial demands:

-Recognition of Crimea as russian
-Recognition of LNR and DNR
-Replacing Zelensky with a pro Russian president
-Stop Ukraine's path toward EU/NATO
-Demilitarization
-Denazification (understood as "eliminating the Anti russian sentiment in Ukraine")

I think most -if not all- of them have backfired, no matter the result of the war. The first and maybe the second still have a chance to happen. Would that be enough to consider it a "win"?
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Russia were to agree to only the first 2 points — the propaganda can spin it in a way that we've secured the safety and independence (or even the inclusion as a Russian territory) of people of Donbass... but it's a pointless hypothetical since Ukraine will never agree to those.
 
Everything just keeps going back to that essay in 2021 (?) and the rambling speech before the invasion, about how Ukraine shouldn't actually exist. As @WPMUFC said, he just wants to expand Russia before he was gone, any other concerns are secondary. Even "NATO on our borders" doesn't seem like the actual concern. The actual concern is that if Ukraine is in NATO, then Ukraine would almost certainly continue to exist.
 
the argument wasn't that ukraine couldn't make breakthroughs. it was that it couldn't win, partially, which i still think is true but depends on how you define win. does it mean ultimate defeat of russia? because that is beyond ukraine and nato. does it mean taking the lost territory back? these questions were asked by very senior figures in foreign affairs from the outset. they weren't criticisms made by anti-ukranians. they were questions asked by people who wanted clarification over the kind of war their countries were dragging them into. the criticism was always the lack of clarity regarding the goal and ad hoc policy making. saying one thing which implied one level of support one day and another which hinted at something far larger and more escalatory the next.

i do think they're fighting russia to the last ukrainian but that doesn't mean that ukraine can't benefit from it. were the americans not fighting the soviets to the last afghani? did the afghanis care? so of course they're using ukraine. it's not a single-use kind of operation. the ukrainians aren't idiots. they know they have use-value to the west and they know their position. nato wants to fight russia via proxy. ukraine wants to fight russia directly. match made in heaven, no? it's not a contradiction, basically. my only criticism would depend upon what the west does over the next couple of years. not what it's doing now. what happens when the russians push back. and then ukraine pushes back. and on and on. all yet to come.

unfortunately i think this will be a massively drawn out war and last for years with the positions being unpredictable but possibly as they were before february.

the other thing is that if you think people making criticisms of the war are on russia's side, then you have, probably, been misled. some will be, for whatever reason which they themselves will scarcely comprehend, but most are not. most i've seen had almost no negative opinions of ukraine and almost no positive opinions on russia, but a highly critical view of nato. which i think is historically justified.
Do you think China, North Korea, and Iran will fight this proxy war to the last russian?
 
Do you think China, North Korea, and Iran will fight this proxy war to the last russian?
i'd guess china would be happy enough to do that. i think that's probably the arrangement, yeah. from ukraine's pov, nato has guns and money and it wants both of those to fight a war against russia after being invaded. from nato's point of view, it'll be happy that russia is bogged down in war with ukraine. i don't think its a contradiction. the afghanis and arab militias knew that the americans were using them in a proxy war against the soviets but they were still happy to take the stinger missile launchers and anything else going. mutual enemies and all that. but everyone will know how and why they're working together and what and whose interests are in play.
 
the argument wasn't that ukraine couldn't make breakthroughs. it was that it couldn't win, partially, which i still think is true but depends on how you define win. does it mean ultimate defeat of russia? because that is beyond ukraine and nato. does it mean taking the lost territory back? these questions were asked by very senior figures in foreign affairs from the outset. they weren't criticisms made by anti-ukranians. they were questions asked by people who wanted clarification over the kind of war their countries were dragging them into. the criticism was always the lack of clarity regarding the goal and ad hoc policy making. saying one thing which implied one level of support one day and another which hinted at something far larger and more escalatory the next.

i do think they're fighting russia to the last ukrainian but that doesn't mean that ukraine can't benefit from it. were the americans not fighting the soviets to the last afghani? did the afghanis care? so of course they're using ukraine. it's not a single-use kind of operation. the ukrainians aren't idiots. they know they have use-value to the west and they know their position. nato wants to fight russia via proxy. ukraine wants to fight russia directly. match made in heaven, no? it's not a contradiction, basically. my only criticism would depend upon what the west does over the next couple of years. not what it's doing now. what happens when the russians push back. and then ukraine pushes back. and on and on. all yet to come.

unfortunately i think this will be a massively drawn out war and last for years with the positions being unpredictable but possibly as they were before february.

the other thing is that if you think people making criticisms of the war are on russia's side, then you have, probably, been misled. some will be, for whatever reason which they themselves will scarcely comprehend, but most are not. most i've seen had almost no negative opinions of ukraine and almost no positive opinions on russia, but a highly critical view of nato. which i think is historically justified.

And what's the benefit for NATO in all of this?
 
Last edited:
But this is not what @neverdie told us. Anyone who believes Nafo was ever a factor in their invasion is simply a fallen a victim to Russian propaganda. The only reason Nafo was ever a problem for Putin is that it prevents him for conducting the genocide in other countries and accomplishing his imperialist aspirations.

Who could predict that some shiba inu twitter shitposters would be used as a pretext for large scale war in the 21st century, huh? What a timeline!
 
But this is not what @neverdie told us. Anyone who believes Nafo was ever a fator in their invasion is simply a fallen a victim to Russian propaganda. The only reason Nafo was ever a problem for Putin is that it prevents him for conducting the genocide in other countries and accomplishing his imperialist aspirations.

And Roger Waters.
 
Meanwhile Russia is more focused on making life as miserable for civilians as they possibly can.

 
I still don’t get why west is so slow with air defense supplies in right quantities?
While your question is valid I don't get the connection to the tweet? Air defense doesn't protect against artillery shelling.
 
While your question is valid I don't get the connection to the tweet? Air defense doesn't protect against artillery shelling.
These are cruise missiles though? In this case it was x-22, previously, it also used missiles to attack power grids?
 
These are cruise missiles though? In this case it was x-22, previously, it also used missiles to attack power grids?
Oh, then I misunderstood what happened.

The question of air defense is a tough one. Ukraine is huge and it would need a massive amount of AD systems to really protect it completely. I doubt NATO itself has enough, also I do agree they could try harder than they do.
 
i'd guess china would be happy enough to do that. i think that's probably the arrangement, yeah. from ukraine's pov, nato has guns and money and it wants both of those to fight a war against russia after being invaded. from nato's point of view, it'll be happy that russia is bogged down in war with ukraine. i don't think its a contradiction. the afghanis and arab militias knew that the americans were using them in a proxy war against the soviets but they were still happy to take the stinger missile launchers and anything else going. mutual enemies and all that. but everyone will know how and why they're working together and what and whose interests are in play.
NATO tried very hard to basically bribe Russia into joining the international order. That's what NATO wanted, was for Russia to join NATO, not fight it.

If NATO wanted to fight, why don't any of them have an army besides the US?