Yeah but war is not even over.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I'd take that with a fair bit of salt.... But it does brings me to ask, does orion has sat comm? Seeing it lacks the characteristic bulge for the sat antenna, I know for sure the Iranian drone certainly doesn't have it
Kind of wonder about the new Turkish drone Akinsi, supposedly it has sat comm but I wonder who is providing sat network for them
In order for this to occur Mariupol have to be taken and the forces involved in the siege redeployed to the north by something like 80km. This could take some time. Besides seeing when Mariupol siege is completely resolved we should watch out for signs that Russian troops are pulling out and letting DPR and Chechens clean up.
It curious if the fresh troops from Russia were part of the reserve of the first phase, or if they're freshly moved from elsewhere to join this second phase.
I don't think anyone doubted Russia will win. They can easily brute force it. Just it will win with less finesse as originally envisioned, perhaps a pyrrhic victory depending on what gets annexed and final terms of the agreement. If it's some shitty tiny territories in DNR/LNR, is it worth losing 15 years of economic growth due to sanctions? Russia will win militarily, no doubt, just whether it's (negotiated) gains are worth the cost.
Sweetie, you have to be truthful to yourself.
Did you really mean to say: "If people stop arguing or implying that Russia's war is morally justified, then I shall stop arguing otherwise"?
No!
Your heart meant to say: "You MUST resolutely condemn Russian actions on moral ground, or else, you're in bed with Putin the dictator!" (which by the way, is exactly what Margret Brennan was trying to push Ambassador Qin Gang to make clear.)
So, my advise is that, instead of going around the bushes and try to entrap people in your little convoluted word salads, why don't you just be blunt?
Just say to them straight forward: "Do you condemn Putin or not?". Or you don't even need to ask. Just go: "You are Putin's goon! Atrocity enabler! Dictator's minions and cronies! Russian Troll!", etc. The long list.
It pains me to see you so vain and twisted.....
BTW, the civilians who got trapped in this war are the real victims. I don't care who wins at this moment, I just want the fighting to stop.
Look at the bigger picture: the only thing separating NATO from China is Russia. Therefore, regardless of how 'dirty' you think Russia's moves are, it is a necessary obstacle to Nato.
Splitting hairs does not contribute any value, would you discard all your friends and personal contacts just because they guaranteed at some point in their lives would have wronged someone?
Every action should have a useful purpose.
To put it simply, would you rather:
a) Wear a pair of dirty shoes to walk over a carpark full of broken glass and used needles, or;
b) Not wear dirty shoes, because they are dirty and you never, ever wear dirty shoes, out of principle! and walk over broken glass and needles barefoot?
If going into semantics to determine a textbook "morally correct party" is in China's interests, the by all means China should (and does) go for it.
If applying guilt by association (which western msm does on an bi-hourly basis) is in China's interests then China should go for it.
If this, to you, puts China on the same level as them then all I have to say is - if you find yourself stuck in a mudslinging fight then the only way to win is to get dirty.
Last edited:
I'm asking, why is Russophiles blaming NATO for Ukrainian warcrimes against Russian POWs, not whether China should abandon Russia or leave it to be devoured by NATO, which is an entirely different topic.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the original question. As for intent, it's to call out propaganda illogical bullshit, whether American or Russian.
How is saying NATO enables Ukraine warcrimes any different from Westerners saying China enables Russian invasion via trade, sanction avoidance, neutrality? The same original bullshit logic in both cases.
Because how can your population support a country if said population believes that country is morally wrong?
And how can a country hold a tenable political position if it's inhabitants also see nothing relatively wrong with the opposing side?
I'm not sure if it was you or another poster, but in one of the earlier recurring "China soft power" debates the questions of "China's friends" can be directly answered with this - build and hold your narrative, and use it to attract proponents to your side.
Current Situation in Mariupol
Good Analysis
Good Analysis
Attachments
-
IMG_0038 (1).jpg
- Status