Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
I would make a distinction between Crimea and Donetsk / Luhansk.
Crimea (with a Russian majority) held a referendum and approved of joining Russia.
And Donetsk/Luhansk weren't allowed to have this referendum. Ironically, by Russia, in Ukrainian interests. And at some point were mostly captured, with all the same atrocities happening back then.
But if you want to know - the Donetsk girl I know expressed nothing short of dark satisfaction.

This isn't a justification for new ones. But taking 'moral high grounds' in this dark mess is just wrong.
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Don't care. You benefit either way from the Pax Americana and its effect around the globe, particularly the third world.

Then only exception to this being non-whites, who are still largely segregated and treated as second class citizens at best.



They might diaspprove all they want but they do jackshit to change any of it other than to vote every 4 years for the same shit of slightly different flavor and then throw up their arms when either they don't win or whomever they choose, does the same same thing the other party does and go "oh well, I did everything I could".

And the rest of us have to put with the consequences of it. The average american is complicit by omission at best.

Heck, they barely do anything to change the stuff that actually affects them as it is.



I'm not a nationalist. I just hail from a third world country that has had to deal with american bullshit for far too long, including people thrown from planes into the sea with chains around their feet for being to "lefty"



He doesn't, either. He has validated plenty of foreing policies atrocities in his spare time and has been quite lukewarm on many others and at the end of the day, he really hasn't done anything to change any of it, just throw up his arms like everybody else and go "that's bad, mmmmmmmkay?".

And I'm done with this subject in this thread. Not interested in keeping derailing it and humoring your faux "both sides are equally bad".

To gringo and gringo-enablers I apply Mao's "No investigation, no right to speak" but "no organizing and actually fighting against american foreing policy, no right to moralize others"
"You benefit either way from the Pax Americana and its effect around the globe, particularly the third world.
Then only exception to this being non-whites, who are still largely segregated and treated as second class citizens at best."

Note that you apparently presume that Meckhardt98 or perhaps me too are white Americans or, at least, uncritical of racism.
I cannot speak for Meckhardt98, but I have long been scathing in criticizing American racism and US foreign and military policies.

I never wrote that the majority of ('brainwashed') Americans significantly disapprove of US foreign and military policies.
Unfortunately, the USA has a largely dysfunctional political system, which makes it hard even for a majority of the public
to make changes in national policies. There are more ordinary Americans who are critical of Israel than you may assume
from the US government's practically unconditional support of Israel's longtime oppression of the Palestinians.
Even though a clear majority of Americans are pro-choice on abortion, abortion rights are increasingly disappearing.

"To gringo and gringo-enablers ..."

That insult reveals much more about you, Sheogorath, than anyone whom you attack.
I would add that Putin tends to be much admired by extreme right-wing racist white Americans.
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chinese nationalism is irrelevant for a Ukraine vs Russia conflict.

In fact, many writers here--who apparently are Chinese nationalists--have insisted that China must support,
perhaps even unconditionally, Russia's war on Ukraine because China's security needs such a Russian victory.
Do you ignore the fact that many writers here have tied Russia's war on Ukraine with China's security needs?
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
I can't believe people like Friedman are taken seriously in Washington. "Don't worry about Russia's nukes, someone in the chain of command will refuse to press the button." If it was like that, why was there a cold war?

He also seems to be ignorant of the public sentiment that's gripping Russia right now. The western boycott war against Russian culture was bad enough, now Russian media has reported Ukrainian war crimes and the Russian public are incensed. For the first time, you've got people complaining about Putin's inaction gaining prominence. A few years ago Khadyrov was considered to be crazy Chechen warlord, he's currently being taken very seriously by Russian people far more than anything Putin is saying right now. A few months ago Medinsky was seen as a staunch nationalist, he's now seen by the Russian public as a weak liberal.

If Putin resigns or steps down, who does he think is going to take over? To me it's like these people in Washington want a nuclear war, they can't be this incompetent.

This isn't like Afghanistan where Russia gave up when things weren't working out. This is widely considered to be a battle on home territory for the existence of Russia. The two sides are nowhere near close to agreeing on anything. There won't be any negotiated settlement, and there certainly won't be negotiations between Putin and Zelensky.

There is only going to be one outcome of this war, a total victory of Russia over Ukraine. If things are going bad, Putin (or whoever replaces him) will use every weapon in his arsenal to get what he wants. No one in the west seems to have figured this out yet.
"I can't believe people like Friedman are taken seriously in Washington."

If that refers to Thomas Friedman (I cannot see his full name), an American journalist, then you should know that
his opinions are most likely not taken very seriously by the people who determine US foreign and military policies.

Years ago, Thomas Friedman made some very complimentary statements about China.
I doubt that any major American politician today would express agreement with them.
 

FADH1791

Junior Member
Registered Member
An illuminating glimpse into the operational difficulty that lies ahead for Ukraine in the east.

Former NATO supreme commander general Wesley Clarke explains that for Ukraine to repel the Russian attempt to envelop and annihilate them in eastern Ukraine, they need to start doing mobile armored warfare. Except, there is a small problem: they are missing 100s of tanks, thousands of tube artillery, air cover and ammunition to sustain this effort. In his words, Javelins are not going to be of much help in open tank country with 5+km of uninterrupted lines of sight and few places to hide.
Those Ukrainian forces are reported to have 3 months of ammo, and food. Now once the Donbas offensive really starts they will burn those supplies fast as the rate of fighting intensify. Another thing is there is no fuel for them. So they are stuck there. And if they try to flee they would get destroyed by Russian aerial assets. There will be attempts to break the siege. That’s what the rebels in Syria tried to do when they were besieged in Aleppo and Damascus fronts. And they failed. Same thing here. It’s going to be ugly and bloody. Likely this offensive will last a whole month.
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
And that's an reasonable excuse for all that war and murder against civilians!? :oops:
Nations fight war for lots of reason, on top of the list is their security concern. The Russian speaking civilians were also targeted by the Ukraine Nazis. Not saying one is wrong or right, but there is no wrong or right when it comes to nations and wars, only national interests.
 

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
"I can't believe people like Friedman are taken seriously in Washington."

If that refers to Thomas Friedman (I cannot see his full name), an American journalist, then you should know that
his opinions are most likely not taken very seriously by the people who determine US foreign and military policies.

Years ago, Thomas Friedman made some very complimentary statements about China.
I doubt that any major American politician today would express agreement with them.
George Friedman. Not Thomas. That’s the only one recently mentioned here.
 

FADH1791

Junior Member
Registered Member
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top