Ukrainian War Developments

Lapin said:

Russian nuclear first strikes against Ukraine's cities would be acts of genocide

Click to expand...

Typical American Bulldung propaganda. Unless American atomic first strike against Japanese cities in WW2 is recognized as genocide and the United Snakes is dismembered into tiny independent statelets as means of accountability, then any use of nukes by Russia against targets in Ukraine and the US is legitimately justified under international norms and traditions as enshrined by the US and its NATzO vassals.

Abominable said:

Not against cities, against Ukrainian positions. As I said earlier, do one round of leaflet bombing, saying the next ones will be real. Ukrainians would surrender much quicker against heavy bombardment and it'll save more lives in the long run.

Click to expand...

Stop being so misleading (at best) or lying about what you recently wrote.

"Total defeat is impossible for Russia. If it got that bad they'll just nuke Kiev, Lvov and other Ukrainian cities until they
get a surrender or there is nothing left."
--Abominable

Are you going to deny that 'Kiev, Lvov' (note that he insists on using Russian, not Ukrainian, names for places in Ukraine) are cities?

Right. The US to this day justifies the use of nukes in Japan in that it supposedly saved US troop losses in a US land invasion of the Japanese main islands. You could use the same argument in basically any war.

Lapin said:

"This is an existential issue for Russia."

No matter how often you or others repeat that falsehood, it will not become true.
Have you noticed vast numbers of Russians volunteering to join their armed forces to fight in this supposed war for Russia's existence?
If not, then why not? Are not Russians patriotic enough to fight for Родина when its existence supposedly is at stake?

It's absolutely disgusting that many writers here would prefer the nuclear annihilation of Ukraine's cities--a real genocide
of Ukrainians--simply to help Putin save face. Has allegedly evil NATO ever nuked anyone?

Click to expand...

The same goes for Ukraine as well, if its existential for them, why do they have to pull moves like conscripting every male from age 18-60 or releasing prisoners with combat experience to be sent to war. Again, its not only about security, its also politically for Putin and ideologically for a majority of the Russian population.

NATO has completely destroyed handful of countries over fake allegations, it doesn't have to be nukes like I said. And no, I would have preferred this never happened, and for it either deescalate now through negotiations or surrender.

A lot of the users here are not directly cheering for genocide, they are cheering for their own sides. The pro-Ukraine users here a very quiet when videos of Ukrainian military are committing war crimes against Russian POW and their own citizens, and its kind of same for pro-Russian users here as well. Nobody here is impartial, and have their own biases and position on the matter. Personally, I want see Russia getting out of this situation with some kind of win, at minimal cost possible for both sides, because Russia is one of my country's major ally, China.

If you're going to ask me to choose between security and morals, I'm always going to choose security. If there's no choice and an immoral action must be done to secure it, then I have to begrudgingly accept it and find my own ways to negate or reduce the cost and suffering for those that got affected. Especially when the solution to the Taiwan question will inevitably come, I want to make sure the Taiwanese identity is preserved as much as possible and, autonomy provided and protected to what is possible, through activism and organizations. This is sadly just how the world works.

Coalescence said:

We should wish for the war to be settled quickly under negotiations or surrender from one of the sides.

Click to expand...

Lapin said:

"We should wish for the war to be settled quickly under negotiations or surrender from one of the sides."

Neither Ukraine nor Russia will surrender soon. The only likely alternative to a negotiated ceasefire would be
a protracted war of attrition in which the 'winner' will be the side that can keep from collapsing a bit longer.

Click to expand...

IMO negotiations or a ceasefire is no longer a possibility. It’s all or nothing at this point. Regardless of the truth over Bucha incident since the US for whatever reason hasn’t concluded who did it yet either.

There is no political capital left for Zelensky to give any ground due to Bucha and Russia abandoning the Northern Regions. Neither can Russia afford any political capital to settle the issue after these events.

Lapin said:

In terms of military potential, the correlation of forces between Ukraine and Russia in 2022 is much closer than the correlation
of forces between Finland and the USSR in 1939-40. Ukraine's receiving much more aid than Finland did.
But Finland had major defensive advantages in terrain and climate that Ukraine does not have.

Click to expand...

And the biggest reason why it's a flawed analogy is because so much of the Russo-Japanese War hinged on naval confrontations and operations, with the Battle of Tsushima being the prime example. There's basically none of that in this war, by which I mean no major naval confrontations; there have certainly been some important amphibious operations by the Russians. Obviously all analogies are flawed and imperfect, in any domain of human knowledge, but the Winter War is a much better guide to what's happening here than the conflict in 1905.

PhSt said:

Typical American Bulldung propaganda. Unless American atomic first strike against Japanese cities in WW2 is recognized as genocide and the United Snakes is dismembered into tiny independent statelets as means of accountability, then any use of nukes by Russia against targets in Ukraine and the US is legitimately justified under international norms and traditions as enshrined by the US and its NATzO vassals.

Click to expand...

During the war, very few, if any, Chinese had any sympathy for the Japanese on account of being bombed by the USA.
The Chinese knew only too well that the Japanese had inflicted much more suffering in China.
(One of my relatives said that the Japanese surrendered too soon; he wished to see more Japanese cities nuked.)

Under international law at that time, the US atomic bombings were not war crimes.
In fact, the US bombing of Tokyo (night of March 9-10, 1945) was the most destructive air raid in history.
Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo were some of the terrible precedents before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That said, a significant minority of Americans now believes that the US atomic bombings were unnecessary or wrong.

The USA has a terrible record of racism and imperialism. (Saying that has often got me censored in the USA.)
It's appalling, however, that many writers here gladly allow their obsessive hatred of the USA to help rationalize
a real Russian genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Abominable said:

Not against cities, against Ukrainian positions. As I said earlier, do one round of leaflet bombing, saying the next ones will be real. Ukrainians would surrender much quicker against heavy bombardment and it'll save more lives in the long run.

Click to expand...

Leaflet bombing is a good idea, but we've seen what happened in Mariupol. Those Neo-Nazis are going to keep them hostage as human shields, and when the bomb does drops, they'll use it as atrocity propaganda to achieve what they did with Bucha, further antagonizing the relations between the two population, and inflaming the nationalist elements within the population that may lead to more genocide against ethnic-Russians. Hopefully those tactics are only committed by Azov, and not the entire Ukrainian military.

Lapin said:

Stop being so misleading (at best) or lying about what you recently wrote.

"Total defeat is impossible for Russia. If it got that bad they'll just nuke Kiev, Lvov and other Ukrainian cities until they
get a surrender or there is nothing left."
--Abominable

Are you going to deny that 'Kiev, Lvov' (note that he insists on using Russian, not Ukrainian, names for places in Ukraine) are cities?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between strategic bombing and using nuclear weapons. There's no benefit to heavy bombardment of a city, and you could argue it's a war crime.

A nuclear attack would be the last resort, when you've ran out of other options.

gelgoog said:

Right. The US to this day justifies the use of nukes in Japan in that it supposedly saved US troop losses in a US land invasion of the Japanese main islands. You could use the same argument in basically any war.

Click to expand...

Correct, and it was much worse than what is being discussed. Japan wasn't a nuclear power and wasn't a direct threat to mainland America. They just knew they could nuke Japan and get away with it, so they did it.

Lapin said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Russia’s war on Ukraine: ‘It has to be China’ as mediator, EU foreign policy chief says"​

"EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out strongly in favour of China mediating in Russia’s war against

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
“There is no alternative. We [Europeans] cannot be the mediators, that is clear … And it cannot be the US either. Who else?
It has to be China, I trust in that,” Borrell said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo."

In response to my earlier post, several writers here rejected that suggestion, ridiculing it as nothing more than a Western trap.

Click to expand...

That piece of news is a month old, dated March 5th. If EU is sincere about it, they would have formally asked China to do so in last Friday's EU-China Summit.

So hind sight does support why many members in this thread were cautious about what Borrell said then.