It wont end. They ended Afghanistan to live out thier Cold War Nazi's revenge against the commies fantasies and turn Ukraine into a burn pit to clear inventory of trillons of unused equipment. The soil and water in Europe's bread basket will be contaminated for 100s of years. Food prices will skyrocket. The European "way of life " will end to support the inflationary costs of the wars and no western political candidate will ever be able to point to Europe as an example of what's possible under the crap-it-all-ist system ever again.
Once they get bored of that they'll instigate a formal 3rd world war in the 2040's to stop any peace divided.
And hey, I too used to be a smug liberal who looked down upon everyone who wasn't in lock step with US propaganda, but if you're trying to convince people of something I'd recommend you don't bookend every comment with reddit-ass insults to people's intelligence.
None of this refutes what I argued above, that the protests were quickly taken over by right wing groups propped up by the West, with the new government handpicked by the state department:
That probably would have been more convincing if I didn't personally know people who took part in the revolution and then fought Russia,
Cool are they happy with Victoria Nuland selecting their government?
or if Zelensky didn't have sky high popular support,
I haven't seen an approval poll inside of Ukraine for a while but the guy banned opposition parties so it's not like you'd have any other political option at the moment lol.
or if he wasn't Jewish.
Seriously very funny to pretend like a Jewish president wipes out the neo-Nazi reality of the Azov battalion.
the insults are just to amuse myself, and because you deserve them.
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces.
Nevertheless, that still means there are millions of Ukrainians who would prefer association with the EU over Russia. I think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted (however misplaced we might find it) to be in the EU and aligned with the US?
Agreed, but I think it's also important to specify that the coup refers to how the US Ambassador basically hand-picked the provisional government that ended up in power immediately after, and not the protests that started after the initial announcement that the EU deal was off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
I like this video for this very reason. It unequivocally states that NATO's eastward expansion provoked the Ukrainian invasion without regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted... to be in the EU and aligned with the US.
I think that implication mistakeningly conflates the protests with the resulting coup. The protests had real popular energy behind them and spotlit grassroots leaders (until the western-backed literal Nazis took center stage). The coup pushed those people and their interests aside in favor of whoever Victoria Nuland favored.
Im kind of sick of having the same pointless "debate" about established facts with dumbass ignorant dog-headed do-nothings dickhead like you, about how the "revolution" was led by far-right militias 12345 because you never engage with the texts, you all repeat same tired thought-terminating cliches while being weird condescending debatebros that think you're the cleverest pig in the mudpile. So instead I'll link you this video, which you can ignore, misrepresent, strawman and nitpick instead.
Looking forward to seeing you ask this same question very soon, despite already having had it answered!
Liberals do not argue in good faith. Every time they start JAQing off and question the validity of your claims, they mean to attack your character and have no interest in the claims themselves. It is not contradictory that they ask the same questions again and again, because their questions aren't questions, they're attacks.
Yeah, but you never know, once in a blue moon they're genuine, and really it's more about the lurkers than the poster. However that also means that as soon as they've been responded to in good faith it's immediate mockery if they fail to do so themselves as well
Yeah it's called the military industrial complex, maybe you heard of it
Or maybe you actaully believe all those nazis who couped the government in 2014 did it for the "love of democracy" and not for the western paychecks in the form of massive arms transfers
Fuck it doesn't even need to be arms transfers, lord only knows how much dark money is being sifted around this conflict. Hell, Zelensky was already in either the Panama Papers or was it the other one? Who knows how much pure cash is just floating around or weapons are being sold around Eastern Europe.
Zelesnkyy is a hundred millionaire before the conflict. I have to imagine he's in the billions by now, after 150+ billion dollars sent to Ukraine that he's been grafting off of
That one's tough to answer. I'm hopeful that they'll reach Tokmak by the end of the year, but I don't know that they'll take it this year. Russia knows the logistical importance of that place, and they'll throw everything at it to retain it. Plus, there's only like 2 months left in the year before fighting conditions get too degraded by weather. So, I'm guessing that the lines will start to stabilize again at the end of October or beginning of November, and we won't see much progress until next Spring.
The good news, though, is that they're gonna be getting a bunch of F-16s from the Netherlands, so that will help out immensely in the next offensive drive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to take Tokmak early on in the year, and then make a push towards Melitopol. Could be celebrating another independence day by the end of next year.
Of course, a lot depends on conditions in Russia. Anything could happen. We've already seen one major coup attempt from Wagner before they stopped about 200km away for some reason. I don't think they're going to try again because they stupidly put all of their upper leadership together in the same plane... but I think it's possible that another coup attempt could happen from a different faction. If Putin is removed or killed, I don't think the war will continue. I think the next guy will just blame Russia's poor performance on the last guy and will call it a day.
sure those wunderwaffen f-16s will do wonders lmao. Just like the leopards
You seriously think Ukraine is going to win? Tell me more about their counteroffensive
F-16s have an incredible range, and can shoot down Russian helicopters from 100km away.
Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
They have better training, better equipment, better morale, and an iron will.
The country that has exhausted it's reserve battalions and is forcibly drafting men, while preventing these same men from leaving the country, and which has had several reports describing how the troops at the front have basically no training, is somehow better trained and equipped than the Russians? Ukraine, the country that frequently has equipment issues, and which has complained that the Russians are capable of incessantly shelling them, has equipment issues? Ukraine, the country that now saw the need to make use of cluster munitions? That country?
Tell me more of your tactical knowledge oh wise one. Did you study logistics under Albert Kesselring?
Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
That's the F35. The F16 though is outclassed by modern russian jet fighters like SU-27 so it's a moot point. Unless the west is giving F35s it doesn't matter, they're generations old tech that cannot handle S300s let alone S400s and S500s.
The F35 also has issues with rain? I'd be interested in learning more, if you have any good sources.
The F 16 does as well. Or at least as far as I know it does - it's not really my field of expertise, but I hyperfocused on it at one point. They have quite a few crashes as a result of heavy rain. Here's one such story. This forum tracks accidents and mishaps for f-16s as well, and it seems to me as if it handles rain worse than others.
Russia has the best anti-air defenses in the world. Period. Also, the F-16s will presumably have to land at some point. When they do land, they can be hit with Russian missiles. Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16. You might be able to keep the thing from crashing into the ground, but beyond that?
I'm sorry, we've all seen this argument before. It was the Bayraktar drones and Javelins, those were the gamechangers. Then the HIMARS. Oh, but the M777s and Caeser howitzers, that'll win them the war! Then the Leopards and Bradleys, which now lie destroyed in minefields, and the Patriots, which are hit by hypersonic missiles (with liberals argue that due to Newton's Third Law, if you think about it, the Patriots also hit the hypersonic missiles). Now it's the F-16s and the Abrams. It's been a never-ending treadmill of the West bringing out weapons and equipment, promising every single time that THIS will be the thing that makes Putin pee his pants and surrender to the Ukrainians. It hasn't happened, and given the appalling deaths and casualties and destruction on the Zaporozhye front these past two months with Ukraine's third army being ground down to scrap, it doesn't seem like it ever will happen.
This is the height of liberal "analysis", not a hint of rigor or knowledge of the factional politics or geopolitical pressures that determine what choices are viable for leaders to make
No, instead it's just vibes based politics arrived at thru bullshit personal intuition
"I DoNt tRuST tHaT gUY" give me a fuckin break, say something thats even half way incisive
Not the person above but dehumanizing enemies is unnecessary unless your essential message is hate and genocide. Fascists aren’t monsters from another dimension, they are regular-ass people. That’s part of what makes it so fucked up. My leftism is bound up with humanism and I don’t want to lose my humanity in order to save humanity.
I understand your viewpoint and there's nothing wrong with that humane approach, but I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended that spoke to me, it honestly doesn't
I'm genuinely not interested in humanizing fascists, the various plans people like that have for people like me prevents me from taking a proposition like that seriously
Fascists in power and in the streets might as well be "monsters from another dimension" for the effect they have on my life and the people I care about, I can't afford to subscribe to any philosophy that could potentially diminish that crucial recognition
I think we agree on the important part, fascists have to be taken seriously. I don't endorse kid gloves in dealing with fascists. I just feel that calling them maggots is thought-terminating, it is a crude imitation of the fascists' own language, it does not actually do anything except to encourage fascist-like thought patterns even if nominally leftist. Fascists provide enough material to prove themselves vile; we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization on the basis of "free speech" or whatever usual nonsense works to get liberals to defend them since after all, through liberal eyes, all ideology is sacred, only action can be immoral.
In general, it is a choice and definite strategy to dehumanize people. There is no dichotomy of humanize or dehumanize. They continuously dehumanize themselves through their ideology, it is sufficient to point to the ideology and let it speak for itself.
I'm sorry but that's basically a dedux of respectability politics, I'm really not interested in even accepting a debate framework like that because it's fundamentally a pre-compromised position, since your opponent will always define what is and isn't respectable, hence your worry of "we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization"
Fascists also did not invent the concept of political insults or caricatures, and my use of insults sends a signal to lurking fash in this online space (and they are lurking) the same way a baseball bat in the hands of a bartender sends a signal to any fash scouting for potential friendly gathering locations
And most importantly dehumanization of enemies alone is not the basis of fascist language, instead it's the racialization of enemies thru class collaboration that defines the fascist lexicon
If I wanted to "imitate" fascist language, I'd be using racial slurs instead of just a figurative comparison to insects
your opponent will always define what is and isn't respectable, hence your worry of "we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization"
This is a really good point. I shouldn't have put so much emphasis on perception in the last comment.
Racialization is a more succinct term for what I don't want. While calling fascists maggots is not strictly a form of racialization (I don't think it is logically possible for an oppressor to be racialized), again it uses similar thought patterns, reduction of humans to some essential identity, on which basis to exterminate that race/group. I don't think this is a way of thought that should be encouraged. Fascists should be fought as the horrible people they are, not as caricatures, because that actually dilutes the reality of fascism. The idea more and more takes hold that fascist ideology is a result of a flawed brain, and not a problem with humanity more generally.
uses similar thought patterns, reduction of humans to some essential identity, on which basis to exterminate that race/group
no, it quite literally doesn't. fascists can renounce their beliefs and all of my ire falls away. I cannot renounce being trans or brown -- these are actually essential qualities. ideologies are not essential.
It is not bad faith to refuse to use hateful language. I don’t want to be hateful, and using terminology and manners of speech of the people who I oppose doesn’t sit right with me. And on a practical level I don’t think it helps the leftist cause in any way, more likely hurts it.
The fact you recognize that fascists could renounce their beliefs, to me implies you don’t truly view them as maggots, which is what I meant above.
fascist-like thought patterns even if nominally leftist
sorry, this is where you lost me. refusing to recognize the humanity of the people who wish to wipe me from the face of the earth is using fascist-like thought patterns? no, it's recognizing them as enemies who want me dead -- my only position on them is renounce your beliefs and stop attempting to build fascism or accept your death. this position cannot be equated with the fascist thought patterns because literally the only thing you have to do to prevent your death is walk away from fascism. I cannot walk away -- they wish me dead for who I am, my actual essence.
Look I agree with much of what you said but I also think you missed my point. I’m not asking for you to be nicer to the fascists or to show mercy. I’m not “clutching my pearls” as someone else accused me of, because I’m not defending the fascists. I get it because most leftists have been oppressed/bullied, and sometimes it feels good to flip it around for once. I’m not interested in policing the emotions of hurt people so I’ll probably stop engaging at this point.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree i dont think acknowledging their fundamental lack of humanity is "using their own manner of speech" I think it's pretty critical to understand thay what we're up against doesn't have what you would consider motivations and goals that align or even make sense in a broader society but maybe thats just me giving humans too much credit.
Biden has a long history of lying and other shady activities, yet you accept his narrative uncritically.
It is true that politicians are not always truthful. Unfortunately you have to educate yourself to determine what the lies are, not just pick a team and a set of lies to believe.
The part where the facutal statements became unfactual. If you don't trust someone you dont just go "everything they say is a lie", you investigate what they say (u less of course you're a gullible idiot, in which case you just believe what you're told by your own "good guys" that surely don't have an agenda and surely have never lied). You also do this with people you trust by the way.
Tens of thousands of Korean slave laborers died in those nuclear blasts my man. The USA has never given a fuck about helping anyone who wasn’t bourgeois. They dropped the bombs to warn the Soviets to stay out. Try to read history that wasn’t written by Nazi apologists.
Not even “to save your family.” His question was less than that. Would you kill those people, just to do something? No requirement that the action is effective, only that it demonstrate your protest against your situation.
The Japanese had been begging to surrender for six months—on one condition, that the emperor retain a ceremonial position. The USA granted this condition after the surrender because they didn’t actually care and thought that a fascist leader would be useful in fighting communism, which is also why they placed fascist collaborators in charge of South Korea, thereby leading directly to the Korean War.
Read the room bud. You walked smug as pig shit into our own house to smear your poop rhetoric all over the walls and we have been beyond hospitable. Either kindly go touch grass, or read something in good faith and reply as such.
Just because you lack the neurons to acquire a basic understanding of historical events, doesn't suddenly mean that those events arent complicated. But if you're so into people being sacrificed for the will of American capitalists, I suggest you go volunteer in Ukraine.
Japan was already ready to surrender on terms the US accepted after dropping the nukes
not only did the nukes kill thousands of Korean slaves in the two nuked cities but the US subsequently killed 20% of the Korean population, forcing the population underground into caves, during the Korean war just a couple of years later. they leveled virtually every city in order to prop up a brutal police regime - so miss me with this "what about the Koreans and Chinese" nonsense.
Hey there! I’ve read over your comments in this thread and they’re super interesting! There’s a few points you made I’d like to refute, but I’m at work at the moment and don’t have time to copy and paste it from my blog - take a look here and see what you think.
You're defending the US military killing three times as many civilians as Russia has killed in Ukraine in the entire Ukraine war ("The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.") and calling us bad people for calling out you for being a disgusting war crime apologist who's defending murdering >200,000 thousand innocent women, children and men who were unfit for combat as well as tens of thousands of Korean POWs imprisoned in the two cities (it's worth noting that despite your claim that the Korean people supported the bombings both the DPRK and the South Korean government condemn the bombings nowadays due to how many Koreans were killed)
This might be hard for a genocial monster like you to understand but most victims of violence do not wish further violence upon others let alone mass violence on everyone they know and love to "make the pain stop." Those people would've preferred to actually be alive right now you fucking demon.
No, I would not kill thousands of innocent uninvolved people for no reason, knowing that it would have zero effect on my situation. Tbh, even if it would save my family, I’d struggle to kill 200,000 innocents (trolley problem).
Miss me with the “yes or no” smug loaded question.
It's already been explained to you that the nuclear bomb did not cause the surrender or end the war, it was just a show of power against the Soviet's, here's an article about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20150106195034/https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ (internet archive link because the original is locked behind a pay wall)
Any argument that the bomb saved lives in the long run is either a lie or purposely ignorant, now on the other hand if you wanted to say that the Japanese civilians deserve it for not overthrowing their fascist government that's when comparisons to 9/11 come up (because it's the exact same argument that Bin Laden used)
I know you Americans are taught some wack-ass way of reading were you just learn to memorize the shape of words rather than the function of letters, but it's still surprising to see that your reading comprehension can be this bad
You were provided with more good faith responses than you deserve in your entire life, and yet you still come back to this smug thought-terminating cliche. Since you believe that citizens are responsible for the actions of their government, here's a suggestion:
Kill yourself.
I'm saying the national interests of the Russian Federation are not decided on the whims of an evil madman. And when you reduce them to a single person you fall into self blinding behaviors like completely ignoring a speech to the world about a nation's cause for war when determining that country's motivation for going to war.
You saw something like the wager mutiny happen and seriously think that absolutely no-one backed that because Putin would simply kill them all with his dictator mind powers rather then the country genuinely supporting him?
Buddy, if you wanna use Mao as a big scary incarnation of Evil, you're somehow even wronger (more wrong?) than your ukraine takes, which I almost want to admire.
Hitler, no. Mao, yes. Because Mao was amazing and Hitler was the first to introduce the concept of privatization, beloved of his fellow corporate puppets Biden, Trump, and many others.
How does q factual statement become unfactual, just because it was uttered by a liar? You know what you do when you distrust a powerful persons stated claims? You check them. If Donald Trump told the sky was blue, would you then think it was some other colour, or would you look up to check for yourself?
I fail to see from that how it would be in the West's interests for Russia to declare war (sorry, a special military action) on Ukraine
I an pretty sure even Mitch McConnel explained that the war is a "good investment" for the US because it damages Russia with zero risk to American land or soldiers.
Right. Yes. I said that in the very next sentence. It's an investment. The hardware is being spent towards some purpose. But the original guy I responded to seemed to think that we were giving away all our old hardware 'cause we just didn't want to pay for upkeep, which is dumb.
The upkeep of old equipment is part of the cost in the analysis of whether or not to give it away, and the MIC loves any excuse to increase the budget, so I don't think the other person was being dumb.
I'm sorry, did you just imply that Russia invading Ukraine was part of some weird US plot to offload out-of-date military equipment?
The US has legalized bribery, military contractors make their money by lobbying for war, ans politicians see military spending as economic stimulus. The SMO is a direct response to the Westerm side (US vassals) constantly escalating and refusing to implement Minsk 2 during active shelling of Donbas population for 8 years. The SMO itself was announced shortly after a significant uptick in shelling of Donbas by UA.
This approach of constant escalation, of pushing far beyond what their own countries would and havw tolerated, is a function of the MIC. It's a big part of the reason that war is desirable to those making decisions. They frame it as being strategic, a way to increase "national security" and launder a new campaign to "update" arsenals against mounting "threats" (potential peers).
How, exactly, would the US have convinced Russia to invade, in your mind?
Through a decades-long campaign to encircle the country, undermine its trade influence and development, and push hard against red line issues they know will trigger significant responses from them. It is no surprise that poking the bear gets a response and this was all very intentional. Shelling of Donbas by Ukraine escalated massively shortly before the announcement of the SMO, for example.
And did they also convince Russia to invade in 2014, or was that purely Russia's decision?
What invasion are you referring to, here?
Lastly, just to satisfy my own curiosity: were you dropped on your head as a baby?
Silly tankie, Russia invaded Ukraine because Putler is evil. That's it. He's evil and hates freedom-loving Ukrainians because they're the only democracy in Eastern Europe.
It wont end. They ended Afghanistan to live out thier Cold War Nazi's revenge against the commies fantasies and turn Ukraine into a burn pit to clear inventory of trillons of unused equipment. The soil and water in Europe's bread basket will be contaminated for 100s of years. Food prices will skyrocket. The European "way of life " will end to support the inflationary costs of the wars and no western political candidate will ever be able to point to Europe as an example of what's possible under the crap-it-all-ist system ever again.
Once they get bored of that they'll instigate a formal 3rd world war in the 2040's to stop any peace divided.
Removed by mod
They did a coup in 2014 with the help of Nazi militias.
Nice condescending ableism at the end there. Libs stay classy.
Removed by mod
lol, you're just gonna get another comment deleted for ableism, so I won't even bother to address anything you said
Removed by mod
Quick! Quick! Say another ableism thing!
Removed by mod
aww, you poop your pants little guy?
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces. This is evident by the fact that the grassroots protest leaders where shut out of the new government to make space for neo-Nazis handpicked the US state department (you can hear Victoria Nuland say "fuck the EU" around 10 mins into this video before selecting the new Ukrainian cabinet).
And hey, I too used to be a smug liberal who looked down upon everyone who wasn't in lock step with US propaganda, but if you're trying to convince people of something I'd recommend you don't bookend every comment with reddit-ass insults to people's intelligence.
That's seriously
, like how was it a popular movement when the next president was a literal billionaire oligarch who supported the protests?
Wasn't that guy voted out as soon as there were formal elections though?
Removed by mod
Obama black, no more racism
Only freedom!
None of this refutes what I argued above, that the protests were quickly taken over by right wing groups propped up by the West, with the new government handpicked by the state department:
Cool are they happy with Victoria Nuland selecting their government?
I haven't seen an approval poll inside of Ukraine for a while but the guy banned opposition parties so it's not like you'd have any other political option at the moment lol.
Seriously very funny to pretend like a Jewish president wipes out the neo-Nazi reality of the Azov battalion.
Whatever gets you off then, I guess.
Zelenskyyyy's approval ratings were in the toilet before the war, and wartime approval ratings don't really count to me, that's like saying Dubya was beloved because of how high his approval ratings were after 9/11.
Nevertheless, that still means there are millions of Ukrainians who would prefer association with the EU over Russia. I think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted (however misplaced we might find it) to be in the EU and aligned with the US?
deleted by creator
Agreed, but I think it's also important to specify that the coup refers to how the US Ambassador basically hand-picked the provisional government that ended up in power immediately after, and not the protests that started after the initial announcement that the EU deal was off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
I like this video for this very reason. It unequivocally states that NATO's eastward expansion provoked the Ukrainian invasion without regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
I think that implication mistakeningly conflates the protests with the resulting coup. The protests had real popular energy behind them and spotlit grassroots leaders (until the western-backed literal Nazis took center stage). The coup pushed those people and their interests aside in favor of whoever Victoria Nuland favored.
And if I recall, the Nuland picks were voted out first chance the Ukrainian people got.
Im kind of sick of having the same pointless "debate" about established facts with dumbass ignorant dog-headed do-nothings dickhead like you, about how the "revolution" was led by far-right militias 1 2 3 4 5 because you never engage with the texts, you all repeat same tired thought-terminating cliches while being weird condescending debatebros that think you're the cleverest pig in the mudpile. So instead I'll link you this video, which you can ignore, misrepresent, strawman and nitpick instead.
Looking forward to seeing you ask this same question very soon, despite already having had it answered!
Liberalism 101:
Liberals do not argue in good faith. Every time they start JAQing off and question the validity of your claims, they mean to attack your character and have no interest in the claims themselves. It is not contradictory that they ask the same questions again and again, because their questions aren't questions, they're attacks.
Yeah, but you never know, once in a blue moon they're genuine, and really it's more about the lurkers than the poster. However that also means that as soon as they've been responded to in good faith it's immediate mockery if they fail to do so themselves as well
Yeah it's called the military industrial complex, maybe you heard of it
Or maybe you actaully believe all those nazis who couped the government in 2014 did it for the "love of democracy" and not for the western paychecks in the form of massive arms transfers
Fuck it doesn't even need to be arms transfers, lord only knows how much dark money is being sifted around this conflict. Hell, Zelensky was already in either the Panama Papers or was it the other one? Who knows how much pure cash is just floating around or weapons are being sold around Eastern Europe.
Yeah he was in the Pandora Papers
Zelesnkyy is a hundred millionaire before the conflict. I have to imagine he's in the billions by now, after 150+ billion dollars sent to Ukraine that he's been grafting off of
When do you think the war will end? Just guess at the date. I am curious.
As soon as Russia gives up 🤡
Probably will drag on for a decade until 2032 with Russia slowly coming out ahead via attrition like the Syrian Civil War.
That one's tough to answer. I'm hopeful that they'll reach Tokmak by the end of the year, but I don't know that they'll take it this year. Russia knows the logistical importance of that place, and they'll throw everything at it to retain it. Plus, there's only like 2 months left in the year before fighting conditions get too degraded by weather. So, I'm guessing that the lines will start to stabilize again at the end of October or beginning of November, and we won't see much progress until next Spring.
The good news, though, is that they're gonna be getting a bunch of F-16s from the Netherlands, so that will help out immensely in the next offensive drive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to take Tokmak early on in the year, and then make a push towards Melitopol. Could be celebrating another independence day by the end of next year.
Of course, a lot depends on conditions in Russia. Anything could happen. We've already seen one major coup attempt from Wagner before they stopped about 200km away for some reason. I don't think they're going to try again because they stupidly put all of their upper leadership together in the same plane... but I think it's possible that another coup attempt could happen from a different faction. If Putin is removed or killed, I don't think the war will continue. I think the next guy will just blame Russia's poor performance on the last guy and will call it a day.
You seriously think Ukraine is going to win? Tell me more about their counteroffensive
Removed by mod
Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
The country that has exhausted it's reserve battalions and is forcibly drafting men, while preventing these same men from leaving the country, and which has had several reports describing how the troops at the front have basically no training, is somehow better trained and equipped than the Russians? Ukraine, the country that frequently has equipment issues, and which has complained that the Russians are capable of incessantly shelling them, has equipment issues? Ukraine, the country that now saw the need to make use of cluster munitions? That country?
Tell me more of your tactical knowledge oh wise one. Did you study logistics under Albert Kesselring?
That's the F35. The F16 though is outclassed by modern russian jet fighters like SU-27 so it's a moot point. Unless the west is giving F35s it doesn't matter, they're generations old tech that cannot handle S300s let alone S400s and S500s.
The F35 also has issues with rain? I'd be interested in learning more, if you have any good sources.
The F 16 does as well. Or at least as far as I know it does - it's not really my field of expertise, but I hyperfocused on it at one point. They have quite a few crashes as a result of heavy rain. Here's one such story. This forum tracks accidents and mishaps for f-16s as well, and it seems to me as if it handles rain worse than others.
Russia has the best anti-air defenses in the world. Period. Also, the F-16s will presumably have to land at some point. When they do land, they can be hit with Russian missiles. Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16. You might be able to keep the thing from crashing into the ground, but beyond that?
I'm sorry, we've all seen this argument before. It was the Bayraktar drones and Javelins, those were the gamechangers. Then the HIMARS. Oh, but the M777s and Caeser howitzers, that'll win them the war! Then the Leopards and Bradleys, which now lie destroyed in minefields, and the Patriots, which are hit by hypersonic missiles (with liberals argue that due to Newton's Third Law, if you think about it, the Patriots also hit the hypersonic missiles). Now it's the F-16s and the Abrams. It's been a never-ending treadmill of the West bringing out weapons and equipment, promising every single time that THIS will be the thing that makes Putin pee his pants and surrender to the Ukrainians. It hasn't happened, and given the appalling deaths and casualties and destruction on the Zaporozhye front these past two months with Ukraine's third army being ground down to scrap, it doesn't seem like it ever will happen.
Don't take my word for it, but I think I've read somewhere that Ukrainian pilots won't be ready to fly F-16s until about this time next year at best
Don't forget about cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells
Arent the F-16s incredibly finicky too? Like don't they require specialised airfields?
deleted by creator
Lmao, can't expect they'll have issues with landing fields being slightly dirty when they're all within range of russian munitions.
Allegedly they need a spotless runway to take off as they don't have a filter to protect the air intake against debris.
That probably won't be an issue in Ukraine though, it's just an active warzone.
Holy shit I didn't know Americans were that fucking arrogant. "Who needs a filter, we'll just never land anywhere dirty"
Putin actually outlined it well in his statement in 2022
The offloading of military equipment is just a byproduct
Didn't Putin say that he would only serve two terms as leader and not change the rules to keep power?
For some reason, I just don't trust that guy.
This is the height of liberal "analysis", not a hint of rigor or knowledge of the factional politics or geopolitical pressures that determine what choices are viable for leaders to make
No, instead it's just vibes based politics arrived at thru bullshit personal intuition
"I DoNt tRuST tHaT gUY" give me a fuckin break, say something thats even half way incisive
I recognize that username, it's the same person who defended dropping nukes on Japan over on Lemmygrad.
lmao of course, the opinions these maggots share are all stamped out of a DC think tank template
No matter what, the US state department is always right
Agree with everything you say, but let's not do that.
Respectfully but why? Is there a particular reason I shouldn't call a bunch of bootlicking fash "maggots"?
Not the person above but dehumanizing enemies is unnecessary unless your essential message is hate and genocide. Fascists aren’t monsters from another dimension, they are regular-ass people. That’s part of what makes it so fucked up. My leftism is bound up with humanism and I don’t want to lose my humanity in order to save humanity.
Edit: misgender corrected
I understand your viewpoint and there's nothing wrong with that humane approach, but I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended that spoke to me, it honestly doesn't
I'm genuinely not interested in humanizing fascists, the various plans people like that have for people like me prevents me from taking a proposition like that seriously
Fascists in power and in the streets might as well be "monsters from another dimension" for the effect they have on my life and the people I care about, I can't afford to subscribe to any philosophy that could potentially diminish that crucial recognition
I think we agree on the important part, fascists have to be taken seriously. I don't endorse kid gloves in dealing with fascists. I just feel that calling them maggots is thought-terminating, it is a crude imitation of the fascists' own language, it does not actually do anything except to encourage fascist-like thought patterns even if nominally leftist. Fascists provide enough material to prove themselves vile; we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization on the basis of "free speech" or whatever usual nonsense works to get liberals to defend them since after all, through liberal eyes, all ideology is sacred, only action can be immoral.
In general, it is a choice and definite strategy to dehumanize people. There is no dichotomy of humanize or dehumanize. They continuously dehumanize themselves through their ideology, it is sufficient to point to the ideology and let it speak for itself.
I'm sorry but that's basically a dedux of respectability politics, I'm really not interested in even accepting a debate framework like that because it's fundamentally a pre-compromised position, since your opponent will always define what is and isn't respectable, hence your worry of "we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization"
Fascists also did not invent the concept of political insults or caricatures, and my use of insults sends a signal to lurking fash in this online space (and they are lurking) the same way a baseball bat in the hands of a bartender sends a signal to any fash scouting for potential friendly gathering locations
And most importantly dehumanization of enemies alone is not the basis of fascist language, instead it's the racialization of enemies thru class collaboration that defines the fascist lexicon
If I wanted to "imitate" fascist language, I'd be using racial slurs instead of just a figurative comparison to insects
This is a really good point. I shouldn't have put so much emphasis on perception in the last comment.
Racialization is a more succinct term for what I don't want. While calling fascists maggots is not strictly a form of racialization (I don't think it is logically possible for an oppressor to be racialized), again it uses similar thought patterns, reduction of humans to some essential identity, on which basis to exterminate that race/group. I don't think this is a way of thought that should be encouraged. Fascists should be fought as the horrible people they are, not as caricatures, because that actually dilutes the reality of fascism. The idea more and more takes hold that fascist ideology is a result of a flawed brain, and not a problem with humanity more generally.
no, it quite literally doesn't. fascists can renounce their beliefs and all of my ire falls away. I cannot renounce being trans or brown -- these are actually essential qualities. ideologies are not essential.
Fascists as humans can renounce their beliefs. As maggots they cannot.
I'm not sure how to read this but bad faith and my only response is what I already said.
It is not bad faith to refuse to use hateful language. I don’t want to be hateful, and using terminology and manners of speech of the people who I oppose doesn’t sit right with me. And on a practical level I don’t think it helps the leftist cause in any way, more likely hurts it.
The fact you recognize that fascists could renounce their beliefs, to me implies you don’t truly view them as maggots, which is what I meant above.
sorry, this is where you lost me. refusing to recognize the humanity of the people who wish to wipe me from the face of the earth is using fascist-like thought patterns? no, it's recognizing them as enemies who want me dead -- my only position on them is renounce your beliefs and stop attempting to build fascism or accept your death. this position cannot be equated with the fascist thought patterns because literally the only thing you have to do to prevent your death is walk away from fascism. I cannot walk away -- they wish me dead for who I am, my actual essence.
Look I agree with much of what you said but I also think you missed my point. I’m not asking for you to be nicer to the fascists or to show mercy. I’m not “clutching my pearls” as someone else accused me of, because I’m not defending the fascists. I get it because most leftists have been oppressed/bullied, and sometimes it feels good to flip it around for once. I’m not interested in policing the emotions of hurt people so I’ll probably stop engaging at this point.
I'm not advocating genocide but I do hate them.
Why shouldn't I.
Can we please not do the "we have to respect the fascists humanity" here.
They've all posted a Facebook meme about shooting Trans people in the time you clutched your pearls.
I never said we need to respect the fascists or even be nice to them.
You can be mean to fascists without using their own manner of speech.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree i dont think acknowledging their fundamental lack of humanity is "using their own manner of speech" I think it's pretty critical to understand thay what we're up against doesn't have what you would consider motivations and goals that align or even make sense in a broader society but maybe thats just me giving humans too much credit.
If the fascists see others as bugs for existing, I will do the same to them
Bedbugs?
Someone cited a speech Putin gave.
I pointed out Putin has a long history of lying [and other shady activities]
What part confused you?
Biden has a long history of lying and other shady activities, yet you accept his narrative uncritically.
It is true that politicians are not always truthful. Unfortunately you have to educate yourself to determine what the lies are, not just pick a team and a set of lies to believe.
The part where the facutal statements became unfactual. If you don't trust someone you dont just go "everything they say is a lie", you investigate what they say (u less of course you're a gullible idiot, in which case you just believe what you're told by your own "good guys" that surely don't have an agenda and surely have never lied). You also do this with people you trust by the way.
Why did they cite Putin's speech? Did you ask? Did you engage in good faith?
Or did your brain just go, "that's a bad guy, now I don't have to listen and I should fight even more"?
This you doing apologia for the murder of 200,000 Japanese civilians and Korean POWs?
deleted by creator
I honestly think we're spending too much time and effort debating in good faith with libs.
They constantly bitch were all operating in bad faith, and then it's just this over and over again.
You ask them to explain themselves and they say some reprehensible shit.
More ppb.
Often it's not the ones arguing who come around; it's the ones reading along.
no more half measures walter
This right here. Imo, online arguments are for the third party audience more than the other person most of the time.
Agreed. I'm not the most articulate person, and seeing some of the takedowns of lib bullshit here really helps me find the words to express my views
Liberals aren't interested in learning anything at all.
Removed by mod
Tens of thousands of Korean slave laborers died in those nuclear blasts my man. The USA has never given a fuck about helping anyone who wasn’t bourgeois. They dropped the bombs to warn the Soviets to stay out. Try to read history that wasn’t written by Nazi apologists.
Not that I doubt you, but really tens of thousands of Korean slaves died from the nukes? I've never heard that before and it seems pretty significant.
APnews reports make claims of 20 000 other sources I saw in google range, some papers claim 30k or more
That's correct. Forced laborers put into Japanese industry as the war effort faltered. The nukes were intended for industrial cities.
Removed by mod
“Would you incinerate thousands of defenseless women and children to save your family?”
What a psychotic question holy shit
Not even “to save your family.” His question was less than that. Would you kill those people, just to do something? No requirement that the action is effective, only that it demonstrate your protest against your situation.
The libs are just as much bloodthirsty psychopaths as half the self admitted fascists.
But the libs act like they have the fucking moral high ground over you while defending it.
The Japanese had been begging to surrender for six months—on one condition, that the emperor retain a ceremonial position. The USA granted this condition after the surrender because they didn’t actually care and thought that a fascist leader would be useful in fighting communism, which is also why they placed fascist collaborators in charge of South Korea, thereby leading directly to the Korean War.
Yes, or no.
It's not that complicated.
Read the room bud. You walked smug as pig shit into our own house to smear your poop rhetoric all over the walls and we have been beyond hospitable. Either kindly go touch grass, or read something in good faith and reply as such.
Just because you lack the neurons to acquire a basic understanding of historical events, doesn't suddenly mean that those events arent complicated. But if you're so into people being sacrificed for the will of American capitalists, I suggest you go volunteer in Ukraine.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Japan was already ready to surrender on terms the US accepted after dropping the nukes
not only did the nukes kill thousands of Korean slaves in the two nuked cities but the US subsequently killed 20% of the Korean population, forcing the population underground into caves, during the Korean war just a couple of years later. they leveled virtually every city in order to prop up a brutal police regime - so miss me with this "what about the Koreans and Chinese" nonsense.
Hey there! I’ve read over your comments in this thread and they’re super interesting! There’s a few points you made I’d like to refute, but I’m at work at the moment and don’t have time to copy and paste it from my blog - take a look here and see what you think.
Have a good day!
dude you got owned and outed as a racist , just take the L and make a new username
I'm racist for thinking Burmese lives are equal to Japanese lives?
Please, tell me nore.
we already had a masterpost on this very topic, not debating racists.
Stop sending me pictures of your mom.
lemm.ee is not sending their best folks.
Looking forward to another "we need to defederate" post tomorrow
Here's the crazy thing.
They actually are.
He got us, everyone
How dare you! Mods! Mods! Ban this poster! They’re too strong!
Lmao that's the most basic schoolyard comeback there is. What are you, 12? What's next? "I know what you are, but what am I?"
You're defending the US military killing three times as many civilians as Russia has killed in Ukraine in the entire Ukraine war ("The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.") and calling us bad people for calling out you for being a disgusting war crime apologist who's defending murdering >200,000 thousand innocent women, children and men who were unfit for combat as well as tens of thousands of Korean POWs imprisoned in the two cities (it's worth noting that despite your claim that the Korean people supported the bombings both the DPRK and the South Korean government condemn the bombings nowadays due to how many Koreans were killed)
What the hell is this question? Is my 8 year old bro being deployed to the beaches of fucking tokyo?
This might be hard for a genocial monster like you to understand but most victims of violence do not wish further violence upon others let alone mass violence on everyone they know and love to "make the pain stop." Those people would've preferred to actually be alive right now you fucking demon.
No, I would not kill thousands of innocent uninvolved people for no reason, knowing that it would have zero effect on my situation. Tbh, even if it would save my family, I’d struggle to kill 200,000 innocents (trolley problem).
Miss me with the “yes or no” smug loaded question.
Dropping the bomb didn't force Japanese surrender. It just ensured that surrender was to the Americans rather than Soviets.
It's good that the USA didn't employ unit 731 to kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese/Burmese/Koreans after WW2. That would have been terrible.
The nukes were definitely dropped to save those people.
Wait what
I knew about the nazis BUT FUCKING UNIT 731?!
Chicken feathers on Korean villages.
Removed by mod
So, you couldn't actually answer 'yes' or 'no.'
Also, I don't think using 9/11 as an example of ending a war is really all that smart.
It's already been explained to you that the nuclear bomb did not cause the surrender or end the war, it was just a show of power against the Soviet's, here's an article about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20150106195034/https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ (internet archive link because the original is locked behind a pay wall)
Any argument that the bomb saved lives in the long run is either a lie or purposely ignorant, now on the other hand if you wanted to say that the Japanese civilians deserve it for not overthrowing their fascist government that's when comparisons to 9/11 come up (because it's the exact same argument that Bin Laden used)
I know you Americans are taught some wack-ass way of reading were you just learn to memorize the shape of words rather than the function of letters, but it's still surprising to see that your reading comprehension can be this bad
You were provided with more good faith responses than you deserve in your entire life, and yet you still come back to this smug thought-terminating cliche. Since you believe that citizens are responsible for the actions of their government, here's a suggestion: Kill yourself.
I am once again begging you Marvel brained libs to recognize that Russia is a country not a guy in a costume.
Are you saying that Putin and Russia are indivisible?
I'm saying the national interests of the Russian Federation are not decided on the whims of an evil madman. And when you reduce them to a single person you fall into self blinding behaviors like completely ignoring a speech to the world about a nation's cause for war when determining that country's motivation for going to war.
So, you're saying the Russian Federation had a vote on the issue?
You saw something like the wager mutiny happen and seriously think that absolutely no-one backed that because Putin would simply kill them all with his dictator mind powers rather then the country genuinely supporting him?
Removed by mod
Buddy, if you wanna use Mao as a big scary incarnation of Evil, you're somehow even wronger (more wrong?) than your ukraine takes, which I almost want to admire.
Hitler, no. Mao, yes. Because Mao was amazing and Hitler was the first to introduce the concept of privatization, beloved of his fellow corporate puppets Biden, Trump, and many others.
And the point applies to them too.
ahem.
Strawman.
The SMO is overwhelmingly approved of in Russia
He's literally saying the opposite you dolt
Let's try operating at your level for a minute. Taking a stab at that good faith debate I always hear about from you libs.
Are you saying putin is the only person in Russia.
Wait shit that actually makes way more sense as a criticism than anything you've said I'll have to practice more.
How does q factual statement become unfactual, just because it was uttered by a liar? You know what you do when you distrust a powerful persons stated claims? You check them. If Donald Trump told the sky was blue, would you then think it was some other colour, or would you look up to check for yourself?
i honestly don't know
Removed by mod
I an pretty sure even Mitch McConnel explained that the war is a "good investment" for the US because it damages Russia with zero risk to American land or soldiers.
Right. Yes. I said that in the very next sentence. It's an investment. The hardware is being spent towards some purpose. But the original guy I responded to seemed to think that we were giving away all our old hardware 'cause we just didn't want to pay for upkeep, which is dumb.
The upkeep of old equipment is part of the cost in the analysis of whether or not to give it away, and the MIC loves any excuse to increase the budget, so I don't think the other person was being dumb.
The US has legalized bribery, military contractors make their money by lobbying for war, ans politicians see military spending as economic stimulus. The SMO is a direct response to the Westerm side (US vassals) constantly escalating and refusing to implement Minsk 2 during active shelling of Donbas population for 8 years. The SMO itself was announced shortly after a significant uptick in shelling of Donbas by UA.
This approach of constant escalation, of pushing far beyond what their own countries would and havw tolerated, is a function of the MIC. It's a big part of the reason that war is desirable to those making decisions. They frame it as being strategic, a way to increase "national security" and launder a new campaign to "update" arsenals against mounting "threats" (potential peers).
Through a decades-long campaign to encircle the country, undermine its trade influence and development, and push hard against red line issues they know will trigger significant responses from them. It is no surprise that poking the bear gets a response and this was all very intentional. Shelling of Donbas by Ukraine escalated massively shortly before the announcement of the SMO, for example.
What invasion are you referring to, here?
@Civility!
Silly tankie, Russia invaded Ukraine because Putler is evil. That's it. He's evil and hates freedom-loving Ukrainians because they're the only democracy in Eastern Europe.