Comments by "dark room ambience" (@DarkRoomAmbience) on "CRUX"
channel.
-
148
-
106
-
72
-
49
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
38
-
35
-
34
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
Russia aspires to be perceived on equal footing with the US, harboring historical expectations of such parity. Nevertheless, the reality is different; Russia, by comparison, by all measures, does not stand as an equivalent counterpart to the US and the US' interactions with Russia have reflected this. Its nothing personal.
The US does not apply uniform treatment to all nations. Instead, it differentiates its engagements based on the relative power and influence that a nation wields on the global stage. This dynamic underscores the core of its relations: Russia, does not possess the level of power and influence that would grant it equivalence with the US.
Russia, perhaps nostalgic by its Soviet past, aspires to expedite its ascent to a status of peerhood with the US, despite being approximately one-third of the Soviets' size in several key areas. However, such aspirations should be tempered by the sobering reality that achieving this coveted status will necessitate decades of sustained effort.
In contrast, countries like China and India, aware of the same international dynamics, adopt a more measured approach, waiting until they amass sufficient power and influence before pursuing endeavors commensurate with their ambitions. Russia's fervent pursuit of narrowing the power disparity with the US is hasty and pressured, driven by the constraints of time. Unlike political systems characterized by party continuity or democratic processes that foster long-term ambitions, Russia relies heavily on the leadership of a singular individual, Vladimir Putin. This political structure lends a sense of urgency to Russia's endeavors as Putin's aspirations are inherently constrained by the finite span of his own lifetime.
The ambitious objective of achieving parity with the United States within Putin's tenure is, however, beset by inherent challenges that render it virtually unattainable within such a compressed timeframe. The complexities of global power dynamics necessitate sustained efforts over decades, a luxury that Putin does not possess.
The cold, unemotional reality is, the US does not currently view Russia as its equal. This reflects the current state of affairs. Yet, should Russia successfully accumulate the requisite power and influence over time, it may ultimately find itself treated by the US on more equitable terms, much like the Soviet Union was. Until then, the US will continue to gauge its interactions with Russia in relation to its current standing, a status that falls short of equality, akin to its engagements with nations like North Korea or Iran. While Russia is undoubtedly a strong actor, it has yet to attain the status of an equal counterpart to the US on the world stage and they are very resentful about it.
Putin cant complain, invade, cry and bemoan Russia to the top. That takes a long term strategic mission that Putin doesnt have the time for and he wants the glory before his time is up and thats never going to happen.
29
-
Zelensky offered to meet with Putin one-on-one before the invasion. Putin refused.
The US met with Russian officials pleading them not to invade. They invaded.
A month into the war Macron met with Putin begging for peace negotiations, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the UN Secretary met with Putin and tried to negotiate a peace deal, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the Austrian President met with Putin seeking a peace settlement, Putin refused.
3 months into the war Ukraine offered to drop their bid to join NATO if they are guaranteed security, Putin refused.
Ukraine said to Russia if they illegally annex Ukraine's lands they will refuse any peace deal, Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's lands.
Ukraine have offered a 10-point peace plan, which includes simple provisions such as dont bomb our energy infrastructure, Russia refused.
Russia have refused every single peace offer, every single peace deal, every single offer to negotiate. They dont want peace, they want Ukraine.
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
@AronAroniteOnlineTV The people of Ukraine wanted Yanukovych to sign an economic agreement with Europe. Russia pressured Yanukovych to instead sign a deal with the Eurasian Economic Union. Understandably, because lets be honest, who would want to sign an economic deal with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia instead of France, Germany, Spain and Italy, the Ukrainians revolted with mass protests forcing the resignation of Yanukovych. Then Russia annexed Crimea, breaking the Budapest Accords, started funding and arming rebels in Donbass and continued to fuel the conflict over the years.
You end with "Russian intervention" but they were involved right from the beginning, every step of the way right up to this war and that is precisely why the Ukrainians wanted to move towards Europe. Sorry, but being under the thumb of Russia wasnt an appealing choice. No coups, no provocation, no regime change. It was the people of Ukraine wanting to be free
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@johannuys7914 The US did not invade Libya. It established a no-fly zone, which it sought permission for from the United Nations Security Council, which approved it. This included Russia and China. International law was followed.
The US invaded Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks. The right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter was invoked, as the Taliban government was providing safe haven to al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization that had carried out the September 11 attacks. International law was followed.
The US has never invaded Somalia.
The US did not invade Syria. It conducted airstrikes against ISIL targets and provided weapons and other assistance to Syrian rebels fighting against the government of Bashar al-Assad.
On a personal level, we should not be involved in any of those countries. However, the difference between the United States and Russia is that the United States does not take land for itself, Russia does. The United States lobbies the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council, sometimes receiving approval from the UNSC, Russia does not. The US never acts unilaterally, Russia does. The International Criminal Court has never opened up investigations against the United States regarding any of its military incursions. Russia has recently been subjected to various ICC investigations, including charging Putin of war crimes.
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@niklaus9678 Ok how about not believing the numbers Russia put out. No, Ursula said 100k casualties for Ukraine thats your "eu sources", EU sources have never said 200k losses for Ukraine, 4.2x bigger and only 100k for Russia, EU sources never said Ukraine lost 12k in the Kherson counter offensive and the EU sources never said Russia lost only 1.9k in that battle.
Can you hear yourself? If Ukraine were losing 12 to 1 in the kherson battle, why would Russia withdraw, you said before that the Bakhmut battle is successful because Russia are inflicting more casualties, which means they are "playing the long game". They are smart. Well, why not "play the long game" in Kherson? 12 to1 sounds like a fantastic ratio to "play the long game". If Russia were inflicting such a higher amount of casualties, they wouldn't have withdrawn, Ukraine would have been stuck in a meat grinder, which is what a meat grinder is. Where the attacking side is losing more troops than the defending side. If the attacking side is losing less troops, then they start to make gains. Its simple math. Also, Why would Russia concede ground to Ukraine just to "shell them from 3 directions". A better strategy is taking more territory, not losing territory.
Ill give you a tip on how to spot russian lies, it doesn't make logical sense.
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
The Georgian "foreign agents" bill and the US Foreign Agents Registration Act share some similarities, but there are significant differences between the two.
The Georgian law, which is modelled on the Russian "foreign agents" law, applies to NGOs that receive foreign funding and engage in "political activity", while the US law applies to individuals and organizations that act as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity.
Under the Georgian foreign agents law NGOs deemed to be "foreign agents" are required to register with the government and publicly declare their status as foreign agents in all of their materials. Under the US law, individuals and organizations required to register must file regular reports with the US Department of Justice, but they are not required to publicly disclose their status as "foreign agents".
The penalties for violating the Georgian law can be severe, including fines and criminal charges, whereas the penalties for violating the US law are typically limited to fines and civil penalties.
The Georgian law defines "political activity" very broadly, potentially encompassing a wide range of activities. In contrast, the US law has a narrower definition of political activity that specifically includes attempts to influence US policy.
Im sure Ms Zacharova pointed that out in her weekly pro-Russian address, you definitely are getting all the neutral and objective facts watching RT. I suggest you widen your gaze Gareth
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@lcplapiata5501 Its one loose security agreement with no Chinese base. The US has 7 bases in Australia, 120 bases in Japan, 73 bases in South Korea, a base in Guam, Bases in the Philippines, 11 bases in Marshall Islands, Wake Island, American Samoa, Singapore, not to mention Hawaii. China doesn't even have a blue water navy. It cant project beyond the first island chain.
Calm down John, youre getting way too excited too soon
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Impactor07 That list has nothing to do with Russia. Most those countries have little trading relationships with Russia. You make it out like cooperating with Russia equals development and growth.
May I remind you that western globalization is the reason for China and India's rise. Im not too sure why you mentioned Serbia in there, with all due respect to my Serbian friends and colleagues, they aren't exactly the pinnacle of European development.
But lets go down the list:
Vietnam's largest trading partners: US, Japan, South Korea and China. Russia doesnt even make Vietnam's top 10. Perhaps even top 20.
India's largest trading partners: US, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Russia doesn't even make India's top 10. Perhaps even top 20.
Egypt's largest trading partners: China, US, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. Russia does make the top 10, so half a point to you.
Algeria's largest trading partners: Italy, France, Spain and United States. Russia doesnt even make the top 10.
Iran's largest trading partners: China, Japan, Iraq, United Arab Emirates and India. Russia doesnt even make the top 10. Perhaps even top 20.
Ill give you Syria, even though Russia still doesnt make their top 5 and Ill give you North Korea, even though Russia doesnt make their top 10 trading partners.
All the countries that you listed have almost nothing to do with Russia economically, so their prosperity has nothing to do with Russia. And in most of the cases, their development and prosperity is because of western countries.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Yeah Bernard, that was a slick move you did there. Acting all surprised with your russian talking points, slipping it in like a normal person would. Youre a much more sophisticated troll, but rest assured, we know all the Russian talking points. Russia vs NATO? come on man, if this was nato vs Russia, it would have been over in a few days.
But lets say it is nato vs Russia. Russia has lost over 100k troops and nato hasn't lost a single soldier. Also, when are we going to see nato tanks, nato planes, nato long range missiles, nato special forces, US carrier strike groups? When will we see 96% of NATO/US equipment?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Cherry-sg4zg Its in the 100s of thousands. Russia initially had a fighting force of 150-200k, then were forced to mobilize 300K 12 months ago, now they are trying to mobilize a further 250k
So unless Russia has 500K soldiers in Ukraine, they have losses well over 100K, and more reasonably 200K.
Regarding sources, its obviously difficult to estimate exact numbers, however with many different circumstantial evidence, such as satellite imagery, drone footage, grave sites, the number of Russian prisoners of war, intercepted Russian soldier calls, the number of Russian military vehicles destroyed, the number of Russian military funerals, the number of Russian mothers seeking information about their missing sons, among many others, which are tracked, are all aggregated to estimate at least over 200K.
But Russia are winning, in fact someone just said they won, so its not a big deal. Im sure their already shrinking demography will suddenly pick up regardless
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Russia isn't self-sufficient. They need western tech for most of everything they produce. From oil drilling, to farming, to everything
Russia needs western semiconductors, avionics, sensors, lasers and other high-tech components for its military equipment
Russia needs western aircraft engines, avionics and other components for its civilian and military aircraft
Russia needs western automotive components, such as engines, transmissions and electronics. It also needs advanced western manufacturing technologies, such as robotics and 3D printing
Russia needs western oil and gas drilling equipment, pipelines and other infrastructure
Russia needs western chemicals for a variety of industries, including plastics and pharmaceuticals. It also needs advanced western manufacturing technologies, such as catalysts and solvents
Russia needs western machine tools, robotics and other manufacturing equipment. It also needs western industrial automation technologies
Russia needs western medical equipment, such as imaging devices, surgical robots and pharmaceuticals
Russia needs western telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, routers and satellites. It also needs advanced western manufacturing technologies, such as fiber optics and semiconductors
Russia needs western computers, software, and other IT equipment. It also needs advanced western manufacturing technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing
These are just some of the Western technology and supplies that Russia needs for various industries
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@niklaus9678 Ok, you were explained this flaw in your logic a few times, why do you ignore it Klause?
Russia retreated from Kherson because it was indefensible, they couldn't defend it, why? Because they didn't have the logistical capabilities and manpower to hold it. No country decides to give up territory just to "shell them on 3 fronts". Thats not a thing. If your belief is that Russia chose to retreat from Kherson for purely tactical reasons and not because of any insufficiencies, the better strategy is to keep Kherson, push forward, gain more territory and shell Ukrainians from the territory there.
Why is it hard for you to understand that? If we go by your logic, then why doesn't Russia just retreat all the way back to their border and shell Ukraine on 100 fronts?
Its about gaining territory, not losing territory.
Also your numbers dont make sense either. If Ukraine are losing more troops than Russia, by a factor of double, we would be seeing Russia making gains. They haven't made gains in 5 months. So Ukraine arent losing double the amount of troops. They are at best, losing the same, but the truth is, Russia are losing more, simply because they are the attacking side, they are the ones that need to push forward.
5
-
5
-
@luisc.3215 The Ukrainian language has ancient roots and has been spoken by the Ukrainian people for centuries. While there may have been bilingualism and a presence of other languages in cities like Kyiv, Ukrainian remained the dominant language among the general population.
Throughout history, the territory of Ukraine has experienced foreign rule and division among different empires, however, despite external influences, Ukrainians maintained their distinct language, culture and traditions.
Ukraine has experienced numerous struggles for independence. Following the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, Ukraine declared independence, but its sovereignty was short-lived as it faced invasion from Soviet Russia. A bitter civil war ensued, resulting in Ukrainian territories being incorporated into the Soviet Union.
During World War II, Ukraine suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, but also witnessed strong resistance movements, such as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), fighting for independence from both Nazi and Soviet forces.
The desire for self-determination persisted throughout the Soviet era, with Ukrainian nationalists pushing for independence. The Ukrainian struggle for freedom culminated in the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, leading to the establishment of an independent Ukraine.
Ukraine has a longstanding history and cultural heritage that predates the Soviet era. Ukrainian identity, language and traditions have deep roots in the region and their centuries desire for independence is a reflection of the Ukrainian people's historical struggles, aspirations and identity
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I appreciate your concerns about the language used by NATO politicians and officials when discussing complex issues.
Firstly, you mentioned that NATO may be using misleading language by claiming to be a "defensive alliance" while engaging in offensive wars. It is crucial to acknowledge that while NATO has been involved in military interventions, such as Afghanistan, these actions were often in response to threats or attacks against member countries or in support of international efforts, such as combating terrorism. The core mission of NATO remains defensive. Also if one or more NATO members engage in an offensive war, it is not necessarily NATO engaging in that war.
Regarding Russia, you suggested that Western countries exaggerate the threat it poses and that Russia has no interest in invading NATO countries. However, we cannot ignore Russia's actions in recent years, such as the annexation of Crimea and military aggression in Ukraine, which have raised genuine concerns among NATO member states about their security. Russia's military build-up near NATO borders, provocative military exercises and cyber operations targeting Western countries contribute to the perception of a real threat.
You mentioned fear mongering tactics used by NATO to persuade people to support their policies, particularly concerning increasing military spending. While it is essential to differentiate between genuine security concerns and fear tactics, discussions about military spending also stem from the commitment of each member state to contribute their fair share to collective defense. It is not solely about countering Russia but also about maintaining a strong defense posture. As im sure you will agree, NATO members over the years have neglected defense spending.
You expressed concerns about NATO politicians treating the people as if they were foolish and not capable of understanding complex issues. While I agree that transparency and open dialogue are vital in a democratic society, it is also important to recognize that communicating complex security matters to the general public can be challenging. Simplifying these issues does not necessarily imply underestimating the public's intelligence, it is a common communication strategy used worldwide to engage and inform citizens effectively.
you mentioned that such a communication style undermines democracy and erodes trust between elected representatives and the people. While this may be a valid concern, we should also consider that public officials often face the difficult task of balancing transparency with safeguarding sensitive information that could harm national security. Responsible communication is crucial, but we must also be mindful of not revealing classified information or undermining ongoing diplomatic efforts.
Whilst considering your evident critical thinking abilities, it appears that you might hold a biased inclination towards supporting Russia. Your eloquent criticisms of NATO, particularly in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, lead me to believe this. Hence, I am intrigued to compare your allegations against NATO with Russia's actions.
Russia has used and is using military force and intervention beyond its borders, as seen in the annexation of Crimea in 2014, its military involvement in Eastern Ukraine and ultimately its invasion of Ukraine, not to mention its interventions in Georgia, Chechnya etc.
Russia has a history of using aggressive rhetoric and military posturing towards neighboring countries, particularly those with aspirations to join NATO or the European Union. These actions have raised concerns among neighboring states about potential Russian aggression
Over the years, Russia has employed aggressive rhetoric and military exercises, often seen as an attempt to intimidate neighboring countries and assert its influence in the region. Such actions attempt to pressure other nations into compliance, they have used veiled nuke threats to neighboring countries for years, well before Ukraine. When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.
The Russian government use state-controlled media and propaganda to attempt to manipulate public opinion, limit access to independent information and discourage open dissent. This is an attempt to control the narrative and limit critical thinking among the population, which as you said, "is a dangerous and irresponsible way to govern. It undermines democracy"
Russia has engaged in electoral interference in other countries, which is undermining the democratic processes of those nations. Also, its treatment of political opposition and media freedom in Russia contributes to a lack of trust in the government
5
-
5
-
5
-
Russia is a glorified gas station, it doesnt make anything of value other than what it can drill out of the ground using western technology. Furthermore, its relatively poor wealth status renders it unappealing to developing nations seeking affluent consumers to buy its products which drives their own economic growth.
The imposition of sanctions upon Russia aimed to impede its militaristic endeavors, an objective that has been achieved with notable efficacy. Indicators reveal a contraction of 2.1% in Russia's economy over the past year, followed by a further decline of 1.9% in the most recent quarter. Russia's economic trajectory is poised to worsen. Upon exiting its period of contraction, the nation is destined to languish in a prolonged state of stagnation lasting approximately two decades. Russia's GDP is currently at $1.7T, the same level it was in 2007. Which will mean that Russia's economy will have not grown for 36 years.
The cumulative impact of Western sanctions has effectively nullified any growth and progress Russia had achieved over the past 16 years, while its global competitors continue grow and expand.
Considering Russia's aging and diminishing demographics, it is implausible for the nation to catch up with any of its competitors. Consequently, in pursuit of its security interests, Russia will be inclined to align itself as a subordinate entity to China, akin to a vassal state, a dynamic reminiscent of certain small Western nations that rely on the United States for their own security.
tltr; Russia peaked in 2007 and will never grow larger than that. And by virtue of relativity, will actually shrink compared to most of the rest of the world.
Not bad for sanctions eh?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Firstly, lets clarify that NATO and the EU, while they share some member states, are distinct entities with different purposes and policies. NATO is a defensive military alliance, while the EU is primarily an economic and political union. The argument that NATO generals are being forced into a position of conflict due to EU aid to Ukraine conflates the roles and responsibilities of these two organizations.
Regarding the obligation to support Ukraine, it is not just a matter of formal alliances. The international community, including EU countries, has a broader commitment to uphold international law and support sovereign nations' territorial integrity. The aggression against Ukraine is a violation of these principles. Therefore, support for Ukraine transcends NATO obligations and aligns with a broader commitment to international norms and the defense of democratic sovereignty.
The depiction of Ukraine's military efforts and strategy is also overly simplistic and pessimistic. While it's true that there have been challenges and setbacks, Ukraine has demonstrated significant resilience and tactical adaptability. The characterisation of Ukraine's actions as "terrorism" is a misrepresentation that ignores the context of a nation defending its sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion.
Your characterization of "civilian targets" in Ukraine, specifically referring to oil refineries, strikes me as a deliberate and consequential distortion. This narrative unfairly casts Ukraine's actions in a negative light, portraying Russia as a victim. It's disconcerting to see such a portrayal, knowing the strategic significance of oil refineries in military contexts. By using the term "civilian targets," there's an implicit appeal to emotion, potentially leading readers to misconstrue Ukraine's actions as attacks on non-combatants.
The discussion about Hungary and the EU's relationship with its member states overlooks the foundational principles of the EU. The EU operates on a consensus basis and its actions, especially in foreign policy, are the result of agreements among member states. It's not a question of tyranny or unelected bureaucrats imposing decisions; rather, it's a collective stance taken by member states through a democratic process.
Lastly, the idea that the EU and NATO are "pouring gasoline on a fire" by supporting Ukraine ignores the broader implications of not supporting Ukraine. If international norms and the sovereignty of nations can be so easily violated without a significant response, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further instability and conflict in the future. The support for Ukraine is not just about this specific conflict but about upholding a world order based on rules and mutual respect among nations.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@noksucowboy The reality is, in every field, be it oil drilling, to manufacturing shoes, to designing drones to building cars, artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, education, advanced weapons systems, aerospace, renewable energy technology, the US is decades ahead of Russia. The reason why the US isnt ahead of Russia in missies is because we chose not to invest in missile technology as the missiles we have do the same job.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@DavidElCid300 You even referred to it as "Special Military Operation". Bless your sweet little heart David you are adorable.
Russia is producing between 20 and 100 tanks per month. But they are losing 150 tanks per month so they are running at a deficit.
Russia has deployed a significant number of its regular army in Ukraine, including its most elite units. Im not sure what you mean by "regular army", Russia have used conscripts, reservists and professional soldiers, which I would assume is collectively called their "regular army". They have 100k to 220K casualties. Which is a massive amount. Russia will not be mobilizing anymore people for this war. Theres no million man army, unless they grab every man, woman and child, shove a mosin in their chests and send them out with plastic paintball helmets and rubber boots
While Russia has a large nuclear arsenal, it is unlikely that it would use these weapons in a conventional conflict. Even if Russia did use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that it would be able to destroy entire cities. Needless to say they would receive a full return volley.
NATO/US wont be attacking Russia, as Ukraine are taking care of them on their own.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ukraine's potential NATO membership does not hinge on its counter-offensive. With all due respect to NATO, the alliance consists of various small and weak nations, each with their unique concerns and self interests. Some perceive Ukraine's official invitation or the establishment of a legal pathway as a potential trigger for invoking Article 5. As youre aware, Ukraine is facing an invasion by Russia. However, even larger nations like France prioritize diplomatic approaches in times of war.
NATO is a symbolic entity, it relies on Article 5 as a cornerstone of its collective defense. Functionally, it does not guarantee unanimous support in times of crisis. If a NATO member were attacked or invaded, some countries within the alliance will find reasons to delay or limit their obligations under Article 5. At best, they might provide equipment assistance, while others, like Hungary, may choose not to send any military aid at all. Countries can cite financial constraints or logistical challenges to justify their inability to offer substantial support, just like they have done with regards to supplying Ukraine with any equipment. Furthermore, since there is no mechanism for expelling a member, there is no strict obligation to provide any assistance. As you can imagine, the reluctance of NATO members to provide Ukraine with a membership pathway due to concerns about invoking Article 5 serves as a critical indicator of their potential lack of commitment to honoring Article 5 when a NATO member faces a genuine attack.
Although all NATO countries seek the perceived protection that membership entails, their willingness to provide actual support in the event of a real attack is questionable at best. NATO's primary allure lies in the security it promises, rather than a unanimous commitment to assist in all situations. In other words, NATO countries want the protection, they don't want the commitment.
The dangling of NATO membership before Ukraine for an extended period has resulted in significant consequences for the country. This situation is indeed disheartening and embarrassing coming from a person living in a NATO country. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge the reprehensible nature of Russia's invasion of its neighbor, which supersedes any qualms about the handling of Ukraine's NATO membership.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@garretttobin7451 No GDP is the better indicator of a country's economic activity and production and PPP is a better indicator of the standard of living and purchasing power of its citizens. Its only important WITHIN a countries' borders. In other words, GDP is more relevant because Russians are poorer than Germans which means they buy less things than Germany, which means they are less important to other countries than Germany. But even If we are talking about the well-being of a countries citizens, then PPP per capita Germany is much higher than Russia, which is 55th in the world, about the same as Kazakhstan.
GDP remains vital in international economic comparison. This is because GDP, as a measure of economic production and activity, reflects a country's influence on global economic relations. If Russia disappeared tomorrow no country would blink an eye, If Germany disappeared tomorrow, the EU would go into an immediate recession and perhaps that would spread beyond EU to other nations that export to germany and EU. Who exports anything of note to Russia? Russia is nobodies leading trading partner. Germany is many countries leading trading partner
Germany is one of the world's most developed and advanced economies, with a diversified economy and a high level of technological advancement, high tech manufacturing. Russia is a developing economy heavily dependent on gas and oil. Comparing Germany to Russia is like comparing a Mercedes to a horse and carriage
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Russia, with a population of 144 million, has a notably larger population than Ukraine, enabling it to maintain a casualty ratio of 3/4 to 1 against Ukraine without significant strain. Furthermore, the claim that Ukraine claims over 1,000 casualties daily is overstated; while there are days when casualties reach 1,000, on other days, the number is closer to 600. Additionally, it's well understood that Russia's casualty rates peak during their offensive operations, which have not been a constant over two years. This is consistent with the general military principle that the attacking force often sustains higher losses
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The assertion that Russia and the EU would harmoniously coexist if not for the involvement of the US is a simplistic view that overlooks the complex history and geopolitical dynamics in the region. Historically, the relationship between Russia and various European states has been fraught with tension, conflict and mutual suspicion, a reality that predates significant US involvement in European affairs.
The roots of Russia / EU tensions can be traced back centuries and are not primarily the result of US actions. For instance, the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century, the Crimean War in the 1850s and the First World War are all examples of direct conflicts between Russia and European powers. These conflicts were driven by territorial ambitions, political ideologies and strategic interests. In more recent history, the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a new era of relations. Eastern European countries wanting to join the EU and NATO was driven in part by the desire of those countries, previously under Soviet influence, to integrate with Western institutions - a choice influenced by their own historical oppression from Russia, rather than US coercion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tinman205 Zelensky offered to meet with Putin one-on-one before the invasion. Putin refused.
The US met with Russian officials pleading them not to invade. They invaded.
A month into the war Macron met with Putin begging for peace negotiations, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the UN Secretary met with Putin and tried to negotiate a peace deal, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the Austrian President met with Putin seeking a peace settlement, Putin refused.
3 months into the war Ukraine offered to drop their bid to join NATO if they are guaranteed security, Putin refused.
Ukraine said to Russia if they illegally annex Ukraine's lands they will refuse any peace deal, Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's lands.
Ukraine have offered a 10-point peace plan, which includes simple provisions such as dont bomb our energy infrastructure, Russia refused.
Russia have refused every single peace offer, every single peace deal, every single offer to negotiate. They dont want peace, they want Ukraine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@래모루래모로 I find this insulting. Russia is not an equal to the US. In all metrics and measurements, Russia comes up to the US' ankles. the US has a much larger population, 20 times larger economy, more richer, more technologically advanced, has a larger military, larger fighting force, larger air force, larger navy, has more friends and allies, the list is endless.
4
-
4
-
@vladimirputin0333 The countries in question were not democratic states, and the United States did not launch an invasion of Libya, but instead enforced a no-fly zone that was approved by Russia.
The principle of non interference, where nations refrain from encroaching on one another's borders, is a cornerstone of global order. When a state expands its territorial reach beyond its established borders, especially at the expense of its neighbors, the west becomes concerned. Personally, I dont care if another country is a democracy or not, thats their business, but the moment that country begins to invade democratic nations, it crosses the line.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And our economy is $22, 000, 000, 000, 000, yearly revenue is $5, 000, 000, 000, 000. Relax Karl
Our yearly revenue is larger than each country in the worlds entire GDP, besides China. Keep it in perspective Karl. But I do appreciate you writing all the zeros for dramatic effect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@limchopstick4458 Human Rights Watch has documented the use of cluster munitions by Russia in at least 10 out of 24 regions of Ukraine. The most affected regions have been Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mykolaiv. In these regions, cluster munitions have been used to attack civilian areas, including residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and markets. - Human Rights Watch
The United Nations has documented at least 24 cases of Russian use of cluster munitions since the invasion began in February 2022. These attacks have caused hundreds of civilian casualties and damaged civilian objects, including homes, hospitals, and schools. - The United Nations
These reports are accompanied by video and photo evidence
3
-
3
-
@Lipi19821 Hmm, the same people that said the war would be over in a week, 2 weeks, by next week, in 2 weeks, by next month, in 3 months time. Yeah yeah yeah, we have heard it all before. And yet, Ukraine liberates more and more territory, over 50%. Russia forced to mobilize, 4 months ago, still nothing. Still no gains, forced to bomb power plants in Kyiv. Concentrated all their best men to capturing one city and cant even capture it for 6 months.
Wow, this was already over since february, youre so smart 👍
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, youre right, losing 100k troops, 300k wounded, losing your largest energy customer, having high inflation, a shrinking economy, 40% of tanks lost, an expansion of NATO, exposing the weakness of your military, losing 50% of the territory you occupied, forcing to mobilize, having 300k men flee the country, ruining your standing in the world, was all part of the plan.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Austrian artist comparison is more fitting with Putin, as both Putin and the Austrian artist were known for centralizing political power and weakening democratic institutions. Putin has been weakening the independence of the judiciary, cracking down on political opposition and consolidating power in the presidency. Similarly, the Austrian artist consolidated power in the Austrian artist political party and Germany, dismantling democratic institutions and consolidating his authority over the government.
Both leaders have been associated with a strong sense of nationalism and a focus on their respective country's interests. Putin has promoted a strong national identity and emphasized Russia's role as a great power on the global stage. The Austrian artist similarly emphasized German nationalism and a desire to restore Germany's standing in the world.
Both Putin and the Austrian artist have been associated with military interventions in neighboring countries. Putin has been criticized for Russia's annexation of Crimea, support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, and military intervention in Syria. The Austrian artist similarly used military force to annex neighboring countries, such as Austria and Czechoslovakia, and launch a large-scale military campaign across Europe. The Austrian artist used the excuse of protecting the German speaking people in Poland, Putin used the excuse of protecting the Russian speaking peoples of Ukraine.
Your Austrian friend is more in line with Putin than Zelensky, everyone knows this, its why they call him Putler
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ukraine have never claimed to have shot down more of anything that were launched by Russia.
Everyone had heard of Surovikin, as his nickname was the Butcher of Syria.
67 artillery shells not hitting anything is typical of Russian shells, as they are inaccurate and need a volley of strikes to hit their target, as they did in the first half of the conflict.
This human shield talking point has been debunked many times, with simple logic; human shield tactics only work when the adversary cares about hitting civilian targets. Usually by a nation that uses rules of engagements. Russia doesnt not use any rules of engagements, and we know Russia targets civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, theatres, retirement homes, apartment buildings and shopping malls. So it renders the whole hiding in civilian buildings moot.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Minsk agreements were initially signed by Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE, with Russia holding a significant responsibility to adhere to the terms of the deal. However, Russia denied being a party to the agreements and falsely presented itself as a mere facilitator. It claimed that the agreements were between Ukraine and the separatist groups known as the LPR and DPR, which were actually supplied and controlled by Russia.
The LPR and DPR were not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. Their leaders added their signatures after Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE had already signed the agreements, and Ukraine would not have signed if their signatures had been part of the deal. Russia alone controlled the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine made efforts to implement the Minsk Agreements, including granting special status to the region, amnesty for those involved in the conflict, local elections and decentralization within the Ukrainian constitution. However, Russia's continued occupation of the territory hindered the political measures required by the agreements. Russia insisted on local elections before relinquishing control, but these elections held under occupation wouldn't be recognized internationally. Additionally, Russia demanded elections for illegitimate "governments" it had established, which lacked legal and constitutional legitimacy. Matters related to voting eligibility of displaced citizens and the involvement of Russian occupation authorities required resolution under international supervision.
Ukraine was willing to grant autonomy to the LPR and DPR under the Ukrainian constitution but intended to do so after a national assembly vote to join NATO, which Russia opposed. Russia wanted autonomy granted before a NATO vote so the LPR and DPR could veto it. Ukraine, aware of this, did not grant autonomy before a NATO vote, leading Russia to cancel the Minsk Agreements and eventually invade Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Zelensky offered to meet with Putin one-on-one before the invasion, but Putin refused.
The US met with Russian officials and pleaded with them not to invade, but Russia still invaded.
A month into the war, Macron met with Putin and requested peace negotiations, but Putin refused.
Two months into the war, the UN Secretary met with Putin to negotiate a peace deal, but Putin refused.
Two months into the war, the Austrian President met with Putin to seek a peace settlement, but Putin refused.
Three months into the war, Ukraine offered to drop their bid to join NATO if they were guaranteed security, but Putin refused.
Ukraine warned Russia that if they illegally annexed Ukrainian lands, they would refuse any peace deal. Nevertheless, Russia annexed Ukraine's lands.
Ukraine offered a 10-point peace plan, which included provisions such as not bombing their energy infrastructure. However, Russia refused to accept the plan.
Russia has consistently refused every peace offer, peace deal, and negotiation. It appears that they do not want peace, but instead desire Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@niklaus9678 Russia doesn't have a 1 million man army. It doesn't have 12 million troops. Maybe you meant 1.2 million troops, but they don't have that either.
Russia are functionally in a war time economy, all their companies are required by law to produce things for the army, even if it means they lose money. Russia are going full steam ahead and its not enough. Its not enough because Russia's economy is too small. No $1.5T economy is large enough to sustain a prolonged, heavy casualty war against a decent army, with the backing of an alliance that is $60 trillion, 2/3rds the world's entire economy.
And before you say "well Russia has 140 million people!", yes its true Russia has 140 million, but they only have 8 million 18-40 year old men, the rest are either old people, women or under the age of 18. So they dont have the numbers for a 1 million man army
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Zelensky offered to meet with Putin one-on-one before the invasion. Putin refused.
The US met with Russian officials pleading them not to invade. They invaded.
A month into the war Macron met with Putin begging for peace negotiations, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the UN Secretary met with Putin and tried to negotiate a peace deal, Putin refused.
Two months into the war the Austrian President met with Putin seeking a peace settlement, Putin refused.
3 months into the war Ukraine offered to drop their bid to join NATO if they are guaranteed security, Putin refused.
Ukraine said to Russia if they illegally annex Ukraine's lands they will refuse any peace deal, Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's lands.
Ukraine have offered a 10-point peace plan, which includes simple provisions such as dont bomb our energy infrastructure, Russia refused.
Russia have refused every single peace offer, every single peace deal, every single offer to negotiate. They dont want peace, they want Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@donaldfernandes7798 Russia deployed an initial force of 150,000 to 200,000 troops during their invasion, but suffered significant losses after being repelled from Kyiv and surrounding areas. Consequently, they conscripted an additional 200,000 to 300,000 troops. This occurred approximately 10 months ago and Russia is now preparing to conscript even more troops due to the overwhelming number of casualties they have sustained.
The fact that Russia was forced to mobilize is a clear indication of the heavy losses they have incurred. Despite mobilizing, they have failed to make any significant gains and have been unsuccessfully sieging the city of Bakhmut for the past 8 months. Only now they have managed to practically capture it, but with a heavy cost.
Historically, the attacking side experiences a 3:1 ratio of losses during a siege, Ukraine's losses are believed to be one-third of Russia's or perhaps even less, given that Russia has lost significantly more troops than the expected 3:1 ratio, with estimates indicating a loss ratio of 8:1. Drone footage of the numerous bodies has been counted and cataloged daily.
It's worth noting that individuals such as Scott Ritter and Col. MacGregor, while they may have served in the US military, have been consistently inaccurate in their predictions about the conflict in Ukraine. For instance, MacGregor, at the beginning of the invasion, stated that it was pointless to send weapons to Ukraine because Russia would "win within two weeks". Then, two weeks later, he changed his prediction to Ukraine losing in "less than a month". Since then, he has been predicting that Ukraine will "lose within three weeks" every month for the past 14 months.
Ritter has made similar predictions. At the beginning of the invasion, he said that Ukraine "will fall within a month". He has also been saying "Ukraine will lose within weeks" every month for the past 14 months. He said that Ukraine's counteroffensive to take back Kherson city would "end in failure", and he said this one week before Ukraine took back Kherson. He still continues to say that "Ukraine will lose within weeks".
It is important to note that Ritter and MacGregor are not privy to any information that the rest of us do not have. They have access to the same news and intelligence reports that we do. However, they seem to be more interested in pushing a pro-Russian agenda than in providing accurate information.
It is time for people to stop listening to Ritter and MacGregor. They are not experts on Ukraine, and they have no credibility. Their predictions have been wrong every time and they are only serving to spread misinformation.
Lastly, the reason Russia calls it a Special Military Operation is to circumvent international law, as declaring war on a nation is illegal. The United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. it is an attempt to downplay the scale of the conflict. By calling it a "special operation," Russia is trying to make it seem like a limited military action, rather than a full-scale invasion. it is important to note that the term "special military operation" is a euphemism for war. Russia is clearly engaged in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and its actions are in violation of international law.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What you said doesn't make sense. The goal is to recapture their land. You're assuming the Russian numbers are correct, 4k, 5k, 7k, 10k Ukrainian casualties.. The reality is there wasn't that much sustained fighting, it was a quick retreat.
It over man. Theres going to be no russian regroup, they have lost all their high quality soldiers and are only left with reservists and a few old chechens they found on the street rummaging through people's homes. The reservists have had 2 weeks training. Whatever prison, brothel, university, farm they went to and tricked the poor russians with a quick 10k rubles and a carton of cigarettes, shoved a ww2 rifle into their chest and sent them into no mans land. Ukraine is the meatgrinder my cosmic friend. If Russia was smart, theyd declare victory and go home
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It depends on the context, but essentially a person of "difficult fate" means a person that has had a life filled with challenges, hardships and adversity.
Who knows what Putin means, he tends to project a lot.
"Projection" meaning when an individual attribute their own thoughts, feelings, motives, and/or characteristics to someone else. In this case, "difficult fate". Whilst we can all agree that Putin has lived a life of luxury for most of his life, his twilight years are being filled with "challenges, hardships and adversity". For which he would describe as, a man of "difficult fate"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@manickn6819 Germany has the largest economy in Europe and the fourth largest in the world, home to some of the world's largest corporations, provides a high level of social security to its citizens, has a robust healthcare system, which is consistently ranked among the best in the world, has a high standard of living, with a high level of social mobility and a relatively low level of income inequality, a stable democracy and commitment to human rights and social justice, world-renowned education system, world's leading medical research institutions, has a high life expectancy and low infant mortality rate.
Germany is the quintessential model that all other countries would only dream of achieving. They are doing just fine thanks
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lherisknowledge4fun The Minsk agreements is complicated but Ill do my best to simplify the main points that were the object of contention.
Ill first list all the violations Russia committed in the Minsk, then explain why the agreement was unworkable for Ukraine.
* Russia violated the ceasefire agreement by continuing to support and arm separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine
* Russia failed to withdraw its heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine, as required by the Minsk agreements
* Russia did not take adequate steps to ensure that the border was under Ukrainian control, allowing for the continued flow of weapons, fighters and supplies to the separatists
* The agreements called for the disarmament of all illegal groups and the withdrawal of foreign armed formations and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory, Russia did not disarm the separatist groups and did not prevent the influx of foreign fighters and weapons into Ukraine
* The Minsk agreements outline a political settlement process that included the restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections and the granting of a special status to certain regions. Russia obstructed the implementation of these political provisions and did not pressure the separatists to comply
* The agreements emphasized the need for humanitarian access to the conflict areas. Russia did not facilitate the full and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to civilians in need
The Minsk agreements were initially signed by Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE. Russia, being a key player in the Ukrainian conflict, had a clear responsibility to abide by the terms of the deal. Nevertheless, Russia dishonestly denied being a party to the agreements and falsely presented itself as a mere facilitator. It claimed that the actual agreements were between Ukraine and the "separatists" known as the LPR and DPR. However, these groups were, in reality, supplied and controlled by Russia.
The LPR and DPR were not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples' Republics had added their signatures after Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE had already signed the agreements. They were not original signatories and if their signatures had been part of the deal, Ukraine would not have signed. The content and format of the Agreement did not provide legitimacy to these entities and they should not have been treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controlled the forces that occupied parts of eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine had implemented the Minsk Agreements to the extent possible, considering Russia's continued occupation of its territory. The agreements entail political measures on Ukraine's part, including granting special status to the region, amnesty for those involved in the conflict, local elections and some form of decentralization within the Ukrainian constitution. Ukraine had taken legislative action to address each requirement, passing and extending laws on special status, amnesty, local elections and constitutional amendments.
The Minsk Agreements did not stipulate the specific details of these measures and Ukraine had complied with the explicit requirements to the best of its ability. The main obstacle laid in the implementation of those political measures, which Russia hindered by maintaining control over the territory. Russia demanded local elections before relinquishing control which was problematic, as elections held under occupation would not be recognized under international legal norms. Furthermore, those elections would be for legitimate positions under Ukrainian law, not for the illegitimate "governments" established by Russia's occupation, which Russia "created" and demanded. There wasnt any legal and constitutional framework for elections for made up positions created by Russia. The voting eligibility of displaced citizens, as defined by Ukrainian law, raised concerns regarding the involvement of Russian occupation authorities. These matters required resolution under international supervision, rather than being dictated by Russia.
tltr;
Ukraine were willing to grant the LPR and DPR autonomy under the Ukraine constitution, but only AFTER the national assembly voted to join NATO, which Russia did not want. Russia wanted Ukraine to grant autonomy to the LPR and DPR BEFORE Ukraine voted to join NATO because then the LPR and DPR can vote against it, which they would still have the power to do (which is why Russia originally never wanted the LPR and DPR to join Russia, it would forfeit its veto in the national assembly). Understanding this fact fully well, Ukraine did no grant autonomy before its vote to join NATO, which at that point Russia knew the jig was up, so they cancelled the Minsk Agreements and decided to invade.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
First of all, nobody is invading Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine. And second of all, the US military is larger than Russia and China combined. Lets keep that in perspective. Lets also keep in perspective that the US is 20 times larger than Russia. Russia is the size of one state of the US, texas or New York. Thats like expecting the state of New York to build its own military to rival the US. Russia simply is too small to compete with the US. Im sorry, you dont like to hear that, you probably have nostalgia about the USSR, but even the USSR was smaller than the US.
NATO of course is the US and the UK and Germany and France and the rest of Europe, so if Russia is the size of an ant compared to the US, what is it compared to NATO? The only thing thats dying is Russia's economy, demographics and standing in the world. You had your little comment. Well done. Very emotional and a lot of pride. Youre such an adorable guy, but you need to come back down from the fairies. Come back down Apiata
3
-
3
-
I love how you always make the biggest effort to sound pragmatic and neutral only to proceed to give us the biggest pro-Russian wall of text in the comments section. I thank you for your biased analysis
Firstly, the sanctions imposed by the west on Russia are not just punitive measures; they are a reflection of a collective stand against aggression and a violation of international law. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear breach of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. By imposing sanctions, the West is upholding the principles of international law and territorial sovereignty. International law, the rule of law, rules based order, free trade etc are intrinsic and fundamental to western ideals. This is what the west will fight for and anyone for. So better get used to it
Regarding the economic impact on countries like Germany, its important to recognize that standing up for principles and international norms often comes with short term costs. However, these costs can lead to long term stability and peace. Yes, there are protests and rising energy prices, but these are consequences of a necessary stand against aggression. In the long run, appeasement or neutrality in the face of aggression can embolden aggressors and lead to greater instability and conflict.
The assertion that Ukraine's counteroffensive has failed and that there's no Plan B to achieve victory is an oversimplification of a complex military and political situation. The conflict is dynamic and the situation on the ground changes rapidly. Moreover, the objective of supporting Ukraine is not necessarily about achieving a clear cut military victory but about supporting a sovereign nation's right to defend itself and deterring further aggression.
The idea that the West's Plan B is to make war on Russia and overthrow Putin is a speculative and extreme interpretation of events. The primary goal of NATO and Western nations is to ensure security and stability in Europe, not to engage in offensive warfare or regime change. The history of failed invasions of Russia is well known, but the current situation is not about conquering Russia; it's about responding to Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Regarding the nuclear arsenal, its indeed true that Russia possesses a significant nuclear capability. However, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction has been a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons for decades. The current strategy of NATO and the West is not to prepare for a direct war with Russia but to prevent further escalation and ensure the security of member states.
Suggesting that a victory for Putin in Ukraine would not be the end of the world overlooks the broader implications of allowing aggressive actions to go unchecked. It sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to further instability and conflicts in the future. The international community's support for Ukraine is about maintaining a world order where international law and sovereignty are respected.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Russian engineering is not in a league of their own. Nobody buys Russian made.
Have you ever bought a Russian made anything? A car, a washing machine, a phone, a microprocessor, a boat, an engine, furniture, clothes, shoes, balls, speakers, microphones?
Is there anything in your mothers house that is Russian made? Is there anything that the world needs that is made in Russia?
The answer is no, so Russian engineering is NOT in a league of it's own, its considered non-existent. But thank you for the laughs
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johnrussell3755 First of all, Russia invaded after Ukraine wanted to sign a trade deal with EU, NATO membership wasnt even talked about, let alone in the far distant future. Since 2013, with all the fanfare, with all the annexation, with all the threats, warnings and genocidal rhetoric, Ukraine never applied, nor were there any discussions to joining NATO. Only when Russia annexed the 4 regions well into this current conflict did Ukraine apply for NATO membership. The reason Ukraine didn't apply for membership was so not to disrupt or upset Russia. Even when Russia annexed Crimea, they didn't apply for NATO.
They said many times to Russia they wont try to join NATO if they get security assurances. Russia refused. Russia didn't want Ukraine to be able to defend itself. Why? Answer me that question; why did Russia not want Ukraine to be able to defend itself?
As I said before, just because Russia threatened/warned Ukraine doesnt make their invasion justified or valid. Its still unreasonable and aggressive
The idea that Russia invaded because of NATO is a myth, Russia wants to expand its borders and this was their last chance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think the issue here is that Orban has allowed Hungary to be infested with Russian operatives, as the piece says, Hungary has over 20 Russian "diplomats" working in Hungary, where this number is outrageously high, other similar sized nations dont even have that number combined. Viktor Orban has not dealt with Russia like the Turks do, self interest, but doing deals where they can, Hungary seems to have allowed full Russian infiltration. Its stupid even if you're pro-Russian. Basically Hungary operates the same way Belarus does. If Orban does anything that upsets Russia, Putin can and will liquidate Orban. He has the infrastructure in Hungary already in place to do that. He knows what Orban is doing, is saying, his meetings, his phone calls, his schedule, everything. This is fine if hungary wasn't a member of NATO and the EU, but since Hungary is a member, its a security and intelligence threat to both organizations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@damianvisser977 No it doesnt.
Russia needs western components to build its military aircraft, including semiconductors, microcontrollers, sensors, avionics, power transistors, navigation modules, ball bearings, fasteners, gaskets, tubing, connectors, rubber and plastic parts. Just to name a few
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@A.Hunter279
Blackmail
Regarding the claim that the EU bullies or blackmails member states into agreement, the EU, like any political entity, has mechanisms to ensure compliance with its rules and agreements. Actions perceived as 'threats' or 'sanctions' are often part of a legal and regulatory framework agreed upon by all member states, including Hungary. These measures are not necessarily undemocratic; rather, they reflect a commitment to uphold commonly agreed principles and rules.
When looking at the EU's dealings with Hungary, it's clear that Hungary often stands alone in vetoing actions against Russia. Notably, Hungary hosts a significant number of Russian "diplomats", more than any other European nation. This correlation raises questions about Hungary's consistent alignment with Russian interests during EU (and NATO) deliberations. Historically, the EU has employed carrots to engage Hungary, but recent strategies appear to have shifted towards more sticks. Hungary seems to use its veto power as a bargaining chip, demanding money and threatening to block decisions, that's the blackmail.
Democratic EU
The position that the EU is led by unelected bureaucrats overlooks the complex and multi-layered nature of EU governance. The European Commission, while not directly elected by the populace, is accountable to the European Parliament, which is elected by EU citizens. The Commission's composition, with one member per country, aims to ensure equal representation rather than to reflect population size. This approach is common in federal systems, where the representation of member states in some institutions is not always proportional to their population.
I agree that Germany and Hungary having an equal vote in EU decisions seems imbalanced, considering Germany's status as the EU's largest economy and its substantial population. It often feels like Germany's influence is equated to that of Hungary, which is a net-negative to the EU's economy. While this might not seem fair, it's also a safeguard against any single country dominating the EU. Doesn't this approach represent a more democratic way to maintain balance and equality among member states, something you appear to be vigorously advocating for?
Lest we forget that the EU is a union of sovereign states that have chosen to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty for mutual benefit. This pooling of sovereignty is based on treaties and agreements freely entered into by its member states.
Globalist EU
The claim that the EU predominantly supports a 'globalist ideology' and opposes conservative or nationalist viewpoints is a matter of perspective. The EU's policies often reflect a balance between different political ideologies and interests. It's a union of diverse countries, each with its own political spectrum. The EU's stance on issues like sovereignty and national decision-making is more nuanced than a simple opposition to these principles.
Leftist EU
The core EU principles like human rights, equality and the rule of law are not inherently aligned with any specific political ideology, whether leftist or otherwise. These principles have been central to the United Nations and NATO countries for over 80 years, transcending political boundaries and ideologies. They have historically been embraced by a broad spectrum of political groups, including both traditional conservatives and liberals.
The recent portrayal of these principles as being in opposition to a "conservative" ideology represents a shift in political narratives rather than a fundamental change in the nature of these values. Traditionally, conservative philosophies have often upheld the rule of law, individual rights and a balanced approach to equality as cornerstones of a stable and prosperous society. The current perception that these principles are solely 'leftist' is a relatively new development and does not reflect the long-standing consensus that these values are universal and foundational to democratic governance.
3
-
3
-
Firstly, the assertion that Europe is equipped with 20th-century warfare infrastructure is incorrect. European nations, many of which are NATO members, have been continuously updating and modernizing their military capabilities. This includes investments in advanced technology such as cyber warfare capabilities, satellite communications, and 5th gen fighter jets. More advanced than anything Russia has built.
Regarding Russia's military capabilities and industrial capacity, youre overestimating Russia's advancements in 21st-century warfare. While Russia has indeed invested in modernizing its military with western components, it faces significant challenges now. Western sanctions, imposed in response to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensified after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, have severely impacted Russia's economy and its military-industrial complex. Sanctions have restricted access to crucial Western components necessary for advanced military manufacturing, leading Russia to seek alternatives from nations like Iran and North Korea. This does not indicate an expansion of Russia's industrial capacity; rather, it shows a forced adaptation to a shrinking pool of resources and technology.
Russia's economic situation contradicts the notion of a burgeoning industrial capability. The economy is struggling with high inflation, failing demography, diminishing foreign investment and a shrinking GDP. The war in Ukraine has exacerbated these issues, leading to further isolation from global financial systems and markets.
The claim of Russia developing a large veteran force is also ridiculous. Yes, the Russian military has indeed seen extensive combat experience in recent years. However, the conflict in Ukraine has resulted in significant Russian casualties, with estimates suggesting over 300,000 troops lost. This extraordinarily high casualty rate, combined with morale issues and logistical challenges, undermines the idea of a robust and experienced military force.
3
-
@PavolFilek The US is the world's largest producer of oil and gas, surpassing Russia. The mention of "15x more" probably refers to Russia's untapped oil reserves, which are located in remote areas. These reserves remain largely unexploited due to Russias lack of advanced Western technology and expertise required for extraction. These unextracted reserves do not contribute to actual production.
The production of minerals such as gold, uranium, plutonium, nickel, magnesium, lithium, cobalt and manganese is not exclusive to Russia, nor is Russia the largest producer of these materials. Nations like Canada and Australia also produce these minerals, with Australia notably producing more than Russia despite having a population that is only 1/6th the size.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@galanis38
Russia sent in their elite VDV paratroopers to capture the airports around Kyiv, they landed behind enemy lines and captured some airports, Ukraine managed to repel the multiple mile long tanks heading towards Kyiv, this stranded the paratroopers because paratroopers can only hold airports for so long.
You dont send your elite force as a distraction, you dont send 50k troops and 1000 tanks, run out of fuel, lose at least half of troops and equipment, then turn around and slowly move back into Russia and make the 2 week trip down to the south east. Thats not a thing.
Captured tanks had Russian soldiers dress uniforms in them. You dont bring your dress uniform to battle, and you certainly dont bring your dress uniform for a distraction. You bring your dress uniform if you are expected to parade your soldiers in the streets after a victory. Russia brought with them police riot squads. You dont bring police riot squads for a distraction, you bring them when after you captured a city, for crowd control. Russia did this when they captured Kherson too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There are several issues with your points. First, it is important to note that NATO's war doctrine is less reliant on artillery and thus NATO may not have the same capacity as Russia for producing shells. Even though Russia bought a million shells from NK. However, NATO possesses a 5th generation air force, long-range ballistic and cruise missiles, navies, and strike carriers, which means it doesnt need artillery as much as Ukraine does.
Furthermore, while Russia may have a goal of 1.5 million military personnel, it has not yet achieved this target. On the other hand, NATO currently has 3.6 million military personnel at its disposal. It is also worth noting that NATO is not currently engaged in a war and as such, has not diverted its economy to support a war. In contrast, Russia has been forced to divert its entire economy to support its ongoing conflict WITH UKRAINE.
The idea of Russia going to war with NATO, Russia would need to divert its entire economy and then double it to sustain such a conflict. Russia doverting its economy to war is equivalent to the US state of New York diverting its economy to war. Its small, compared to the US and NATO. Russia is so small its not comparative. Its like comparing a car to a horse and carriage.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Alien_isolationist
"Russia has made 2,000 tanks since the start of the war"
Russia has not released any information on tank production since the start of the war. It is therefore impossible to make such a claim. Even if Russia has produced some tanks since the start of the war, it is unlikely that they have produced 2,000 tanks. Russia's tank industry has been affected by Western sanctions.
"Of the 12,600 older tanks of soviet days & 1991-2021, there are still some 7,900 of them around, if we are to believe the Ukrainian MoD claims of destroyed equipment."
Russia had a total of around 10K tanks including their old soviet and new tanks. Half of that have been destroyed, most of that were the newer tanks. Leaving the majority of their tank fleet to be T-34s. They dont have 8K tanks remaining. Even so, many of them are in poor condition and not suitable for combat. They have been in storage outside for decades.
"Russia has ramped up tank production in 2023 to 1500 per year, after spending over $100 billion on military."
Russia has spent over $100 billion on its military. However, not all of this money has been spent on tank production
Russia are not producing tanks at a rate of 1500 per year. Russia is facing logistical challenges in producing and transporting tanks and it is also facing shortages of components and materials due to Western sanctions
Russia's tank fleet is shrinking per month, per year. In 2024 it will be worse than in 2023.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
GT500 Russia has about 400 fighters, with only 5 Su-57s, if by warships, you mean cruisers, destroyers and frigates, it doesn't have 700 warships, it has 2 battlecruisers, one is out of commission, 2 cruisers, with the famed Moskva being destroyed, 10 destroyers, with 3 of those out of commission, 11 frigates, 78 corvettes and around 75 subs as you said. Russia are not going to commit their entire military on Ukraine.
Russia have lost about 20% of its fighting force, minimum, which is a very large amount. It has gained, after 4 months of war, only 5% of Ukrainian territory, with already having 15% before the war
Youre right about Ukraine being screwed though, the EU and NATO screwed them pretty hard
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"We'd of" is incorrect grammar. The correct phrase is "we would have." Or "we would've". Not "would of", there's no "would of".
My dear friend, it appears that there may have been a slight miscommunication on your part, or perhaps a bit of carelessness in your choice of words. You see, it is quite clear to those of us who are well-informed that the HIMARS systems were indeed "game-changers" when they were first introduced.
As I'm sure you're aware, when Ukraine managed to successfully destroy multiple weapons depots and headquarters using these systems, it changed the momentum of the Russian forces and effectively put a stop to any significant gains they were making. That, my friend, is what we call a "game-changer". It altered the course of events and had a significant impact on the outcome of the conflict.
Now, I'm not here to belittle you or make you feel ignorant, but it is important that we all strive for accuracy and precision in our language, particularly when discussing matters of such importance. So, let's make sure we're on the same page and avoid any further misunderstandings.
Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any other questions or concerns.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Absolutely, take a break from the news cycle, my dear old friend. Must be tough, enduring the arduous life of Western comforts. There you are, lounging on your old tweed couch, staring at the news on the TV, the flashing glow casting dramatic shadows on your face and exposed stomach with your spilled beer.
Truly, your resilience is the stuff of legend. How do you muster the courage to face each day?
Fear not, the saga of Ukraine and Russia will carry on, somehow, in your absence. They'll write ballads about the day you switched off the news, Im sure
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@operator9858 Its just history. Any propositions should be found from historical examples, its the fundamental agency to war strategy, planning, designing, everything really.
Putin and Hitler share very similar histories that one can make a reasonable assumption that the result may be the same. Hitler used protecting the german speaking population living in Poland as a pretext to invading, saw Germany as the savior of Europe and wanted to expand its influence and borders. Putin has similarly used protecting the Russian speaking population living in Ukraine as a pretext to invade, sees Russia as a saviour of Europe and wants to expand its influence and borders. The most striking similarities is that when the German army failed to take Russia, Hitler sidelined his generals and personally took control of military strategy, this was a disaster and caused the demise of Germany. Similarly Putin is dissatisfied with his generals and has taken a more hands on approach to commanding his military. If we look at history, if we use it as evidence, we can reasonably assume the same outcome.
I think you are getting way too passionate about supporting Ukraine and the injustice of Russia's invasion, what normal person wouldn't. I think we've all been there at some point. Take a breather and take a step back from all this commotion. Come back when you have been rejuvenated.
2
-
2
-
You've tossed a few words together in a salad but it means nothing. Whats "devoid of self appropriated resources"? What is he devoid of? money? weapons? The means to fight a war? And what do you mean by "self appropriated", you dont make any sense. What did he need to appropriate? Appropriation is when someone takes something for their own benefit, "self appropriation" doesnt make sense because the word "self" is redundant. Youre using more words than necessary to express something. Are you suggesting Zelensky steal money or resources from Ukraine? WTF are you saying?
"spirits are high weapons are low, and when spirits low, weapons are high" WTF are you on about?
"The lack of concurrency is fracturing" Whats lacking concurrency? The spirits and the weapons? And what is fracturing? And what does that fracturing lead to?
"People seem to forget that actual Russian Strategy, reflected in the change they made to manufactured equipment, with a concentration on hypersonic vehicles with diverse warhead mounts, prepares them for what may come from beyond Ukraine" Russia have decided to invest in hypersonics because hypersonics can hit their targets within minutes, instead of 10s of minutes, giving them a potential first strike capability. They have chosen this path because they dont have the same force projection as the US. The US have bases and missiles in many parts of the world and have chosen not to invest in developing hypersonics because we have nuclear missiles on submarines scattered around the world. No need to have hypersonics, especially if you have stealth technology. This doctrine is regardless of Ukraine.
"That potential is what Russia sees as a war" what do they see as a war? What potential?
Russ, you need to put more effort into expressing your ideas concisely and less on writing concurrency and devoid and all that bullshit. You only make yourself look like an idiot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neckbro By "play it diplomatically" you mean be a vassal state of Russia. How well did that turn out for Belarus, the poorest nation in Europe? No independent media, restricting human rights and democratic norms, not to mention that Belarus cannot grow and prosper beyond a limit that would make them economically, militarily and politically strong. Because that would be a threat to Russia. Nobody wants to live like that.
Ask a Belarusian what happened to their language? The Russian language dominates government, education, media and business, reducing any opportunities for Belarusian use in everyday life.
Belarus is a fate that Ukraine did not want to end up emulating. They will fight for their independence, like every country does. The EU will consume its economy and help rebuild. It wont take 50 years, it will take 10 years.
Russia on the other hand, will be in stagnation for 20-30 years. Its demographics, which is already at a catastrophic level will continue to get worse. Poverty will increase to 40% of the population. And Russia doesnt have the wealth of the west and EU to invest in it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russia is losing about 4 to 10 times more soldiers than Ukraine in the ongoing war. This is because Russia is the attacking side, and attacking sides typically suffer more casualties than defending sides.
There are a few reasons why attacking sides suffer more casualties. First, attacking sides have to move forward into enemy territory, which exposes them to enemy fire. Second, attacking sides have to break through enemy lines, which can be difficult and costly. Third, attacking sides often have to fight in urban areas, which are difficult to clear and can lead to high casualties.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is the defending side and has been able to take advantage. Ukraine has been able to fortify its positions and use the terrain to its advantage. Ukraine has also been able to receive military assistance from other countries, which has helped to offset its numerical disadvantage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think success means Ukraine repelling Russia's attempt at taking the capital Kyiv, forcing Russia to retreat in Sumy, Kharkiv, Izium, Kherson, taking back more than 50% of Russian occupied territory.
And now crossed the Dnieper river and moving to liberate the Kherson Oblast. Thats success. Whats not success is trying to invade your neighbor, then retreating, losing territory, forcing to mobilize half way into the invasion, losing 300k casualties (I picked that number out of the same ass that you picked your 100k Ukraine soldiers from), thats not success. Thats total failure and embarrassment.
You still have time to take that crooked swastika down from your profile pic and pretend you didnt support Russia's invasion. Maybe youll save yourself some embarrasment too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pridecj2272 The fourth round of NATO membership, you can argue it was unprovoked expansion, but those countries were Hungary, Poland etc. Not near Russia's border. But the 5th round of NATO expansion (Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania etc) was directly because of Putin's invasion of Chechnya. The smaller eastern European countries knew that Putin's vision was to reclaim the old Soviet borders. He said so himself. NATO are not stupid, they know that if given the chance and if the benefits outweigh the costs, Russia will invade those countries. If not by covert means i.e installing their puppets in government or at the last resort military invasion. Those eastern European countries that want to join don't want to be apart of Russia. Who would want to live in a repressed regime?
Ukraine had a Russian puppet and everything was fine. The people rose up and started a revolution. Thats when Russia knew they lost control. Ukraine doesnt want to be under Russia's thumb.
Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral AND demilitarized. I.E no military units. This is unacceptable because it leaves Ukraine undefended for a potential Russian invasion. Which, as we have established, is what Putins vision is. So the only option is an armed to the teeth Ukraine or NATO membership.
Russia are angry that NATO have expanded Eastward because Russia wants to expand westward. NATO has never attacked Russia. Nobody is ever going to attack Russia, they have nukes. They are untouchable. Just like China is untouchable, just like India is untouchable. So the idea that Russia is just defending themselves is absurd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ive already explained this to you in another thread, but Ill copy and paste here as well;
The principles of international humanitarian law and war crimes are largely based on, among other things, the concept of proportionality.
Bridges used to transport military hardware are typically considered legitimate military targets.
The principle of proportionality requires that any attack must not cause excessive harm to civilians or damage to civilian infrastructure compared to the anticipated military advantage. In the case of a bridge used for military transportation, the destruction of the bridge can disrupt military operations and impede the enemy's ability to carry out hostile actions, which is considered a legitimate military advantage.
Bombing power plants that supply electricity to civilians can have severe humanitarian consequences. The loss of electricity can affect hospitals, water supply, communications and the overall well being of the civilian population. Therefore, such attacks are generally viewed with greater scrutiny and are more likely to be considered disproportionate, as the harm inflicted on civilians outweighs any direct military advantage gained.
Im not too sure why I have to explain why targeting nuclear power plants constitutes to a war crime and why it is different to targeting a bridge, but here goes;
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I prohibit the attack on "nuclear electrical generating stations" because of the serious health hazards to the civilian population caused by the radioactive radiation.
An attack on a nuclear power plant could release large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, contaminating the surrounding area and causing widespread health problems. The effects of such an attack could be devastating, both in terms of the immediate casualties and the long-term health consequences.
It is a disproportionate attack that would cause unnecessary suffering to the civilian population and it would be a reckless act that could lead to the release of large amounts of radioactive material, which could have catastrophic consequences for the environment and public health.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MarkNOTW Russia underestimated the strength of the Ukrainian resistance and overestimated its own capabilities. This led to a number of strategic and tactical blunders, such as the failed attempt to take Kyiv in the early days of the war. Fail 1
Russia's military was not prepared for a long and drawn out war. It lacked the supplies and transportation needed to sustain its forces. This led to shortages of food, fuel and ammunition, which hampered the Russian advance. Fail 2
Russian soldiers were reportedly demoralized by the poor planning, logistics and leadership. Many of them are also unhappy about being sent to fight in a foreign country. This has led to widespread desertion and refusal to obey orders. Fail 3
The West imposed harsh sanctions on Russia in response to the invasion. These sanctions have crippled the Russian economy and made it difficult for the government to finance the war effort. Fail 4
Russia has long feared that NATO expansion would threaten its security. The invasion of Ukraine has only served to strengthen NATO and its resolve to defend its members. This has made it more difficult for Russia to achieve its goal of isolating Ukraine from the West. NATO has since expanded by two Russian neighboring countries. Fail 5
Russia's military has suffered heavy losses in Ukraine. This has eroded its capabilities and made it more difficult to project power in other parts of the world. This is a major setback for Russia, as it has always relied on its military strength to persuade and intimidate other countries. Fail 6
The invasion of Ukraine has been a major strategic failure for Russia. It has failed to achieve its initial goals, now its stuck in a quagmire depleting its manpower, military equipment and resources.
In the world of competition and comparative advantage, the west is growing, whilst Russia is shrinking. Ultimately, the 6th and most important Fail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@corvus4135 There would have been no NATO missiles or bases in Ukraine, as there are no NATO missiles and bases in any eastern European country, such as Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.
Also Ukraine has every right, being an independent country, to join alliances as they see fit
"And should China or Russia build military bases in Mexico?" - Youre comparing Russia to the US again, please stop. Russia is a medium sized country, a declining country with an unsophisticated economy, its a 3rd world gas station. It doesn't have the power to dictate other countries foreign policy, as we have seen recently.
Its too small to project power globally.
Mexico, Cuba would never allow Chinese and Russian missiles and mases in their country because, unlike Russia, the US has the economic and diplomatic power to stop it. Not to mention, why would Mexico and Cuba want Russian missiles and bases in their country?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah the people of Mariupol are so grateful that 90% of their city has been wiped out. I heard that it was the Azov that bought all the missiles and tanks and started bombing their entire city into a pile of rubble and it was the Russian army that said
"noo, please dont destroy your city, noo, noo. we only come in peace, look, we have flowers and pillows, have some water. Lets play games and laugh with each other". But the Azov said, no, go away you peaceful Russians, we are Azov and we want to destroy our country and cities, you will never defeat evil you peaceful Russians!"
Your propaganda is so 1990s
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luisc.3215 "saying that it was a 'crime against humanity' is an insult to the memory of victims of the real crimes against humanity (holocaust, atomic bombs, rwanda, etc.)"
Oh my gowd bro, give us all a break, please. Spare us. Youre insulted? Apartment buildings, schools, maternity hospitals, theatres hit every day, women and children have died, 10s of thousands of children have been stolen. And youre insulted? Ok pal.
Calm down your desperate flurry of apologizing for Russian atrocities. The world has seen it for 15 months.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russia's economy is contracting at a fantastic rate, with an all time low ruble, its economy is correcting itself to the "new realities" of their situation. Which is less than before the conflict. Less money, smaller economy, smaller population, less soft power, less military power, less influence, less revenues.
As Russia experiences an aging and declining population, it has less workers every year, which means upward pressure on wages, downward pressure on growth, downward pressure on spending, upward pressure on inflation, downward pressure on businesses expanding. Russia is literally shrinking. Australia has an economy the same size as Russia, with 6 times less population, you can gauge just how underperforming Russia already was before its decline.
Russia's economy will continue to shrink until it finds its equilibrium. Once there, it will stay there, in stangnation for 20-30 years. And thats the best case scenario.
2
-
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has inflicted significant damage on Russia across various dimensions, including its economy, military capabilities and geopolitical standing.
Russia's economy has experienced a severe decline due to the conflict. All the economic gains achieved since 2007 have been completely erased. This deterioration comes at a time when Russia was already grappling with a demographic decline. The exodus of 1 million workers from the country has further exacerbated this demographic challenge. The loss of human capital has been substantial, in addition to the over 200,000 casualties.
Russia has lost approximately 40% of its tanks, including a significant number of its latest models. The Russian military has been exposed as being incompetent, corrupt and weaker than anticipated before the invasion. This revelation has cast doubt on Russia's military strength and effectiveness.
Russia has been largely isolated from the international community and has lost much of its influence in the region. NATO has expanded its influence and presence in the region
Ukraine has significantly strengthened its military capabilities with the acquisition of advanced Western weapons. These developments pose a greater challenge to Russia's influence and regional aspirations.
The consequences of the conflict for Russia have been overwhelmingly negative. Conversely, NATO and the US have benefited from the conflict, with NATO expanding, allowing them to redirect their attention to other larger strategic challenges, particularly China.
The outlook for Russia is bleak, with no signs of improvement. It's been a complete and total disaster and will only get worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ajaykumarsingh702 As I explained in my post, the uprisings and fights for independence was merely to illustrate that Ukraine has always been a seperate people, culture, society than Russia.
But if you want to narrow the scope to just "legally recognized", the Ukrainian People's Republic founded in 1917 was "legally recognized" by numerous countries, including Bolshevik Russia themselves, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Persia and Belarusia.
It existed as its own government, people, culture, society, nation, country, whatever you want to use as criteria to define a country BEFORE the foundation of the USSR.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The geopolitical maneuvers between global superpowers often involve the use of proxies to further their strategic interests. In this vein, China seems to be employing Russia as its proxy in its ongoing power struggle against the United States. The ramifications of this pact between China and Russia are likely to downgrade Russia's standing in the world, they wont be able to make any moves of significance unless approved by their suzerain, China.
It is unfortunate that Russia finds itself in this position, having to make such a consequential deal with China. The alternative, of course, was to pursue a path of peace with NATO, an organization that has shown no intention of aggression towards Russia. However, Russia chose to pursue expansionist policies and now it must cede some of its autonomy and dignity to its new ally. It is indeed a sad fall from grace.
The current state of affairs is hardly surprising though, given Russia's relative size and power when compared to China and the US. In the past, Russia was considered a key player on the global stage, akin to a chess piece that could influence the outcome of geopolitical games. Unfortunately, with this new development, Russia has been reduced to a mere pawn, used to further the interests of a more dominant player.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Im not sure what you are referring to. But all those countries trade with the west and the west is their biggest trading partners. The west is rich and buy their cheap products, minus Russia because it doesn't make anything of value.
Having said that, BRICS isnt really a thing, its just a yearly meeting among those 4 countries to discuss trade, which never amounts to anything. Its intra-trade amongst each other is about 10% of their total trade, the other 90% comes from the west.
I understand this is upsetting Vatnik, but unless BRICS start to have the same political, social, economic and legal systems, its not not a bloc or a grouping of economies, its a yearly meeting among 4 countries.
I dont know why India are there, they should apply for membership to the G7.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HegelsOwl Your arguments about "memes and slogans with emotion-charged language" are not convincing in light of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the verifiable war crimes they have committed. These are not just slogans, but actual facts that cannot be ignored or dismissed with unclear and borderline gibberish.
Likewise, your philosophical argument does not erase the harm done to innocent civilians and Ukrainian soldiers, nor does it justify Russia's disregard for international law. The evidence of Russia's war crimes is well-documented and the international community has condemned their actions repeatedly.
Your statement that the injustices Russia is charged with are all "Fallacies of Begging the Question" is unsupported. The reasons behind an action do not excuse illegal behavior or absolve one from accountability for the consequences of their actions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes committed by its soldiers are flagrant violations of international law and basic principles of justice, humanity and dignity.
You cannot just provide basic math examples to prove your point, as it does not address the atrocities committed by Russia or strengthen your argument. Your writing style appears to be compensational, arrogant and unintelligent, like listening to a politician trying to explain their latest scandal.
Clear and concise writing is often more persuasive and effective than convoluted language and basic math equations. By expressing your thoughts in a straightforward manner, you can demonstrate confidence in your ideas and avoid distracting from the substance of your argument, if you had any.
Lastly, it is crucial to stress the importance of Ukraine's sovereignty and that all nations must respect it. The international community must uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter, including the respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any breach of these principles threatens global peace and security and must be condemned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ooooooo6038 Thats because Russia invaded Ukraine dipshit, but if you consider retreating from Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Izium, Kherson, mobilizing mid way through your invasion, recruiting prisoners and 50 year old dead beats, losing over 100k troops, losing over 40% of your tanks and only capturing 15% of Ukraine after 10 months, of which 10% of that was already occupied before the war so you really only gained 5%, as not a failure, then god bless your sweet little heart. You must be that go lucky guy in your friends group, always happy and positive even if you get a flat tire or lose your wallet. Good for you man 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most of that "money" is in the form of sending old military equipment that is in storage collecting dust, which will have to be destroyed, which costs money. Sending it to Ukraine instead saves us money.
Not to mention that most of the money is going into US industries to replenish those stocks, using American companies, who hire Americans, which pay taxes and spends money in the American economy.
Im not a fan of the military industrial complex any more than you, but it is an industry that hires millions of americans, with high paying jobs. Until we have peace on earth and start holding hands singing songs, our military needs to produce weapons somehow and having a military industrial complex is the only way to achieve that.
We could nationalize it, like Russia does, the result would be the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garretttobin7451 Ah yes Garry, because we should believe the country that said they wont invade Ukraine, then invaded, or the Moskva is fine, its just being towed to shore due to a fire on board, but was destroyed by a Ukrainian missile, or the amount of times they said they destroyed a HIMARS system, or having to retreat in multiple cities, but says everything is going according to plan, or when their air bases blow up, blame it on smokers, or claimed to not have many casualties, but are forced to mobilize, or said that the Kherson offensive failed, then later forced to retreat. Russia have lied at every step, we all know this. Except you apparently
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trumpforever6706 Russia deployed over 150,000 troops, along with more than 1,000 tanks, hundreds of armored vehicles, artillery units, rocket launchers, air defense systems, aircraft and helicopters.
Sending such a substantial military force is not a diversion tactic. Deploying the VDV, Russia's elite unit, is not done as a diversion tactic. The initial advance on Kyiv resulted in over 20,000 casualties for Russia, a toll too high for a feint.
If the intention was to divert attention, why not send the 150,000 troops directly to Donbas in the first place, as they eventually did?
The notion of this being a feint is ludicrous, first propagated by pro-Russian bloggers in their disbelief in its failure.
Also not everyone among Kyiv's population of 3 million would have been combatants. A significant portion includes the elderly, women and children. Suggesting that capturing the city would require 3 million soldiers is unrealistic.
Russia indeed made a genuine effort to seize Kyiv, coming close to achieving it but suffering heavy losses in the process, they withdrew.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saucyinnit8799 There wont be any outside investments in Russia. No country or company will put their money into a country that at any moment can get sanctioned or nationalize its assets.
Furthermore, "the whole non-west part of the world" still trades and does business with the western world and the western world is larger and richer than poor russia. Russians are not rich enough to consume products so they don't buy anything from other countries in large numbers. Pretty useless for countries that rely on their exports. Sure oil and gas, and i'm sure countries will buy their oil and gas, but at a significant discount. We know that Russia's energy revenues are down 30-40% which means their budget is down 30-40%. They have record deficits and have sold their soul to China. Agreeing to sell in Yuan
Regardless if Ukraine's demographics are worse than Russia, Russia's are still beyond repair. It is a finished country. Its shrinking, not expanding. Ukraine will join the EU soon, which means they will have access to 450 million workers, companies, financial institutions, construction companies etc. Ukraines future is probably brighter than most countries, it will be like a gold rush
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aw-resistance9968 The US objective is to weaken Russia. Sending Ukraine enough weapons to keep Russia fighting, but not enough weapons so Ukraine can push them back into Russia. The sweet spot is Russia throwing their troops into a meat grinder and not moving forward, but forward enough to stretch the frontline and spread out Russia's forces. Russia tends to have a habit of over extending and losing a lot of men in war. Particularly the Brusilov Offensive in WW1, where Russia committed and lost too many men, which triggered the Russian revolution and toppled its government. All the gains Russia had made, they just basically packed up and left.
If the US sends all the weapons it can and Ukraine starts pushing Russia back into Russia, they may use a nuclear weapon. But if they economically and militarily cannot sustain the fight anymore, they hopefully will just pack up and leave or the government will be toppled. Either way, the US remains in Ukraine and the west will continue to support them until Russia withdraws.
I feel like you were just asking a rhetorical question though and weren't interested in a proper answer, just merely trying to illustrate the US is involved in a war that doesn't concern it. But, any way. Thats the reasons. And of course because a weak Russia is a safer Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NATO is a symbolic entity, it relies on Article 5 as a cornerstone of its collective defense. Functionally, it does not guarantee unanimous support in times of crisis. If a NATO member were attacked or invaded, some countries within the alliance will find reasons to delay or limit their obligations under Article 5. At best, they might provide equipment assistance, while others, like Hungary, may choose not to send any military aid at all.
Countries can cite financial constraints or logistical challenges to justify their inability to offer substantial support, just like they have done with regards to supplying Ukraine with any equipment. Furthermore, since there is no mechanism for expelling a member, there is no strict obligation to provide any assistance.
As you can imagine, the reluctance of NATO members to provide Ukraine with a membership pathway due to concerns about invoking Article 5 serves as a critical indicator of their potential lack of commitment to honoring Article 5 when a NATO member faces a genuine attack.
Although all NATO countries seek the perceived protection that membership entails, their willingness to provide actual support in the event of a real attack is questionable at best. NATO's primary allure lies in the security it promises, rather than a unanimous commitment to assist in all situations. In other words, NATO countries want the protection, they don't want the commitment.
NATO article 5 is just on paper, its a bluff to deter Russian aggression. The reality is, once its tested, it will crumble as each NATO nation comes up with their own excuse not to provide support.
India should join NATO
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jop23ify "if you don't over rely imports and services"
Russia imports billions dollars worth of western parts, technology and services. This weird idea that Russia is self-sufficient is absurd. Their economy is a mess.
Russia is heavily dependent on imported semiconductors for its military, aerospace and other industries
Russia also imports a significant amount of aerospace parts from Western countries. These parts are essential for the production of aircraft, helicopters and missiles.
Russia imports a wide range of machinery from Western countries, including machine tools, CNC machines and robotics. These machines are essential for the production of a variety of goods, including cars, appliances and electronics.
Russia also imports a significant amount of software from Western countries. This software is used in a variety of industries, including finance, telecommunications and manufacturing.
Russia also imports a significant amount of medical equipment from Western countries. This equipment is essential for the treatment of patients and the prevention of disease.
Those are just some of the imports Russia relies on for their various industries.
""if you don't over rely imports and services" - lol their entire economy is reliant on imports, let alone western imports.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not too sure if there is any evidence of Blackrock investing in Ukraine, but if its true, it means Ukraine's value will increase very soon, meaning the west, US, EU will be developing the country. Whilst Russia will continue to languish in every national, social, medical, cultural and economical indicator there is.
The border between Ukraine and Russia will resemble that of the satellite photo of South Korea and North Korea at night. Youre aware of that photo, if not, google "satellite photo of South Korea and North Korea at night", youll see a birdseye view of two countries, one allied with the US and the other with Russia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alien_isolationist We are aware of Ukraine's strength. However, the general public does not need to know the number of Ukrainian soldiers who have been killed, unless they want to feel good about Russia's invasion.
Your desire to know the number of Ukrainian soldiers who have been killed is not driven by a simple curiosity about the statistics. Rather, it is driven by a revenge mentality, albeit a sadistic one.
You are harboring a sense of resentment or injustice related to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This feeling stems from your adherence to the Russian narrative, which asserts that Ukraine has been attacking civilians for eight years.
You are seeking information on Ukrainian casualties not merely as a factual inquiry, but as a means of seeking a form of punishment or revenge, however symbolic it may be.
From a psychological perspective, the desire for revenge can be a manifestation of various underlying emotions, such as anger, frustration, or ignorance. This may suggest that your motivation to know Ukraine's KIA figures serves as a mechanism to validate your beliefs and possibly alleviate the emotional distress caused by your perception of Ukrainian actions.
My advice to you is to consider the role of mental shortcuts and online environments where people are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. People often seek information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs and may ignore or dismiss conflicting evidence. You are selectively focusing on information that supports the Russian narrative, further deepening your conviction and motivation to seek out details about Ukrainian casualties.
That's why you want to know Ukraine's KIA figures. It's not that hard to figure out
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whilst I agree with you Russia are used to invading its neighbours, its still a costly endeavor, so hardly business as usual. Russia have lost manpower, equipment, trade partners, respect and its economy will struggle for a very long time.
Europe didn't ask for the war so its disappointing they have been dragged into this mess but a response was needed. Europeans don't tolerate a war in europe, especially a war for more land, by a country that is notorious for land grabbing. Not to mention, Russia isn't exactly the stalwarts of modern, civilized society. Nobody envies their system of governance or human quality of life, so to have a country like that expanding is dangerous for Europe.
Europe will adapt, it always has and it always will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eNv3n0mX The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia violated the treaty in 2014 by testing a new cruise missile that violated the treaty's range limits. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2019 in response to Russia's violations
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Russia violated the treaty by refusing to allow inspection activities on its territory.
The Open Skies Treaty, Russia violated the treaty by interfering with or denying access to surveillance flights.
The Incidents at Sea Agreement, Russia violated the agreement by harassing or colliding with vessels belonging to other countries.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea, Russia violated the convention by constructing an artificial island in the Black Sea
The Geneva Conventions, Russia violated the conventions by targeting civilians in Ukraine and stealing its children
The Minsk Agreements 1 and 2, Russia violated both Minsk agreements which im more than happy to list each violations. But rest assured, they violated practically each provision in the agreements.
These are just some agreements Russia has violated when they dont unilaterally pulled out of an agreement, then do what the agreement restricted them to do.
Such as, The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, Russia pulled out of the agreement just before they put nukes in Belarus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" have been targeting various countries from 1945 up until 2021"
Helloooo, and what have Russia been doing since 1945, sitting on their hands? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine and Poland have something to tell you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelmcfeely6588 The US defense industry generates over $600 billion in economic activity each year and employs over 1 million people directly and another 2.4 million people indirectly. These jobs are mostly high paying jobs which means higher tax revenue.
Its an industry that needs to exist as we don't live in a world full of unicorns and rainbows.
Every nation in the world invariably pursues its self-interest and when provided with the means, opportunities and a favorable cost-benefit analysis, will resort to employing force as a means of expanding its power. This inclination is deeply rooted in human nature. Each nation develops its unique strategies for asserting its influence and consolidating power. For instance, smaller nations such as Sweden predominantly rely on diplomacy, while military powers like Russia often resort to warfare. Countries with a strong manufacturing and mercantile orientation tend to emphasize trade as their primary avenue for power projection, such as China, although many nations adopt a combination of these methods. The pursuit of power is a common thread among nations, manifesting through various means dictated by their circumstances and capacities.
With regards to Russia, Russia's goal is to take control over Ukraine, take parts of Moldova and eventually take parts of Eastern Poland and then its NATO vs Russia and we will have a world war. Supporting Ukraine ends that possibility. A Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden Russia to further aggression against other countries in the region. It would send a message to other countries that the US is not willing to defend its allies. This could lead to a decline in US influence in the world and could make it more difficult to deter future aggression, in Europe and other parts of the world.
Ukraine is a strategically important country for the US. It borders Russia and controls the Black Sea, which is a major shipping route. A Russian victory would give Russia control of the Black Sea and would allow it to project power into the Middle East and Africa.
Ukraine is a democracy that is fighting for its survival against a brutal dictatorship. Its in the US' interests to stand with democracies around the world and support them in their struggles against authoritarian regimes
The US not only has a moral obligation, but it is in our strategic interests to weaken Russia and support other democracies.
Why should we care if a country is a democracy or not?
Democracies tend to have less civil wars, coups and other forms of instability. They are more likely to respect human rights, because democracies are based on the principle of rule of law.
Democracies are more likely to cooperate with the US on issues of mutual interest. Democracies share common values, such as the rule of law and human rights. This makes it easier for the US to build relationships with democratic countries and to work together to address common challenges, trade, technology and innovation.
Democracies tend to be more prosperous than authoritarian regimes, this helps the US because democracies tend to have more open economies and more freedom of enterprise. More opportunities for trade, investment and economic growth for both the US and other democracies.
Finally, democracies are more likely to be peaceful. This is because democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. This makes the world a more stable and secure place.
Democracy is the best form of government for promoting peace, prosperity and human development. We understand human nature, we can see over the horizon, neutralize threats before they become threats. Its why we are the most powerful country in the world. And its why we support Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was the EU that gave Ukraine an ultimatum to choose them over Russia in 2014. They chose EU and were dangled in front of Russia, then they turned their back on them, until only recently. Youve listed a great deal of things there, all not enough. Whatever the nato members have provided, whatever they will provide, is not good enough. Its simply not enough. So you can list the "weapons, ammunition, missiles, military and civilian aid" but that matters little if it is just too little too late. The US, UK and some eastern European countries have helped. The rest of Europe have done nothing
Also Ukraine wanted to join NATO BEFORE they were in the "middle of a war". They didnt just decide after the invasion, oh hey whats this nato thing all about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedeal86 They went for Kyiv, that was the only way for regime change, which was their stated objective. You take the capital to decapitate the military. Thats how its done. You dont use 100k troops and your best troops, the VDV special paratroopers, and lose them as a distraction. A distraction is when you use a few troops to take a town, and you dont sacrifice your special forces as a distraction. They went for the airports around Kyiv, got pushed back, sent a column of tanks that ran out of gas, thats not a distraction. Theres other evidence that proves it wasnt a distraction, such as during the atempted seige of Kyiv, Russia sent in riot squad police units with the military, police units that are trained for crowd control. You dont send riot police as a distraction, you send them in when you captured the capital to manage any crowds.
In the captured Russian tanks, there were soldiers dress uniforms, you dont bring your dress uniforms if its a distraction, you bring them for ceremonies and parades, victory parades. Also, how do you account for the mobilization that Russia was forced to do if everything was going according to plan and the Kyiv push was just a distraction?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avengerpz Russia requires industrial machinery, microprocessors, pumps, compressors, construction equipment, agricultural machinery to name just a few things.
Russia needs to import many natural and synthetic resources, such as rubber, chemicals, plastics, aluminum oxide, rare earth elements.
Russia relies on imports for computers, semiconductors and telecom equipment. Building factories doesnt solve the issue of Russia's lack of specialized knowledge and expertise in the various fields required to manufacture those items, from raw material processing to advanced engineering and production techniques.
No country is self-sufficient
1
-
@avengerpz Since the sanctions; Russia's economy shrank over -2% in 2022, their foreign investment has plummeted, companies are fleeing Russia, hindering long-term growth. Access to technology and critical imports is restricted, hampering innovation and modernization.
The ruble's depreciation to 100 rubles to $1USD erodes purchasing power and fuels inflation
EU imports of Russian oil and gas have fallen by over 50%
Russia's ability to be self-sustained is limited in several key areas: Russia relies heavily on imports for machinery, technology and consumer goods. Sanctions are disrupting these supply chains.
While Russia is a major wheat exporter, it lacks diversity in food production and relies on imports for crucial items like fruits and vegetables
Russia's isolation hinders access to global knowledge and research, impacting its ability to develop new technologies and compete in the long term
Western economies are more diversified and less reliant on single resources like energy, making them more resilient
The West leads in innovation and technological advancements, crucial for long-term economic growth
The overall impact of sanctions has been negative to Russia and will continue to be so. No country in the world, including Russia is self-sufficient. Every country needs something or many things, including foreign investment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sleepyjoe7843 I list you 20 social, economic and health indicators and you come back to me with well petty theft is higher in Brussels. Ok guy, theft is higher in Brussels. You win, Russia is a bastion of prosperity and peace. Leading the world in art, science, culture, medicine, patents, innovation, manufacturing, advanced electronics etc. Oh wait a minute, they are leaders in non of those fields. It has 5 times the population of Australia, yet has the same GDP.
Im sorry, but its a hard pass for me. You haven't convinced me to move my family there. Maybe you should move there though, I hear they need people. Specifically 350K
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alien_isolationist Civilians died on the bridge but civilians weren't the target, don't you understand that? Russia TARGETS civilians, its systematic, its part of their strategy
"missiles into Donetsk" - It is the separatists themselves who have been shelling residential neighborhoods in Donetsk. There is ample evidence of this, including eyewitness accounts, videos and satellite imagery
"sent drones into Moscow apartment buildings" - Staged by Russia itself in an attempt to justify its own war crimes in Ukraine.
"shelled belgorod city" - Ukraine shelling Russian forces that are shelling Kharkiv from belgorod. Not to mention that most of the damage in Belgorod have been caused by Russian ammunition misfires. We know this due to video and photographic evidence, satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts.
As I said, you must not just get your information from pro-Russian sites and youtubers. If there is a claim made, ask yourself, how do we know this claim is true? Are there any evidence that it is true? Delve a little deeper than just believing everything youre told.
You see a crater in the ground and a pro-Russian youtuber says thats because of Ukraine. How do we know? What evidence is there linking it to Ukraine?
Evidence helps establish the accuracy and truth. It allows us to differentiate between what might be true and what is actually proven to be true. Without evidence, accusations can be based on rumors, speculation or misinformation
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@operator9858 There is an accumulation of evidence that shows Russia expected to at least capture Kyiv within 3 days. Including, but not limited to, intercepted communications between Russian soldiers. The multi advance military posture towards Kyiv, the parachuting in behind enemy lines Russian paratroopers to take airfields well inside Ukraine territory. You dont parachute your elite troops to quickly take an airfield that is in the middle of Ukraine with Ukraine forces all around you. You only do that in conjunction with a blitz to take the capital and not expect much resistance. They were sitting ducks.
There are other examples, such as all the tanks that Russia used in the initial push towards Kyiv had soldier dress uniforms inside. Why bring your dress uniform in a battle that you expect to last months or years? You bring your dress uniform for parades, victory parades. Another example is that Russia brought with them Russian riot squad police, you dont bring police to a war, you bring them for crowd control after a city has been captured. We see in Kherson Russia brought riot squad police and helping with security and crowd control, after it was captured. This is their standard practice.
We know that Russia only brought 3 days worth of gas, food and supplies. We know that a week after it was clear Russia werent going to capture Kyiv, Putin sacked 150 intelligence officers tasked with obtaining intelligence in Ukraine. We know that after a few days of the failed invasion, Shoigu was sidelined with fears of incompetence or sabotage.
There are a lot more evidence that im leaving out, but, the aggregation of all the evidence points to Russia expecting to take Kyiv. Maybe in 3 days, maybe in a week, but they expected to take Kyiv. They retreated under heavy losses, regrouped then for two weeks transferred them to the donbas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May I suggest, when you read something on a pro-Russian website, or any website for that matter, try to determine if there is information, facts, or material that is presented in support of a claim, which is typically called evidence.
Understand that there are different standards of evidence, such as direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and hearsay etc.
An example of direct evidence is Russia invading Ukraine
An example of circumstantial evidence is when Prighozin's plane crashed, we can infer that Putin was behind it
An example of hearsay, is when Putin claims NATO promised Russia it would not expand eastward. Hearsay lacks reliability and even more so if the person making the claim is a known liar.
If the first standard of evidence cannot be met, then its best not to allow your imagination to fill in the gaps or infer anything from that. Otherwise your book will be a mess of wild fantasies with no evidence and credibility.
Also every one of your points is the pro-Russian version of events. Its exactly the Russian narrative. Which means that you are biased. Its no coincidence that every one of your points is the pro-Russian version, especially when there is a) no evidence, b) a complicated situation and c) another party involved with a completely different version of events
1
-
1. There wasn't a coup. Millions of Ukrainians took to the streets for months because Viktor Yanukovych changed his mind about signing a trade agreement with the EU. As a result of these massive protests, Yanukovych stepped down, fled to Russia and new elections took place. This wasn't a coup.
2. Russia breached the Minsk Agreements:
2. a Russia violated the ceasefire deal by providing support and weapons to separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine.
2. b Russia failed to meet the Minsk Agreements' requirement of withdrawing heavy weapons from Eastern Ukraine.
2. c Russia didn't take sufficient steps to ensure Ukrainian control over the border, allowing a continuous flow of weapons, fighters and supplies to the separatists.
2.d The agreements called for the disarmament of illegal groups and the withdrawal of foreign armed forces and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory, which Russia did not enforce.
2. e The Minsk Agreements outlined a political settlement process, including restoring Ukrainian constitutional order, conducting local elections, and granting special status to certain regions. Russia hindered the implementation of these provisions.
2. f Russia didn't facilitate full humanitarian access to conflict areas, making it difficult to assist civilians.
3. The assertion that ethnic Russians living in Ukraine are treated as subhuman is unfounded. There's no credible evidence to support this claim.
4. The assertion that Ukraine indiscriminately shelled civilians in Donbas is untrue. The majority of civilian casualties in Donbas were caused by Russian artillery and airstrikes.
5. The claim that Ukraine maintains a hit list of artists, journalists and ordinary citizens lacks evidence to support it.
6. The claim that the Azov troops trapped in the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol used human shields is unsubstantiated. No credible evidence supports this assertion.
7. The assertion that Ukraine has committed numerous acts of terrorism is baseless. Since the start of the conflict, Russia has been the primary perpetrator of terrorist attacks in Ukraine.
8. Assigning blame for a pipeline explosion without concrete evidence is speculative. (You mentioned that everything you said "can be fact-checked and verified," but this claim lacks verification.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@worthit4493 No, when Russia means multi-polar, it means a world in which there are multiple centers of power, rather than just one. This is in contrast to the current world order, which is often seen as unipolar, meaning that there is one dominant power, the United States.
The problem for Russia is that it is too small to be one of the major players in the world. Its economy is too small, its diplomatic soft power is too small, its trade is too small. China and the US are the only superpowers in the world and so the world could be considered a bipolar world order, but even then China doesnt have the military capability to project power globally, neither did the Soviet Union that much.
The financial, economic and trade system that is currently in place is the result of the US. Even China's economic growth is the result of Western globalism. Russia has played no influential role in shaping history other than invading its neighbors. Not enough to warrant them automatic power. They need to take it, and they are having a very hard time getting out of their driveway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nativespirit4942 EU/US/West make up 2/3rds of the worlds entire GDP. If thats a small % then you need to step upside down.
Lets have a look at "the most resources on earth". Russia's gdp is $1.4T. Its total exports is 300 billion, half is oil and gas. That leaves $150 billion, which $15 billion is arms sales, so $135 billion left of other things, which a percentage is resources. Whatever resources Russia have, other countries also have. Which country is going to make up Europes demand for resources that are required for high tech manufacturing? Iran? Congo? North Korea? Name any of the 3rd world countries that Russia are resigned to do business with. They have no use for rare metals and bauxite.
This will happen to Russia's economy, it will go through stagnation for decades and will actually shrink whilst the rest of the world grows. It will be barely a $1 trillion economy. Netherlands, Switzerland, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia will be larger economies. It will fall out of the G20 because it wont make the top 20 economies in the world. Im not sure you realize the magnitude of collapse which is facing Russia. It will be lucky if it can remain a unified federation in 10-20 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While you are allowed to comment, it is important to understand that if your commentary is uninformed or lacking in knowledge, you may be subject to receiving a rebuttal or correction. Therefore, it is advisable to ensure that your contributions are thoughtful and well-informed, lest you become the recipient of a less than favorable response.
One might perceive the notion of being dissuaded from commenting as a restrictive measure, but in actuality, you possess the freedom to express your thoughts, even if they are poorly informed. However, it is important to note that others are entitled to express their disagreement with such comments, particularly if they contain glaring inaccuracies. Frankly speaking, Donald, your past remarks have been, shall we say, somewhat lacking in merit, leading one to wonder if you are indeed capable of making a cogent argument. It is not uncommon to see your commentary and think, "oh not this clown again," but perhaps with some introspection and a willingness to engage in meaningful discussion, you may yet prove us wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for the history lesson Lana. But your last sentence, the only sentence of note, only refers to Russia deriving its name from Kievan Rus. It doesn't make their claim to the original birthplace of Kievan Rus any more stronger. Ukraine existed in the 16th century (Russia had a treaty with Ukraine in the 1600s) and has been an ethnic, then a national identity throughout history. It exists. It joined Russia to form the soviet union. The soviet union collapsed because Ukraine wanted out.
Ukraine is Ukraine. Ukrainians are Ukranians. Russians are Russians.
PS, Kievan Rus was formed, it diverged, one stayed put, the other moved eastward to modern day Russia. Those people mixed and interbred with the Tartars, Avars, Mongols and various other asian/turkic ethnicities. In other words, Ukraine are more pure Kievan Rus than Russians, historically and scientifically
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HegelsOwl Your attempt to levy an inflammatory and utterly baseless accusation regarding Ukraine's declaration of independence from its largest minority was both cute and intellectually feeble. It is evident to everyone, or so it seems, that you are referring to the "ethnic Russians" living inside Ukraine. I merely elucidated the matter for you: Ukraine's pursuit of Western alignment has been a longstanding objective spanning decades, rather than a recent development. It is, in fact, a recurring pattern that has been consistently hindered by Russian aggression and interference, not only for decades but even centuries.
If you find it challenging to keep pace with the intricacies of the discourse or to comprehend the depth of my literary prowess, I can condescend to simplify matters for you. However, it is essential to note that my responses are firmly rooted in logic, historical accuracy, and a remarkable blend of evidence, factual information, and astute analysis. Regrettably, you have contributed nothing substantial to the discussion apart from ad hominem attacks and nonsensical ramblings, which only serve to underscore the lack of intellectual rigor you bring to the table.
1
-
@HegelsOwl How did Ukraine "declare independence from their largest minority"?
Initially, it is essential to clarify that Russia perceives Ukraine as an integral part of its domain, dismissing the notion of Ukraine as a distinct entity and ethnicity. So theres no distinction between Ukrainians and their "largest minority". This perspective stems from a misguided conflation of the two regions, blurring the lines that has demarcated them for centuries. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the so-called "ethnic Russians" residing within Ukraine did not and do not uniformly harbor aspirations for Ukraine's integration into Russia.
Moreover, since 1990, the Ukrainian populace has steadfastly expressed a desire to align itself with Western values and ideologies. This pursuit of Western integration has been emblematic of their aspirations, culminating in noteworthy displays of national public dissent. Demonstrations in 1990, which sought to extricate Ukraine from the clutches of the Soviet Union, were followed by protests in 2004 that contested the outcome of a pro-Russian presidency. Subsequently, in 2012, further protests ensued with the goal of attaining European Union membership.
This arduous struggle for self-determination has persistently plagued Ukraine for three decades. Regrettably, it appears that your knowledge of this protracted battle only materialized in February of 2022 through Fox News and Russia Today. Though tardy in your comprehension, I am glad you have become acquainted with this long-standing battle for freedom. Even though youre 30 years late.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patryan4445 True, but the US is considered to be a safe borrower.
Russia, on the other hand, is not considered to be a safe borrower. This is because the Russian economy is smaller and less dynamic. As a result, investors are less willing to lend money to Russia, and the interest rates that Russia has to pay are much higher than the interest rates that the US has to pay, if they can even access the foreign bond market.
The US dollar is the world's reserve currency, which means that investors from all over the world are willing to hold US government debt.
Russia, on the other hand, does not have a reserve currency and its currency, the Ruble, is considered worthless, not even the Indians and Chinese want to trade in Rubles
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HegelsOwl Thank you for your reply, I have identified several logical fallacies in your response. Firstly, your statement attacks my character rather than addressing the substance of my argument, which is an ad hominem fallacy.
Secondly, your statement presents a false dilemma by implying that there are only two possible explanations for my statement, either I am lying or telling the truth, without considering other possibilities. This is a false dilemma fallacy.
Thirdly, your statement makes an unwarranted generalization about my behavior and attributes it to a larger group of people without sufficient evidence, which is a hasty generalization fallacy.
Fourthly, your statement assumes that I am lying and then uses this assumption as evidence for why I am lying, which is a circular reasoning fallacy (begging the question)
Fifthly, your statement introduces irrelevant and distracting points that do not address the substance of my argument, which is a red herring fallacy.
Sixthly, your statement uses ridicule to dismiss my argument without addressing it directly, which is an appeal to ridicule fallacy.
Seventhly, your statement attributes negative qualities to me without providing evidence or justification for doing so, which is a false attribution fallacy.
I suggest avoiding these logical fallacies in our future discussions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia have bought ammunition from various countries, including on the black market. Russia have bought millions of shells from NK and Iran. Russia have slowed down their missile attacks from when they first started, repurposing S300 missiles. They went 50 days without launching any missiles and the amount when they do, its 10 or 15. They are 100% running out of missiles. Shells and ammo they can always buy from other countries.
Unless of course, you think that Russia has an infinite amount of ammo, shells and missiles, which would violate the law of conservation of mass, which states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another.
If Russia were to have an infinite number of missiles, it would mean that an infinite amount of mass would have to exist, which is impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Trump was in office he would have disbanded NATO altogether. Also his campaign manager was charged and convicted with doing deals with Turkey. Also Trump abandoned the Kurds in favor of Turkey. There was no better friend to Turkey than Trump.
Paul Manafort, a political consultant and lobbyist, had a connection to Turkey through his work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (pro-Russian), Manafort's connections to Turkey stem from his work for Yanukovych, who had close ties to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Manafort's lobbying efforts on behalf of Yanukovych included promoting Ukrainian-Turkish relations, and he reportedly met with Turkish officials during this time.
Manafort's former business partner, Rick Gates, worked on a project in Turkey in 2016 that was funded by a pro-Erdogan businessman. The project involved promoting the interests of the Turkish government in the United States.
Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump's national security advisor, had connections to Turkey through his work as a lobbyist for a Turkish businessman with ties to President Erdogan. Flynn was paid $530,000 for lobbying work that included advocating for the extradition of a Turkish cleric living in the United States
Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, wrote in his book "The Room Where It Happened" that Trump had promised Erdogan he would intervene in a case involving a Turkish bank that was facing criminal charges in the United States. Trump reportedly told Erdogan that he would "take care of things" and that the case would be "fixed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This obviously doesnt make any sense, it sounds fantastic, but it defies logic and evidence that we know.
We know that Russian force had the VDV Airborne unit, this is an elite unit and would not be wasted on a "diversion'. You simply do not waste your best units in a deversion.
We know that captured Russian forces had their dress uniforms with them. You dont have your dress uniforms unless in a parade, a victory parade after capturing Kyiv.
We know that Russian forces brought Riot Police trained in Crowd Control. You dont bring police with you for a diversion, you bring them for after capturing and controlling a city.
We know that Russian forces ran out of supplies and gas 3 days into the mission. You dont bring 3 days of supplies unless you know you will be finished by then. Even if you could argue that the reason they only brought 3 days supply was BECAUSE it was a diversion, then why did they run out of supplies halfway through the diversion and become sitting ducks?
We know that Putin publicly dressed down his head of intelligence a few days into the failed mission because the intelligence was wrong, which is why Putin placed his top general on house arrest, he had to find out whether it was incomitance or sabotage. If it was a perfect diversion then the intelligence was fine and no need for punishment.
We know that Putin has just sacked 150 intelligence officers assigned to gathering intel on Ukraine. This is due to either incompetence or sabotage or leaking of information.
You dont send 50K troops and lose 20% of them, then retreat, regroup for a week or two then slowly move them down to the area that you "really" are fighting for. You just send them there in the first place, or you just actually take the capital and force a surrender or have a stronger negotiating position.
The truth is that Russia NEEDED to take Kyiv and the Donbass in order to force Ukraine into a peace deal favourable to Russia or surrender outright. Now, even if Russia takes Donbass and all the south cities, Ukraine will just keep attacking and try to recapture them thus Russia will just try to hold those cities indefinitely. Thats not a victory.
But according to you that was the plan all along? What a horrible and costly strategy that wont even work in the end.
Russia fucked up, deal with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angiebaby9981 The difference is that Ukraine was invaded, against their will, by a much larger and powerful nation, thats goal is to conquer its country. It is/was an existential threat. Russia, chose this war, this war is a war of conquest, its not an existential threat to Russia. If Russia packed up and went home, there would still be Russia. If Ukraine packed up and stopped fighting, Ukraine would be occupied and systematically ethnic cleansed. It would cease to exist after a few years.
The difference is obvious to any rational person. To a pro-Russian clown, its clear too, but you just pretend to be stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whats "ethnically friendly regions"? Ethnically Russian? Whats an ethnic Russian? Russia is an empire that has many different ethnicities, and people living in Russia as we know today are mixed slavs and mongols and other ethnicities. Ironically, Ukrainians are truth ethnic Russians, as they are mostly pure slavs that never wondered from the origins of "Russians", Kievan Rus. If anything, Ukrainians have more right to Russia than Russia has to Ukraine. Russia is a national identity, not an ethnicity.
So, I ask, what do you mean by "ethnically friendly regions", theres no way that you would be talking about something you dont know, youve never done that before. So, what do you mean?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The US treats any and all nations based on their power and influence. Russia isnt as powerful as it thinks it is and is upset that the US treats them as exactly what they are, a medium sized country with regional influence, at best. Russia wants to be treated as a near peer to the US, this is just not the case, militarily, economically, demographically, diplomatically, culturally. Russia is simply no where near the US and Russia hates that. But what can you do? Give a small, but loud country more influence than it warrants? If/when Russia becomes as powerful as the US, thats when the US will treat Russia as a world leader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@againstviralmisinformation510 No the video doesnt say that. Zelenskyy's remarks, "playing with the lives of Ukrainian prisoners" and "playing with the feelings of their (POWs) families," are an accusation against Russia for using POWs as a rhetorical weapon.
From Russia's perspective, their claim that Ukrainian POWs were on board the downed plane serves multiple strategic purposes. Firstly, it aims to cast Ukraine in a negative light internationally, potentially portraying them as reckless or inhumane for allegedly downing a plane carrying their own POWs. Secondly, this narrative is intended to instill caution or fear within the Ukrainian military command, influencing their decision making process regarding the targeting of Russian aircraft in the future. By suggesting that future Russian planes might also carry Ukrainian POWs, Russia could be attempting to create a moral and tactical dilemma for Ukraine, potentially deterring them from engaging Russian aircraft.
Thats why in response, Ukraine's statement that they will continue to target military aircraft operates as a counter narrative. It serves to reaffirm their resolve and commitment to defending their airspace against Russian incursions. This statement can be interpreted as a message to Russia, indicating that Ukraine will not be swayed or intimidated by Russia's claims and will continue to exercise their right to self defense. It's a strategic communication aimed at countering the psychological impact of Russia's narrative.
1
-
Minsk Agreement Violations by Russia
1. Russia continued supporting and arming separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine, violating the ceasefire agreement.
2. Despite the agreements, Russia failed to withdraw its heavy weapons from the region.
3. Russia did not ensure Ukrainian control of the border, allowing a continuous flow of weapons, fighters and supplies to the separatists.
4. The agreements called for disarmament of illegal groups and withdrawal of foreign armed formations from Ukraine, which Russia did not enforce.
5. Russia hindered the political settlement process outlined in the agreements, including restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections and special status for certain regions.
6. Russia failed to facilitate unhindered humanitarian access to conflict areas.
7. Russia dishonestly denied being a party to the agreements, falsely presenting itself as a mere facilitator, while in reality controlling the separatist LPR and DPR.
8. The LPR and DPR leaders were not legitimate signatories of the Minsk Agreements and were not recognized as negotiating partners.
9. Ukraine implemented the agreements as far as possible, considering Russia's occupation. It passed laws on special status, amnesty, local elections and constitutional amendments.
10. Russia's demand for local elections before relinquishing control was problematic, as such elections would not be legitimate under international norms and Ukrainian law. Issues also arose regarding the voting rights of displaced citizens and the legitimacy of the "governments" established by Russia’s occupation.
Minsk Agreement Impasse
Ukraine demonstrated a willingness to granting autonomy to the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic DPR within the framework of its constitution. However, this consideration was contingent upon the outcome of the national assembly's vote on NATO membership, a strategic decision pivotal to Ukraine's foreign policy and national security interests.
From Russia's perspective, granting autonomy to the LPR and DPR prior to Ukraine's decision on NATO membership was crucial. Such a sequence of events would allow these regions to influence, negatively, the decision on NATO membership, effectively giving Russia veto power on Ukraine's foreign policy. If we all remember, the leadership of the LPR and the DPR expressed a desire to join Russia. However, Russia declined this request, preferring instead to keep these regions as constitutionally recognized parts of Ukraine specifically to be able to continue to have a vote in the Ukraines National Assembly.
This situation led to a complex impasse. Ukraine, understanding the potential implications of early autonomy for the LPR and DPR, opted to defer this decision until after its national assembly voted on NATO membership. This decision was made in the context of balancing national sovereignty with regional threat Russia imposed
Russia, perceiving this sequence of events as a closing window of opportunity to influence Ukraine's alignment with NATO, reassessed its position regarding the Minsk Agreements. This reassessment ultimately led to the decision to proceed with military action, marking a significant escalation in the conflict and a departure from the previously negotiated frameworks for peace and autonomy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I came to you with no sandals, and I asked you if I could buy your spare sandals and you looked down at my bare feet and said, "sure, Ill help you, they will cost you $10, 000." Sure, I guess youre helping me, but youre also ripping me off. In normal circumstances, id say "no way! $10, 000 for sandals, id never pay that much for sandals." But because im desperate, im begging you to sell me sandals, ill pay $10, 000 no problem. You can even write the contract in English and do the costing in USD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@divyansharora2422 lol why do you feel that all other sources are bogus but those guys are correct? Is it because they always paint a rosy picture of Russia? Doug Macgregor said a week into the invasion that Russia will conquer Ukraine in weeks. A month into the invasion Doug macgregor said that in a matter of a week or two, Russia will regroup and then conquer Ukraine.
He has been wrong about this war from day one, but because he is pro-Russian, you think he "knows what is really going on". Wake up, 7 months into this war, a mobilation, various sackings of generals, sackings of intelligence officials, protests, losses, captured territory lost, I think its safe to say that "what is really going on" is Russia is getting its ass handed to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ajvandelay8318 When it takes 6 months to capture a city, with 10s of thousands of losses, thats struggling. Russia should have conquered Ukraine by now. Otherwise, yes, its a struggle.
Theres no need to go through the same old song and dance, youre very aware of whats going on, forced mobilization in Russia, begging NK and Iran for weapons etc, losing 10k km of captured territory, over 150k casualties, all indicate Russia are struggling. Im sure the Russian MOD have mentioned all that because they would never lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gtaraya Sure, colonialism is a system in which one country or nation seeks to establish and maintain political, economic, and social control over another country or group of people. Exactly what Russia have done for centuries. How do you think they got so big? What do you think Russia are doing this for? Just to topple the government, but after that all Ukranians will be free to decide what their country will be and who they choose to elect? Russia are colonizing Ukraine, to control its people one way or another, to not be free to join the west. Just like they did in Georgia, just like they did in Chechnya, just like they did when they took Crimea from the turks, just like they took the caucuses from the Persians, just like they tried in Afghanistan. Its a colonial empire, built to expand and keep expanding.
NATO knows this, this is why nato exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@junacebedo888 "NATO is a nuclear power. If Ukraine is admitted. Ergo, Zelenskyy will have nukes"
Mere membership in NATO does not grant a country nuclear capabilities. NATO member states without nuclear weapons neither possess nor control these weapons, nor do they have the authority to utilize them. Additionally, they do not host nuclear weapons within their territories. Ergo Ukraine doesn't become a nuclear power
If your argument centers around the idea that Ukraine joining NATO would invoke Article 5 of the alliance if Russia attacked Ukraine, which pertains to collective defense, then you are correct. However, only the United States, United Kingdom and France have the authority to decide the use of their nuclear arsenal. Ergo Zelenskyy will not have nukes.
Historically, NATO has refrained from stationing missiles or troops east of Poland for the past three decades. This practice has remained consistent. Even Estonia, a NATO member for the past 20 years, has not seen the presence of NATO troops stationed within its borders. Russia is well aware of this fact, rendering the notion of their concerns about NATO missiles or troops in Ukraine preposterous. Ergo their invasion of Ukraine is purely for an expansion of their borders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobmorane2082 Im not confusing the two, OP is confusing the two. He said Russia is a superpower. The Soviets were arguably a superpower, but not Russia. Also, regardless of the system of government Russia employs in its history, whether it was a monarchy, communism or an authoritarian pseudo-democracy, its goals and foreign policy have been largely the same.
But Russia IS a socialist country right now.
The state owns all its news channels, the state owns controlling stakes in many of the country's largest mining, energy and military companies.
The state provides a wide range of social programs to its citizens, including healthcare, education and social security.
For all intents and purposes, Russia is a socialist country. Im not going to argue whether socialism or socialist programs are good or bad, it seems you have a problem with socialism, all im saying is that Russia is a socialist country.
1
-
A superpower is a country that has global influence and power in all major spheres, including military, economic, cultural and technological. Russia does not meet any of these criteria.
With regards to Russia not being hegemonistic, this is not true. Russia has and continues to seek dominance and influence over its neighbors. It doesnt have global reach, but this is due to its lack of power so it seems like they are not. But they have applied pressure on its neighbors, directly, indirectly, economically and diplomatically for centuries. If these dont work, they invade. Like in Gerogia, Chennyia, Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Belarus, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Iran, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anuragsinha6521 I never said winning or losing I said win or lose. Russia needs to capture Kyiv to end the war. It cannot end the war by capturing a stip of land to Ukraines south and east because Ukraine will just continue fighting.
But if we measure winning by your understanding, then Ukraine are not demilitarized, they have more weapons and equipment now than they did before the war and is increasing, so demilitarization is off the table. If Russia's objective was regime change, that failed so if their next objective was to create a land bridge to Moldova, that has also failed. If their third objective was as you said, create some land bridge to Crimea. As it stands today, right now, that is the case. And? now they fight Ukraine forever? How do they end the war? They cant, because they need to capture Kyiv to illiminate Ukraine's ability to wage war. Russia knew this, but couldnt capture Kyiv. And even if they do that, Ukrainian partisans would still fight back through guerrilla warfare. Ukrainians will always fight for Ukraine.
Now Russia are holding out for some peace deal, hoping that the west gives up its support for Ukraine. Thats not a winning strategy. If people like Raman were correct that Russia could conquer Ukraine if they wanted to, that implies that Russia could indeed capture Kyiv, but just didn't want to, for some reason chose rather to engage in a protracted, prolonged war of attrition, based on the amount of support the west provides Ukraine, lose money, equipment and troops, then that is an irrational strategy. No country would choose that over capturing the captial and ending the war quickly. No country chooses to end up in a quagmire, hoping for a peace deal.
Ukraine's counter offensives will come when the ground freezes, right now the ground is largely muddy and soft, which goes against Ukraine's fast pace counter attacks. Also, the latest batch of weapons and equipment the west sent supports a fast pace counter attack, it was the same type of weapons they sent right before Ukraine's other 2 successful counter attacks.
1
-
@A.Hunter279 The situation in Ukraine's' eastern regions and Crimea is more nuanced than simply being "pro-Russian." While it's true that a significant Russian speaking population exists in these areas, the notion of their unanimous support for joining Russia just because they spoke Russian is an oversimplification.
Crimea Referendum
The 2014 referendum in Crimea, for instance, was conducted under highly questionable conditions, without international recognition or oversight and in the presence of Russian military forces. This process was illegitimate and a violation of international law, specifically the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The referendum was conducted in a manner that was not only in violation of Ukrainian constitutional processes but also under conditions that did not meet international standards for free and fair elections, to hold that up and say that Crimea now belongs to Russia is being intellectually dishonest and I think you know that.
Regarding the rights of the Russian minority in Ukraine, it is crucial to differentiate between protecting minority rights and using this as a pretext for military aggression. The Minsk Agreements were indeed intended to address some of these issues, but their failure cannot solely be attributed to Ukraine. The agreements called for a ceasefire, withdrawal of illegal armed groups and re-establishing control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. The consistent violations of these terms contributed to the breakdown of the Minsk dialogue.
Minsk Agreement Violations
1. Russia continued supporting and arming separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine, violating the ceasefire agreement.
2. Despite the agreements, Russia failed to withdraw its heavy weapons from the region.
3. Russia did not ensure Ukrainian control of the border, allowing a continuous flow of weapons, fighters and supplies to the separatists.
4. The agreements called for disarmament of illegal groups and withdrawal of foreign armed formations from Ukraine, which Russia did not enforce.
5. Russia hindered the political settlement process outlined in the agreements, including restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections and special status for certain regions.
6. Russia failed to facilitate unhindered humanitarian access to conflict areas.
7. Russia dishonestly denied being a party to the agreements, falsely presenting itself as a mere facilitator, while in reality controlling the separatist LPR and DPR.
8. The LPR and DPR leaders were not legitimate signatories of the Minsk Agreements and were not recognized as negotiating partners.
9. Ukraine implemented the agreements as far as possible, considering Russia's occupation. It passed laws on special status, amnesty, local elections and constitutional amendments.
10. Russia's demand for local elections before relinquishing control was problematic, as such elections would not be legitimate under international norms and Ukrainian law. Issues also arose regarding the voting rights of displaced citizens and the legitimacy of the "governments" established by Russia’s occupation.
Minsk Agreement Failure and Subsequent Invasion
Ukraine demonstrated a willingness to consider granting autonomy to the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic within the framework of its constitution. However, this consideration was contingent upon the outcome of the national assembly's vote on NATO membership, a strategic decision pivotal to Ukraine's foreign policy and national security interests.
From Russia's perspective, granting autonomy to the LPR and DPR prior to Ukraine's decision on NATO membership was crucial. Such a sequence of events would allow these regions to continue to vote in the national assembly, potentially vetoing any decision on NATO membership, aligning with Russia's strategic interests. Effectively giving Russia veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.
The leadership of the LPR and the DPR initially expressed a desire to join Russia. However, Russia strategically declined this request, preferring instead to keep these regions as constitutionally recognized parts of Ukraine. This approach was aimed at maintaining Russia's influence within the Ukrainian political framework, particularly in the national assembly, where the LPR and DPR could potentially exert influence on crucial national decisions, such as Ukraine's stance on NATO membership. When Ukraine recognized the implications of this arrangement and deemed it unacceptable, prioritizing its sovereignty and foreign policy independence, Russia responded by escalating the situation. This escalation manifested in the invasion of Ukraine, marking a significant shift in Russia's approach from covert influence to overt military action.
War Crimes
Concerning the allegations of war crimes, it is undeniable that war crimes are inexcusable, regardless of who commits them. The incidents you mentioned, like the killing of Daria Dugina and Vladen Tatarsky, need thorough investigation and verification. There has been no evidence presented that links the Ukrainian government or its military forces to these specific incidents. The same applies to Ukraine’s alleged bombing of civilian areas. The Donetsk market story emerged from pro-Russian officials in the region. They reported casualties and attributed the attack to Ukrainian forces.
Ukrainian officials denied responsibility for the attack. Independent verification of the incident and attribution of responsibility is ongoing.
Pro-Russian
I find it concerning that a self-declared non-pro russian immediately attributes blame to Ukraine for the alleged bombing of a market in Donetsk without waiting for further facts or an independent investigation. This approach seems to reflect a predisposition to accept the Russian narrative at face value. In conflict zones, especially one as complex as the situation in Ukraine, it's crucial to approach such claims with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to fact finding, given the prevalence of misinformation and propaganda. As someone who prides themselves on maintaining a stance of neutrality and who is not aligned with pro-Russian sentiments, I would naturally presume that a rigorous process of fact-finding underpins the foundation of any claims put forth by you. Disseminating Russian propaganda unwittingly or wittingly is still not neutrality.
Equating the actions of the Ukrainian government with those of the invading Russian forces overlooks the fundamental context of this conflict. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity against an unprovoked invasion. The narrative that Ukraine has adopted tactics mirroring those of Russia requires careful scrutiny and should not be accepted at face value without solid evidence.
Condescension Towards Russia (again)
Invoking Nietzsche's quote about becoming the monster you fight against is poignant, but it's vital to apply this wisdom to all parties involved in the conflict. Your criticism is disproportionately directed at one party, in this case, Ukraine, while seemingly absolving or overlooking the actions of the other, notably Russia. Such a viewpoint, especially when claimed to be neutral, raises questions about the underlying biases and the criteria used to judge each party's actions. Holding one side to a higher standard while neglecting the context of their actions does not reflect true neutrality or a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Also it labels Russia as a monster without saying it.
The approach of holding Ukraine to a higher standard than Russia in this conflict seems to inadvertently convey a form of condescension towards Russia. When alleged atrocities committed by Ukraine are met with calls for higher ethical conduct and quotes from Nietzsche, similar actions by Russia are seemingly overlooked or expected, it implies a different set of standards. This disparity in expectation suggests that Russia, unlike Ukraine, is not capable of, or responsible for, adhering to international norms and moral standards. Such a perspective inadvertently positions Russia as an entity incapable of better judgment or improvement, which is not only condescending but also dismisses the agency and responsibility of a sovereign nation.
1
-
1
-
@A.Hunter279 UN has limitations, particularly due to the veto power in the Security Council, to dismiss it as "powerless" overlooks its role in facilitating diplomatic dialogue, humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping missions. NATO, on the other hand, is a defensive alliance and its involvement in the Ukraine conflict, primarily through support to Ukraine, is a response to what it perceives as a threat to European security and stability. The assertion that NATO is waging a de facto war on Russia by providing weapons to Ukraine is the oversimplification of the pro-Russian narrative. The support is seen as part of the collective defense and a response to an unprovoked invasion.
Its not a de facto war because it fundamentally revolves around Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. A de facto war implies a conflict where both parties are engaged without formal declaration. However, in this case, Russia unilaterally chose to invade Ukraine and Ukraine is defending itself. Russia has the power to end the conflict by withdrawing its troops, which underscores that the continuation of the war is a result of Russia's ongoing choice to occupy another country, not a mutual engagement in warfare.
It was actually Russia who miscalculated its invasion of Ukraine, expecting a quick and decisive victory. This miscalculation led to the current prolonged and frozen conflict, which certainly does not benefit Russia. The prolonged nature of the conflict underscores that Russia underestimated Ukraine's resilience and the extent of international support Ukraine would receive.
Lest we forget the invasion was a unilateral decision made by Russia. As such, the West's subsequent involvement, primarily in the form of support to Ukraine, was a response to this aggression, not a pre-emptive or provoking action. The escalation of the conflict was not something the West calculated; it was a direct consequence of Russia's choice to invade.
The claim that the West sought to defeat Russia in Ukraine to usher in "a new world order" appears to be a misinterpretation of the geopolitical reality. The West already holds significant sway in the global order. The existing international system, with its institutions and norms, largely reflects Western ideals and interests. The notion that the West needed to engage in a proxy or de facto war with Russia to establish a new world order doesn't align with the reality of existing global power structures. Western countries, through their economic, political and military prowess, already play the dominant role in shaping international policies and practices. The idea that Russia, with its comparatively much smaller global influence, needed to be 'out of the way' for the West to achieve further dominance is irrational. Perhaps the new world order is not enough for the west so its trying to establish "a truly global New World Order", or perhaps "a brand new truly global New World Order"? Or maybe "a brand brand new super truly global New World Order."
Regarding the suggestion that western provocation forced Russia's hand, thereby making the West responsible for the invasion, I find this perspective problematic. It essentially absolves Russia of its agency and responsibility as a sovereign state. Treating Russia as merely reactionary, incapable of rational thought and decision making, is not only condescending but also dismisses the principles of state sovereignty and accountability under international law. In the global arena, every country, including Russia, should be viewed as capable of making deliberate choices and being held responsible for those choices.
1) The right to self-defense, indeed, does not guarantee success, but it is a fundamental right of sovereign nations
2) Its good that you acknowledge that Russia and Putin have committed war crimes and its invasion is indeed brutal and illegal.
3) As I explained to you before and the reasons why, any deal that concedes Ukrainian territory to Russia formally is the non-starter, thats never ever going to happen.
The 10-point peace plan is a reasonable proposal that respects the sovereignty of both Ukraine and Russia. Contrary to the view that it imposes harsh terms on Russia, the plan only seeks the end of hostilities, the withdrawal of Russian forces and the respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity, which are standard objectives in such negotiations, if respecting the sovereignty of another country is considered "harsh terms", then that renders the entire concept of state sovereignty obsolete. The literal foundational principle to the idea of the modern nation state and how they interact with each other.
1
-
@A.Hunter279 The outbreak of World War I was indeed a result of a series of escalating events that led to a large scale conflict. However, the current international landscape, particularly the presence of international organizations like the United Nations and alliances such as NATO, are designed to prevent such escalations. These bodies exist to facilitate dialogue and manage conflicts before they reach catastrophic levels.
Regarding the argument that Western leaders and President Zelensky are using speculative arguments to justify the continuation of the war, its important for you and many pro-Russians to understand the principle of self-defense.
Ukraine is exercising its right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of an unprovoked invasion. This isn't about speculation; it's about responding to an ongoing, aggressive act. Negotiations are crucial, but they must be based on the premise of respecting international law and sovereignty. Also you assume that Russia want to negotiate, where did you get that idea from? Ukraine have given Russia a 10-point peace plan already, Russia has rejected it.
Any proposed negotiation or settlement that results in the concession of Ukrainian territory to Russia is untenable and inconsistent with both the constitutional framework of Ukraine and the fundamental tenets of international law. Such an arrangement would not only contravene the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter regarding the inviolability of sovereign borders but would also set a dangerous precedent in international relations, undermining the global legal order established to prevent territorial aggrandizement through force. Its not going to happen so forget about it.
As for the claim that Putin's victory in Ukraine might lead to further aggression in the Baltics or elsewhere, it's not baseless speculation but a concern grounded in the understanding of historical and current geopolitical dynamics. The principle of 'appeasement' as a policy was notably unsuccessful in the lead up to World War II. It's a historical lesson about the risks of not confronting aggression. The concern is not that Putin will necessarily target another country but that unchecked aggression could embolden either Russia or other states to consider similar actions, thereby destabilizing international order.
The claim that there is not a single shred of evidence supporting concerns about further aggression overlooks the pattern of behavior exhibited by Russia in recent years, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. These actions have raised legitimate concerns among neighboring countries and the international community about respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.
1
-
Russia isnt a near peer of the US let alone NATO. Russia peaked in the 70s when it was part of a 16 country coalition called the Soviet Union and even then it was a distant second to the US. Now, being 1/3rd of the soviet union, its not even a regional power.
Having said that, Russia have proven itself to be incapable of rational decisions and is aggressive, incompetent and paranoid, so this means their cost benefit analysis can be out of whack and so end up invading countries that they have no ability to succeed, which usually ends up in catastrophic consequences for them. See WW1, Afghanistan and now Ukraine.
The fact that NATO is 26 times the size of Russia economically and possess vast financial reserves and access to capital markets, the fact that NATO's military budget is 17 times larger than Russia's, and has a significant numerical and technological advantage over Russia military and the fact NATO has over double the military manpower Russia has, Russia are irrational and stupid enough to still invade a NATO country.
Having said all that, NATO is just a defensive pact on paper, its really just smoke and mirrors to deter Russian aggression. Theres no way that NATO members will hand in hand, come to each others rescue if Russia invaded someone. Turkey isnt going to send troops to help Sweden etc. NATO will probably trip over each others feet and undermine each other before they uniformly act against Russia.
Minus the US, NATO is just a collection of very small, pacifist nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sunilsilva8204 The US and the west didn't supply Ukraine with weapons until weeks after Russia invaded. The US thought, as everyone else, that Ukraine would fall in a matter of days, when Ukraine repelled Russia, the weapons started being delivered.
Of those 30 countries, a handful have supplied Ukraine with a handful of equipment. Ukraine was only sent 6 HIMARS for the first 3-4 months. No planes, some old soviet tanks, Ukraine have been supplied the bare minimum.
Its also not 20% annexed. First of all, Russia already occupied Crimea and half the Donbas, so in 10 months, they only "annexed" 10% at best. Second of all, Ukraine liberated about 10% of that, which means Russia have only managed to capture 5% of Ukraine in 10 months. And they are losing territory every day.
Also you fail to mention all the drones and missiles Iran has given Russia, all the ammunition North Korea sent Russia and all the supplies China has given Russia. Yes, Russia is isolated, but those 3 nations have supplied Russia with ample equipment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peace talks means Russia wants territory, Ukrainians don't want that. If peace talks means Russia withdrawing troops then that's great. But then, what about reparations? Does Russia have to pay? What about war crimes investigations, Russia will want to be absolved of any war crimes investigations. What about Ukraine's neutrality? Do they remain neutral, and if so, how do they defend themselves if/when Russia violate those peace agreements. Are Ukraine allowed to defend themselves? If so, what is permitted, are they allowed to stock up on western weapons, missiles, tanks, rocket launches etc. What are Russia guarantees they won't violate the agreement?
Many things need to be ironed out and they are nowhere near close to any of these issues. Plus, Russia currently have troops occupying Ukrainian territory, its kinda hard to negotiate a peace deal when there is troops in your country. Once Russia withdraws their troops or Ukraine pushes them out, that's the best time to negotiate
I'm sorry about your aunts eye. wrong medications can happen, it sucks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hatchxable Firstly, the notion that the Ukrainian counter offensive has "failed miserably" does not accurately capture the complexity of warfare, especially in a scenario like the one in Ukraine. Military operations, particularly defensive ones against a larger aggressor, are measured not just by the amount of territory gained but also by strategic objectives met, such as degrading the enemy's capabilities, fortifying defenses and maintaining national cohesion under extreme pressure. Western weapons have been extraordinarily effective in the face of a numerically superior adversary.
Regarding territorial gains, Ukraine has successfully recaptured more than half of the areas initially occupied by Russia. This progress became possible after Ukraine received its first batches of Western military aid, which was basically old HIMARS systems. Despite being technology from the 1990s, Russia struggled to counter these systems, underscoring the advancements in military technology over the past three decades. Also, its important to know that the military support provided by the West represents only a fraction of its full capabilities, with Ukraine accessing older variants of sophisticated weaponry such as the Abrams tanks and lacking access to the most advanced Western military assets like F-35 jets, B-2 bombers, Tomahawk missiles, Aegis combat systems, advanced drones, JASSM missiles, warships and submarines etc.
It's interesting your double standard in how the territories are described though: areas taken by Ukraine are "villages with cows and farmers," while Russian gains are inflated to "heavily fortified Ukrainian strategic towns." This bias makes it hard to take you seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
NATO weapons are superior in every single way, in every scenario. Only 3rd world countries, failed states and african despots buy Russian weapons and even then, its only small arms.
But its not just about weapon systems, its about the soldiers operating those systems. NATO forces, with their emphasis on regular, rigorous training and strong logistical support, ensure that their equipment, ranging from personal firearms to advanced jet fighters, remains superior.
Sorry Ivan, but not this time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Youve covered all your bases there Jason. Thats a water tight argument.
I hereby affirm my agreement with above statement made by Jason Brown, while simultaneously absolving any and all responsibility or liability with regard to any future statements made by the aforementioned Jason Brown.
I acknowledge that the statement made by Jason Brown may contain assertions, opinions, or claims that could be potentially controversial, disputable, or otherwise subject to differing interpretations.
I expressly acknowledge and accept that, by agreeing with the Statement made by Jason Brown, I absolve any and all consequences, legal or otherwise, that may arise from my decision to align myself with the position espoused in the aforementioned statement.
Being of sound mind and having had an ample opportunity to carefully consider the implications of my agreement with Jason Browns above statement, hereby release, discharge and hold harmless myself, my affiliates, agents, representatives, employees and successors from any claims, demands, suits, actions, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, costs, expenses, damages, or losses of any kind, whether direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, or otherwise, whether known or unknown, arising out of or in connection with any future statements made by Jason Brown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adventureswithlils4331 So, normally second hand equipment, in the end of its life cycle, costs less, is less valuable, holds less value, than brand new equipment.
If I need a car, and you have an old 1996 mitsubishi Lancer in your garage and I ask sell me your car, I need one. And you say sure, its going to cost you the equivalent of a brand new 2023 Lancer, whos ripping off who? But, if you sell me your car for its value, then everyone has a fair deal and nobody is being ripped off.
Also, the US isnt being charged more, the equipment that is being sent to Ukraine is equipment that was earmarked for destruction. It costs more to destroy old equipment than to send it to Ukraine.
1
-
@davidcox9674 Your analysis is profoundly flawed, with each point you make veering further away from accuracy.
Let us begin with NATO's involvement in Ukraine. While it is true that NATO has made efforts to integrate Ukraine's military into its doctrine, your claim that this was driven by an intention to engage in a war with Russia is simply erroneous. In reality, NATO offered President Zelensky a means of evacuation from Kyiv on the day of the Russian invasion, indicating that NATO had no intention of providing direct support to Ukraine and expected it to fall.
Youre correct that NATO's assessment of the situation proved to be a miscalculation. They believed that Russia would swiftly overthrow the Ukrainian government, underestimating the sheer incompetence and lack of preparedness on Russia's part.
NATO's strategy was to assist Ukraine up to a certain point, carefully avoiding actions that could be perceived by Russia as an escalation. Admittedly, this strategy has proven to be flawed. In hindsight, NATO should have deployed ground forces immediately after the invasion and establish a no-fly zone if necessary.
Contrary to your assertion, NATO has not sent its best weapon systems to Ukraine. The weapons provided have been outdated and near the end of their life cycle. It is unclear where you obtained the notion that NATO deployed their top-of-the-line equipment.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the United States does not even utilize the HIMARS system, making it surprising how effectively it was employed. The reality is that Ukraine did not receive tanks, advanced aircraft, long missiles, naval support, or the vast majority of NATO's equipment.
The sanctions are working and will be increasing. Russia's economy has shrunk and will continue to shrink for some time. Then it will stagnate for decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madmantheory5216 I enjoy these childish analogies by the pro-Russian clowns. They like to simplify geopolitics to animals and bears.
The reality is, the US alone could take care of Russia in Ukraine in a matter of weeks. Russia knows this and the US knows this, the reason why NATO hasn't gone in is because it will destroy Russia and then Russia will be forced to use nukes, which then NATO would be forced to use nukes. We dont want that. It is the reason why Russia has never attacked a NATO country, its the reason why that even though the US has sent billions of dollars worth of equipment, Russia has said nothing and have done nothing about it.
Putin is a madman but he knows who the top dog is and he knows very well he doesnt want a piece of the US. Besides, the US is more concerned with its equal, China. Russia is not US equal and is not a threat to US hegemony, China is.
Since you enjoy animal analogies, ill give you one, Russia is like a pestering little dog biting at our ankles. Annoying, yes. But never a threat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukraine joining nato is a threat to Russia insofar as Russia cannot invade Ukraine, so invaded now. Russia knows a nato Ukraine isnt a threat to them, as nato has been already at Russia's border with Estonia and Latvia, not to mention Lithuania for 20 years and they are closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than Ukraine and there hasnt been any security issues.
Putin wants to expand its borders and expand westward into Europe. It wants to expand its borders up to and including parts of Moldova. It wants to reunify with Belarus and then expand into parts of Poland. Poland knows what Putin's plans are that's why they are ramping up defense spending.
"Ukraine peace can only be carried out on Russian terms" - This is absurd, what is Ukraine in this? Nothing? Russia has security concerns, albeit bogus and unreasonable, but what about Ukraines security concerns? Why do you want to ignore their security? They neighbor Russia which is a larger military power which has in the past been aggressive towards its neighbors. AND already invaded them. So how does Ukraine gain assurances that Russia won't just invade again? What mechanisms can be put in place for that not to happen? Since we know Russia wants Ukraine, how can we stop this diplomatically? The answer is of course, Ukraine joining NATO. Im not sure if you want peace or if you want Russia to expand, if you want peace then Ukraine joining nato equalizes the power balance between Russia and Ukraine. Therefore creating peace, as russia will not attack a nato country and nato will not attack russia.
1
-
1
-
@A.Hunter279 Lets acknowledge the strategic misstep Germany made by becoming overly reliant on Russian energy. This dependency not only exposed Germany to geopolitical risks but also compromised its sovereignty in energy matters. No country should place itself in such a vulnerable position; history is replete with examples where over-dependency on a single foreign energy source leads to significant geopolitical and economic consequences. Germany's situation serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of entangling critical national infrastructure and manufacturing with geopolitical adversaries. The repercussions of this dependency were starkly revealed when Russia used energy supplies as a geopolitical lever (multiple times), especially during times of tension. Over a period of 15 years, Germany not only neglected to address its excessive dependence on Russian energy but, in a display of naivety, further intensified this reliance by significantly expanding its energy imports from Russia
Your point about the economic model of Germany being based on the availability of cheap energy is well taken. The reliance on cheap Russian gas did indeed make German industries more competitive globally. However, the transition away from Russian energy, while challenging, is not insurmountable for Germany. The country's prowess in high tech manufacturing, education and medicine positions it well to adapt to these new circumstances. German ingenuity and resilience should not be underestimated in finding sustainable and diversified energy solutions that can support its economic model without compromising national security or sovereignty.
The disruption faced by grain farmers in Poland and France can be directly attributed to Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain shipments. This action by Russia has significantly impacted the agricultural sectors of these countries by flooding their markets with cheap Ukrainian grain, unable to reach its traditional global markets due to the blockade. This situation arises not from any legitimate grievances Russia may claim against Ukraine or the West, including issues related to "NATO expansion" or other purported concerns. Instead, the blockade and its consequences are an unnecessary, but strategic move by Russia.
I agree the ideal solution involving a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine and the establishment of a democratic government in Russia is undoubtedly desirable.
1
-
@A.Hunter279 I agree with the perspective that the EUs immigration policies have had adverse impacts on societal and criminal stability. The open-door policies adopted by countries such as Sweden, Germany and France have introduced significant challenges in integrating individuals who may not fully align with liberal-democratic values, leading to heightened tensions within these societies.They will have those problems for generations. EUs immigration policies can be seen as precarious, underscoring a broader critique of its naivety in geopolitical matters. For instance, the EU's response to the Russian threat, especially after the illegal annexation of Crimea, highlighted a lack of strategic foresight. Despite the evident aggression, Germany notably increased its trade relations with Russia, reflecting a broader European difficulty in recognizing and addressing long-term threats effectively. The EU are like children, if the US turns its back on them for 5 minutes, they end up wandering off into traffic and we have to chase after them before its too late.
It is conceivable to ponder the extent to which, without US leadership, their integration with Russia might have deepened over time. Such a trajectory could have seen them approaching a level of union where the distinction between the two entities blurred, virtually rendering them indistinguishable from one another.
1
-
Jee wizz, not another anti-western, pro-Russian analysis that places all the blame on the west and absolves Russia of any wrongdoing. Why am I not surprised?
Firstly, let's clarify that NATO and the EU, while they share some member states, are distinct entities with different purposes and policies. NATO is a defensive military alliance, while the EU is primarily an economic and political union. The argument that NATO generals are being forced into a position of conflict due to EU aid to Ukraine conflates the roles and responsibilities of these two organizations.
Regarding the obligation to support Ukraine, it is not just a matter of formal alliances. The international community, including EU countries, has a broader commitment to uphold international law and support sovereign nations' territorial integrity. The aggression against Ukraine is a violation of these principles. Therefore, support for Ukraine transcends NATO obligations and aligns with a broader commitment to international norms and the defense of democratic sovereignty.
The depiction of Ukraine's military efforts and strategy is also overly simplistic and pessimistic. While it's true that there have been challenges and setbacks, Ukraine has demonstrated significant resilience and tactical adaptability. The characterisation of Ukraine's actions as "terrorism" is a misrepresentation that ignores the context of a nation defending its sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion.
The discussion about Hungary and the EU's relationship with its member states overlooks the foundational principles of the EU. The EU operates on a consensus basis, and its actions, especially in foreign policy, are the result of agreements among member states. It's not a question of tyranny or unelected bureaucrats imposing decisions; rather, it's a collective stance taken by member states through a democratic process.
Lastly, the idea that the EU and NATO are "pouring gasoline on a fire" by supporting Ukraine ignores the broader implications of not supporting Ukraine. If international norms and the sovereignty of nations can be so easily violated without a significant response, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further instability and conflict in the future. The support for Ukraine is not just about this specific conflict but about upholding a world order based on rules and mutual respect among nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@district5198 It is not well documented, as there was no agreement to document. No news article, no speech, no anything.
Who made the promise on behalf of 28 NATO members security? Who made the promise on behalf of US national security? Any such agreement would not be promised over tea between two people.
Such agreements are negotiated for months, if not years and then signed.
The closest thing to an agreement was the NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, states that NATO and Russia "will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in Europe, based on the principles of democracy and cooperation." The act also states that NATO "will not deploy significant combat forces permanently in the territories of any new members." Which NATO abided by up until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Despite the lack of evidence, Putin has continued to repeat the claim that NATO promised not to expand to the east. This claim has been used by Russia to justify its military interventions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014). It is also used by Russia to justify its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
There is no evidence that NATO ever made a promise not to expand to the east. Putin's claim to the contrary is a baseless pretext for Russia's aggressive actions towards its neighbors, nothing more.
Not to mention, once again, Gorbachev has repeatedly said that there was no promise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A.Hunter279 They didnt form a single state, the Russian empire, as many empires did, ruled over many regions/kingdoms/domains etc. The Roman Empire, for example, was made up of many different regions and ethnicities. Italy was at the top of the regional hierarchy. Other regions in the empire, such as Germany, were lower down the hierarchy. However, even though Germany was lower down the hierarchy, it was still a distinct region with its *own culture and identity*.
Much like the Russian empire, it ruled over Ukraine, a distinct region with its *own culture and identity*.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harryjeff2039 Its true that NATO had all the chance to enter this war, justified, but chose caution. For a couple of reasons; 1, theres no need, Ukraine are doing a good enough job weakening Russia permanently and 2. If NATO enters the war, Russia can say truthfully, its Russia vs NATO, which could garner more support at home. The fact NATO didnt enter this war also refutes Putins claim that NATO is a threat to Russia. When given the chance, NATO chose peace.
Also, lets be clear, if NATO enters the war, they will destroy Russian forces to the point where Russia may be forced to use nukes. Personally, I would like NATO to finally slap down that short arrogant clown. Russia are arrogant and need to be brought down to earth. But perhaps their failure in Ukraine will be enough. No need for NATO to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia's actions in Eastern Ukraine violated the agreed-upon ceasefire. They provided support and weapons to separatist groups, which went against the terms of the agreement.
Russia did not follow through on the requirement to remove heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine as outlined in the Minsk agreements.
There was a lack of effort from Russia to ensure that the Ukrainian border was under Ukrainian control. This allowed for the continuous flow of weapons, fighters, and supplies to the separatist groups.
The Minsk agreements called for the disarmament of illegal groups and the withdrawal of foreign armed formations and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory. However, Russia failed to disarm the separatist groups and prevent the influx of foreign fighters and weapons into Ukraine.
The agreements also laid out a political settlement process, including the restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections, and granting special status to certain regions. Russia obstructed the implementation of these political provisions and did not pressure the separatists to comply.
Furthermore, the agreements emphasized the importance of humanitarian access to the conflict areas. However, Russia did not facilitate full and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to civilians in need.
Originally, the Minsk agreements were signed by Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Russia, being a significant player in the Ukrainian conflict, had a clear responsibility to honor the terms of the deal. However, Russia denied being a party to the agreements and portrayed itself as a facilitator, which was dishonest. In reality, Russia supplied and controlled the separatist groups.
The so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples' Republics (LPR and DPR) were not considered legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. Their leaders added their signatures after Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE had already signed the agreements. Ukraine would not have signed if their signatures were part of the deal. Russia was solely in control of the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine made efforts to implement the Minsk Agreements to the best of its ability, despite Russia's continued occupation of its territory. Ukraine took legislative action, passing and extending laws to address the requirements such as granting special status, amnesty, local elections, and constitutional amendments.
However, the main obstacle to implementing the political measures was Russia's control over the territory. Russia insisted on local elections before relinquishing control, which posed problems as elections held under occupation would not be internationally recognized. Moreover, Russia demanded elections for positions that were not legitimate under Ukrainian law and were created by Russia's occupation. These matters needed resolution under international supervision rather than being dictated by Russia.
Ukraine was willing to grant autonomy to the LPR and DPR under the Ukrainian constitution, but only after the national assembly voted to join NATO, which Russia opposed. Russia wanted Ukraine to grant autonomy before the NATO vote, so that the LPR and DPR could vote against it, as they had the power to do so. Russia didn't want the LPR and DPR to join Russia because it would forfeit its veto power in the national assembly. Knowing this, Ukraine did not grant autonomy before the NATO vote. At that point, Russia canceled the Minsk Agreements and decided to invade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Jeff, If Russia launches nukes on its enemies, those enemies will launch their nukes as well. This would cause devastating destruction for Russia's enemies and Russia. The entire world's economy would collapse, global famine would last decades, if not centuries and billions of people would die around the world. This includes whatever 3rd world country you live in. It would send the world into the dark ages, and although you functionally live in the dark ages already, your life, your families life, your country, would collapse as well, even if it survived any nuclear fallout directly.
All the best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ikaustralia Russia invaded Ukraine with a fighting force of between 150K to 200K soldiers. Consisting of tanks, planes, helicopters, supports vehicles, artillery and special forces. They made a 3 pronged advance towards Kyiv, they made the outskirts of Kyiv but ran out of supplies, gas, food and ammo. They only brought 3 days worth. There was a 40 mile tank column that were sitting ducks, Russia lost 40K soldiers in around a month, they were forced to withdraw, regroup and transport the remaining soldiers to the east (which Ukraine recaptured later) and the south.
Our pro-Russian friends said that withdrawal was a "goodwill gesture" seemingly to save face for Russia's complete incompetence. Some other pro-Russian friends said the advance on Kyiv was a "feint", as "distraction" for their real targets in the east (which Ukraine recaptured later) and the south. As we know, militaries dont feint with 100K soldiers. Militaries dont sacrifice their special forces, their most elite fighting force for a "feint" and militaries dont lose 40K troops for a "feint".
This just happened 17 months ago.
To your other post talking tough on behalf of Russia. The only country that wants a peace deal is Russia, not Ukraine. So, no, Ukraine will not "take what Russia will offer". 17 months, 50% of Russia's military eliminated and over 300K Russian soldiers dead should have made that obvious
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Endeavor-jp5it Germany's economy is 2 times larger than Russia with half the population and 47 times less landmass.
Germany has a higher life expectancy than Russia, lower infant mortality rate, higher literacy rate, higher GDP per capita, doctors per capita, hospital beds per 1,000 people, better human rights, better social mobility, better education, larger trade partner to more countries, better innovation, free media.
Germany is better than Russia in every social, cultural, economic, medical, technological, political and environmental indicator there is.
Russia has is a nothing country and is now a vassal of China. So Im not too sure what your point is exactly, Germany should be more like Russia?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thewho5786 Nope. For many decades, Crimea's elections had a pro-Russian party, which platform was to reunite with Russia, it never received more than 4% of the vote. Why then, after Russia held the elections, unsupervised, unconstitutionally and by force, all of a sudden received 98%?
It was a sham referendum. Just like how Kherson received 98% pro Russia, then when Ukraine liberated it, we saw all the people come out and celebrate Ukraine liberating them.
Its a sham, its made up by Russia. Its to annex territory
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hotpot2137 lol Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin about 1 month into the war, where Russia made its move but was forced to retreat. Putin refused.
Macron spoke to Putin about peace negotiations about 2 months into the war, where Russia were making gains, Putin refused because he wanted more land.
After years of bombing, shelling, invading, capturing, conquering, annexing, imprisoning, fighting, killing and torturing, at some point you will have to come to the conclusion that perhaps Putin doesn't want to negotiate?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How utterly impressed I am by your ostensible enlightenment and dazzling intellect. It is quite apparent that no one can possibly outsmart you or deceive you, for you are far too clever to be duped.
I must confess, however, that I am left pondering the incongruity of a man of such lofty enlightenment and intelligence indulging in the trivial pursuit of perusing YouTube videos, let alone gracing them with your commentary. Your verbiage, while certainly abundant, appears to be nothing more than a vacuous word salad, serving only to conceal your patent intellectual deficiencies. Might I suggest that there is no need to compensate so overtly, particularly when your message is devoid of any semblance of coherence and relevance.
Exercise restraint in your linguistic contortions and try to refrain from propagating further pointless, unnecessary and delusional utterances, lest you risk exposing your already conspicuous intellectual and physical shortcomings. Just a pro-tip
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rasheedh7043 The comparison between the lend-lease aid to the USSR and their military losses suffered is not meaningful.
But, if we go by my numbers, which is not complete, and we go by your numbers, the percentage of aid to losses is not 5%, its 211%.
Aid total (my numbers) = 510,675
Losses (your numbers) = 241,022
(510,675 / 241,022) x 100 = 211.9%
That's quite a significant percentage of aid to losses.
Now of course, the percentage of aid to losses is meaningless, but it seems to hold weight to you, and even then, by a matter of percentage, is significant.
Long story short, without the US, Soviet Union would be speaking German. Also the Ukrainians made up a significant amount of troops and equipment.
So without Ukraine and the US, Russia is just a twin city garbage heap, with a lot of peasants to plough the fields and throw bodies at German fox holes.
The aid given to Great Britain was a significant amount too, im not sure what your point is, are you trying to say thank you or?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@murifedontrun3363 The Minsk agreements were never abided by Russia in the first place. And dont forget, the Minsk agreements were ceasefire agreements that, neither followed and doesnt absolve Russia's invasion of Crimea and funding, equipping and directing the rebels in the first place.
Youre focusing on Minsk, you should be focusing on Russia's invasion of Crimea, which was the first act of aggression. Everything after that has been Ukraine trying to defend itself.
Also, at the time of Russia's invasion of Crimea, there wasnt any application to join NATO, and as im sure youre aware, joining NATO is a political and bureaucratic nightmare, which would have taken Ukraine a decade to join. There were no threats to join NATO, the issue was joining EU, which would have taken just as long, but is an economic union, not a security threat to Russia.
By the way, you consider nato a security threat to Russia, ok, and Russia is a security threat to Ukraine. So why are Ukraine not allowed to pursue their interests and security? Every country has a right to improve their security and doing so isnt a threat to Russia insofar as Russia cannot invade Ukraine at their choosing. Nothing Ukraine did pre and post 2014 was a threat to, or an act of aggression towards Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bololollek9245 Unprovoked, Russia violated the Budapest agreements in 2014 by invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea. Unprovoked, they started funding and training the separatist rebels in the donbass, continuing and fueling a conflict with Ukraine. Minsk II agreements, Russia never abided by the ceasefire, capturing a city right after it was signed, among other violations first.
The Minsk II agreements stipulated that the sepretasts will gain autonomy, which Ukraine accepted, but Russia wanted the autonomous region to have a vote in the national government, effectively giving Russia the power to veto Kyivs foreign policy choices, IE joining NATO, it was a trojan horse that obviously the Ukrainians didnt fall for. Ukraine wanted to vote on NATO membership before granting donbass autonomy, which Russia obviously didnt like and so Russia, unable to trick the Ukrainians, invaded.
You are under the impression that Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine violated an agreement. Russia invaded because they want to expand their borders westwards. They wont stop at Ukraine either, they will go straight through to Moldova and parts of Romania. Forget about Misk 2 you sound like a fool for even mentioning it, like even if Ukraine violated it, somehow it justifies another country to invade it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Kinzhal, despite common belief, do not actually hit their targets at hypersonic speeds. This assumption is misleading. Most hypersonic vehicles, like the Kinzhal, achieve hypersonic velocity at burnout speed. Burnout speed refers to the point when the engines stop firing during the peak of their ballistic trajectory.
The misconception arises from the incorrect notion that the main purpose of a hypersonic missile is to strike the target at hypersonic speed. However, the true advantage lies in the ability of a hypersonic vehicle to reach the target swiftly, faster than any conventional weapon. However, Russia launches the Kinzhals from known aircraft that are tracked by US and Ukraine intelligence, which means Ukraine's air-defense is ready by the time the Kinzhal reaches Kyiv and has entered its glide stage, which is not hypersonic.
No object can maintain hypersonic speeds within the lower atmosphere near the Earth's surface. The thick atmosphere causes immense friction that rapidly heats up the object to extreme temperatures, leading to its vaporization.
Im not too sure why my pro-russian friends and colleagues are very adamant that Ukraine havent shot down the Kinzhal. You still have the myth of the Poseidon and Sarmat to keep dangling over every argument that ends with the US would wipe the floor with Russia in a conventional war without question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@D-E-S_8559 Have you ever heard of the European Space Agency? Take a look at their accomplishments.
But as it still stands, the Russian Federation have yet to achieve anything of substance in space.
European Space Agency:
1. The Ariane 5 rocket. The Ariane 5 is a heavy-lift launch vehicle that was developed by ESA and is operated by Arianespace. It is the world's most powerful operational launch vehicle and has been used to launch a wide variety of satellites, including the International Space Station (ISS).
2. The Mars Express and Venus Express missions. These missions were launched by ESA to study the planets Mars and Venus, respectively. The Mars Express mission has provided valuable information about the Martian atmosphere, surface, and subsurface. The Venus Express mission has studied the atmosphere and surface of Venus, which is the hottest planet in our solar system.
3. The SMART-1 mission. This mission was launched by ESA to test cutting-edge space propulsion technology. The SMART-1 mission was the first spacecraft to use an electric propulsion system to travel to the Moon.
4. The Gaia mission. This mission is a space observatory that is mapping the Milky Way galaxy. Gaia has already made many discoveries, including finding new planets and stars.
5. The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter. This mission is designed to search for signs of life on Mars. The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter has been in orbit around Mars since 2016 and is currently studying the Martian atmosphere for signs of methane, a gas that could be produced by living organisms.
6. The BepiColombo mission. This mission is a joint project of ESA and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). It is designed to study Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. BepiColombo is scheduled to arrive at Mercury in 2025.
7. The James Webb Space Telescope. ESA is a major partner in the James Webb Space Telescope, which is the largest and most powerful space telescope ever built. The James Webb Space Telescope is designed to study the early universe and the formation of stars and galaxies.
8. The Galileo navigation system. Galileo is a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) that is being developed by ESA. Galileo will provide accurate and reliable positioning, navigation, and timing services to users all over the world.
These are just a few
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Russia fail in their bid to conquer Ukraine, and when their economy collapses, and when Putin "retires", Russia will need to be accepted back into the international community. Calling this war Putin's war and Putin's attack, puts the blame on Putin and not the Russian people.
Personally, there are enough brainwashed arrogant Russians living in Russia to put the blame on them as well, however when you live in an autocracy, with only one media, which is the government, its understandable that the population wouldn't know any better, and technically, isn't their fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ahhh, the old feint strategy. Just like how Russias play for Kyiv was only a feint. Same with the Kharkiv retreat, that was also to lure Ukraine closer to Russia's border. And Izium, that was also to lure Ukraine closer to Russia's border. Same with Kherson. Wow, i get it now. Hey maybe Russia can "lure" Ukraine all the way back to the 2014 borders and call it a win eh?
If my general said to me, hey boss, we control a city but lets give it up so we can bomb their troops, id say, why not keep the city and bomb them from there?
Its a loss mate. Russia are retreating because Ukraine are pushing them back. Its not a lure, its not a feint, its not a strategy. Its a loss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThizzyMan In a war of attrition, the exchange loss ratio is the measure of the casualties both sides suffer. The attacking side historically has a higher exchange loss ratio, because they are the ones that have to push positions whilst the defending side is fortified.
Throughout history, this is true:
Battle of Gallipoli, the attacking Allied forces suffered heavy casualties and had a much higher exchange loss ratio compared to the defending side
Battle of the Somme, the attacking British and French forces suffered heavy casualties and had a much higher exchange loss ratio compared to the defending German forces
Battle of Iwo Jima, the attacking American forces suffered heavy casualties and had a higher exchange loss ratio compared to the defending Japanese forces
In vietnam, the attacking US forces had a higher exchange loss ratio compared to the defending North Vietnamese. Throughout history, the attacking side losses more, about 4:1 but can be higher. Russia is no different, especially when the fighting takes place where ukraine has heavily fortified positions, like Bakhmut.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You started off well. Youre half right, US used WMDs as a false pretext to invade Iraq. Russia are using nato bases, nazis and biolabs as a false pretext to invade Ukraine. This isnt a new concept, countries have been doing that for centuries. Russia are no different.
A few facts that need to be aware of. There are no NATO bases on Russia's border. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all NATO members for 20 years and border Russia dont have NATO bases in them. They dont even have NATO troops stationed out of respect to Russia's concerns. That was an understanding. Ukraine joining nato, which wouldn't have happened for 10 years, wouldn't have had nato bases or nato troops or nato missiles in them, the same as all nato countries bordering Russia. Russia of course knows this.
Russia wants to expand eastward into Europe, it wants to take all of Ukraine, parts of Moldova, then eventually parts of Poland.
With the US, yes we did invade Iraq, and that shouldnt have happened. But countries invade other countries for power and security and at least the US model is never to annex land but to create a democracy in that country. We did it in Germany, we did it in Japan, we did it in Iraq and we did it in Afghanistan. Now of course, the people in those countries need to want democracy otherwise we have what happened in Afghanistan, but the point remains. Russia invades countries not to give them democracy, they invade them to take their land. Why do you think Russia has so much land?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ajaykumarsingh702 Nope, It was a republic that was a founding member if the USSR, and when they wanted to be independent of the USSR in 1991, that was the collapse of the USSR. Because they made up a part of the USSR. I'm not going to argue history with you. We can argue philosophy or our tastes in music, but history is history.
With regards to your Ukraine never existed:
The Cossack Hetmanate was a semi-autonomous polity in Ukraine that existed from the 16th to the 18th centuries. The Cossacks were a group of free people who lived in Ukraine and fought against the Polish and Russian empires. In the 18th century, the Cossack Hetmanate was eventually conquered by Russia.
The Koliivshchyna Rebellion was a peasant uprising in Ukraine in 1768. The rebellion was sparked by Russian attempts to impose Orthodox Christianity and Rusify the Ukrainian people. The rebellion was eventually crushed by Russian forces, but it showed the growing Ukrainian desire for independence.
The Ukrainian National Revival was a period of increased Ukrainian nationalism in the 19th century. The revival was sparked by a number of factors, including the rise of Romanticism, the growth of literacy, and the development of a Ukrainian national identity. The Ukrainian National Revival led to a number of cultural and political movements that sought to promote Ukrainian independence.
Ukraine has always existed as a culture and people distinct from Russia and have fought, albeit unsuccessfully for its independence for centuries. Yes, Russia has been more powerful so they manage to quell any uprising, but that doesn't negate the fact Ukraine have been a functioning, separate identity, culture and society to Russia which has fought, when given the chance, for their independence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moiseshuerta3984 The US sent USSR 12,700 tanks, 18,700 aircraft, 375,900 trucks, 51,000 jeeps, over 10,000 artillery, howitzers and anti-tank guns. Millions of artillery shells and tank rounds. The US also sent food, clothing and other essential supplies. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HegelsOwl It is with great trepidation that I undertake the task of addressing your writing ability, communication skills and basic spelling, which leave much to be desired. The tangential and rambling nature of your comments, coupled with leaps in logic, fallacies and irrelevant points, render reading them a veritable nightmare. However, owing to your inflated sense of self-importance, which is Dunning-Kruger personified, I feel compelled, on behalf of those who lack the interest to engage with you, to rectify the numerous factual inaccuracies that you have inundated everyone with. I have no doubt that few, if any, made it past your opening sentence.
Let me begin by asserting that your claim that Russia's invasion force was "ridiculously inadequate" for taking Ukraine and therefore not an invasion is not supported by evidence. Russia's initial fighting force was the largest in Europe since World War II and it was armed with their state-of-the-art weapons. Furthermore, it has annexed Crimea and parts of Ukraine proper, which incontrovertibly constitutes an invasion.
Moreover, your assertion that Russia's SMO has not been upgraded to a more aggressive status is utterly false. Russia has declared martial law in several regions of Ukraine, mobilized forced conscripts en masse and procured millions of shells and ammunition from various nations. Additionally, it has increased military spending by a staggering 60% and directed its economic chiefs to gear Russia's economy towards the invasion. The government has even enacted policies, such as tax breaks for companies involved in the defense industry and a law mandating that all companies produce goods and services to satisfy the military demands of the invasion, even if it means disrupting their normal operations. These actions evince that Russia has escalated and expanded its invasion of Ukraine to its fullest extent, short of mobilizing every man, woman and child.
Your claim that Russia's SMO is merely a "policing action" intended to demilitarize Ukraine is unsupported by evidence. Russia has repeatedly attacked civilian targets in Ukraine and shown no interest in negotiating a ceasefire, annexed territory, and, as previously stated, continually escalated the invasion. Moreover, Ukraine is better armed now than before the invasion, and NATO has added more members. If it were merely a policing operation, it has failed miserably.
Your assertion that Ukraine can only win the war if Russia collapses is illogical and fallacious. Ukraine is receiving significant military and financial assistance from the West and has liberated more territory in six months than Russia has occupied. Additionally, there are other ways for Ukraine to triumph, such as Russia withdrawing its troops, losing on the battlefield, or running out of money and manpower to continue the invasion. It need not collapse, although I'm certain that many would concur that this would be the most desirable outcome.
While your post contained several other incorrect claims, they were lost amidst the gibberish that permeated it. Nonetheless, I must commend you for one thing, the ability to waste my time once again.
I trust that you will find this missive both instructive and humbling.
Yours sincerely,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@varvik4992 Its not an alliance. Theres no constitution, theres no structure in place. It is a loose association of countries. If another country wants to join, what would that even mean? Would there be a vote? No, there wouldn't be a vote, because theres no structure in place to hold votes or to make decisions for that matter. This lack of formal structure has made it difficult to make progress on most issues, such as trade liberalization (which is the fundamental reason of its existence).
BRICS is smoke and mirrors, its not a structure, theres no agreements that the countries need to ratify or sign. Its a nothing.
Regarding 20% trade, im talking about intra-trade, trade among the BRICS nations with each other. It only accounts for 10% of their total trade, of which the other close to 90% is with western nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah most of that is replenishing stocks that it has used up already. Just remember that Russia's industries are at its full capacity, they have passed laws forcing industries to provide for the war effort. Its entire, small economy is red hot. So if they are at a deficit, even by a small amount, that is it, thats the best they can do. They are at their peak. And their peak is holding Ukraine at bay.
They are losing 100s of tanks per month, sometimes 5-10 a day, times 30 thats 150-300 per month. They need to make over 3K tanks a year just to keep up. Its impossible, just by the numbers.
They can produce about 30-50 missiles per month. That could be ok, but again, thats it. They had more missiles before and the best they could do was hold Ukraine at bay. Now they will have less missiles
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
EU's over dependence on Russian energy, indeed being reliant on any one nation for energy, is bad policy and a security risk. They shouldn't have allowed themselves to be in this position but they certainly cannot continue it.
Nukes were never going to be installed in Ukraine, much like how no nukes are stored in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which not only border Russia, but have been NATO members for nearly 20 years.
The US doesn't even have any anti missile defense systems beyond Poland, out of respect to Russia. It's clear that Russia used the potential of NATO installing nukes in Ukraine as one of many pretexts to invade, as this was never going to happen, because it never did happen in similar circumstances.
With regards to energy reliance, India would be wise not to get addicted to cheap oil from one source as, although Russia and India are on friendly terms, if India become too reliant on Russian energy, this is giving away a portion of sovereignty. Russia may not demand anything, they may not even say anything, but a situation may come where a decision will have to be made that is in the best interests of India, but they dont make that decision in fear of pissing off the Russians. Relationships change, Russia and the US were allies at one stage in history.
Dont make Europe's mistake, India!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TP-ie3hj Thank you for your message. Im not too sure what the point of your gigantic monologue taking us through your thought process about the Battle of Stalingrad was for. My comprehensive and accurate list was to Billy Bob who indicated that US' Lend Lease to the Soviets were insignificant and that Russia only needed trucks and the rest Russia could produce locally.
He previously mentioned that trucks made up around 30-47% of the total equipment sent, which is interesting as there are no documented percentages of the equipment sent, what we do know is the type of equipment and weapons sent, and thanks to you, the dates they were sent.
As for your reference to Studebakers, I'm not sure I understand its purpose, but I sense an attempt to downplay the equipment sent, much like Billy Bob's original stance, albeit more funny.
As I recall my friend, I came out on top in our back and forth regarding Zeleksy's brown sweatpants, dont make me make it 2-0. Or do you want another crack at the king? Best out of 3?
Throwing a few dates around like you own the place makes me think you know a little too much about WW2 for your own good. Like if you were on a game show, youd pick 'WW II dates' for 1000.
In regards to OPs comment, my comprehensive and accurate list was simply to address Billy Bob's comment, and was not intended to support or refute any claims made about a German officer's reaction to seeing American equipment.
I am always open to engaging in further discussions and I welcome any additional questions or insights you may have. Let's continue to delve into the fascinating history of WW2.
1
-
1
-
@TheRealBillBob The US provided the Soviet Union with:
Aircraft: Fighters, bombers, transport planes, trainers, reconnaissance planes
Tanks: Light and heavy tanks, tank destroyers, and self-propelled guns
Vehicles: Trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, and armored personnel carriers.
Artillery: Field guns, howitzers, anti-tank guns, and mortars.
Ammunition: Small arms ammunition, artillery shells, and bombs.
Communications equipment: Radios, telephones, and telegraph equipment.
Medical supplies: Medicine, bandages, and surgical instruments.
Food: Canned goods, flour, sugar, and other staples.
Raw materials: Steel, aluminum, rubber, and other materials needed for the war effort.
Clothing: Winter uniforms, boots, and other clothing for soldiers and civilians.
And more.
This allowed the Soviet Union to turn the tides in the war and defeat the Germans. Its very interesting to note that the very same Lend Lease is being provided to the Ukrainians, one would assume that the results will be the same
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your claim of 43,000 KIA in just three months is extraordinarily high, is unlikely in any realistic scenario and there is no evidence that indicates that.
Your calculation that adds up to 240,000 KIA from February 2022 to September 2023 is based on the faulty assumption that they get exactly 40,000 KIA every 3 months and your estimation of "300,000 KIA" is speculative and not based on any credible data or evidence.
For example, let's say you're correct and Ukraine has "43,000 KIA in just three months", its still a faulty assumption that they get exactly 40,000 KIA every 3 months. This doesn't consider any variations, fluctuations, or changes in the conflict, which are highly likely in a real world situation
Western media is not covering your analysis because its baseless and lacks evidence. The estimations you came up with are not only based on faulty data, it lacks logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zaddysenemy2291 Someone has eaten up Russian marketing, how many Sarmats and tridents and all the hypos do you think Russia has? And then consider that all ICBMs go hyper, but are much cheaper so if they are launched, many are launched rendering all the s 400s and 500s and any anti-missile defence systems you have drooled over useless.
Also, because you are insanely stupid, let me tell you what will happen if Russia launches a nuke against UK. The UK will launch all theirs back at Russia, the US will launched all theirs at Russia, because the idea is, you launch to totally destroy any ability to respond. Now regardless if Russia squeezes in another nuke, 100s if not 1000s of nukes would have hit Russian cities and missile silos and completely destroy it. Lest we forget the 100s of years of radiation. Now, before you reply with "well Russia is large it cant be destroyed", Russia is made up of many different states and with no central government and command, those states will ceade. Surrounding countries will take chunks of territory. China will take back the east and Manchuria, Kazakhstan are going to take some of the southern parts. The caucuses will finally taste freedom and take some Russian land too. It would be a total and complete destruction of Russia.
Now you know, and now you know why what you just said makes people laugh at you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1