Youtube comments of dark room ambience (@DarkRoomAmbience).
-
563
-
548
-
470
-
339
-
228
-
172
-
162
-
158
-
157
-
Dear Americans,
Throughout history, few nations have borne the weight of leadership as profoundly as the United States. Your country, a beacon of freedom and democracy, has long stood as a pillar upon which the edifice of the free world is built. From the creation of the United Nations to the principles of international law, the US, through freedom and democracy lit the way. It is a legacy of enlightenment, a commitment to education and science and a guarantor of security and stability that has shaped the modern world. No country has stood as the shining city on the hill; a beacon of hope, freedom and moral leadership for the world. The country in which everyone and anyone came to enjoy freedom and prosperity.
As stewards of this great legacy, you find ourselves at a critical juncture. The challenges you face are not just domestic but global, testing the very ideals the free world holds dear. The forces of darkness, those that seek to undermine democracy, freedom and justice, are not just threats domestically but globally as well. It is a pivotal moment that calls for reflection, courage and action.
You stand on the shoulders of giants, your forebears who believed in the promise of America not just for themselves but for the world. They envisioned a nation that could lead by example, one that champions free trade, supports allies and fosters global cooperation. This vision has not dimmed; it has only grown more urgent. The world watches, perhaps now more than ever, looking to you to uphold the torch of liberty and to fight the encroaching shadows with the light of truth, justice and democracy.
It is with a deep understanding of your history and the challenges you face that I urge you to consider the importance of your vote this November. Voting for the Democratic Party and President Biden is not just a choice for the direction of your country but a statement to the world about the values the US has championed for 250 years. The specter of MAGA, a force that threatens to darken the light you have worked for centuries to shine, must be met with a resolute response from the electorate. Your democracy, a model for so many, is indeed on the line and with it, the future of the democratic world.
152
-
148
-
136
-
117
-
115
-
111
-
106
-
102
-
101
-
95
-
92
-
91
-
89
-
87
-
87
-
80
-
78
-
78
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
68
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
58
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
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
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
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
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
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
-
16
-
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
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@sarahbrown5073 We know Russia wanted to claim the whole of Ukraine because they commited 3 lines of advance towards Kyiv and nearly succeeded. We know they wanted to capture Kyiv because there were leaked war plans that showed that Russia was planning to launch a three-pronged attack on Kyiv, with forces coming from Belarus and Russia, which is exactly what they did. Lukashenko made a number of statements in the lead-up to the invasion that suggested that Russia was planning to capture Kyiv.
Russian forces were only equipped with 3 days of supplies and gas, indicating that they did not expect Ukrainian resistance, and would be able to capture Kyiv within 3 days
Russian soldiers were caught with their parade uniforms packed with them, indicating that these soldiers were expecting to parade at some point in their offensive. Soldiers don't pack parade uniforms in battle unless they expect to parade in the capitol.
Among captured Russian solders' were Russian riot police, with riot uniforms with them. Armies don't send riot police into battle, they send them to manage crowds and unrest when a city is being occupied. As Russia did when they captured Kherson City. They wanted to and expected to capture Kyiv, send their police to manage any unrest and hold a victory parade in the capitol.
The VDV Russian elite Airborne Forces played a major role in the Russian attempt to capture Kyiv. They were tasked with securing key airports and other strategic objectives around Kyiv. Russia wouldn't send in their elite units around the capital if they were not planning on taking the capital.
There's many more pieces of evidence that shows Russia did in fact want to and try to capture Kyiv, but lack of preparation and Ukrainian resistance foiled their attempt.
Not only did Russia attempt to capture Kyiv, it was the only way to win the war, as not capturing Kyiv meant no regime change, which Russia have said was part of their goals. If they wanted a regime change, then they wanted to capture the country. As if Russia would change the regime, then just leave and hold democratic and fair elections to let Ukranians decide their fate. They wouldn't do that because they have never done that. They would have completely reshaped, "re-educate" the population by force, as we have seen in the parts Ukraine that they have captured.
We know what Russia wants. Im surprised that you dont
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Back then, and in many respects sill now, Russia was an empire consisting of many different peoples. What youre saying is basically, Cologne, Germany belongs to Italy because it was created by the Roman empire. Or Nimes, France, again belongs to Italy because it was created by the Roman Empire. Another example is Bath, England. Created by the Roman Empire, does this city belong to Italy?
Another example is Ljubljana, Slovenia, created by the Holy Roman Empire, does that city belong to Germany? What about Brno, Czech Republic?
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Ah, yes, civility in 1912. Segregation laws, gender inequality, colonialism and imperialism, child labor, criminalized homosexuality, animal cruelty and exploitation, zero workplace safety laws, belief in racial superiority, corporal punishment, lynchings and mob justice, industrial pollution and deforestation. Ah 1912, how we missed you.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@livingtribunal4110 Western intelligence agencies suggest a much higher figure of around 500,000 total CASUALTIES. Casualties includes those killed, wounded, missing and captured.
According to standard military practice to estimate total casualties, we apply a multiplier ratio to the number of those KIA. This multiplier used is 3:1, meaning for every soldier killed, approximately three additional soldiers are either wounded, captured or missing.
Going by YOUR numbers of 120K KIA, multiply the standard casualty ratio of 3:1, the total number of soldiers who are either wounded, captured or missing would be approximately 360K
120K + 360K = 480K total casualties.
#ProRussianBalloonPopped
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@TX93_ Wage growth has been high over the past four years, outpacing the rate of inflation. This contradicts your theory that immigration reduces wages. Here’s why: labour markets are segmented, meaning that immigrants and native workers often compete in different sectors and/or bring complementary skills. Immigrants may fill positions in industries that are underserved by local labour, such as agriculture, construction, or healthcare, without necessarily competing directly with native workers.
This allows native workers to shift into higher-skilled roles, enhancing productivity and wages across the economy. <---- that has been the cornerstone of American progress for over 250 years
Immigrants contribute to demand for goods and services, leading to job creation that can absorb the additional labour supply, contributing to GDP growth and business expansion.
immigration increases innovation and entrepreneurship, as immigrants are often responsible for a disproportionate share of patents and new business creation.
Low wage, low skill jobs is what keeps prices down and keeps manufacturing in the country. The knock-on effect is the largest and most liquid economy in the world.
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
-
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
-
@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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@livingtribunal4110 Also lol @ 8:1. First of all, if it were 8:1, then why is the conflict at a stalemate?
The attacking side typically incurs higher losses, usually at a rate of around 3:1. If the defending side were losing at such a rate, every city and town would have been captured by now. If the ratio were 8:1, the attackers would have reached Kyiv. Based on your numbers, 120,000 multiplied by 8 equals 960,000. Are you suggesting that Ukraine has lost 960,000 soldiers? Please provide evidence for this claim.
For more context, using the standard total casualties multiplier, 960,000 KIA multiplied by 3 equals 2,880,000 total Ukrainian casualties. Are you suggesting that Ukraine has suffered 3 million casualties? To put this into perspective, that would be three times the size of the entire active US military, just in casualties.
#TimeToStartThinkingBeforePosting
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@robertvarner9519 Western civilization was founded and propelled by left wing liberal philosophy.
Western civilization owes its course to the constant interplay of two currents: liberal ideals pushing for inclusivity, equality and freedom, and conservative forces aiming for stability and tradition. From the dawn of Greek democracy, where the radical notion of citizen participation, championed by figures like Cleisthenes, clashed with the conservative aristocratic hold on power.
This early liberalism, emphasizing citizen rights and open discourse, laid the groundwork for future democratic ideals. Even then, conservative voices like Plato argued for a philosopher-king, fearing the chaos of an empowered populace.
The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were periods where liberal ideas flourished, leading to significant shifts in art, science and philosophy
The French Revolution erupted from the simmering tension between Enlightenment liberalism and conservative absolutists.
Rousseau's "Social Contract" and calls for liberty, equality and fraternity challenged the divine right of kings. Again, conservatism, embodied by Edmund Burke, warned of the dangers of radical change and defended established conservative tradition and hierarchies.
Left wing liberalism founded, shaped and drove western civilization forward and conservative thought has always been there, holding it back.
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
-
@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
-
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
-
God forbid if anyone attacked a NATO country, they would deliberate, debate, organise, talk, negotiate, argue, arrange, moderate, reason, contemplate for months before they decide if they will defend their territory
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
-
Russia has been weakened. Its economy is shrinking and will be in stagnation for 20 or 30 years. Russia are done. They were forced to mobilized, they have lost over 100k troops, more are maimed and injured. Russia's demographics are already at critical levels, its population is literally shrinking every year, its aging as well. Its lost 40% of its tanks, dozens of aircraft, it has captured 10% of Ukraine, which 10% was already captured before the war. Russia wanted to conquer Ukraine, it failed. That's a very good accomplishment. Its still not over yet, but if this continues, Russia will go bankrupt and literally withdraw their troops. It takes time. Putting the old bear on its knees is like pushing over a vending machine, you gotta rock it over a few times before it falls completely over.
This will happen, its only been 10 months. NATO hasn't even sent in its long range weapons yet, which it will soon.
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
-
The US can spend billions of dollars because the size of the economy is 20 trillion and revenue is 3.1 Trillion a year. In other words, its revenue is 3 x the size of the entire Netherlands economy, each year, every year. So 30 trillion, whilst nobody likes to be in debt, taken in context to the size of the US, is manageable. Furthermore, those weapons are to theoretically help defend Europe, which have done absolutely nothing but cower in the face of Russian aggression. Thank you for feeling for us taxpayers, but also thank us for protecting Europe's freedom. Russia would be on Poland's doorstep right about now and as you are aware, Germany doesn't have an army and France would have surrendered well before then.
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The US will continue to support Ukraine because the outcome of Russia's actions carry significant implications for regional and global stability. The immediate concern is that if Russia succeeds in annexing Ukraine without facing meaningful consequences, it will embolden Russia to pursue further territorial ambitions. They will attempt to seize other territories in its vicinity, such as Transnistria and parts of Poland. Such actions would lead to a direct confrontation with NATO.
Consider Russia's historical behavior when it perceives itself as unchecked. Instances such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014, its incursion into Georgia and Chechnya serve as a precedent, not to mention their most recent military endeavor. These were conducted when they were not capable, can you imagine what they would do if they were capable.
The issue of nuclear threats from Putin warrants even more support for Ukraine. The act of using nuclear weapons as a means of coercion is a dangerous precedent that compels Western powers to maintain their support for Ukraine. Putin's willingness to invoke nuclear threats creates a dilemma for the West, as backing down from supporting Ukraine due to these threats will be interpreted as capitulation and weakness. This, in turn, will encourage other countries, both adversarial and allied, to consider using similar tactics to secure their interests. Something that is unacceptable to the west.
The west has no choice but to continue supporting Ukraine and probably need to increase its support.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@championknife Nope, nothing in the memorandum says anything about Ukraine's neutrality. Also, there was no "registered path to NATO". Russia invaded in 2014 because Ukraine wanted to sign a trade deal with the EU. No application to nato, no registered path. Sure signing a trade deal with EU would lay a better foundation towards potentially joining nato, sure. But you said the memorandum became invalid due to Ukraine having "registered the path to NATO" (whatever that means), and there was simply no application made.
Lets not beat around the bush and hide behind technicalities; Ukraine and nato wanted Ukraine to join nato, but lets not also beat around the bush regarding Russia's goal of expanding its border using nato as a pretext. Russia believes Ukraine belongs to them, either they control it through a stooge president, or they outright control it by force. Either way its against the wishes of Ukrainians and against Ukraines right to self determination. Including how it conducts its foreign policy. We can also talk about the "maidan coup". Which of course wasn't a coup at all, but even if it were a coup, if you define democratic elections as a coup, it still doesn't concern Russia. What happens in Ukraine, for better or for worse has nothing to do with Russia.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
If Trump implements a tariff on all or most imports, the economic impacts will include higher inflation due to rising import costs, reduced consumer spending and disrupted supply chains. Whilst certain domestic industries might benefit in the short term, most sectors, particularly those reliant on imports or exports (Google, Apple, Boeing, General Motors, Ford, Caterpillar, Intel, even Tesla, the entire NASDAQ will face increased costs and declining demand.
Unemployment will rise, while overall GDP growth will slow or turn negative. The stock market will experience heightened volatility, with export-reliant and growth sectors suffering the most. Due to the uncertainty, the US dollar will initially strengthen, ironically as a safe haven currency, but it will weaken over time as inflation rises and growth stalls. Retaliatory tariffs from trading partners will further exacerbate the economic downturn.
The world retaliates and the global economy realigns, with other nations continuing free trade amongst themselves and targeting their retaliatory measures specifically at the US. This would put the US at a comparative disadvantage by raising production costs, reducing export competitiveness and isolating it from global supply chains. Meanwhile, countries that remain committed to free trade would enhance their economic integration, leaving the US with fewer trade partners, slower growth and diminished global influence
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
-
A combination of aerodynamics, propulsion, combustion, ballistics, gravity, navigation systems, interception dynamics, explosives, impact physics, structural mechanics, electronics and signal processing.
Just simple scientific principles, rather than magical conspiracy theories all combined explains what youre asking.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Let us delve into the intricacies of the term "playbook" and address your queries.
When we refer to "Putin's playbook," we are metaphorically alluding to a set of strategies or tactics that the Russian President has employed consistently in his political endeavors. It is not an actual physical or downloadable document, as one might hope. Instead, it encompasses a collection of observable patterns and tendencies that have characterized Putin's actions over time. For example, if there is an opposition leader in Russia that becomes too popular, Its Putin's "playbook" to have that person poisoned/killed etc.
Now, your inquiry about the predictability of his actions raises an interesting point. While certain aspects of Putin's behavior may seem repetitive, it is crucial to recognize that political decision-making involves a complex interplay of factors. External circumstances, changing geopolitical dynamics and evolving domestic considerations all influence the choices made by any leader, including Putin. Thus, predicting the precise course of his future actions with certainty is a rather impossible endeavor, even if we acknowledge the existence of his "playbook." However, we can predict usually what he'll do next broadly speaking. For example, we know that Putin is genocidal and harbors the ambition of reconstituting the Soviet Union borders, this allows us to predict that Putin will commit genocide in Ukraine before he invaded and wont stop at just Kyiv. Which is why NATO is adamount in stopping Russia in Ukraine. Its a reaction to the predictability from Putin's ambitions.
Now, onto the question of whether other leaders and countries possess their own "playbooks." Absolutely, they do. Political figures across the globe, from US presidents to German chancellors and beyond, develop their own sets of strategies and approaches. However, it is essential to understand that these "playbooks" will differ significantly from one leader to another. Each possesses their unique background, political context and policy priorities, giving rise to distinct patterns of behavior.
Long story short; playbook is a metaphor. Its not actually a real book with Putin's plays on them. We have US intelligence in Russia for that.
I sense that you were genuinely curious and not at all asking rhetorical questions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Its about territory and Russia's own definition of security. The west have tried to accommodate Russia for 20 years and for the first 8 years there were progress, Russia was progressing. Opening up their markets, interconnection of trade and business. Relations were improving and so were Russia's standard of living.
The west treated Russia with kid gloves. Included them in the G7, gave them a seat at the table. Even now, after they have invaded Ukraine, the west is careful not to give Ukraine too many long range weapons as so not to escalate, even after Russia have murdered civilians as matter of strategy to ethnically cleanse Ukraine, the west doesn't send troops in, so to not escalate the situation. Meanwhile Russia have ran out of countries to threaten to nuke. They are a menace, bliggerant, aggressive, paranoid and stupid. Theres no use talking to them anymore, they dont understand the art of diplomacy
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mandlas.4305 The concept of an undetectable nuclear missile launch is strategically moot in the context of a nuclear confrontation. Should Russia initiate a nuclear strike, even with an undetectable launch, the eventual impact of such a weapon would immediately reveal its origin, prompting a comprehensive retaliatory strike. In a nuclear exchange scenario, the response would not be limited to a single missile but would likely involve hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles. Consequently, the initial undetectability of a missile does not fundamentally alter the strategic calculus, as the sheer scale of a nuclear exchange overshadows the advantage of any single missile being undetectable at launch.
Furthermore, Russia could not prevent a retaliatory strike with its nuclear arsenal, given the vast and capable nuclear forces maintained by the US. An undetectable nuclear missile launched from space is pointless, it's just Russian posturing. Its also why we dont take them seriously.
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
-
@masonberger7624 A political ideology, such as socialism, conservatism, or liberalism, is not a person or entity, it is simply a framework of ideas and beliefs. It cannot 'throw you under the bus' because it doesn’t have the agency to act or make decisions.
What you are likely referring to are specific groups, such as political parties, movements, or leaders, who claim to represent that ideology and made decisions that you feel betrayed you. However, it is also possible that, over time, segments of society, particularly those who oppose the ideology you’re referencing, have demonized and misrepresented it.
This opposition often involves labeling individuals, ideas, or problems in society as representative of that ideology, regardless of whether they actually are. Such narratives may have influenced your perception of the ideology itself.
In reality, when it felt like you were 'thrown under the bus,' it may have been more a result of the broader economic system failing you, which operates independently of said political ideology
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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Marge is trailer park trash and her constituency is trailer park trash. They are a legitimate voting block and their representative is Marge. When the Demos take back the house Marge will be stripped of any committee assignments.
Also when Demos take back the house there will be a very thorough, inconvenient and broad investigation into Jim Jordan's obstruction of justice, including all his communications, motivations and any potential violations of law or ethical standards, the investigation will determine any potential misuse of his position to influence Georgia's state legal proceedings, then passed on to the appropriate Georgian authorities.
Subpoenas for documents, communications and testimony related to Jordan's interactions with Fani Willis' office and his efforts to influence state prosecutions will uncover significant information.
There will also be an abundant, yet appropriate amount of legislative hearings into Jordans behavior. These very public, constant and lengthy hearings will allow for a detailed examination of Jordan's actions.
Then, there will be a referral of the matter to the House Ethics Committee where there will be an internal investigation into Jordan's conduct.
The next 2 years of Jim Jordans political career will be in and out of legislative hearings and after that, he will be in and out of a Georgian state court.
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
@John-so2hw So 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
-
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
-
@yurnero_x Oil prices have gone up and thats why Russia have profited nicely. Theyre selling oil to India and China on a huge discount, they are affectively losing money and India and China are taking Russia for a ride, because Russia are desperate. Why do you think Russia sold Europe gas and oil? Because it was the most cost effective, fastest, higher volume, higher profit margin market to sell to.
Selling to India and China, is heavily discounted, and costs higher to ship there.
Once Europe find new oil and gas suppliers, and when oil prices come down, it will be Russia that will take a massive hit to their budget. Also, lest we forget, Russia's economy is approaching the dark ages, it will 100% go through a period of stagnation for decades.
Its all good baby, dont worry
3
-
3
-
@jimmy79889 No he means the bill that would have increased funding for building border walls, enhancing border technology, adding more detention beds, hiring additional border patrol agents and increasing deportation flights. The bill that would make faster screenings with higher standards of evidence, limiting appeals and expediting deportations of asylum seekers. The bill that would end the "catch and release" policy, shifting to a "detain and deport" model. The bill that would create bars on asylum eligibility to prevent exploitation by criminal cartels. The bill that would allow summary removal of foreign nationals if illegal entries exceed certain thresholds, authority to shut down the border in emergency situations, hire additional officers quickly and expedite hearings for illegal crossings. The bill that was so conservative the democrats didnt get a single thing they wanted, like amnesty or pathways to citizenship. No expansion of immigrant visas, or a reduction in deportations. Is that the bill youre talking about?
Make no mistake, the problems at the border is a congressional problem, laws and funding are written and appropriated by congress, they control the border laws. They control the purse. The border is congresses mess
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Detroit_Vs._Everybody The jobs growth period you mention coincided with a broader economic expansion that began under the Obama administration, Trump merely was President during the continuation of that growth. Unless of course, you could name any landmark or historical or even significant legislation that Trump passed which contributed to any of those indicators you mentioned? That would be very much appreciated and it would also prove that those numbers relate to Trump's economic management of the US.
To save you the time, Trump did not pass any legislation that contributed to a sudden uptick in jobs growth or an unemployment rate not already trending. Contrast to Trump, the Biden Admin passed several historic and significant legislation including the American Rescue Plan, providing critical relief to millions of Americans helping to stabilize the economy during the pandemic. The legislation that Biden passed, brought us out of a global economic collapse to now the best performing economy in the world. The unemployment rate, which had spiked under Trump, dropped from a Trump high of 14.8% to around a Biden 4%
As you mentioned, the pandemic collapsed the US economy and Biden brought us out and back to being the best performing economy in the world with 70 year record low unemployment, wages growth and economic growth. And unlike Trump, that achievement was precisely because of the policies of Biden. Biden, unlike Trump, inherited a shambles of an economy and brought us back to prosperity.
Thank you Joe Biden.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I disagree with that assessment; it looks like Trump is going from strength to strength. Yes, the world knows he is weak but dangerous and the US is the weakest its ever been pre-WWI, but he still retains considerable personal power, of which I can't see waning. Not with this congress and not with this electorate.
The American left remains fractured along ideological lines. A persistent and often self defeating divide exists between the center left and the far left. Both factions have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to support each others candidates, even when doing so is the only viable option to prevent conservative victories. Many center left voters refused to support Bernie during the Democratic primaries. Conversely, significant portions of the far left refused to vote for Hillary.
These are not isolated incidents. This pattern of intra-left disunity recurs each election cycle, with various subgroups withholding support unless a candidate aligns almost perfectly with their ideological preferences. As a result, the left, despite holding a demographic and cultural majority, frequently fails to convert that advantage into political power, contributing to consistent electoral underperformance.
I still see many progressives criticizing Newsom because hes not progressive enough and I still see the center left not giving Bernie the time of day.
So we are left with a conservative Supreme Court shaping legal outcomes for 30+ years, redefining the Constitution and overturning precedent. We are left with Trump for 8 years. And probably more.
2
-
@rurutuM They own about 28% of enrichment capacity, the next is Netherlands and germany. So Europe does not require Russian Uranium ore or enriched. And this extends to anything else Russia mines. There is nothing Russia mines, that other countries mine. Coal, Iron, aluminium, uranium, rare earths etc. And even if Russia is a leader in exporting in a particular resource, its economy is so small, and exports are so small, it doesn't effect the globe, or EU. Except of course for oil and gas
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
NATO should have responded to the missile hitting Poland. Whether it was Ukrainian or Russian, by accident or on purpose, NATO should have responded. Im not saying they should escalate but they should have done something. Even sending 1000 more troops to the Polish border, whatever, something. We know Putin keeps pushing until he finds resistance and accident or not, he now knows that any "accidental" missile fired into Poland, NATO will trip over themselves trying to de-escalate the situation, even to the point of hanging Ukraine out to dry in front of everyone.
Putin sees this as a boundary that now has been expanded to inside the outskirts of NATOs border, and perhaps another, "accidental" stray missile hits a key infrastructure that they can just say was a Ukrainian missile. It looks weak by NATO, yes its fantastic that NATO prefers to de-escalate, but we are dealing with an aggressive, arrogant fool
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@liberTvalance Yes it was the largest economies, only the small economies haven't reached 2%, like Luxembourg and Albania, lets be honest, these countries even if they reached 2% would amount to virtually nothing. Before you respond, take the time to look this up, its all available.
The UK military is fine, its a true blue-water naval and nuclear power, its strength is its special forces, airforce and navy, it doesn't need a lot of tanks. Jeez
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly, the establishment and maintenance of alliances enhance global stability, which is crucial for the economic prosperity of the American people. A stable international environment fosters trade, investment opportunities and economic growth, directly benefiting Americans by creating jobs and ensuring the availability of diverse goods and services.
Secondly, the support for democracies around the world is rooted in the idea that democratic nations are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. This promotion of democratic governance contributes to a more predictable and peaceful international landscape, reducing the likelihood of American involvement in foreign conflicts and thus, safeguarding American lives and resources.
Lastly, US hegemony, characterized by its unparalleled military and economic capabilities, deters potential adversaries and stabilizes critical regions. This hegemonic stability ensures the free flow of international trade and minimizes disruptions to global supply chains, directly benefiting the American economy and, by extension, the American people through lower costs and higher availability of goods.
These strategies collectively underpin a global order that privileges peace, democracy and open markets, all of which are essential to the prosperity and security of the average American.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BRICS is nothing. Its a handful of loosely connected countries gathering annually to enhance trade ties, thats it. Most of the time nothing comes from the meeting. BRICS lacks the structural depth and binding commitments characteristic of true alliances or economic blocs. It is not grounded by a formal treaty, nor does it possess the regulatory frameworks and mechanisms that define comprehensive economic unions or defense pacts. Its just China, India, Russia and Brazil agreeing to meet together every year and thats it.
Its divergent political systems and economic interests further inhibit it from becoming a cohesive entity, China’s economic dominance and strategic goals, for instance, clashes with those of India and Brazil. Leading to zero strategic unity. Unlike the European Union or NATO, which are built on shared values and concrete institutional structures, BRICS is primarily a forum for dialogue.
It’s a group of nations coming together to make a symbolic show of solidarity, trying to convey that the Global South can stand united and present a counterweight to Western influence. Yet, in reality, the alliance resembles a makeshift band of misfits, attempting to play a symphony without ever agreeing on the same sheet of music. They make plenty of noise, but the tune is dissonant and out of sync. All vying for different goals.
Brazil wants to be seen on the world stage, the largest economy in south america.
India uses it in continuance of its independent strategy of maintaining neutrality by joining whatever group the west isnt in.
China uses the group to extend its soft power. South Africa leverages its membership to position itself as the leading economy and gateway to the a** end of the African continent.
Russia participates in BRICS primarily because it faces increasing isolation on the global stage and seeks a platform to voice its criticisms of the West. At the meetings, Russia gains the appearance of broader support, using the presence of other member nations as a backdrop to lend legitimacy to its personal grievances.
Economically, BRICS resembles a patchwork of mismatched economies, struggling to find cohesion. The groups members are fundamentally misaligned in their economic structures and interests. Brazil and Russia, for instance, are both major exporters of raw materials like oil, gas and agricultural products, which makes trade between them more competitive than complementary. This overlap stifles the potential for economic synergy, as they trip over each other for the same markets rather than enhancing each others strengths.
The situation is further complicated by China’s dominance in manufacturing and India’s rapidly growing tech sector, which only serves to highlight the disparities within the group. Chinas economic weight overshadows its BRICS partners, creating an imbalance that fuels competition rather than fostering collaboration. The lack of economic complementarity and mutual dependency means BRICS struggles to function as a cohesive economic bloc
Ultimately, the grouping is held together more by a shared desire to push back against Western influence than by any real strategic coherence. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may offer a temporary bond, but it is a fragile foundation for building a lasting partnership. BRICS is nothing and we should treat it as such.
Im sorry my global south friends and colleagues. :(
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 idea of Mexico entering a military alliance with Russia or China is highly improbable, given the extensive economic, political and cultural ties between Mexico and the US. The US and Mexico share a long border, extensive trade agreements, including USMCA and a history of cooperation on various levels. Any move by Mexico to align militarily with Russia would destabilize the region, threaten its own economic interests and alienate its largest trading partner, something quite different to Ukraine's situation.
Mexico's exports to the US accounts for approximately 80% of its total exports.
In the unlikely event of a Russo/Mexican or Sino/Mexican military alliance, it's more plausible that the US would leverage its economic power and diplomatic influence rather than resort to military invasion. Economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and support for opposition movements within Mexico could be among the tools employed by the US to discourage or dismantle such an alliance. The US possesses significant economic leverage over Mexico and the threat of economic sanctions or the cessation of trade could have immediate and devastating effects on the Mexican economy. In essence, the drawbacks of any military alignment with Russia far exceed the potential advantages. While I acknowledge the hypothetical scenario youre proposing, the truth is that Russia lacks any substantial means of influence, be it diplomatic, economic, cultural, or military over Ukraine. Consequently in this vacuum, it was both natural and inevitable for Ukraine to gravitate towards the West.
Regarding the assertion that supplying weapons to Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression constitutes escalation, lets establish the difference between offensive maneuvers and providing support for self defense. International law recognizes the right of states to self defense. The support provided by the US and its allies to Ukraine, including military aid, is aimed at enabling Ukraine to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against unprovoked aggression. The call for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine is a demand for the respect of international law and national sovereignty, not a call for escalation. People that dont understand that exist. They are all around us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
Ukrainians consider themselves more European than Russian and Russians resents them for it. Ukraine merely wanted to have a free trade deal with the EU and got angry when Russia's stooge President refused their wishes. Whilst all of this is happening Ukranians still considered Russians as brothers. Then Putin invaded Crimea, pitted Russians and Ukrainians against each other, created propaganda about the Ukrainians as nazis then funded, equipped and directed Russian forces to take over the Donbas with the help of some pro-Russian Ukrainians, systematically kicked out all the Ukrainians that weren't pro-Russian and then continued to fuel the fire between Ukrainians and Russians.
Without Putin, none of this would have happened. At no time then and up until now has Ukraine joined or were close to joining NATO, to join nato is a bureaucratic and diplomatic nightmare that would have taken years, if not a decade. Look at how difficult it is just for Finland and Sweden to join, and they are allies. Countries seek to join NATO for protection from Russia, if Russia wasn't such a shithole country, Ukrainians would have desired to be closer to Russia, but because Putin is an authoritarian, clown show, nobody in their right mind would want to live under that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 problem, Irina, is that you think that Russia doesnt engage in their own propaganda. The fact that you are calling the ukrainians nazis shows just how brainwashed you are and unable for critical thinking. This war is about power, influence and expansion. Its not about nazis, its not about biolabs, its not about Zelensky being a coke head. Its about territory. And Putin wants to make inroads into Europe. The Minsk agreement was never followed by BOTH SIDES. Russia annexed Crimea FIRST and broke the Budapest agreement.
We know who patrick lancaster is. He is paid by the Russian forces, he is embedded in with them, he travels with the Russian army and puts up fake reporting. Russia uses him because hes American. We dont trust Patrick Lancaster because he is not independent. You think that just because he speaks english that the west thinks hes reliable? He is a part of the Russian forces.
Dont be shocked that most people in the west thinking that destroying ukraine is immoral, abhorrent and will be met with force. The west will grind the Russian military into the ground and then when Putin knows hes done, he will come to the negotiating table. Im sorry for all the children that have died in the Donbass, any military that kill children should be punished. But Russia have done the same so nobody is innocent in this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Patrick is smart enough to know of the fact that the Mar-a-Lago property is not designated for residential use under the applicable zoning regulations. Instead, it is classified as a commercial club, a designation that imposes specific limitations on the nature of constructions and the purposes for which the property may be utilized. The valuation of Mar-a-Lago, as posited by Trump, is predicated on a hypothetical scenario wherein the land would be subdivided and the resultant parcels sold as apartment units. However, such a subdivision and subsequent development are precluded under the current zoning restrictions applicable to this area. Consequently, the envisioned subdivision and sale of apartment parcels are not feasible under the present zoning regulations.
The video also alludes to additional constraints, attributable to the property's construction over a century ago. Mar-a-Lago is subject to regulations governing historically significant buildings. These regulations typically impose stringent limitations on demolition and redevelopment activities, including the prohibition of demolishing the existing structures to make way for new apartment complexes. Such historical preservation laws further limit the potential for altering the property's current state, thereby impacting its potential market value.
Also Patrick is smart enough to know that the judge wouldn't appraise himself, Mar-a-Lago was appraised and testified to by a property appraiser in Palm Beach County, where Mar-a-Lago is located. This valuation took into account the fact that Mar-a-Lago operates as a deed-restricted private club and the value was determined based on the income it generates in that capacity. It was not valued on some hypothetical, unrealistic scenario that would never happen.
Thats like if I valued my 3 bedroom home at $10 million...if I built a 50 story building with 50 apartments on it
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dorianshadesofgray I feel there's a misunderstanding on your behalf, so please allow me to educate;
The Mar-a-Lago property is not designated for residential use under the applicable zoning regulations. Instead, it is classified as a commercial club, a designation that imposes specific limitations on the nature of constructions and the purposes for which the property may be utilized. The valuation of Mar-a-Lago, as posited by Trump, is predicated on a hypothetical scenario wherein the land would be subdivided and the resultant parcels sold as apartment units. However, such a subdivision and subsequent development are precluded under the current zoning restrictions applicable to that area. Consequently, the envisioned subdivision and sale of apartment parcels are not feasible under the present zoning regulations.
Also theres additional constraints, attributable to the property's construction over a century ago. Mar-a-Lago is subject to regulations governing historically significant buildings. These regulations typically impose stringent limitations on demolition and redevelopment activities, including the prohibition of demolishing the existing structures to make way for new apartment complexes. Such historical preservation laws further limit the potential for altering the property's current state, thereby impacting its potential market value.
The judge wouldn't appraise himself, Mar-a-Lago was appraised and testified to by a property appraiser in Palm Beach County, where Mar-a-Lago is located. This valuation took into account the fact that Mar-a-Lago operates as a deed-restricted private club and the value was determined based on the income it generates in that capacity. It was not valued on some hypothetical, unrealistic scenario that would never happen.
Thats like if I valued my 3 bedroom home at $25 million...because if I built a 50 story building with 50 apartments on it it's worth $25 million
2
-
@dorianshadesofgray The Mar-a-Lago property is not designated for residential use under the applicable zoning regulations. Instead, it is classified as a commercial club, a designation that imposes specific limitations on the nature of constructions and the purposes for which the property may be utilized. The valuation of Mar-a-Lago, as posited by Trump, is predicated on a hypothetical scenario wherein the land would be subdivided and the resultant parcels sold as apartment units. However, such a subdivision and subsequent development are precluded under the current zoning restrictions applicable to this area. Consequently, the envisioned subdivision and sale of apartment parcels are not feasible under the present zoning regulations.
Also theres additional constraints, attributable to the property's construction over a century ago. Mar-a-Lago is subject to regulations governing historically significant buildings. These regulations typically impose stringent limitations on demolition and redevelopment activities, including the prohibition of demolishing the existing structures to make way for new apartment complexes. Such historical preservation laws further limit the potential for altering the property's current state, thereby impacting its potential market value.
The judge wouldn't appraise himself, Mar-a-Lago was appraised and testified to by a property appraiser in Palm Beach County, where Mar-a-Lago is located. This valuation took into account the fact that Mar-a-Lago operates as a deed-restricted private club and the value was determined based on the income it generates in that capacity. It was not valued on some hypothetical, unrealistic scenario that would never happen.
Thats like if I valued my 3 bedroom home at $10 million...if I built a 50 story building with 50 apartments on it
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a European American with German descent living in the USA, with a small apartment in the outskirts of NY, a small dog that will never shut up, God knows how he is when Im at work. I own cutlery, plates, a sofa, a queen size bed (King is too big for my bedroom), I also have various electronic devices such as TVs etc. I believe we should support Ukraine because Russian aggression will not stop at Ukraine if they are successful. In order to stop world war 3, Russia needs to be stopped in Ukraine. Because if they conquer Ukraine, they will continue on to Moldova and parts of Poland, and then NATO will definately be involved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1) From the revenue the US government brings in through various means, like taxes etc
2) $90 billion would make many things achievable to make the US better. Thankfully, a lot more than $90 billion has already been spent on the US the past 4 years.
The American Rescue Plan Act - $1.9 trillion on schools, childcare facilities, covid relief checks, unemployment benefits etc
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - $1.2 trillion on roads, bridges, public transit, broadband and utilities
The CHIPS and Science Act - $52 billion for semiconductor manufacturing plants
The Inflation Reduction Act - $740 billion climate change mitigation, healthcare and energy security and clean energy initiatives.
So you see, Trillions have been spent on the US already and those wonderful and great things you called for are being built because of 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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@John-hu9qg
First, the idea that theres a collective effort to dismantle German industry is absurd and doesnt hold up against the evidence of Germany's continued prominence on the global stage. Germany's success is not merely the result of external partnerships but stems from its innovation, strong governance and the quality of its products and services. The suggestion that there's a significant movement wanting to see this undone lacks substantiation and overlooks the admiration and respect Germany commands worldwide for its industrial prowess. Not to mention its economic influence on the European market.
While Russia has indeed been an important energy supplier and a small market for German goods, this relationship has also posed significant risks and dependencies. The reliance on Russian energy has been a double edged sword, exposing Germany to potential political leverage and instability in energy prices. It has become increasingly clear that diversifying energy sources and investing in renewable energies are crucial for long term security and sustainability, not just for Germany but for Europe as a whole.
The relationship with Russia is viewed through a broader geopolitical lens. The benefits accrued from trade and energy are weighed against the challenges of dealing with a state that has shown willingness to exert its influence in ways that challenge European security and democratic values. Russia also poses a direct challenge to the rules based order that underpins the European economic, political and social structures which it relies and prosperes on. Including the "hard fought" German industry.
Yes, trade and economic relationships are undeniably vital for prosperity, but they must be managed with a clear understanding of the broader implications. The characterisation of Russia as an unalloyed asset to German prosperity overstates the benefits and underplays the complexities and risks of this relationship. True prosperity and security for Germany, lie in diversification, innovation and adherence to principles of democracy, mutual respect and market economies. All principles that Russia does not adhere to.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomb7942 Fox News, as a network, has repeatedly positioned itself as an entertainment channel rather than a strict news outlet and this defense has been utilized in multiple court cases, not just regarding Tucker Carlson. For instance, in the 2020 case involving Karen McDougal, Fox News successfully argued that its shows were hyperbolic opinions that no reasonable viewer would take as factual news. This defense, accepted by the court, essentially acknowledged that Fox's shows, and by extension, the network’s programming, can be categorized as entertainment. If the Comedy Channel's programming was 99% nature videos, guess what? It's a nature channel.
In the 2004 case involving reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, Fox argued there were no rules against distorting news, implying that their broadcasts could be considered opinion rather than objective reporting. The court sided with Fox, reinforcing the perspective that Fox News is an entertainment channel.
In other cases, such as those involving Jeanine Pirro and Michael Flynn, where Fox News contended that statements made on air were so exaggerated that no reasonable person would believe them to be factual. These repeated legal defenses highlight a consistent pattern where Fox News as a network distances its content from traditional news reporting, to identify itself as an entertainment channel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
FeverYonge 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
-
1. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution, which led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, was driven by widespread public discontent with the government's decision to reject an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. While Russia has characterized this as a coup theres no proof that the CIA organized these events. Millions of Ukrainians marched in the streets for months.
2. Im assuming youre talking about Minsk;
Ukraine demonstrated a willingness to consider granting autonomy to the LPR and the 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 veto the decision on NATO membership in the National Assembly, aligning with Russia's strategic interests to limit NATO membership. Effectively giving Russia veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.
This nuanced diplomatic 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 the regional threat bordering them.
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.
3. NATO has not positioned, nor had plans to position, missiles in Ukraine, regardless of whether Ukraine became a NATO member. Similarly, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have been members of NATO for two decades, do not host NATO missiles. This is in line with NATO's approach of not militarizing Eastern Europe
4. Describing the inclusion of Eastern European nations in NATO as "needless" reflects a personal viewpoint and the term "expansion" carries implicit bias. These countries pursued membership in NATO through an official procedure, driven by a desire to strengthen their security. Their decision to join NATO was influenced by a long history of experiencing oppression and aggression from Russia
5. This is a gross distortion. While there are far right elements in Ukraine, as there are in many countries, the characterization of a "widespread culture of Nazism" is misleading. The Ukrainian government and the majority of its population have repeatedly condemned Nazism and fascism. This narrative has been used by Russian propaganda to justify actions against Ukraine but does not accurately reflect the situation on the ground.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
As you stroll along the street, engaging in conversations with random individuals, you inquire about their perspectives, dubbing them as representative of the overarching "western narrative." However, as you proceed and approach the next person, their response diverges from the previous encounter, leading you to experience a perplexing state of confusion surrounding the notion of a singular "western narrative." This prompts the question: why do two distinct "western narratives" exist?
In truth, the concept of a singular "western narrative" is an oversimplification. The Western world comprises a multitude of independent media organizations, each with their own unique perspectives and agendas. Moreover, the influence of social media platforms further expands the range of information available, including those with anti-western viewpoints. The diversity of these sources challenges the notion of a monolithic narrative.
In light of these complexities, engaging in critical thinking becomes imperative. It necessitates a deliberate evaluation of the information at hand, considering its credibility, relevance, and potential biases. By employing this intellectual approach, one can discern the nuances and contradictions within the diverse array of viewpoints present in the Western discourse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@donnieboy123 haha, no.
schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, banks, credit unions, insurance companies, investment funds, legal services, consulting, accounting, advertising, architectural, engineering, telecommunications, media, publishing, real estate, property management, airlines, railroads, trucking, warehousing, theaters, cinemas, law enforcement, firefighting, plumbing, electrical and more. You know, the services industry
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Changing the nominee at this stage is a significant risk and gamble that is likely to put the Democrats in a worse position. Historically, such a change has not benefited the party. This scenario assumes that a "young, vibrant, articulate candidate" exists, is willing to take on the challenge and can withstand intense scrutiny from right wing and corporate media. Also, this candidate would need to rapidly build a grassroots campaign infrastructure, typically a process that takes years, within just two months. They would also need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in the same short time frame.
Furthermore, changing the ballot presents legal challenges, as Republicans would likely file lawsuits in every state they lost, arguing that the process is legally questionable. These cases will escalate to the Supreme Court, which will rule in favor of Trump.
Or we could just get behind the incumbent candidate, who is polling 46-46 with Trump, and has, as you said, "done great"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flodareltih8055 As I said in the original post, Ukraine are suffering casualties, but they are inflicting a lot more, hence why they haven't decided to retreat from Bakhmut. The attacking side always loses more because they are the ones that have to push and the defense are in fortified positions. Yeah, sure Artillery, but Ukraine has artillery as well but even with artillery the attacking side loses more.
Sure you could say, well Russia aren't pushing, they are just lobbing shells at Ukrainian positions, but we know this is not true because Russia have tried to make gains around Bakhmut, which means they are trying to push, which means they are incurring casualties.
Take for example the US forces in North Vietnam, many battles US forces lost more, and they had an air force. Attacking side always lose more, the battle of Bakhmu isnt some military unicorn that has defied all previous military battles in history, its a seige of a city, just like all of them
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
-
Trump’s base is uneducated and unsuccessful. Many within this group feel unable to strive in a society where college graduates earn more money. Instead of introspection or personal accountability, they externalize blame, directing their frustration at societal structures, the government, Democrats, progressive movements, immigrants etc. Its not their fault they are unsuccessful, its affirmative action. Its immigrants that have made them unsuccessful. Its the democrats and "wokism" etc
Trump capitalizes on this sentiment by offering a narrative that validates their grievances and deflects responsibility away from them, providing scapegoats for their struggles. This is why their allegiance is not tied to economic conditions. Under Biden, record low unemployment, robust GDP growth, rising wages and manufacturing expansion had no impact on their perception, because their discontent isn’t rooted in economic reality. Even when Trump’s policies exacerbate inflation and increase costs, they will remain supportive of him. Their support is not about measurable economic success or failure but about finding someone to blame for their lack of upward mobility. This is the essence of Trump’s appeal: it’s not about economics; it’s about resentment
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@kskid4life Trying to stop Russia invading its neighbors, exhibit Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Chechnya, Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia.
Russia doesnt invade NATO countries. Peace is always established between NATO countries and 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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@robsurname4054 Zelensky made an effort to resolve the conflict with Russia by offering a one-on-one meeting with Putin before the invasion. However, Putin declined the offer. Despite the US' pleas to Russian officials to not invade, they proceeded anyway.
One month into the war, Macron met with Putin to negotiate a peaceful resolution, but Putin once again refused to engage in peace negotiations. Similarly, the UN Secretary and Austrian President both attempted to mediate peace talks with Putin two months into the war, Putin refused.
Three months into the conflict, Ukraine proposed dropping their bid to join NATO in exchange for guaranteed security, but Putin again rejected the offer.
Ukraine declared that they would not accept any peace deal if Russia went through with their illegal annexation of the 4 regions, Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's lands.
Despite multiple peace offers and negotiations, Russia has consistently refused every proposal, including a 10-point peace plan that calls for simple provisions such as not bombing Ukraine's energy infrastructure. It is evident that Russia is not interested in peace, but rather wants to control Ukraine. Thats not going to happen.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Canada should introduce tariffs on US auto parts, this will put pressure on Ford, GM, Tesla, Chrysler, Canada can purchase more Japanese and South Korean cars, not to mention European.
Canada should introduce tariffs on US Tech & Electronics, this will put pressure on Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Intel, Canada can purchase its electronics from various other sources.
Canada should introduce tariffs on US Beef, pork and dairy.
And if Canada wants to go nuclear, it can introduce tariffs on US financial services, like Visa, Mastercard, American Express, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, restrictions on financial transactions, restrict or ban Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, Google, Meta, X/Twitter etc.
Canada has ammo too
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaveBrown-123 Without regulations, wealth would rapidly concentrate in the hands of a few individuals and corporations. Deregulated capitalism would remove labor protections, such as minimum wage laws, workplace safety regulations and collective bargaining rights.
This would lead to a "race to the bottom," where companies exploit workers to maximize profits, driving down wages, increasing work hours and worsening conditions
Without environmental regulations, corporations would exploit natural resources without regard for sustainability or ecological balance. Pollution, deforestation, climate change and biodiversity loss would accelerate as companies prioritize short term profits over long term environmental health
public goods and services, like education, healthcare, transportation and welfare, would become privatized and commodified. This would make essential services inaccessible to those who cannot afford them
Financial markets would encourage reckless behavior, leading to frequent economic collapses that disproportionately harm workers and the poor
Corporations and wealthy elites would have unchecked power to influence politics through lobbying, campaign financing and control of the media. This would undermine democracy, as policy decisions would increasingly favor corporate interests rather than the public good
As inequality grows, social mobility declines and basic necessities become inaccessible, that resentment among the working class and poor would lead to widespread social unrest, protests and potentially violent uprisings
Unregulated capitalism for commodifying every aspect of life, including relationships, culture and identity. The focus on profit and individualism undermines community bonds, leaving people isolated and alienated
You know, it would go all to hell
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Mike-s3x2t Reduced competition results in upward pressure on prices. For Americans, this means that Colombian coffee will become more expensive and, by extension, coffee sourced from alternative origins is also likely to see price increases.
For coffee importers serving the US market, the tightening of supply effectively increases scarcity, creating an environment where modest price increases are both justifiable and commercially viable.
In other words, all Colombian imports, including coffee and all coffee in general, will be more expensive to the American citizen. Its like placing sanctions on ourselves. Ok, fine. But the cost of living will increase, and our purchasing power will decrease
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RC-tv7hi Your story is purely the Russian narrative.
But regardless or whether its true or not, it isn't, but lets say its true, what right exactly does Russia have invading another country due to their "civil war"? What right does russia have to invading another country and illegally annexing its land to make it their own?
The minsk agreement was to give autonomy to the donbass, russia withdraws all their troops. Russia never withdrew their troops and ukraine wanted to vote to join nato before donbass voted for their autonomy. Because if they received their autonomy before Ukraine could vote on joining nato, donbass could veto any potential membership. This situation would give putin veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy. As you can understand, this is unacceptable to Ukraine, so they held off granting autonomy until a nato vote could happen. The donbass wanted to join russia at first but putin refused for this very reason, if donbass was officially russian, then they wouldn't have any vote in Ukraine's national assembly. Putin needed them to still be a part of Ukraine. Putin, realizing he couldn't trick the Ukrainians, knew that the poison pill in the minsk agreement wont work, so he invaded.
Bear in mind, Ukraine's position has been consistent, they are willing to remain neutral, if they have security guarantees. Russia refuses that deal and further wants them to be demilitarized. In other words, have no military. As you would agree, this is unacceptable terms for any country. Ukraine has every right to not only self determination, but to have security. Either with a military or part of an alliance.
Putin doesnt care about nato encroachment to russia, he wants Ukrainian land, he didnt care about Estonia, latvia, lithuania, Finland or sweden joining nato, only ukraine. Because he wants ukraine. We know this now, because he annexed Crimea, then Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Its not about civil wars, its not about nato, its not about nukes being stored in ukraine, its not about biolabs, its not about nazis. Its about russia expanding its border, if Ukraine didnt stop them, they would be at moldova by now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@archeopterix22 The free world is Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, UK, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Argentina and Israel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@rodgerwoods4971 The bill's mechanism for activating the border emergency authority is not a daily reset that allows for a fresh count of up to 5,000 encounters each new day. Instead, the activation criteria are based on a 7-day average or a single-day encounter threshold (8, 500).
The legislation does not support a daily reset mechanism where the border "closes" upon reaching a 5,000 encounters threshold only to "reopen" for another 5,000 the following day. The activation and suspension of the border emergency authority are contingent upon sustained averages, followed by a formal process for suspension based on reduced numbers.
I feel like I need to stress and clearly define what "encounter" means, as there seems to be a misunderstanding of what that means. Encounter is defined as, any interaction with an alien at the border, not just those involved in illegal entry. When an alien presents themselves at a landport of entry seeking asylum, that is considered an "encounter".
It's important to emphasize that closing the border does not halt unauthorized entries into the country. Instead, it merely results in the closure of official ports of entry. Consequently, individuals who might have otherwise sought to enter through these ports and undergo processing are left with no option but to attempt entry via unauthorized means, due to the unavailability of legal entry points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I dont smoke any more, but its not fantasy. Youre not flying in the clouds, you can function perfectly on it, its not heroin, some people can even go about their daily business whilst on it. Personally, I cant.
Some people actually need it for insomnia and it helps them sleep, some people like smoking a joint after a hard days work, much like having a glass of wine. But youre absolutely right, life is too short, so let people take marijuana. Peace
1
-
1
-
1
-
@naisaephan5336 Freedom of speech is not absolute and has certain limitations, such as prohibitions against threats and defamation etc.
Trump, a criminal defendant currently out on bail, its not uncommon for criminal defendants speech to be temporarily restricted whilst the trial is ongoing.
A judge may issue a gag order to prevent the defendant from making public statements about the case. This is to prevent pretrial publicity that could influence potential jurors or taint the jury pool.
Defendants may be prohibited from contacting or communicating with witnesses, victims, or co-defendants, this is a type of restriction of speech but is necessary to prevent intimidation, harassment or collusion.
Defendants may be restricted from discussing specific details of the case outside of legal proceedings. This is a type of restriction of speech, but is to ensure that any information that could influence the trial remains confidential.
Judges can restrict defendants from making disparaging or threatening remarks about judges, prosecutors, and other court officials to protect the dignity of the court and the safety of its personnel
Defendants are explicitly prohibited from making threats or intimidating witnesses, jurors, or others involved in the case. Violations can result in additional charges or revocation of bail
These are all standard practice in criminal trials and Trump has actually been treated with kid gloves, no ordinary person who has violated a judges gag order 10 times would still be walking free. Their bail would have been revoked by the 1st violation. Nevermind 10 times.
Meanwhile, the country still enjoys freedom of speech and we both can celebrate that fact together.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 agreement seeks to establish Australia as a "domestic supplier" to the United States, essentially linking the industrial bases of both nations. This development holds immense promise for Australia, as it requires investments to unlock the potential of its abundant resources through value-added processes. Australia predominantly relies on mining its resources and exporting them to China, a strategic misstep. On one hand, concerns are raised about China's assertive behavior, yet on the other hand, resources are continuously supplied, enabling such assertiveness.
It would be prudent for the EU to explore a similar arrangement with Australia, particularly concerning energy resources. Australia possesses the capability to supply the EU with LNG if it expands its production capacity. Such a collaboration could prove mutually beneficial, bolstering the EU's energy security while providing Australia with additional avenues for economic growth.
Australia has shown itself to be a reliable producer of most resources, it has a stable democracy and very few natural disasters. It doesn't invade its neighbors. It should be invited into the G7 as well, which is years overdue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
@realtsavo At the time of Chernobyl, even medical staff misunderstood radiation safety, leading to unnecessary fears. The show reflects this historical reality, rather than perpetuating the myth. In the series, characters like Ulana Khomyuk explain how radiation exposure works, showing effort to educate viewers.
So no, the show did not "sensationalize the notion of radiation poisoning being contagious without making a clear effort to dispel any of those myths".
While the dramatization in the series may amplify certain elements, the core depiction of radiation’s effects aligns closely with scientific accounts;
The severe burns, peeling skin, organ failure and long term consequences are consistent with what is known about ARS in high dose exposure.
If anything, the series has prompted widespread interest in understanding radiation, nuclear safety and the historical events of Chernobyl. Many viewers have sought further information, leading to better public education rather than misinformation.
While it's true that accurate education is vital, storytelling often requires dramatization to engage audiences. Chernobyl balances this with moments of stark realism. The series has been praised by nuclear experts for its fidelity to many technical and historical details, such as the sequence of the explosion and the bureaucratic mishandling of the crisis.
The show includes nuanced depictions of human suffering, heroism and the failures of the Soviet system, giving depth to the historical narrative rather than reducing it to pure sensationalism.
Honestly, I think you're making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. It feels like you've painted yourself into a corner by defending this idea that Hisashi Ouchi's death and the Chernobyl firefighters' deaths aren’t entirely comparable and defend why that even matters. Sure, they’re different situations in terms of radiation exposure and medical intervention, but that doesn’t mean the show's portrayal of ARS in the firefighters’ deaths was wildly off base or sensationalized to the point of misleading people.
The reality is, radiation poisoning is horrifying no matter how you slice it. Hisashi Ouchi's case was an extreme, almost singular example of what happens with massive, concentrated radiation exposure. The firefighters, on the other hand, dealt with acute but varying doses from a widespread contamination event. They suffered differently, but that doesn’t mean the firefighters’ deaths were somehow "less gruesome" or the show was being sensationalist. It just portrayed their suffering in a way that conveyed the emotional and physical toll accurately within the scope of a dramatized series.
Sometimes, diving too deep into distinctions like this can miss the bigger picture. Chernobyl isn’t a perfect, purely scientific representation of radiation, but it’s not trying to be. It’s a dramatized account that successfully conveys the gravity of the disaster and the human toll. Trying to pick it apart to defend a niche position feels like focusing on the wrong thing entirely.
I don't know, maybe just relax?
1
-
1
-
I have, many times. But, that doesnt matter, youre the one who made that outrageous claim, the least you could do is back it up by evidence, you clearly dont know what evidence means though, so i wont be holding my breath.
Anybody can accuse anyone of anything, but we need evidence to prove it, we must have evidence. I could call you a rapist, but where is my evidence? Do you understand?
We must have evidence, otherwise its just accusations, its just bullshit.
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
-
@chrismalcomson2824 Chris, we have been listening to what Putin has been saying for 20 years. We are not impressed and dismiss all his grievances.
Putins ambition to elevate Russia as a counterbalance to the US borders on the delusional. Such aspirations fail to recognize the glaring reality: Russia, in its current state, is dwarfed by the US in nearly every measure of national power. To even suggest equivalence is to ignore the vast disparities in demographics, economy, manufacturing, mining, energy and military capabilities - where the US outstrips Russia by orders of magnitude. Russia's influence - diplomatic, economic and cultural - is a far cry from what is required to balance a superpower like the US. It barely matches a regional power like Turkey, let alone a global titan.
This illusory belief that Russia retains an inherent right to be a global counterweight, simply because it was once part of a larger Soviet Union, is a historical fallacy. The USSR, even at its peak five decades ago, was merely half the economic size of the US. Putin's grievances disregards Ukrainian sovereignty and are rooted in a nostalgic and misguided view of past glory. They will not manifest into reality, no matter how fervently he articulates them. His speeches might be an exercise in rhetorical bravado, but he can not complain Russia into a position of greatness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all due respect to our European partners, colleagues, esteemed citizens and allies, but you are all cowerds. The barbarians are at your gates and you think if you stay quiet and don't do anything they'll just go away.
Two things EUs cowerdice have now achieved, Putin moves his front line westward and now knows that if faced with aggression, EU NATO don't have the political and military capability to defend itself. If Russia attacks Lithuania or Estonia, does anyone believe that article 5 will be enacted? Germany will argue legal technicalities of why they can't commit, France will argue that NATO must not act because it will upset Putin, Turney gonna come to Lithuanias rescue? Eastern Europe will fight but with old Soviet hardware. The us will send cash and some aid, it would all be inadequate. It's actually quite scary to be a European, to know that your government wouldn't defend itself if faced with a conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dont underestimate the appeasement of the Europeans. Except for the US, UK and some Eastern European countries, the EU and NATO have been largely useless, naive, weak, indecisive, and in some cases pro-Russian (France/Hungary). Unfortunately the US must keep the Europeans in line and focused, because they are not capable of taking this situation seriously. They are like children, you turn your back on them for 5 seconds and they are already wondering off aimlessly into traffic. Russia should be a Euro problem, not a US problem. The US shouldnt have to do the heavy lifting, the US has bigger challenges to face, with a real global power which is China, not a medium sized country like Russia.
I dont see the Europeans taking this seriously any time soon, and in fact, I see France, Germany calling for negotiations if/when Russia take the Donbass, hindering the strategic weakening of Russia. Theyve done it before and theyll do it again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shilk4301 Financial resources are not directly allocated to Ukraine. The US possesses an inventory of aging armaments stored in warehouses, designated for destruction upon reaching the end of their service life. Rather than proceeding with their disposal, the US opts to dispatch these older armaments to Ukraine. This approach proves more cost-effective than the expenses associated with their controlled demolition. Subsequently, the US compensates American arms manufacturers for producing new, state-of-the-art weapons for its own arsenal, thereby providing employment to US citizens, supporting the domestic defense industry and strengthening US defense capabilities.
Why do we help Ukraine?
It upholds a global order based on the rule of law, democracy, and sovereign equality, principles that are foundational to US security and prosperity. By taking a stand against the violation of these principles, the US helps to deter potential aggressors elsewhere, contributing to a more stable and predictable international environment. This stability is crucial for global markets, including those on which American businesses and jobs depend. It reinforces alliances and partnerships, particularly with European nations, ensuring continued cooperation on a range of issues critical to American interests.
Moreover, supporting Ukraine serves to counterbalance Russian influence and aggression, directly contributing to the security of NATO allies. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of conflicts that could draw the US into more direct and costly engagements. By investing in the defense of Ukraine, the US leverages its resources in a manner that promotes a strategic balance, preventing larger military expenditures and potential loss of life in the future. For ordinary Americans, this translates into a more secure global environment, economic stability through sustained international trade, and reduced military risks. Ultimately, these efforts safeguard the values of freedom and democracy that underpin the American way of life, ensuring that the U.S. continues to play a leading role in shaping a world where such principles prevail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For more than two years, we have said the strategic ambition of Russia is to annex Ukraine, followed by incremental encroachments into Moldova and eventually parts of Poland. This relentless pursuit will continue unabated until their objectives are fully realized. The only viable countermeasure to halt this aggression lies in equipping Ukraine with the comprehensive military support necessary to confront and repel Russian advances within its borders.
Regrettably, the response from the west has been marked by a combination of cowardice and a perplexing slowness. The protracted delay in supplying F-16s, which extended beyond two years and the over-a-year wait to provide 1990s era Bradley Fighting Vehicles, exemplifies a grave miscalculation in urgency. Furthermore, the hesitance to supply cruise missiles, capable of striking targets up to only 150 miles away, until two years into the conflict is outrageous. The piecemeal provision of critical military assets, including the paltry initial allocation of merely three HIMARS during the first six to twelve months, underscores a profoundly inadequate strategic response. Our approach, characterized by the incremental dispensation of outdated armaments, has fallen dramatically short of what is required. This lackluster support not only compromises Ukraine's defense capabilities but also emboldens Russian aggression, making it imperative to reassess and amplify our support strategy with the urgency this crisis demands.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 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
-
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
-
Betting market odds are influenced by the number of people placing bets on a particular outcome. The more people bet on someone to win, the lower that person's odds become. Its well known that sports betters tend to lean right politically. I don't know many left-wing, artsy individuals betting on sports or the ponies. We can see this bias because Michelle Obama was listed at 4-1 odds to win the election, despite no credible information suggesting she was even a candidate. The only source promoting the idea of her running came from right-wing conspiracy circles. She was 4th favorite because right wingers started betting on her because of their misinformation echo chamber. This misinformed, emotionally driven betting strategy also explains why Trump's odds are so favorable.
Political betting markets tend to skew to the right because, while not all right-wingers, many base their decisions on emotion rather than facts. And, as we all know, right-wingers often live in an echo chamber, disconnected from accurate information, especially when it comes to politics
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@DerrickW30 His attorney general after an investigation found no fraud, the state attorney general found no fraud, 3 hand recounts found no fraud and 60 lost court cases. Then he asked to "find 11, 780 votes", the exact number needed to overturn Joe Biden's victory.
This is an attempt to interfere with the electoral process and potentially commit election fraud. Pressuring an election official to alter the vote count violates both state and federal laws. The argument is, of course, he didnt mean to pressure or persuade Raffensberger, he was innocently asking to "find 11, 780 votes", because he was only interested in election integrity. Even though there was no evidence of widespread fraud and he was continually told this fact.
The intent of his call will be determined by 12 random jurors, after seeing all the evidence. Trumps record in court is abysmal and he will eventually face justice, dont worry though, by the time Biden wins in november and Trump has lost the Georgia case, you will have already dropped him like a hot potato and probably disown that you ever even supported him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heartofsteel7821
In regards to the situation involving Russia, Ukraine and the Minsk Agreements, there were several key issues:
1. Russia breached the ceasefire agreement by continuing to provide support and weaponry to separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine.
2. Russia did not fulfill its obligation to withdraw heavy weapons from Eastern Ukraine, as mandated by the Minsk agreements.
3. Russia did not take adequate measures to ensure that the Ukrainian border remained under Ukrainian control, allowing for the ongoing influx of weapons, fighters, and supplies to the separatists.
4. The Minsk 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 separatist groups and failed to prevent foreign fighters and weapons from entering Ukraine.
5. The agreements outlined a political settlement process that included the restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections, and the granting of special status to certain regions. Russia obstructed the implementation of these political provisions and did not pressure separatists to comply.
6. The agreements emphasized the need for humanitarian access to conflict areas, but Russia did not facilitate full and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to assist civilians in need.
Russia played a significant role in the Ukrainian conflict and had a clear responsibility to uphold the terms of the Minsk Agreements. However, Russia dishonestly denied being a party to these agreements and presented itself as a mere facilitator, claiming that the agreements were between Ukraine and the separatist groups (LPR and DPR). In reality, Russia supplied and controlled these groups and these groups were not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements.
Ukraine made efforts to implement the Minsk Agreements to the best of its ability, considering Russia's continued occupation of its territory. These efforts included political measures such as 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 passed and extended relevant laws to address these requirements.
The main obstacle to implementing these political measures was Russia's control over the territory. Russia insisted on holding local elections before relinquishing control, which posed problems because elections under occupation would not be internationally recognized. Additionally, these elections were for legitimate positions under Ukrainian law, not for the illegitimate government positions created by Russia. Resolving these matters required international supervision rather than being dictated by Russia.
tltr;
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, a move Russia opposed. Russia wanted Ukraine to grant autonomy to the LPR and DPR before the NATO vote so they could potentially vote against it. If granted autonomy, the LPR and DPR would still have the power to veto Ukraines joining NATO. When Ukraine refused to grant autonomy before a NATO vote, Russia canceled the Minsk Agreements and eventually decided to invade Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@yakivpopavich 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They are using a lot more than 10% of their capacity. They wouldn't be constantly going on recruitment drives, expanding the fighting age to 65, pardoning prisoners, enlisting chenyens, syrians, buying drones from Iran, sending their stationed troops in the far east to the front, if they were only using 10% of their capacity.
Second of all, even if they did have 90% of equipment, still waiting to get the green light, they would need manpower to be not only trained on the equipment but actually have the numbers to operate them. Those 10k tanks require 3 men to operate, etc.
Russia will never mobilize because they do not have the demographics to mobilize, period. End of story. They simply cannot afford to risk sending their 18-30 year olds to die. They need all the young slavic russians at home having babies and starting families. Russia are at their capacity, they have essentially been stuck for the last 2 months.
Don't be scared Chuck Norris!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewcrawford9677 God bless you Andrew, Russia in 4 months, have taken 10% of land, with 10% already occupied before the war. In the last 2 months of fighting they have taken a few miles of territory. The sanctions havent hit yet, it will take about a year to be fully realized, Ukraine are only now receiving heavy weapons, which still are only a handful and not enough. Russia have shown the world that their military are a joke, undisciplined, unprofessional, unreliable and incompetent. Im not sure how you can praise that, but I guess you have very low standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Le Pen's party is classified as "far right" due to its strong emphasis on French nationalism and anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric. It advocates for stringent measures that can infringe on civil liberties, reflecting an authoritarian approach to governance. Economically, it promotes protectionist policies, opposing globalization and favoring economic nationalism, all of which are hallmarks of "far right" ideology.
In contrast, traditional "right wing" policies generally advocate for free market principles, reduced government intervention in the economy, lower taxes and a smaller, less regulatory government. While Le Pen's party may support some of these "right wing" policies, its core agenda is largely dominated by "far right" principles.
I understand, you agree with La Pens anti-immigration policy but dont want be be considered "far right", but being classified as "far right" is not solely due to anti-immigration stances.
The combination of authoritarian governance, protectionist economics and nationalist rhetoric collectively define Le Pen's party as "far right", rather than just "right wing"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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