Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "CNN"
channel.
-
71
-
15
-
14
-
At the begining of the war Russia has only about 400,000 infantrymen, paratroopers and marines, half of whom are conscripts who do not take part in the special operation. And of the contractors, only volunteers fought until September 21. Thus, Russia started the war on February 24, having about 120 thousand of its own contract soldiers and several tens of thousands of soldiers from the DPR and LPR. Ukraine at the beginning of the war had 220 thousand soldiers, and Ukraine also had 900 thousand reservists, and Ukraine began to mobilize on the first day of the war.
Unsurprisingly, the Russian army's offensive bogged down a month later. It's not enough that it's easier to defend than to attack, so besides, the defending Ukrainian side also has a numerical advantage. It is clear that the Russian offensive has bogged down and almost stopped. Nevertheless, during March 2022, Russian troops achieved tremendous success, given that the Russian army was advancing, being in a numerical minority. And do not forget that Ukraine has been preparing for war for 8 years and has been building fortifications in the southeast for 8 years.
The Russian army, being in a numerical minority, continued to advance, albeit slowly, gnawing through the Ukrainian defense throughout the spring and summer of 2022. What does this tell us? This tells us that the losses of the Ukrainian army are actually higher than the Russian losses. Because if the losses of the Russian army were higher than the Ukrainian ones, then Russia would not have conducted successful offensive operations throughout the spring and summer of 2022, being in a numerical minority. Thus, we can conclude that Russia fought for several months, until September 21, 2022, being in a numerical minority, and the Russian army used the tactics of artillery gnawing through the defense, while the Ukrainian army attacked the positions of Russian troops head-on with cannon fodder. Russia has superiority in artillery, aviation and technology.
Ukraine certainly has modern Western weapons and drones. But drones and fancy missiles, due to their numbers, cannot compensate for the amount of aviation, cruise missiles and artillery that Russia has. And in general, it is not surprising that Ukraine's losses are higher, given that 95% of losses in the war are the result of artillery and aviation, in which Russia has total superiority. So in my theory, everything is generally logical. 90% of losses in the war are the result of artillery action, and Russia has total superiority in this regard.
As for the technology and quality of weapons, Ukraine certainly has modern Western weapons, but a minority of the army is armed with them. And most of the soldiers of Ukraine are fighting mainly with old Soviet junk from the 1980s. At the same time, Russia is armed with modernized equipment, for example, T-72b3 tanks of 2016. The Russians took a Soviet tank, changed the engine, improved the armor, installed more modern equipment, upgraded this tank to NATO standards of the late noughties and early 2010s. While Ukraine, due to corruption and a weak economy, was unable to upgrade its old weapons to modern quality standards. Thus, Russian Soviet tanks are much better and more modern than Ukrainian Soviet tanks, because Russia has upgraded its Soviet equipment to modern standards, and the Ukrainian army is armed with museum expansions of the Soviet era.
Do not forget that in addition to the advantage in mobilization, Ukraine has an advantage in the form of supplies of Western weapons. Moreover, the supplies have such volumes that many NATO countries have already exhausted their weapons stocks. 20/30 NATO member states announced in mid-November 2022 that they could no longer support Ukraine. The United States stopped supplying grenade launchers to Ukraine in the summer, because they had exhausted a significant share of their reserves, and they still need reserves for Taiwan.
It is clear that thanks to the mobilization of the Ukrainian army, armed with NATO weapons, has accumulated a huge numerical advantage by August 2022. In August, the Russian offensive finally bogged down in Ukrainian numbers, and in September, the Ukrainian army launched a successful offensive, liberating Balakleya and cutting off Russian supplies in Izyum, after which Russian troops evacuated from the Kharkiv region.
And also, using American precision weapons, the Ukrainians destroyed bridges across the Dnieper and left Russian troops in Kherson without supplies, which forced the Russians to leave Kherson. By the way, there are advantages in this - the Dnieper is a wide river that no one ever forces, and therefore it is a magnificent defensive position that Ukrainians will never cross.
After the defeats at the front, it became clear to the Russians that the numerical advantage on the side of the Ukrainian army is so great that Russia also needs to declare a response mobilization. On September 21, 2022, mobilization in Russia was announced. The Ukrainian army won all 7 months of the war only with numerical superiority, suffering more losses than the Russian army. Now that Russia has declared mobilization, we can forget about the successful Ukrainian offensives.
After the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge on October 8, 2022, Russia launched massive missile strikes on Ukraine's energy and infrastructure. And now let's imagine what would have happened if Russia had launched such missile strikes from the very beginning of the war? Ukraine would have capitulated long ago.
14
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
So you want to say that Russia blew up its own hydroelectric power plant? They bomb themselves, right?
The explosion of the Kakhovskaya HPP is not beneficial to anyone except Ukraine - the Ukrainian-controlled city of Kherson is located on the right bank of the Dnieper, there is a hill there, and settlements on the left, Russian bank of the Dnieper were mainly affected by flooding. After retreating from Kherson in November 2022, Russian troops for many months built defensive positions near the bank of the Dnieper, but due to the break of the dam, they were forced to withdraw from their defensive positions, which were built for a long time, and the Dnieper River upstream from the Kakhovskaya HPP will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to land across the river upstream, where The Russian command did not prepare a defense line due to the huge width of the reservoir, which Ukrainian troops on stationary boats would hardly dare to cross. But now the Russian defensive positions downstream of the reservoir are flooded, and upstream of the dam the reservoir will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to potentially land.
Russian troops were still on the right bank of the Dnieper and in Kherson in 2022, when Ukraine launched a rocket into the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station to cut the escape routes for the Russian army from Kherson. Ukraine bombed this dam with a rocket a few months ago, but the European clown Borrel in the morning, with a hangover, without even figuring it out, said that Russia was to blame.
Due to the undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP, water problems may begin in the Crimea, and it will also be impossible to launch the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which is controlled by Russia.
In total, we have that the explosion of the dam led to the flooding of settlements on the left bank of the Dnieper controlled by Russia, and the right bank of the river controlled by Ukraine is located on a hill. Russian army defensive positions were flooded, and higher up the river narrowed in the region where the Russian command did not even assume the possibility of a Ukrainian landing. In November 2022, Ukraine hit the dam with a HIMARS missile in an attempt to cut off the Russian troops' escape routes, which caused damage to the dam. And also because of the dam break, the Zaporozhye NPP and the Crimea will now be without water. But the Western media and the stupid Western population again blame Russia for everything.
The undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP is in no way beneficial to Russia, Ukraine did it. Ukraine blew up the Kakhovskaya HPP, and it is Ukraine's fault that there is a flood there now.
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Let's talk about Crimea. My main argument is that Crimea is ethnically Russian territory. In 2013, Russians made up 60% of the population in Crimea. 60%. At the same time Ukrainians made up 16% of the population. This is essentially a Russian territory, where the absolute majority of the population is Russian. Well, Crimea itself was originally legally Russian, until 1954. Until 1954, Crimea, a territory with a 60% Russian population, legally belonged to the Russian Soviet Republic. But in 1954, Russian territory was transferred to Ukraine. In 1991, we all together destroyed the USSR. Russia and the Russian people played a major role in this process. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of Soviet Russia, who back in the 1980s actively advocated Russia's independence from the USSR. In 1989, Russia achieved autonomy from the USSR and the Soviet government. In 1991, Yeltsin defeated the Stalinists, who tried to stage a coup and arrested Gorbachev. After that, Yeltsin banned the Communist Party on the territory of the USSR, and then Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, according to which Russia, Ukraine and Belarus left the USSR. Ukraine was a very friendly country. In view of friendly relations, we were satisfied with the fact that Crimea was part of Ukraine. Because if we are friends, then we are satisfied with the fact that our territories are part of Ukraine. In 2014, everything changed. A coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, the pro-Russian elites were overthrown. Then our troops returned the Crimea to their native harbor. The Ukrainian army did not defend the Crimea. Because then they knew whose land it was. Ukrainian troops left the territory without a fight, shaking hands with our officers. The local population was also happy to be reunited with Russia. I myself communicated on social networks with many people from Crimea, and I can say that the local population was really happy about Crimea joining Russia. A small proportion of the Ukrainian population was not happy, but they are a minority there. And even Ukrainians who left Crimea admit that only residents of Crimea can decide in which country they will live.
4
-
Let's talk about Crimea. My main argument is that Crimea is ethnically Russian territory. In 2013, Russians made up 60% of the population in Crimea. 60%. At the same time Ukrainians made up 16% of the population. This is essentially a Russian territory, where the absolute majority of the population is Russian. Well, Crimea itself was originally legally Russian, until 1954. Until 1954, Crimea, a territory with a 60% Russian population, legally belonged to the Russian Soviet Republic. But in 1954, Russian territory was transferred to Ukraine. In 1991, we all together destroyed the USSR. Russia and the Russian people played a major role in this process. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of Soviet Russia, who back in the 1980s actively advocated Russia's independence from the USSR. In 1989, Russia achieved autonomy from the USSR and the Soviet government. In 1991, Yeltsin defeated the Stalinists, who tried to stage a coup and arrested Gorbachev. After that, Yeltsin banned the Communist Party on the territory of the USSR, and then Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, according to which Russia, Ukraine and Belarus left the USSR. Ukraine was a very friendly country. In view of friendly relations, we were satisfied with the fact that Crimea was part of Ukraine. Because if we are friends, then we are satisfied with the fact that our territories are part of Ukraine. In 2014, everything changed. A coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, the pro-Russian elites were overthrown. Then our troops returned the Crimea to their native harbor. The Ukrainian army did not defend the Crimea. Because then they knew whose land it was. Ukrainian troops left the territory without a fight, shaking hands with our officers. The local population was also happy to be reunited with Russia. I myself communicated on social networks with many people from Crimea, and I can say that the local population was really happy about Crimea joining Russia. A small proportion of the Ukrainian population was not happy, but they are a minority there. And even Ukrainians who left Crimea admit that only residents of Crimea can decide in which country they will live.
4
-
@ellebelle8515 the Auchan supermarket which was visited by Tucker can be found in most of Russian regions, with exception of Fat East, majority of Russian population lives in European part of Russia and logistics to Far East are coming not from Europe, but from Asia, and the Far East has the most developed small and medium businesses with no giant companies and corporations, at least in terms of supermarkets.
Tucker Carlson wanted to show that Russians are living the same lifestyle as people in the West by visiting groccery shop.
Russian prices are lower than American prices in dollars, but yes, average salaries in Russia are smaller. The problem is that Russian pro-Western liberals and Western media is simply comparing countries in salaries in dollars, not considering the difference in prices. Russia is much more poor than USA, but it is false to measure difference in life standarts by salaries in dollars, because prices in Russia are also lower, and they were 1.5-2 times lower before the war, sanctions and covid. 1.5-2 times, I say it as a Russian.
4
-
@Moraprecisionreloader 1) Russians at now are advancing towards Bakhmut.
2) The Russians left Kherson because the Ukrainians had destroyed all the bridges across the Dnieper with the help of American precision weapons, and the Russian troops did not have normal supplies and reinforcements. Moreover, the Russians left this region in an organized manner, without a fight. Russian troops were not defeated on the battlefield near Kherson. As for the successes of Ukraine, it is important to understand that Russia, until the end of September, did not fight against Ukraine at full strength. Russia fought for 7 months without mobilization and without conscripts, using only volunteers. Ukraine, on the contrary, has been mobilizing since the first day of the war. It is clear that the Ukrainians have accumulated a numerical superiority, and were able to achieve success. However, after the Ukrainian successes, Russia announced mobilization - Putin did not want to announce mobilization for a long time because of the risks of revolution and unrest in the country. But when the Ukrainian army has a numerical superiority of one and a half to two times, they defeat us. Therefore, it is necessary to equalize the number of armies. Mobilized Russian troops are now arriving at the front, which means that the Ukrainian army will soon be unable to achieve any success at all. Because the population of Russia is 3.5 times larger. Russia can pull so many troops to the front that the Ukrainians will not achieve anything. This is where the war will end.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When Russia started the war, Russia has only about 400,000 infantrymen, paratroopers and marines, half of whom are conscripts who do not take part in the special operation. And of the contractors, only volunteers fought until September 21. Thus, Russia started the war on February 24, having about 120 thousand of its own contract soldiers and several tens of thousands of soldiers from the DPR and LPR. Ukraine at the beginning of the war had 220 thousand soldiers, and Ukraine also had 900 thousand reservists, and Ukraine began to mobilize on the first day of the war.
Unsurprisingly, the Russian army's offensive bogged down a month later. It's not enough that it's easier to defend than to attack, so besides, the defending Ukrainian side also has a numerical advantage. It is clear that the Russian offensive has bogged down and almost stopped. Nevertheless, during March 2022, Russian troops achieved tremendous success, given that the Russian army was advancing, being in a numerical minority. And do not forget that Ukraine has been preparing for war for 8 years and has been building fortifications in the southeast for 8 years.
The Russian army, being in a numerical minority, continued to advance, albeit slowly, gnawing through the Ukrainian defense throughout the spring and summer of 2022. What does this tell us? This tells us that the losses of the Ukrainian army are actually higher than the Russian losses. Because if the losses of the Russian army were higher than the Ukrainian ones, then Russia would not have conducted successful offensive operations throughout the spring and summer of 2022, being in a numerical minority. Thus, we can conclude that Russia fought for several months, until September 21, 2022, being in a numerical minority, and the Russian army used the tactics of artillery gnawing through the defense, while the Ukrainian army attacked the positions of Russian troops head-on with cannon fodder. Russia has superiority in artillery, aviation and technology.
Ukraine certainly has modern Western weapons and drones. But drones and fancy missiles, due to their numbers, cannot compensate for the amount of aviation, cruise missiles and artillery that Russia has. And in general, it is not surprising that Ukraine's losses are higher, given that 95% of losses in the war are the result of artillery and aviation, in which Russia has total superiority. So in my theory, everything is generally logical. 90% of losses in the war are the result of artillery action, and Russia has total superiority in this regard.
As for the technology and quality of weapons, Ukraine certainly has modern Western weapons, but a minority of the army is armed with them. And most of the soldiers of Ukraine are fighting mainly with old Soviet junk from the 1980s. At the same time, Russia is armed with modernized equipment, for example, T-72b3 tanks of 2016. The Russians took a Soviet tank, changed the engine, improved the armor, installed more modern equipment, upgraded this tank to NATO standards of the late noughties and early 2010s. While Ukraine, due to corruption and a weak economy, was unable to upgrade its old weapons to modern quality standards. Thus, Russian Soviet tanks are much better and more modern than Ukrainian Soviet tanks, because Russia has upgraded its Soviet equipment to modern standards, and the Ukrainian army is armed with museum expansions of the Soviet era.
Do not forget that in addition to the advantage in mobilization, Ukraine has an advantage in the form of supplies of Western weapons. Moreover, the supplies have such volumes that many NATO countries have already exhausted their weapons stocks. 20/30 NATO member states announced in mid-November 2022 that they could no longer support Ukraine. The United States stopped supplying grenade launchers to Ukraine in the summer, because they had exhausted a significant share of their reserves, and they still need reserves for Taiwan.
It is clear that thanks to the mobilization of the Ukrainian army, armed with NATO weapons, has accumulated a huge numerical advantage by August 2022. In August, the Russian offensive finally bogged down in Ukrainian numbers, and in September, the Ukrainian army launched a successful offensive, liberating Balakleya and cutting off Russian supplies in Izyum, after which Russian troops evacuated from the Kharkiv region.
And also, using American precision weapons, the Ukrainians destroyed bridges across the Dnieper and left Russian troops in Kherson without supplies, which forced the Russians to leave Kherson. By the way, there are advantages in this - the Dnieper is a wide river that no one ever forces, and therefore it is a magnificent defensive position that Ukrainians will never cross.
After the defeats at the front, it became clear to the Russians that the numerical advantage on the side of the Ukrainian army is so great that Russia also needs to declare a response mobilization. On September 21, 2022, mobilization in Russia was announced. The Ukrainian army won all 7 months of the war only with numerical superiority, suffering more losses than the Russian army. Now that Russia has declared mobilization, we can forget about the successful Ukrainian offensives.
After the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge on October 8, 2022, Russia launched massive missile strikes on Ukraine's energy and infrastructure. And now let's imagine what would have happened if Russia had launched such missile strikes from the very beginning of the war? Ukraine would have capitulated long ago.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bloodgout you can't tell me anything argumented, because my words are proven by statistics and facts, and your words are based on your fantasies. Russian army is very strong, but Russia fought not in full strength, while Ukraine already mobilized more than a million men, and at now Ukraine is preparing to mobilize women and invalid persons, and aslo Ukraine had the largest military in Europe with more tanks than Germany, Poland, Britain and France combined and largest territory, while Russia used just 150 thousand troops against superior in numbers Ukrainian army. During WW2 all sides had armies of millions of men. Germany in 1939 had 3 million soldiers, France in 1940 had 3 million soldiers, USSR in 1945 had 7.4 million soldiers, USA had 5 million soldiers in all frontlines, not considering US navy and airforce. During WW2 there were large armies with millions of men, and this is why in WW2 territories and regions had been capturing by these large armies very fast, but it is impossible to capture entire 40 million Ukraine, largest country in Europe, having only 150 thousand troops.
But Russia, unlike Ukraine, is fighting without total mobilization. Ukraine already mobilized more than a million men, and Ukraine is preparing to mobilize women and invalids, while Russia made only one wave of mobilization in fall 2022 when situation got critical because of Ukrainian numerical superiority - in early september 2022 for every one Russian soldier in the frontlines there were 2-3 Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian fall 2022 counteroffensive succeded only because Ukrainian command mobilized a lot of cannon fodder and Ukrainian casualities were higher. And Russia was forced to make mobilization in order to equalize strength on the frontlines. And when Russian army have the same numerical strength as Ukrainian, Ukraine is unable to defeat Russia and unable to succesfully advance, and Ukrainian 2023 summer offensive proved this. And this is not because Ukrainian army is weak. And Russian army isn't weak. This is because of technology, we live in 2024, in the era of FPV drones and internet and at now means of intelligence are on the peak. It is impossible for BOTH Russia and Ukraine to conduct an offensives because of FPV drones and intelligence. This is the same situation as in WW1, when machine guns appeared and defensive technology was superior over offensive technology, and both German and French armies during WW1 were unable to conduct offensives. But German, French and British armies in WW1 weren't weak, this was just a specific era in military history, when new military technology appeared, and military command simply didn't knew what to do with this new technology. Only after WW1, when tanks and combat avation appeared, radio technology and radars appeared, wars became much faster and in WW2 there were no stalemates like in WW1, but opposite - rapid advances of all armies. Modern Russian army isn't weak, we just living in such technological era that because of FPV drones and modern technologies it is impossible for ANY army in the World to conduct offensive, Ukrainian army also is unable to captute territories if Ukrainians don't have 2-3 times more men than Russians, like it was in fall 2022, when 400 thousand Ukrainian troops in the frontlines fought against 150 thousand Russian troops, and Ukrainians advanced near Kharkiv and Kherson. And don't forget about 200 billion $ military and financial aid to Ukraine.
German army in WW1 wasn't weak, French army in WW1 wasn't weak, and modern Russian army also isn't weak, we just live in specific era of military technology, where due to the FPV drones combat is simillar to WW1 style trench warfare. And of course it is impossible to conduct a WW2 style rapid advances without having a few MILLIONS of soldiers in your army, like it was in WW2. At the begining of 2022 Russia had just 240 thousand contract infantry troops, there are no armies with millions of men like in WW2, when France had 3 million soldiers, Germany had 3 million and USSR had 5.4 million in 1941.
2
-
2
-
@ashleylittle6776 The annexation of Crimea is not recognized in the UN, because firstly, the states of the World are forced to bend under the United States - the United States is the leading superpower in the World, and therefore almost all countries in the UN pretend to agree with the position of the United States. Secondly, most countries of the world simply do not care about some kind of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine. Do you think at least one country that voted in the UN conducted a serious historical study in order to cast a correct vote? No one understood there. Thirdly, Russia has never made claims to Crimea in the UN, because until 2014, Russia and Ukraine were friendly countries that actively traded. On May 9, the Ukrainian military marched on Red Square as allies of Russia. And in 2014, an anti-Russian revolution took place in Ukraine. Until 2014, Russia did not make claims to Crimea, and therefore no one understood the annexation of Crimea, and as I have already written, no one in the World except Russia and Ukraine cared about it. Politicians in the Philippines, China, Australia, Brazil or South Africa are not interested in this, they did not delve into history and statistics before voting. In addition, the annexation of Crimea really took place with violations of international law. The troops invaded the territory of Crimea long before it was incorporated into Russia, and voting in Crimea was already under the supervision of the Russian military. The vote itself was fake, there was a fake turnout of 84% and 4% of the votes "against". The real turnout is estimated at 40%, but in this case about 10% of the votes are "against". Russian sociologists believe that the majority of the Russian population of Crimea came to the vote and voted "for", and the Ukrainian and non-Russian share of the population simply ignored this vote. But in general, the vote was fake, although even without falsifications there would have been 90% of the votes "for" with a low turnout.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xvi1128 I know who the Tatars are. I will even say more - my grandfather is a Tatar. As for the Crimean Tatars, since when have Stalin's repressions and Stalin's crimes been the fault of the Russians? Russian Russians, especially modern Russians, have anything to do with Stalin's crimes? Especially considering how many Russians were shot or died of starvation during his reign. Stalin did deport Crimean Tatars after 1945, but what does the Russians have to do with it?
As for Russia, I want to tell you that the English language has some shortcomings regarding Russia. Look - there is a difference between the concept of "nation" and "people". The people is an identity that is based on genetics and race. And a nation is an identity that is based on ideology and worldview. From the point of view of genetics, there is no Soviet people. There is no Soviet genetics. But once there was a Soviet nation, which included Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and many other peoples. Also a good example is the Anglo-Saxons. How do the British, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Americans differ from each other from the point of view of genetics? Nothing. Genetically, they are one people. Australians, Canadians and Americans are descendants of English immigrants from Britain. But these are different nations that respect their independence and statehood. There is a difference between the concept of "nation" and "people". Americans, Australians and Canadians are genetically English, and the British nation includes the English, Scots and Wales.
So, in English, in matters concerning Russia, there is no such difference. Two Russian words - "Russkiy" and "Rossiyanin" are translated into English as "Russian". Although "Russian" is about genetics, and "Rossiyanin" is a nation. So, our nation is completely independent of genetics. You can be of any blood, even a Turk, even a Chinese, even a German. But you can consider yourself Rossiyanin if you want. Again, just like the Scots are part of the British nation. There is absolutely no separatism in Russia and no desire to separate from Russia. Therefore, Russia will not collapse in the same way as the USSR, in which all republics, including Russia itself, wanted independence from the Communist Party. It's stupid to think that the USSR and Russia are the same thing. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of the Russian Soviet Republic, who publicly tore off the CPSU badge at a meeting of the CPSU. It was Yeltsin who achieved Russia's autonomy from the USSR in 1990. It was Russia that made a key contribution to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. So again, I don't understand why Russians should answer to Crimean Tatars for the crimes of the Communist Party and Stalin. Boris Yeltsin, when he was still sober, simply trampled on the Communists and made Russia, and with it other republics, independent. In Russia, all peoples live as a friendly family. Russia is a secular state with freedom of religion. Small nations have the right to learn their own language. What can not be said about Ukraine, where the Russian language has been systematically oppressed over the past 30 years. And Crimean Tatars associate themselves more with Russia, not with Ukraine. Crimean Tatars in 2014, even if they did not consider themselves citizens of Russia, but at least treated them neutrally.
2
-
@johnarnold893 Ukrainians speak Russian because the Soviet communists, who dreamed of a world revolution, wanted to create some kind of international language. That is why the communists changed the Russian language beyond recognition, but forgot to rename it. In 1917, Russian was almost indistinguishable from Ukrainian. However, the communists changed the Russian language very much, removing a few letters from the alphabet, radically changing the grammar and adding a bunch of foreign words. But the communists forgot to rename this new language, which continued to be called Russian. Therefore, this language is 100% spoken by the inhabitants of Russia, but other nations of the USSR could not be convinced to speak completely Russian.
2
-
Ukraine has been mobilizing since February 24, and the number of the Ukrainian army is growing every day, while Russia is fighting with a limited contingent of contract volunteers. Regardless of the losses of the Russian and Ukrainian sides, there is such a situation that Ukraine has accumulated a serious numerical advantage, and as a result, the Russian offensive in the Donbas has stopped and for 3 months now there have been battles for Bakhmut, Soledar and Disputed. And the Ukrainian army is successfully advancing in the Kherson region, and recently they very quickly liberated the Kharkiv region. Therefore, Putin, in the seventh month of the war, decided to begin mobilizing reservists in order to at least equalize the number of the two warring armies. Because when the Ukrainian army has a numerical advantage of one and a half or two times over the Russian one, military actions are not in favor of Russia. In general, it would be better if the military operations on February 24 did not even begin
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Spectre11B Germany didn't actually have such a strong army in the 1930s. Even by 1939, after several years of hard training, the German army was far behind the French or British army. I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about military equipment, I'm talking about the supply of troops and military production, I'm talking about logistics. The Germans had almost no oil, they were forced to process coal into fuel. In 1939, almost the entire German army traveled on horseback. In the British, French, Soviet and American armies, the mechanization of troops was much higher. Germany, due to lack of fuel, had ability to produce very few tanks per month. The Soviet Union in 1939 had about 20,000 tanks. France has about 3,000. Britain had about fifteen hundred. Germany had about 2,000 tanks. At the same time, German tanks were not better in terms of technical characteristics than French, Soviet or English. And the early German tanks were generally human-sized machine-gun tankettes. German aviation was inferior to the British, the British also had good self-propelled guns that hit any German tank. The German army in 1939 was inferior to the French in everything except education, training and command. With regards to the reasons for the construction of the army. First, any state has the right to protect its borders. Britain and France forbade Germany to have an army. But who are they? Germany revived its army.
Secondly, because of these unfriendly countries, because of the Soviet threat (the USSR sought to spread the World Revolution), Germany needed an army, at least somewhat comparable to the French one. In 1939, the German army was worse armed and manned than the French.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014 USA backed with money and propaganda a revolution, coup in Ukraine, changing power in this country, while Russia was investing money into Ukraine for years since 2000s. So USA basically robbed Russia, and Russia as an answer captured Crimea. Russia came for its share of Ukraine. This is how this war started, basically. Russia just wants its share which USA simply stolen from Russia by organizing a revolution in Ukraine. Crimea is just basically Russian territory with MAJORITY of 60% of population being Russians, and just minority of 16% of Ukrainians, which was transfered from Russia to Ukraine by Soviet government. After the collapse of USSR Russia wanted friendship and cooperation with Ukraine, and Russia recognized Crimea as Ukrainian. But American backed revolution in Ukraine changed this and Russia came to liberate Crimea at first place, and Crimean Russian population wanted to reunite with Russia for years, they are still happy that they are in Russia and support Putin and SMO. Later Russia played reverse UNO card and backed coups in the Donbass, leading to creation of Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, who declared independence from Ukraine. But instead of going to war, Putin wanted to trade this territory back to Ukraine in exchange of Russian political influence on Ukraine. And Putin had a very good deal with Ukrainian president Poroshenko, but they both made 2 mistakes - Putin lost control over Donbass rebels and they didn't wanted to make a peace deal with Uktaine. The same way Putin lost control over Prigojin and Wagner group in 2023. While Ukrainian president Poroshenko lost control over his parliament and Ukrainian parliament also rejected peace deal. So, Putin and Poroshenko made another deal - Ukraine DIDN'T returned Donbass back, but Russia was allowed to invest money into media and political parties inside Ukraine, and pro-Russian party was leading elections on 2nd place in Ukrainian parliament with 20% of vote, until Zelensky came to power and started censorship and purges against free media and his opponents in Ukraine. So, Russia lost the only one peaceful mean of influence over Ukraine and Russia used military soultion.
At now Trump is ready to make a deal with Russia dividing Ukraine 50/50. Nothing personal, just business. USA have backed with money and media revolution, change of power in Ukraine in 2014, so Russia which invested money, territories and people into Ukraine was robbed, USA simply have stolen everything from Russia, and at now USA are taking responsibility for their actions, and using diplomacy instead of war. Russia IS reliable ally and partner, unlike European Union, and in early 2000s there was an attempt of friendship between USA and Russia. When 9/11 attack happened, Putin was the first president in the World who called American president, and Russia even allowed its airspace and territory for American army going to war on terror in Afghanistan. USA and Russia need to be at least neutral and not cause problems to each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Republicans were saying that Europe isn't spending 2% of their GDP on defense, while USA are forimg 90% of NATO capabilities. In fact, NATO originally was founded to solve 2 targets - to contain and threat Soviet Union and Russia, and second purpose of NATO existance was to spread American hygemony and influence over Europe. In 1945 Europe was in ruins after WW2, and United States made a Marshall plan of economic help to Europe, accoring to which European states who will join NATO will receive American money as credit, and then they must spend this money on American goods. So, United States simply colinised Europe after WW2 using NATO and Marshall Plan, NATO is an instrument of American hygemony over Europe. And this is why Russia wasn't allowed to join NATO in 2002, when Putin officially proposed to join the alliance - Russia had huge army in 2002, and United States don't need competition inside NATO, because if Russian proposal to join NATO was approved, there was also a significant Russian influence inside alliance. Also, in 1952 USSR proposed to join NATO, but got rejected, and this proves that NATO is not a defensive alliance that provides security in Europe - if NATO was an alliance with purpose to provide security, then there are a principle, that security of everyone is security of all, and you can't provide your security bu sacrficing the security of others, and when USSR was rejected from joining NATO in 1952, USSR simply proved that NATO isn't saint defensive alliance, but rather an agressive anti-Russian offensive alliance, that wants the destruction of Russia, and in 2002 Russia also proposed to join NATO and got rehected, and this is why USSR and Russia have all rights to defend themselves and make a buffer zone out of Ukraine by using military invasion, in order to not repear Cuban missile crisis of 1962, but from other side. Democrats are prioritizing American hygemony in Europe, sacrficing European security, while Republicants want Europe to spend more on their army. This is why I am as a Russian citizen and hacket will vote for sleepy Joe in coming elections, because only sleepy Joe can provide Russia a better conditions.
1
-
1
-
@Neo_LV69 я имею ввиду что в военное время нельзя допускать распространения вражеской пропаганды или чего то что подрывало бы правоту или основы нашей стороны. Точно также посадили в тюрьму Джуллиана Ассанжа, который слил в сеть секретные документы о преступлениях войск США в Ираке. В украинской тюрьме умер американский журналист Гонсаро Лира. ЦРУ убила нескольких человек которые также раскрывали поднаготную политики США - один сам себя закрыл в сумке в ванной по частям, а второй совершил самоубийство двумя выстрелами из пистолета. Эдварду Сноудену грозит тюремный срок в США за то что тот рассказал про слежку американских спецслужб за людьми. Понимаешь, Мир не черно белый, и все государства по своей природе одинаковы, пусть в одних государствах есть выборная система, а в других тоталитаризм. В военное время недопустимы вражеские агитаторы, их нужно прикрывать, и российское государство с ними ещё гуманно поступило - им позволили покинуть Россию, тому же Илье Яшину дали несколько месяцев чтобы уехать, но он решил остаться. В мирное время в России была относительная свобода слова и либеральные СМИ вполне критиковали Путина и имели место в медийном пространстве. Но не сейчас, и это нормально - точно также и в Украине тебя закопают, если ты будешь выступать с про-российской позицией, а на Западе тебя отменят за то что ты просто русский
1
-
@Neo_LV69 в тюрьму нужно сажать предателей и вражеских пропагандистов в военное время. И это в любом государстве так. Представь, что бы было, если бы во время Второй Мировой войны немецкие пропагандисты беспрепятственно распространяли немецкую пропаганду на территории СССР, или если бы японские пропагандисты спокойно распространяли свою повестку в Китае, с которым Япония воевала. В военное время ни одно государство не позволит вражеским пропагандистам распространять их повестку, и тут не важно, США это или Северная Корея. Давайте вспомним Джуллиана Ассанжа, который слил в интернет секретные документы и информацию о военных преступлениях США в Ираке, информацию об убийствах американскими военными мирных жителей в Ираке. По итогу в Америке ему грозит что-то вроде 150 лет заключения, он несколько лет жил в посольстве в Британии, и сидит на пожизненном, за то что раскрыл секретные данные о военных преступлениях американской армии. Или Эдвард Сноуден, которому грозит тюрьма в США за то что он рассказал о том как ЦРУ следит да людьми в соц.сетях и прослушивает звонки. Или тюрьма на Кубе в Гуантаномо, где нет никаких законов и соблюдения человеческих прав, и над заключёнными просто издеваются и пытают хуже чем в любой российской тюрьме, и в Гуантаномо также попал журналист из Судана, который тоже разузнал в Ираке о военных преступлениях американской армии. Вообще забавно что американцы и либералы любят приводить в пример ужасов коммунизма советские трудовые лагеря - гулаги, хотя сама американская тюремная система устроена так, что у них полно частных тюрем которые используют рабский бесплатный труд заключённых на каких нибудь рудниках, это даже было в пропагандистской книжке из восьмидесятых - "Рэмбо 2" и в фильме где Сталоне снимался, там где Рэмбо на стороне афганских исламистских террористов, которых американская пропаганда называла борцами за свободу, убивал русских в Афганистане. А потом эти "борцы за свободу" устроили американцам терракт 11 сентября, бумеранг вернулся в Америку)
Также есть ещё два убийства двух сотрудников ЦРУ, которые сливали в сеть какие то данные после увольнения - один застрелился из пистолета два раза подряд, а второй сам себя разрезал и сам закрылся в сумке в ванной, исходя из расследования ФБР США.
Как видишь, свободная демократическая Америка ничем не лучше Северной Кореи, все государства по своей природе и интенциям одинаковы, просто Северная Корея окружена врагами, изолирована ими же, закрыта и у неё проблемы в экономике, поэтому государство в Северной Корее просто не может позволить себе такую роскошь чтобы давать людям свободы и права, а Америка это Мировая Империя и кровавый гигемон, у которого с экономикой и уровнем жизни всё зашибись, и государство с барского плеча может позволить себе дать гражданам какую то свободу слова и права, хотя сейчас в свете современной левацкой ЛГБТ повестки, когда в США тебя могут посадить за оскорбление трансгендера в интернете, это уже спорно, государство просто использует хайповую тему с ЛГБТ как популистский политический актив, чтобы ограничивать свободу слова и вмешиваться в управление частными компаниями - от Майкрософт и Эпл до Нетфликса все тоже радужную гос.повесточку лепят.
Все государства по своей природе и интенциям одинаковы. В Украине, если ты будешь выступать с про-российской позицией, тебя просто закопают. Вы говорите что Путин диктатор, который ограничивает свободу слова и убил Навального. В Украине в тюрьме убили американского журналиста Гонсаро Лиру, а Байдену и американским властям плевать на него, а на Навального Байдену почему то не плевать. Как это так получается? Зеленский убил американского журналиста в тюрьме, и американскому правительству просто плевать на это, а на Навального не плевать. Да потому что Навальный был активом в руках США и получал от американцев бабки и гранты ведя подрывную деятельность против РФ. Вот и всё, и Путин правильно сделал что этого агента запрятал в тюрягу. Что касаемо жены Навального - Ни один человек не может профессионально читать с суфлёра без подготовки. В обращении жены Навального прекрасно видна актёрская игра и пара недель тренировок с режиссёром. Тем не менее, жена Навального не смогла скрыть улыбку на Мюнхенской конференции, когда выступала там, и уж тем более жена Навального не скрывает улыбку на совместных фотографиях с Чичваркиным, с которым она стоит в обнимку и спит уже два года, пока её муж сидел в тюрьме. Юлии Навальной плевать на смерть её мужа, которому она два года изменяет с Чичваркиным, а смерть Навального позволит Юлии получать Западные гранты и вести медийную деятельность вместо него, поэтому Юлия кое как скрывала улыбку на выступлении в Мюнхене. А до смерти мужа Юлия активно тренировалась мастерству чтения с суфлёра, чтобы такт был вовремя, речь была выразительной, а на съёмках режиссёр наверняка поправлял её, типа "сделай лицо выразительнее, чтобы было похоже на вдову которая скорбит по мужу". Неподготовленный человек не может так читать с суфлёра для роликов на ютуб.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In fact, everything is more prosaic - Putin is not the only person in the Kremlin. He's not the one who decides everything. Otherwise, how do you explain the existence of oligarchs? In Russia, the state and business are one. Putin is a representative of the state. Oligarchs are business representatives. They act together, they can conflict for spheres of influence. Boris Yeltsin, for example, was an alcoholic and practically did not control the situation in the country, and under Yeltsin, the oligarchs owned all the power. And under Putin, they have become more dependent on him. But this does not change the essence of the Kremlin - Putin alone does not decide anything, Putin's power depends on a certain group of people. It is stupid to think that Russia is ruled by some dictator who is in general the only one who controls everything and does not depend on anyone. It is foolish to think that Russia's goal is to seize territories. In the 21st century, it is no longer necessary to seize territory. Zelensky just wanted Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, and Russia is not satisfied with this, for Russia it is an existential threat
1
-
1
-
@dennisgarber As for Ukraine, the former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019) was quite corrupt. He has quite a lot of business in Russia. The Kremlin managed to find a common language with Poroshenko, to bribe him to freeze the conflict. However, Zelensky could not be bribed, and Zelensky decided to just dance to the American tune, Zelensky wanted Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, and for Russia this is a key issue. Therefore, the war began. If Putin's goal was expansion, Ukraine would have been captured back in 2014 and 2015, when Ukraine simply did not have an army. And so it turns out that Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war, although in 2014 it would have been possible to enter Kiev without a fight on the third day of the war. So, Putin didn't care about Ukraine until 2021. So, until 2021, Putin did not plan an attack on Ukraine, since the president of Ukraine was growing business in Russia. The war is going on now because a clown and a puppet of the United States, who has no idea about geopolitics, has come to power in Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dennisgarber At the expense of gas in the East of Ukraine - this is not the reason for the invasion. Firstly, gas is useless as a resource if you can't sell it. Because of the war in Ukraine, they want to abandon Russian gas, and the United States is using hints or threats to promote the idea around the world that there is no need to trade with Russia. Secondly, gas deposits are useless if you can't extract them. Russia has long lagged behind in drilling technologies, but the Americans are the leaders of drilling technologies and World monopolists in this area. And it will be bad for Russia without American boers. Especially in the oil sector - Russia has almost run out of easily accessible oil deposits, but there are oil deposits that cannot be exploited with existing technologies. But Russia has abnormally huge gas deposits, and Putin does not need any Ukrainian gas, Russia has its own deposits for a hundred years ahead. As for Ukrainian democracy, they have been talking about it in Ukraine since 2014, but after the revolution in Ukraine everything only got worse in terms of freedom of speech
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cteal2018 In 2014, 60% of the population in Crimea were Russians, 16% were Ukrainians, and the remaining 24% were Crimean Tatars and other nationalities. Russians in Crimea in 2014 were more than 3 times more than Ukrainians.
This is the Russian territory, which after the Russo-Turkish war was Russian for 200 years, until in 1954 Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 had a purely technical meaning - in Soviet times, no one could have imagined that the USSR would cease to exist. And Crimea was transferred to Ukraine because it had no land communication with Russia, but had with Ukraine, from whose territory all communications were going. Therefore, it would be more logical to manage Crimea from the Kiev administration. In fact, the Russians simply gave Ukrainians their territory for maintenance.
In 1991, the USSR collapsed. Crimea was part of Ukraine while Ukraine was a friendly country towards Russia. However, in 2014, an anti-Russian revolution took place in Ukraine, and therefore Russia took its real estate for itself
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nataly27022013 I know who the Tatars are. I will even say more - my grandfather is a Tatar. As for the Crimean Tatars, since when have Stalin's repressions and Stalin's crimes been the fault of the Russians? Russian Russians, especially modern Russians, have anything to do with Stalin's crimes? Especially considering how many Russians were shot or died of starvation during his reign. Stalin did deport Crimean Tatars after 1945, but what does the Russians have to do with it?
As for Russia, I want to tell you that the English language has some shortcomings regarding Russia. Look - there is a difference between the concept of "nation" and "people". The people is an identity that is based on genetics and race. And a nation is an identity that is based on ideology and worldview. From the point of view of genetics, there is no Soviet people. There is no Soviet genetics. But once there was a Soviet nation, which included Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and many other peoples. Also a good example is the Anglo-Saxons. How do the British, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Americans differ from each other from the point of view of genetics? Nothing. Genetically, they are one people. Australians, Canadians and Americans are descendants of English immigrants from Britain. But these are different nations that respect their independence and statehood. There is a difference between the concept of "nation" and "people". Americans, Australians and Canadians are genetically English, and the British nation includes the English, Scots and Wales.
So, in English, in matters concerning Russia, there is no such difference. Two Russian words - "Russkiy" and "Rossiyanin" are translated into English as "Russian". Although "Russian" is about genetics, and "Rossiyanin" is a nation. So, our nation is completely independent of genetics. You can be of any blood, even a Turk, even a Chinese, even a German. But you can consider yourself Rossiyanin if you want. Again, just like the Scots are part of the British nation. There is absolutely no separatism in Russia and no desire to separate from Russia. Therefore, Russia will not collapse in the same way as the USSR, in which all republics, including Russia itself, wanted independence from the Communist Party. It's stupid to think that the USSR and Russia are the same thing. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of the Russian Soviet Republic, who publicly tore off the CPSU badge at a meeting of the CPSU. It was Yeltsin who achieved Russia's autonomy from the USSR in 1990. It was Russia that made a key contribution to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. So again, I don't understand why Russians should answer to Crimean Tatars for the crimes of the Communist Party and Stalin. Boris Yeltsin, when he was still sober, simply trampled on the Communists and made Russia, and with it other republics, independent. In Russia, all peoples live as a friendly family. Russia is a secular state with freedom of religion. Small nations have the right to learn their own language. What can not be said about Ukraine, where the Russian language has been systematically oppressed over the past 30 years. And Crimean Tatars associate themselves more with Russia, not with Ukraine. Crimean Tatars in 2014, even if they did not consider themselves citizens of Russia, but at least treated them neutrally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you want to say that Russia blew up its own hydroelectric power plant? They bomb themselves, right?
The explosion of the Kakhovskaya HPP is not beneficial to anyone except Ukraine - the Ukrainian-controlled city of Kherson is located on the right bank of the Dnieper, there is a hill there, and settlements on the left, Russian bank of the Dnieper were mainly affected by flooding. After retreating from Kherson in November 2022, Russian troops for many months built defensive positions near the bank of the Dnieper, but due to the break of the dam, they were forced to withdraw from their defensive positions, which were built for a long time, and the Dnieper River upstream from the Kakhovskaya HPP will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to land across the river upstream, where The Russian command did not prepare a defense line due to the huge width of the reservoir, which Ukrainian troops on stationary boats would hardly dare to cross. But now the Russian defensive positions downstream of the reservoir are flooded, and upstream of the dam the reservoir will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to potentially land.
Russian troops were still on the right bank of the Dnieper and in Kherson in november 2022, when Ukraine launched a HIMARS rocket into the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station to cut the escape routes for the Russian army from Kherson. Ukraine bombed this dam with a rocket a few months ago, but the European clown Borrel in the morning, with a hangover, without even figuring it out, said that Russia was to blame.
Due to the undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP, water problems may begin in the Crimea, and it will also be impossible to launch the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which is controlled by Russia.
In total, we have that the explosion of the dam led to the flooding of settlements on the left bank of the Dnieper controlled by Russia, and the right bank of the river controlled by Ukraine is located on a hill. Russian army defensive positions were flooded, and higher up the river narrowed in the region where the Russian command did not even assume the possibility of a Ukrainian landing. In November 2022, Ukraine hit the dam with a HIMARS missile in an attempt to cut off the Russian troops' escape routes, which caused damage to the dam. And also because of the dam break, the Zaporozhye NPP and the Crimea will now be without water. But the Western media and the stupid Western population again blame Russia for everything.
The undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP is in no way beneficial to Russia, Ukraine did it. Ukraine blew up the Kakhovskaya HPP, and it is Ukraine's fault that there is a flood there now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duanehirini2078 Ukraine has been mobilizing since February 24, and the number of the Ukrainian army is growing every day, while Russia is fighting with a limited contingent of contract volunteers. Regardless of the losses of the Russian and Ukrainian sides, there is such a situation that Ukraine has accumulated a serious numerical advantage, and as a result, the Russian offensive in the Donbas has stopped and for 3 months now there have been battles for Bakhmut, Soledar and Disputed. And the Ukrainian army is successfully advancing in the Kherson region, and recently they very quickly liberated the Kharkiv region. Therefore, Putin, in the seventh month of the war, decided to begin mobilizing reservists in order to at least equalize the number of the two warring armies. Because when the Ukrainian army has a numerical advantage of one and a half or two times over the Russian one, military actions are not in favor of Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Главнокомандующий украинской армией Залужный заявил что российские ракеты поразили военные объекты, а урон гражданской инфраструктуре был нанесён опрометчивыми ударами украинского ПВО, ракеты украинского ПВО не смогли сбить почти ни одну российскую ракету и упали на украинские города из-за чего и пострадали мирные жители. Виновата в этом сама Украина, либо же можно использовать такую логику, что виноват в этом тот кто развязал войну, однако и тут Украина в общем то виновата, ибо это именно Украина в 2014 году развязала войну против русского населения на Донбассе, не дав Донбассу отделиться от Украины после того как в Киеве произошёл незаконный госпереворот при поддержке американских спецслужб. Если люди в Киеве имели право на самоопределение, то люди на Донбассе тоже имели такое право, и если люди в Киеве устроили у себя революцию и смену власти незаконным методом, то люди в Крыму и на Донбассе тоже имели такое право, а люди в Киеве помешали им и ввели войска на Донбасс в апреле 2014 года. По сути именно Украина тут является агрессором, именно Украина это агрессор и оккупант, который ввёл войска против собственных граждан на Донбассе в 2014 году. 50% населения Донбасса составляют русские, и Россия не могла остаться в стороне и не помочь русским. Россия помогла повстанцам на Донбассе с поставками оружия и потоком добровольцев, благодаря чему украинская армия в 2014-15 годах не смогла разгромить повстанцев, затем при посредничестве России были подписаны Минские соглашения, причём Украина подписала этот документ два раза, но не стала выполнять условия. Где то к 2017 году произошла заморозка конфликта на Донбассе и активные боевые действия между русскими повстанцами и украинской армией утихли. Однако Киевское государство продолжило считать эти территории своими, а для того чтобы вернуть эти территории Украине было нужно каким то способом ограничить поддержку и поставки оружия со стороны России. Для этого Украина решила получить гарантии безопасности со стороны США и НАТО. Если бы это произошло, украинская армия получила бы монополию на насилие, а Россия ничем не смогла бы помочь русским повстанцам на Донбассе, и украинские войска пошли бы в наступление на Донецк и Луганск. Россия до последнего пыталась договориться мирным, цивилизованным путём. Россия годами вела переговоры с Западом. Последние переговоры прошли в 2021 году в Швейцарии, в Женеве, но эти переговоры закончились провалом, и у России не осталось иного выбора кроме как попытаться навязать свою позицию силой, ибо расширение НАТО это экзистенциальная угроза для России, а мирные переговоры провалились в 2021 году. Эту войну против русского населения на Донбассе развязала Украина в 2014 году, Россия помогала повстанцам, а полноценно втянули Россию в этот конфликт США, давя на Россию расширением НАТО. А украинские мирные жители страдают от ракет украинского ПВО, российские ракеты почти неуязвимы и по словам украинского командования поражают военные объекты.
1
-
1
-
Ukraine has been mobilizing since February 24, and the number of the Ukrainian army is growing every day, while Russia is fighting with a limited contingent of contract volunteers. Regardless of the losses of the Russian and Ukrainian sides, there is such a situation that Ukraine has accumulated a serious numerical advantage, and as a result, the Russian offensive in the Donbas has stopped and for 3 months now there have been battles for Bakhmut, Soledar and Disputed. And the Ukrainian army is successfully advancing in the Kherson region, and recently they very quickly liberated the Kharkiv region. Therefore, Putin, in the seventh month of the war, decided to begin mobilizing reservists in order to at least equalize the number of the two warring armies. Because when the Ukrainian army has a numerical advantage of one and a half or two times over the Russian one, military actions are not in favor of Russia. In general, it would be better if the military operations on February 24 did not even begin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Spectre11B History is written by the winners. Hitler really committed monstrous crimes, carried out genocides of peoples. However, for example, the Americans did the same. The Americans exterminated millions of Indians, reducing their numbers to almost zero. Europeans also carried out genocides in their colonies. In 1943, several million people died from artificial famine in Indochina, and Winston Churchill sneered at this, saying that Asians "breed like cockroaches." And why was Churchill better than Hitler? I generally keep quiet about Stalin. History is written by the winners. Hitler and the things he did were monstrous, but that was the norm at the time. With regards to Hitler's policy, I believe that he was right in many respects.
After the end of the First World War, German territories were taken away from Germany in which the German people lived for centuries, territories in which the Germans made up the vast majority of the population. And these lands, which are 80% populated by Germans, were given to Poland or Czechoslovakia. By the way, in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, the same nationalists were in power as in Germany. And the Czech nationalists oppressed the German population, violating even the basic human rights of the Germans in this region. Germany restored justice when she regained her ancestral lands. Imagine that a piece of your country will be torn off and given to another country. After Czechoslovakia, Germany decided to take a debt from Poland. But when the fighting began there, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Note - Germany did not declare war. It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany. Germany just wanted to return Memel. But the Allies intervened, hypocritically accused Hitler of imperialism, and the Allies declared war on Germany. Britain and France have half of the World as colonies, Churchill is starving people in Indochina, and they have enough hypocrisy and double standards to accuse Germany of aggression and imperialism...
1
-
1
-
@lornewazny7152 people who don't have modern heating systems are not living in cities. They are living in the country houses, and it is normal even in Europe, USA and Canada to heat country house by woods or coal. In Finland majority of houses in the country is heated by woods. Sometimes people themselves don't want gas or electro supply in their house, and not all Russians are living in block buildings, someone is living in village. And also there are many Russians who have 2, 3 or even more houses or flats, and dacha. Dacha is a Russian version of summer cottage, and because people do not live there on a permanent basis and rarely visit there, then they don't need heating. For example, I don't have heating in my dacha, but in the last 2 years I have been there only twice for a couple of days in the summer.
Majority of Russians have gas supply, and some amount who lives in the countriside are using woods for heating, just like in Finland, Canada, and nordic countries. Russia don't have developed green energy, so if in Europe people use solar panels instead of gas, in Russia people use woods and coal
1
-
1
-
@lornewazny7152 Did you know that the pipes in the heating system are being changed and repaired, and new ones are being put in? The number of accidents in heating systems in Russia has decreased significantly compared to the nineties, and a lot of work has been done since 2001. In the nineties, an average of 15-17 thousand accidents in housing and communal services occurred in Russia, and since 2000 there has been a sharp drop, and from 2001 to 2024 the minimum level of 4 thousand accidents is maintained. Moreover, earlier in 15-17 thousand accidents there was a significant proportion of medium- and large-scale accidents, but now among 4 thousand accidents the vast majority of "accidents" are minor failures and trifles without consequences for people. For a country with a population of 140 million people, where there is no alternative to heating in winter, 4,000 minor accidents per year is a good indicator and much better than it was 24 years ago.
1
-
@lornewazny7152 What does the Depression and the 1930s, which were 90 years ago, have to do with it? What does electricity have to do with it, if we were talking about heating? In Russia in the 1920s, the Communists carried out a massive electrification program, increasing the supply of electricity from ~10% to ~40% from 1921 to 1927. In America, under Roosevelt, the state created construction programs just to provide jobs during the crisis, because demand creates supply, and in order to produce and sell goods, you need to have a buyer with money, and when a third of the country was out of work, there was no buyer with money, so under Roosevelt in America they built a bunch of sometimes useless infrastructure to provide jobs. But 90 years have happened since then, what does this have to do with it at all? I said that green energy is developing in the West now and many people use solar panels in private homes, and in Russia, for various reasons, people in private country houses use firewood, as in Finland, Canada and the Nordic countries.
Why are you talking about electricity, if we were talking about heating, I don't understand you. All Russian houses, even in rural areas have electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014 USA backed with money and propaganda a revolution, coup in Ukraine, changing power in this country, while Russia was investing money into Ukraine for years since 2000s. So USA basically robbed Russia, and Russia as an answer captured Crimea. Russia came for its share of Ukraine. This is how this war started, basically. Russia just wants its share which USA simply stolen from Russia by organizing a revolution in Ukraine. Crimea is just basically Russian territory with MAJORITY of 60% of population being Russians, and just minority of 16% of Ukrainians, which was transfered from Russia to Ukraine by Soviet government. After the collapse of USSR Russia wanted friendship and cooperation with Ukraine, and Russia recognized Crimea as Ukrainian. But American backed revolution in Ukraine changed this and Russia came to liberate Crimea at first place, and Crimean Russian population wanted to reunite with Russia for years, they are still happy that they are in Russia and support Putin and SMO. Later Russia played reverse UNO card and backed coups in the Donbass, leading to creation of Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, who declared independence from Ukraine. But instead of going to war, Putin wanted to trade this territory back to Ukraine in exchange of Russian political influence on Ukraine. And Putin had a very good deal with Ukrainian president Poroshenko, but they both made 2 mistakes - Putin lost control over Donbass rebels and they didn't wanted to make a peace deal with Uktaine. The same way Putin lost control over Prigojin and Wagner group in 2023. While Ukrainian president Poroshenko lost control over his parliament and Ukrainian parliament also rejected peace deal. So, Putin and Poroshenko made another deal - Ukraine DIDN'T returned Donbass back, but Russia was allowed to invest money into media and political parties inside Ukraine, and pro-Russian party was leading elections on 2nd place in Ukrainian parliament with 20% of vote, until Zelensky came to power and started censorship and purges against free media and his opponents in Ukraine. So, Russia lost the only one peaceful mean of influence over Ukraine and Russia used military soultion.
At now Trump is ready to make a deal with Russia dividing Ukraine 50/50. Nothing personal, just business. USA have backed with money and media revolution, change of power in Ukraine in 2014, so Russia which invested money, territories and people into Ukraine was robbed, USA simply have stolen everything from Russia, and at now USA are taking responsibility for their actions, and using diplomacy instead of war. Russia IS reliable ally and partner, unlike European Union, and in early 2000s there was an attempt of friendship between USA and Russia. When 9/11 attack happened, Putin was the first president in the World who called American president, and Russia even allowed its airspace and territory for American army going to war on terror in Afghanistan. USA and Russia need to be at least neutral and not cause problems to each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Россия начала называться Россией в 1547 году, а не 1721.
Что касаемо Киевской Руси, но я хочу напомнить тебе, что первой столицей Руси был российский город Новгород, а Киев был построен и стал столицей Руси несколько позже. Также если мы посмотрим на карту Киевской Руси, мы увидим, что в состав Руси входило много территорий, которые сейчас принадлежат России - опять же тот же Новгород, который был столицей раньше Киева, территории Рязани, Перми, Владимиро-Суздальское княжество, на территории которого была построена Москва.
1
-
Ты демонстрируешь космический уровень глупости и непонимания истории - Новгород, Суздаль и Рязань действительно были отдельными государствами. Я открою тебе тайну - в то время Киевская Русь не существовала как единое государство. Русь была раздроблена на множество княжеств, каждое из которых было отдельным государством. Киевская Русь была единым государством вплоть до 11 века, а в начале 11 века Русь распалась на множество мелких княжеств, среди которых был Новгород, Суздаль, Рязань, потом появилась Москва. Но факт заключается в том, что Москва была построена на коренной территории Киевской Руси местными людьми. Так что Россия - это такой же наследник Киевской Руси, как и Украина, и Беларусь.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianmarriott3696 If this is so, then in this case, the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba did not threaten the United States. But at the same time, the United States raised a howl to the whole world and was ready to start a war. The world was on the verge of World War III in 1962. If Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba threatened the United States, then why do you think that NATO expansion does not threaten Russia? What if Russia tried to deploy its nuclear missiles in Mexico? Joe Biden is a terrorist and a fascist who bombed Yugoslavia. When Biden came to power in the United States, he made it clear that his policy would be anti-Russian. If America and Western countries are hostile to Russia, Russia cannot allow a pro-Western country at its borders. The same USA has considered South and Central America its zone for life since the 19th century - read about the Munro doctrine, according to which in the 19th century the USA and Europe agreed on the division of spheres of influence in the World and neutrality. Since then, South and Central America have been under the economic and political influence of the United States. Until the middle of the 20th century, the United States did not disdain to use the army to invade or organize coups in these countries. Please go and look at Wikipedia for the military history of the United States - up to the middle of the 20th century, the United States constantly staged coups and invasions in the countries of South and Central America. And since the middle of the 20th century, when the Cold War was going on, the United States sponsored dictatorships in these countries - Pinochet and other dictators were friendly and received support from the United States. And military officers who became dictators were trained in US academies, where they were brainwashed with anti-communist propaganda. Russia has the same strategy with Belarus, where dictator Lukashenko is in power. Just as the United States perceives South and Central America as its zone for life, Russia perceives the post-Soviet space as its zone for life. And Russia cannot allow Ukraine to join the Western World.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crimea is a historical Russian territory that is populated by Russians much more than by Ukrainians.
However, in 1954, Russia transferred Crimea to Ukraine. Those were Soviet times. In the days of the USSR, no one could have thought that the USSR would cease to exist, and therefore Russia transferred its territory to Ukraine for maintenance - Crimea does not have a land connection with Russia, but it does have a connection with Ukraine. Therefore, in 1954, Russia decided to transfer this territory, because all communications and infrastructure went to Crimea from Ukraine, and it would be more logical to manage Crimea from the Kyiv administration.
However, I repeat - this is Russian territory. In 2014, 60% of the population of Crimea are Russians, and only 16% are Ukrainians. In 2014 there was an anti-Russian coup in Ukraine, so Russia decided to get its property back
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you want to say that Russia blew up its own hydroelectric power plant? They bomb themselves, right?
The explosion of the Kakhovskaya HPP is not beneficial to anyone except Ukraine - the Ukrainian-controlled city of Kherson is located on the right bank of the Dnieper, there is a hill there, and settlements on the left, Russian bank of the Dnieper were mainly affected by flooding. After retreating from Kherson in November 2022, Russian troops for many months built defensive positions near the bank of the Dnieper, but due to the break of the dam, they were forced to withdraw from their defensive positions, which were built for a long time, and the Dnieper River upstream from the Kakhovskaya HPP will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to land across the river upstream, where The Russian command did not prepare a defense line due to the huge width of the reservoir, which Ukrainian troops on stationary boats would hardly dare to cross. But now the Russian defensive positions downstream of the reservoir are flooded, and upstream of the dam the reservoir will narrow, which will make it easier for Ukrainian troops to potentially land.
Russian troops were still on the right bank of the Dnieper and in Kherson in november 2022, when Ukraine launched a HIMARS rocket into the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station to cut the escape routes for the Russian army from Kherson. Ukraine bombed this dam with a rocket a few months ago, but the European clown Borrel in the morning, with a hangover, without even figuring it out, said that Russia was to blame.
Due to the undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP, water problems may begin in the Crimea, and it will also be impossible to launch the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which is controlled by Russia.
In total, we have that the explosion of the dam led to the flooding of settlements on the left bank of the Dnieper controlled by Russia, and the right bank of the river controlled by Ukraine is located on a hill. Russian Russian army defensive positions were flooded, and higher up the river narrowed in the region where the Russian command did not even assume the possibility of a Ukrainian landing. In November 2022, Ukraine hit the dam with a HIMARS missile in an attempt to cut off the Russian troops' escape routes, which caused damage to the dam. And also because of the dam break, the Zaporozhye NPP and the Crimea will now be without water. But the Western media and the stupid Western population again blame Russia for everything.
The undermining of the Kakhovskaya HPP is in no way beneficial to Russia, Ukraine did it. Ukraine blew up the Kakhovskaya HPP, and it is Ukraine's fault that there is a flood there now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1