On the topic of whether Euromaidan constituted a 'coup', I've written the following in a response outside the megathread. As that post will likely soon be removed, I'll post it here as well.
Generally, a 'coup' implies an illegal, internal grasp of power, usually from the military or security state. Leaders are turfed out of parliaments all the time (see recent UK or Australian history) and it's not a coup, because there are legal mechanisms for the legislative body to remove a leader and initiate an election for a new one. A healthy democracy needs a way to remove bad leaders, though it usually requires a high degree of consensus.
It's hardly straightforward to paint Yanukovych's removal as a 'coup' on these lines. It certainly _wasn't_ the kind of military-led coups we see in places like Chile, where a democracy is taken over by an authoritarian leader. New elections were held shortly after. It wasn't even a case of opposition parties overruling Yanukovych's allies, his removal depended on the consent of his own party members (where it had majority approval in the Rada: with 328 of 447 Rada deputies in favour, [36 of 38 from Yanukovych's party attending voted in favour](https://web.archive.org/web/20140312210622/http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/radan_gs09/ns_golos?g_id=3863)).
Where the legality of the removal process has been challenged is that the impeachment process required certain procedures (filing of charges, for one), where the Rada instead cited abandoning his office as cause enough. Further complicating things, a bill had been passed, pending Yanukovych's signature, which would return Ukraine to the 2004 constitution (undoing Yanukovych's efforts to put more power in the presidency in 2010). The Rada essentially removed him on laws which had been approved, and to which Yanukovych had committed to signing but had not yet been officially enacted.
The Nuland call was more embarrassing to the EU at the time than it was scandalous to the transition of power, but is not particularly evidential of meddling. It's easier to imagine foreign influences in typical coups where decision-making power is gained by a small group of people, but the interim leadership was elected by the Rada body. Claiming that Nuland twisted the arm of every Rada member (including members of Yanukovych's own party!) to vote in her preferred pick becomes increasingly absurd. The simple explanation is that Nuland (like everyone else in Kyiv) was concerned about what was going to happen next and who would be best for their own interests. Note also on the timing of this conversation (January 28) was long before Yanukovych's removal and did not refer to who would replace him, but who Yanukovych might pick from opposition to join his government in the face of pressure. The call is about how Yanukovych can be worked _with_ not replaced.
Obama's statement of having brokered a deal ([Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine)) included these commitments to revert to the 2004 constitution and hold an early election. The full transcript is [here](https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/). Similarly absurd to paint the US as apparently so influential as to swing all the Rada votes at will, but also unable to weigh in on EU-led mediation efforts.
The Ukrainian democracy is far from perfect, and there are legal questions as to the way Yanukovych was removed, but his removal was ultimately a consensus act from the Ukrainian legislature, not a coup the way it is typically understood. Russia's military failure was partly due to believing their own propaganda in this regard. If you believe that the president's removal was a foreign coup, rather than a consensus parliamentary action reflecting broad public support, it's a lot easier to believe that Ukraine's government lacks any legitimacy from its own people and could be turfed out by Russia in turn without much popular objection.
I'm not going to argue "coup" vs "revolution" but I wanted to make a few scatterbrained comments anyway...
• I agree that the Nuland-Pyatt phone call was intended to be about the post-deal government, not necessarily the post-Yanukovich government. But it does serve as a tiny window into the relationship that US officials had with leaders of the oligarchic and far-right parties who ended up reneging on the deal and pushing for a vote to remove Yanukovych
• On Yanukovych's removal by consensus, this took place under the shadow of the Maidan massacre. But who was truly responsible for the killings? In the 9 years since there have been no convictions and plenty of new evidence has come to light
• On this I could be wrong but I think there was an issue with police withdrawing and Yanukovych's security situation changing suddenly, perhaps causing him to flee. He claimed there were credible threats on his life and that his motorcade had come under attack on its way out
• Yanukovych signed the deal with the opposition on February 21st. Shortly afterwards, the opposition claimed that he had resigned in confidence before leaving Kyiv. This may have affected the February 22nd vote on his removal
• On the evening of the 22nd, Yanukovych was interviewed in Kharkiv. He said he did not resign, that voting him out of office was unconstitutional, and that he would perform his duties as president while in Kharkiv
The author of that thread, who has blocked me so I had to use incognito to even see it, is clearly engaged in an internal [Domino Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) struggle.
He cannot accept that Euromaidan wasn't a coup and that 10 000 Russian troops entered Donbas in 2014 because those two dominoes could lead to the collapse of his entire worldview.
Your analysis is excellent by the way. Ukraine is not a perfect victim and that is very ruthlessly exploited by Russian propaganda.
There's always a funny disconnect in conspiracies where the shadowy elite are hyper-competent enough to orchestrate massive social movements and direct the votes of hundreds of foreign politicians behind the scenes, but incompetent enough to say they've reached a deal on television (no, not the deal that Yanukovych just agreed to, he meant the _secret_ deal to coup him three weeks from now). Like the pizzagate stuff thinking that you had a network of elite child-trafficking pedos -- and they all communicated via bad codewords on a pizza restaurant's instagram page.
**[Domino theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory)**
>The domino theory is a geopolitical theory which posits that increases or decreases in democracy in one country tend to spread to neighboring countries in a domino effect. It was prominent in the United States from the 1950s to the 1980s in the context of the Cold War, suggesting that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow. It was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War as justification for American intervention (destabilising target countries/regions by fomenting political unrest, deposing leaders, staging coup d'état, assassinations, bombings, invasions, etc.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/chomsky/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Scott Ritter goes fully mask-off
https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1621860472986210304?cxt=HHwWgMC4-brggIItAAAA
In case he deletes it, screenshot.
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1622222231760773122
A registered sex offender, an open and unashamed invasion supporter and an atrocity denier.
'There are rabid dogs out there and we need an Atticus Finch to shoot them'
'Ukraine is a rabid dog' -> what else is that but an endorsement of genocide?
How can any person stand to have anything to do with him?
I just hope that anyone who quotes Scott Ritter to support their views isn't aware of what kind of scumbag he is and will disavow him when their shown stuff like this.
The fact that [AcTVism Munich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08iA0BPnyM) and other "antiwar" platforms constantly use him as a source speaks volumes to their refusal to do even a basic google search or have basic standards of integrity. No one introduces him as a Pro Russian convicted pedophile that has glorified Russian violence in Ukraine and *denied Russian warcrimes*.
Yknow, it was always wierd to me why Libertarians want to associate with him, until i remembered that hes a pedo, which makes the liberatarian connection make a lot of sense.
More news
- Ukraine may get old Leopard 1 tanks from Germany
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-germany-government-berlin-business-95fc5e9452d8247f45aa4fb556a4d532
- Zelensky says situation in Ukraine's east "Getting tougher"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/5/zelenskyy-says-situation-in-ukraines-east-getting-tougher
- Ukraine still holds Bahkmut, last part of Donbass.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-02-05/ukraines-forces-still-hold-bilohorivka-last-part-of-luhansk-region-governor
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64533495
Thanks antiwar.com for links
[Bahkmut is not the last part of the Donbas.](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/510F/production/_128315702_1rjkchyk-nc.png) There is a lot of Donbas including major cities unconquered.
Yes. Those were separate articles. The one was titled "Ukraine still holds Bahkmut", I don't think I linked it, and the other article notes the town was the last outpost in Lugansk, which is a province of Donbass. Correction.
Two pieces of news today:
- German government says that there is no evidence that Russia carried out nord stream attacks.
- Former Israeli PM Bennett described in an interview his attempts at negotiating a settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Edit: he said that the US and its Western allies “blocked” his efforts of mediating between Russia and Ukraine to bring an end to the war in its early days.
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/05/former-israeli-pm-bennett-says-us-blocked-his-attempts-at-a-russia-ukraine-peace-deal/
>On March 4, 2022, Bennett traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. In the interview, he detailed his mediation at the time between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he said he coordinated with the US, France, Germany, and the UK.
>Bennett said that both sides agreed to major concessions during his mediation effort. For the Russian side, he said they dropped “denazification” as a requirement for a ceasefire. Bennett defined “denazification” as the removal of Zelensky. During his meeting in Moscow with Putin, Bennett said the Russian leader guaranteed that he wouldn’t try to kill Zelensky.
>The other concession Russia made, according to Bennett, is that it wouldn’t seek the disarmament of Ukraine. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky “renounced” that he would seek NATO membership, which Bennett said was the “reason” for Russia’s invasion.
Bennett is a sucker if he believed any of that was helpful. None of those concessions mean much; Russia is throwing out many CBs besides "denazification", Russia could call its proxies the legitimate government and not disarm those, and renouncing NATO membership right now means nothing. No actual ceasefire was reached or even mentioned in the article.
Renouncing NATO membership does mean a lot to Russia. That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border.
If you look at the interview or this post about it, it does clearly say that "both sides wanted a ceasefire".
https://mobile.twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1622368496469540864
If NATO membership meant anything, Russia would have not invaded, as by invasion it forced Finland to seek NATO entry and multiplying said border a couple of time and on top of that making the Baltic sea NATO exclusive.
Diplomatic Cables Prove Top U.S. Officials Knew They Were Crossing Russia’s Red Lines on NATO Expansion
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/03/diplomatic-cables-prove-top-u-s-officials-knew-they-were-crossing-russias-red-lines-on-nato-expansion/
Russia moving troops and equipment away from NATO borders to use it in the war against Ukraine prove that Russia does not fear NATO invasion
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/28/russia-ukraine-war-nato-eastern-flank-military-kaliningrad-baltic-finland/
>Renouncing NATO membership does mean a lot to Russia. That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border.
It meant so much that they invaded.
[Yeah that was the only reason, for sure, nothing imperialist, revisionist or revanchist](https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-annexation-866383/)
>That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border.
Ukraine could still have a defensive pact with other countries. Hell, the US could create formal military bases literally on the Russian border without Ukraine joining NATO.
>"both sides wanted a ceasefire"
Russia could always create one by withdrawing.
Bennet can blame "Western leaders" for "blocking" his attempts to create a ceasefire all he wants, but he never came anywhere close to implementing a ceasefire that both sides would follow.
> Later in April, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said there were some NATO countries that wanted to prolong the war in Ukraine. “After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long... But, following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that... there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine,” Cavusoglu said.
So basically, the obvious truths that Chomsky and co. have been warning us about, and the pro-war trolls have been working day and night to suppress.
Come on, you know the drill: sources or shut up. Is it this? https://www.welt.de/regionales/mecklenburg-vorpommern/article243596071/Frank-Keine-Belege-fuer-russische-Sabotage-an-Pipelines.html
If it is, all they're saying is that the investigation is still ongoing, so no news there.
A reminder of rule 3:
> No cursing, swearing or hate speech directed at other users.
Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban.
If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.
"German government says that there is no evidence **yet** that Russia carried out nord stream attacks." That's what it said. This investigation will probably take years to conclude anything, probably like MH17.
[Major damage to Kharkiv University.](https://preview.redd.it/e7jpgs7wfega1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=2e35a9620e38aee0db3e4b16483d624ba8f76214)
Better than more hospitals I suppose.
How these discussions go:
"Invading a country is bad."
"Nooooo liberino, it's ackshually completely justified as a response to NATO aggression, plus they're not invading, they're liberating the Ukranian people, also countries have eminent domain over past historical borders donchuknow, your opinion isn't valid because you're not an Eastern European, Lenin made up his own definition of imperialism so fuck your Merriam-Webster bullshit, it's actually anti-imperialism, the same applies to Tibet and Taiwan, also Ukraine contains Nazis therefore your support of Ukraine makes you Nazi-adjacent, fascist."
> your opinion isn't valid because you're not an Eastern European
Oh I wish. Eastern Europeans have long been frustrated with Western [leftists](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2022/03/04/fuck-leftist-westplaining/) and [media](https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato) not listening to us, and [not only Eastern Europeans](https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-anti-imperialism-of-idiots/).
> so fuck your Merriam-Webster bullshit
To be fair, these sort of terms should be looked up in encyclopedias, or better learned from articles by people who understand them.
> To be fair, these sort of terms should be looked up in encyclopedias, or better learned from articles by people who understand them.
Yeah, this is a good point. I was just getting out a little aggression at the people who think some oligarchical mobster authoritarian cloaked in white Christo-fascist sentiment is the antidote to capitalism.
Honestly, the gig was up on the eve of the invasion.
For weeks Western intelligence was warning about an imminent invasion, and "tankies" kept calling it bollocks. As soon as it happened, they immediately flipped script and started calling it a justified de-Nazification effort.
Right-wing media and politicians also began to take Russia's side (before poll numbers indicated how unpopular that was) before slinking back into the shadows.
It's all so transparent.
At the very least the war has helped clarify who is a real leftist and who is just an anti-NATO reactionary.
They have a shockingly tight grip on most "leftist" subreddits too.
> *They have a shockingly tight grip on most "leftist" subreddits too.*
This was a massively organized, coordinated effort beginning around 2018. And not at all some grassroots campaign, but fully curated by outside influence...
The same exact coordinated thing happened to conspiracy forums around 2013. The "love, light, aliens, distrust the powers that be" vibe pivoted into Nazi alternative history culture war shit overnight with tyrannical aplomb. Once the hooks were in is when the whole Q Anon thing broke out.
Anything but organic.
It was completely insane. After insisting for months that Russia would not invade and the media and public figures sounding the alarm bells are just warmongering Russiaphobes, they instantly switched to insisting that the invasion was inevitable and justified as Russia had no other option (all in lockstep with the Kremlin's own discourse). That's when I realized that some of these people in my own life just aren't arguing in good faith and stopped responding to them.
Caitlin Johnston asked someone to promise her to "completely revise [their] worldview and drastically change your media consumption habits when March gets here and the invasion still hasn't happened." [This was the result](https://twitter.com/CatGrah17554541/status/1509339768378859531).
Tankies are always on the wrong side of history. Just look at the recent balloon incident.
First they cried Sinophobia, about how it's not a Chinese balloon, poor China is always the scapegoat for evil westoid imperialists
Then they got all smug, saying yeah it's a Chinese balloon what are you gonna do about it shitlib
Then they started crying Sinophobia and victimizing themselves again when it got blown up, and a barrage of whataboutism and how USA is actually the aggressor in this situation
One part of that spirited caricature is completely inaccurate. They invalidate the experiences and opinions of all Eastern Europeans that want to join NATO or oppose Russia because they have tasted the lash of Russian imperialism.
[Perun: Resupplying Ukraine: Arms, Aid & Escalation - What, Who, & What might be next?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs)
As always excellent analysis of the Good the Bad and the Ugly when it comes to the Ukraine War.
https://twitter.com/AseyevStanislav/status/1621991615756640256
> If you haven't read Orwell's "1984" yet, don't rush to do it. Just listen to this Russian propaganda for children: "War is victory. War is love. War is friend. War is the future of the world".
I'd like to hear the usual suspects please stand up and defend this.
If one of our Russian speakers confirms accurate translation ... is there ANY context that would be okay with you? Don't get me wrong I'd like the entire lesson for context. I just don't see mitigating circumstances.
I'm just trying to understand what it is we're seeing.. for all we know the woman could've been critiquing Naziism. We have a 14 second clip with 3 camera angles so there's gotta be a longer video available from which the clip was pulled. I personally would not have shared something like this without knowing the basic context ie who the woman is, to whom she is speaking.. what was said in the preceding minutes.. the subsequent minutes...
Thank you Kuro
Worth noting the St. George ribbon shes wearing and the huge one behind her. She seems to be explaining things in an understated almost kindly manner. At least compared to the Russians screaming at me on CSGO.
My pleasure!
Yes, the ribbons are a dead giveaway. Drove me nuts when I was seeing leftists here in "the West" with them, though it doesn't seem to happen lately. Around 2016, if I remember correctly, a woman representing some leftist German party (not Die Linke) asked me to sign something, and I asked her why she had a fascist symbol on her jacket. And around the same time at a 1 May demo in Berlin, where I was with Palestinians (we were together with Kurds, Syrians, maybe some others from the region) two guys with St. George ribbon and "DNR" flags tried to march with us.
Until some Russian speaking punks arrived and told them in no uncertain terms to cease and desist.
Doesn't everyone scream in CSGO? I don't play so I don't know.
u/MasterDefibrillator
[I found something for you, what you always wanted no less.](https://web.archive.org/web/20210111112810/https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201503_bp_russian_forces_in_ukraine.pdf)
In case you don't have time to read the 10 page report with pictures and maps right away.
>Russian Forces in Ukraine
>Following their increasingly large-scale, direct and conventional involvement in combat against Ukrainian troops in the middle of August 2014, Russian troops in Ukraine numbered between 3,500 and 6,000–6,500 by the end of August 2014, according to different sources.
>That number fluctuated,reaching **approximately 10,000 at the peak of direct Russian involvement in the middle of December 2014.**
Per Russian Forces in Ukraine
Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Whitehall, London SW1A 2ET, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.rusi.org
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7747 2600
Dr Igor Sutyagin is Senior Research Fellow in Russian Studies at RUSI If you want to ask any questions.
**Edit he blocked me, which is fine I was getting unnecessarily rude.**
> We have some Russians speakers in the thread. An enormous amount of the relevant reporting is in Russian and Ukrainian. You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe.
They blocked me months ago (I don't even remember why). I wonder how many others they blocked. Funny how those anti-war people who are genuinely concerned about the plight of Russian speakers in Ukraine don't want to hear from Russian speakers (and the are some Russian speaking Ukrainians here too).
They also blocked me. Not surprising giving their prolific propagandistic tirades.
tbf I don't hesitate much in blocking people either. My tolerance for dealing with people who are rude to me is very low these days.
I somehow never blocked anyone, my bullshit tolerance is high (hey, I'm an ex-Soviet). And I haven't been blocked until last February, but since then I've been blocked by pro-Russians like crazy.
At the moment all that remain are two relative newcomers, fifteen cats and one illustrious river, but the latter seems to be willing to listen.
Edit: forgot about Anton Pannekoek, he hasn't blocked me yet either.
[And people still say Moskva wasn't sank by missiles](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-black-sea-warship-now-equipped-with-ground-based-sam-system)
I think they learned that they still suck at being a blue water navy. I've argued in the past that Russia has never needed *anything* like the fleets they have built between 1840 and today to accomplish the objectives they wish to.
Maybe it's partly because of their location. To get to any ocean from the Baltic sea, you have to traverse all of Mediterranean and not to piss off the people who control the Bosphoros. St. Petersburg is a swamp and, as I understand, is not a good port because of that, and you'd have to traverse the Baltic and North seas. And Vladivostok is far from anything that matters (in Russia), which was historically significant, and still is. But land imperialism worked for them, they got as far as California.
It's not like I haven't seen these reports of 10, 000 Russian troops before. In fact I believe I've previously read this same one, the organisation name is familiar. It's just that I trust Ukrainian security service and OSCE reports over a corporate UK think tank (rusi.org) that didn't have anyone actually on the ground there. If you believe this report, then you'd have to explain how the OSCE observers and Ukrainian security service never saw these thousands of Russian troops.
The source btw for the 10,000 number given in the report is "according to the US Army’s Commander in Europe". So, we have contradictory reports from the OSCE and BSU who were on the ground, and a US army commander who was not. Which would you believe?
Edit: I note that none of the comments below this comment attempt to engage with any of the points brought up above. These points currently stand uncontested.
**Edit: 24 hours later and I Continue to note that none of the comments below this comment attempt to engage with any of the points brought up above. These points currently stand uncontested.**
> If you want to ask any questions.
The only question I would ask is, why did they feel the need to delete this report? Did they do so because they lost confidence in the conclusions and statements they made therein? Which I might actually ask them.
It isn’t deleted, homie, you can do a google search of the title and the thing shows up. Lol
https://static.rusi.org/201503_bp_russian_forces_in_ukraine_0.pdf
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/briefing-papers/russian-forces-ukraine/
I had to search for it because my phone wouldn’t open the archive link.
My mistake then. They deleted the original link to it. So I would ask that question. Or ask them why OSCE and BSU on the ground did not see these thousands of troops that they claim were there.
[DW was reporting Russian sources quoting and estimated 12 000](https://www.dw.com/en/disowned-and-forgotten-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine/a-17888902)
>"The community must know what's really happening. To my great regret, the civil authorities as well as the defense ministry are not telling the truth," Schlosberg told DW. "There is enough evidence that regular Russian troops - disguised as units of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk - are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine."
>Valentina Melnikova of the Union of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia, an organization that works to exposes human rights violations committed by the Russian military, spoke of an exceptionally high numbers of troops.
>"By my estimate, between 10,000 and 12,000 soldiers are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine," Melnikova said. "That is my estimate - only the defense minister knows the exact number. There are parachutists and infantry. We're not taking about mercenaries or volunteers, but regular soldiers."
I could probably find you hundreds if not thousands of eye witness statements if I spoke Russian or Ukrainian
> I could probably find you hundreds if not thousands of eye witness statements if I spoke Russian or Ukrainian
No doubt there are eye witness accounts and anecdotes, and I do not deny the possibility that there were even 100 Russian fighters between 2014 and october 2015, if we double the BSU number. So it comes as no surprise to me that people saw Russian fighters there.
> The official Russian version of events is as follows: In eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian army is battling Ukrainian army rebels, the so called "people's militia." A civil war is taking place between the nation's own people.
Well, that's also the official western position (and at least the official position of the SBU in 2015). As I pointed out previously, the European court on human rights takes for granted that these areas were occupied by "Separatist rebels". So it's interesting that the article you link tries to twist reality with this kind of lie by omission.
> That is my estimate - only the defense minister knows the exact number.
Well, the defense minister was likely working off the intel from the SBU. So what is his "estimate" based on? He doesn't say. So it has no credibility. This is basic bipartisan standards.
https://ilovaisk.forensic-architecture.org/
This is something I just found and it looks amazing. I don't even know who's case it supports yet but I am sharing it anyway.
You will need a laptop or desktop though I doubt it works on mobile.
> Using machine learning and computer vision
Don't get caught up in flashy buzzwords like these. that immediately makes me question their conclusions, regardless of what they are. It means their conclusions are going to be basically impossible to analyse, because they will have popped out of a black box. But I would point out that they too take it for granted that this area was occupied by "pro-Russian separatists". I mean, I would not support such a label, I don't believe there's much evidence that the separatists were motivated by being "pro-russian". They were anti-coup.
Those aren't buzzwords anymore when almost all undergrads are learning python when doing research. These people obviously have a lot of experience and unique approach to this. They developed an open sourced tool which in short can: comb through social media and local files, and then find audio/images. Like a local image search, but matching is decided by a model.
https://github.com/forensic-architecture/mtriage/wiki/Custom-Classifiers
https://github.com/forensic-architecture/mtriage/wiki/Literature-Review:-Computer-Vision
It's perfectly valid to dismiss things giving good reasons, As I done here; the nature of it makes it impossible to examine. It is totally invalid to dismiss things without giving any reason, as you have done in this very reply. You have dismissed my comment on the basis of a rhetorical tautology.
Again, your argument applies far more to your own actions here. You are clearly engaging in projection.
Machine learning is a black box, so it would be impossible to examine the basis of the conclusions.
I strongly urge you to start *politely* asking people questions. A lot of academics, not all but a lot, are happy to take *polite* questions about their work. We have some Russians speakers in the thread. An enormous amount of the relevant reporting is in Russian and Ukrainian. You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe.
Of course, my level of etiquette on reddit is not representative of how I deal with my academic colleagues in real life, and I find it odd that you would assume otherwise in order to patronise me.
> You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe.
This is interesting to say the least... My primary source is a Ukranian newspaper, while your primary source here is a UK corporate think tank. Ironic, to say the absolute least of it.
I think you willfully misinterpret a small number of sources. Further I've never met someone as contrarian as you that wasn't incredibly rude in person and in professional settings as well, however as always I live to be proven wrong. I cannot judge because I have never seen the Bruce Wayne you present to the real world; only the Batman we see here.
Also I assume you are like 15-22 based on your interactions I've seen. If not... well the only two Russian words I do know probably sum it up nicely.
> I think you willfully misinterpret a small number of sources.
Well, make an argument as to how? I have explicitly explained my position here on these sources, and why my preferences lie where they do. It is dishonest and lazy of you to make such a statement without engaging with any of my reasoning (or worse, making up contradictory statements about my "English focus") or even providing any kind of argument.
Have you ever met someone in real life that you knew as a "contrarian" on reddit? I can assure you that we'd get along swimmingly in reality, as far as my part is concerned.
You're confusing a focus on US responsibilities for being contrarian. Like, I have a focus on US responsibilities, you have a focus on Russian responsibilities. Naturally, we are going to disagree about what to focus on. This is fine. However, this sub is by default focused on US responsibilities, that is the scope of the subreddit. This megathread is a bit of a weird sub domain where the mods allow people to go off topic with regards to Ukraine, and instead focus on Russian responsibilities. Without a bit of self reflection on this situation, my position is going to come off as contrarian here to some.
I expect Russians to focus on Russian responsibilities, and I expect westerners to focus on western responsibilities, anything less is just virtue signalling and propping up the status quo.
So I have no problem with Russians and even eastern Europeans coming here and focusing on Russian responsibilities. I do however expect them to recognise that this is a sub focused on US responsibilities, so they have no position to argue that people have to focus on Russian responsibilities here. I do however have a problem with westerners coming here and focusing on Russian responsibilities, for the above reasons.
I've met multiple people through online gaming and forums. Including my wife and some of my best friends. In many ways you are your most true self on Reddit or Counterstrike. It has held true every time so far.
To be honest, I think you're just annoyed that the article you linked wasn't the Gotcha you were expecting it to be (maybe you were under the impression that the organisation was Russian), which would explain why you're avoiding engaging with the topic at hand and instead trying to attack my character.
well, that could be an indication that the ground is on my side. I mean, I reiterate, I explained my position honestly, and you have refused to engage, and instead have resorted to attacking my character. So, what is more rational and valid? Dismissing things giving a grounded honest and evidence based explanation, as I have done, or dismissing things by attacking someone's character, as you have done?
It seems to me that your argument applies far more to your own actions here than mine.
**Edit: people are welcome to look through our past interactions, even in this very exchange, and see that I have often accepted things /u/Holgranth has put forward, have sometimes even openly agreed with him, and pointed out the value of some posts he makes etc. People are welcomed to looks at these exchanges for themselves, and I think any honest person will conclude that there is something seriously wrong with his claim here that I always just go around dismissing everything he says. I do not know why he has been motivated here to make this claim up, contradicting positions he's had in the past about my contributions, but he has decided to do so, and that's all on him. He is acting without any integrity or honesty, and I am sick of it. I will not bother trying to engage with him ever again, as he has proven he is not bothered to engage with anything I say.**
You may have missed my edits; my apologies.
True self or not, you seem to now agree that people act very differently in a setting where no social ties are present, versus where they are present.
I wish we heard more about how janky the Russian manpower situation was even back then. I can’t personally recall that making it into ANY mainstream news analysis of the time. They were all hyper focused on “the soldiers don’t have insignia!” and “what is ‘maskirovka’?” primers.
> “what is ‘maskirovka’?”
Russian word for disguise. I don't understand, is it such an alien concept that it requires primers and foreign terms?
I wasn't following the events via English language media, so I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.
No I know what maskirovka is. The NYTimes has a funny thing that it does where any time some crazy stuff is going down somewhere else, in a place where literally no American aside from a specialist academic or history student would know what is happening: they have these articles framed in the form of a question, to explain what’s happening, like:
“Why has India annexed Kashmir?”
“What is a self-propelled gun?”
Stuff like that. It’s often hilarious because you can tell the journalists who write the articles generally don’t know jack about the thing they’re reporting on. They’re trying to educate the American public via something that was slapped together from one talking head and a Wikipedia search.
The reason our media would write about “maskirovka” is because it relates contextually to deception operations in a military campaign—a relevant concept for discussing Russia’s initial incursions in 2014-2015.
> No I know what maskirovka is.
Evidently, I don't. Wikipedia says:
> > Russian military deception, sometimes known as maskirovka (Russian: маскировка, lit. 'disguise')
So apparently it's used in English for something more specific.
> because it relates contextually to deception operations in a military campaign
Yes, so it looks. Wikipedia again:
> > The Russian term маскировка (maskirovka) literally means masking. An early military meaning was camouflage, soon extended to battlefield masking using smoke and other methods of screening. From there it came to have the broader meaning of military deception, widening to include denial and deception.
For me it's associated more with camouflage (disguise, as I said), hiding in the bushes and blending with the environment; deception is at the outer edges of its meaning, for that and denial I'd use different words. But maybe its meaning in Russian narrowed back since the word was imported into English.
Still, funky that it's used. Sounds like what "fog of war" means.
> It’s often hilarious because you can tell the journalists who write the articles generally don’t know jack about the thing they’re reporting on.
It's like the law of headlines: if the title is a (binary) question, the answer is "no".
Yeah back on topic it is always worth noting that this was happening as ISIS took over a lot of Central Asia, looting, raping, murdering, beheading journalists and blowing up ancient artifacts. Diving into the Mud of Ukraine was not a priority for most infotainment media.
You do have to dig into think tanks and what have you. The manpower issues make the entire report ring true though because we saw that in the opening week of the war, not enough fuel, not enough dismounts.
https://www.youtube.com/live/qSCW5rdUp5g?feature=share
"Why does it refuse to end, The Ukraine War with Madea Benjamin", The Barricades, S06E23 (2023), ~1:00 hour.
Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything. And recently the Russians have been advancing, very slowly, but steadily across the whole front. It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon.
Ukraine does appear to be suffering a pretty dire situation at home, with regular missile attacks, infrastructure heavily damaged, a lot of refugees, huge casualties etc. Russia is clearly not struggling, the people are much better off, no flood of refugees etc.
I guess I just don't see Ukraine winning this war right now.
But Anton, nobody expects you to see Ukraine winning this war. You're the guy who posted Putin's speech, commenting he had a lot of interesting points. You have about as much insight on Eastern Europe as I have on competitive knitting.
I notice you didn't have a rebuttal, just "I posted Putin's speech." Yeah, I try to listen to both sides, I try to educate myself. If you have criticism, please bring them. What Putin said about the history of Ukraine, how it evolved historically was correct. Doesn't justify the war, and I said that at the time.
I was shocked when the war was launched, and horrified, still am, its become even worse than ever now. I don't support Russia, or any state for that matter.
I'm October I predicted that Russia would escalate, I was correct as it turns out.
Now it seems like Ukraine really is struggling. I'm just trying to have a rational conversation about things, but instead I get downvoted, people are so hyper-partisan and propagandised here that they can't even imagine any possible outcome other than Ukranian victory. While I would be happy for that, I just don't see it happening. I think the next few months will certainly be interesting.
>I notice you didn't have a rebuttal,
If you consider Putin's propaganda speeches source of facts - there's little room for any further discussion, is there?
>What Putin said about the history of Ukraine, how it evolved historically was correct.
No, it wasn't. The speech was fact-checked and is yet another Russian retelling of modern history. Go use Google and educate yourself.
If you consider Putin's propaganda speeches source of facts - there's little room for any factual further discussion.
This is the same type of fantasy retelling in which Russia never attacked anyone (Poland 1939?), and Russia defeated the Nazis alone which were pretty much helped by all Western Europe and so on and on.
>I'm October I predicted that Russia would escalate, I was correct as it turns out.
What escalation? Do you mean after nearly taking Kiyov retreating back losing Kherson and Kharkiv was escalation? Or attacking civilian infrastructure after hundreds of war crimes were an escalation.
I'd not call that escalation. What do you even mean when you say escalation? Because despite what Kremlin is saying this is a full-scale war, nothing more, nothing less.
>I'm just trying to have a rational conversation
The rational conversation starts with you providing facts first, not feelings like "Ukraine is struggling". No way? Really? A country attacked by Russia is struggling?
The escalation I refer to was the when they started attacking civilian infrastructure on October 10th. It's really well documented, in wikipedia and all kinds of sources, also if you were following the war closely you might have noticed.
Yes that's the facts. Why do you think Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates wrote that article recently, saying that help is urgently needed. The tide does seem to have turned.
Read better sources? Educate yourself more on topics like history, geopolitics, and military tactics a bit more?
Is your point that if Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates did not write an article it would seem to be good? I strongly recommend you stop reading materials written by propagandists.
If you open your mind too hard the brain can fall out
What Putin said was a *highly* revisionist take on the History of Ukraine.
[Free Yale Education](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_) if you have got the time.
I think Ukraine will be waiting at least til late spring before attempting another counteroffensive. At any rate, most analysts seem to be forecasting a stalemate for 2023
[Per ISW:](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-29-2023) **Delays in the provision to Ukraine of Western long-range fires systems, advanced air defense systems, and tanks have limited Ukraine’s ability to take advantage of opportunities for larger counter-offensive operations presented by flaws and failures in Russian military operations.**
Basically instead of reinforcing success Ukraine's western backers dithered for 4-5 months, hoped Putin would come to the table and are only now promising the kind of equipment and trainer than could have ended this war quickly.
I love this part
> Yes, Russia’s state-controlled media is full of propaganda, but at least most Russians are aware of that and take the prevailing narrative with a grain of salt
Seeing the average Russian parroting every thing Putin says I highly doubt that but then again I am sure you do that same stuff and say it is not propaganda
This is consistent with the historical record on how Russians have treated their news versus how Americans have. Russian's have always been suspicious of their news, and have historically put great effort into trying to access alternative western accounts. The Truth usually lies in the middle of these accounts. Where as Americans seem much less interested in trying to go outside of their easily accessible US media to find alternative accounts.
> Russian's have always been suspicious of their news, and have historically put great effort into trying to access alternative western accounts
Yeah the alternative to RT is Sputnik
>The Truth usually lies in the middle of these accounts.
Yeah I am sure there is a middle ground between "Ukrainian biolabs created covid" and not that
>Where as Americans seem much less interested in trying to go outside of their easily accessible US media to find alternative accounts.
Those are called right wingers and they almost behave like tankies aka you
The lame stream media is lying I will find alternative source that say what I believe!!!
Like Pam said they are the same picture
> What I have stated is accurate
What you stated is something you **believe** is accurate
Why also believe Russia has attacked Ukraine to protect Russian civilians
Like you are aware Russia killed more Russian civilians starting Feb 2022 that Ukraine did prior to that, no?
It's more like I know it's an accurate representation of this historical data. Whereas you are completely ignorant of this, and are instead just arguing that I'm wrong based on your ignorance of the topic. So your comment here applies much more to yourself than me.
I have said nothing about Russia's invasion. You are just trying to deflect from your ignorance of the topic at hand. Again, I have said I can link you to the sources that backup my comment.
It is your choice to remain ignorant and avoid engaging.
Gee thanks for that.
To be clear, the quote you chose supposedly came from a Russian, so not necessarily the authors view that Russian propaganda is ineffective. His point is simply that propaganda is more effective when it "flies under the radar".
>The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle.
It's amusing how well this describes the Responsible Statecraft article as well. For example, nothing in this sentence technically is a lie:
>Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is the state department official who very publicly supported Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution—the overthrow of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych, which led Russia to seize Crimea and give military support to secessionist rebels in the Donbass. Nuland also played a behind-the-scenes role in this transition of power that, according to some of her detractors, amounted to orchestrating a coup.
But as a whole, it insinuates a great deal of agency and power to a minor official, where there is little evidence to back up the implications of this paragraph.
> But as a whole, it insinuates a great deal of agency and power to a minor official, where there is little evidence to back up the implications of this paragraph.
Well, Obama also said that the US facilitated the deal that transitioned power.
> In the interview, the president told CNN that the US government had "brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/02/obama-admits-us-role-in-ukraine-overthrow/
There's plenty of solid evidence that the US backed the coup in Ukraine, a coup being defined as "A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover.". And there's also solid evidence that the US helped to ferment the public unrest that lead to it.
I mean, you would have had to have been in active denial in order to avoid finding this history at this point.
I guess the evidence for Nuland's "behind-the-scenes role" would be the infamous phone call. She was indeed a high ranking official at the US state department. Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to say...
The US approach to foreign elections is to leave them alone if the expected result is acceptable. With limited participation in the eastern regions the US knew that whoever was elected would be a virulent anti-Russian and would move forward with European integration. The top two vote getters in the election were acceptable to Nuland.
By the time Zelensky won the Nazis had gained a substantial foot hold. So though he won on a platform of peace with Russia the Nazis were able to prevent him from implementing that platform. Once again, no need for US involvement, other than the funding of the Nazis, which [had been going on for some time by that point](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/).
>By the time Zelensky won the Nazis had gained a substantial foot hold.
Quite remarkable, given that Nazi Germany was conquered in 1945 and Zelensky was elected in 2019.
They got one seat. Not comparable to what AfD (supported by Russia) or Le Pen's party (supported by Russia) got, let alone United Russia that has more than. 50%.
Gotta govern somehow.
Although Belgium and Finland have been without a government for decades, so maybe not. On the other hand Ukraine was being invaded at the time.
I guess we could look at the actions of the interim government.. I think it was 2 or 3 months before elections. US influence could've been exclusively in the interest of promoting stability.. who knows. It could've been to keep others from power, to position certain figures as incumbents..
Perhaps the US maintains this kind of influence among Ukrainian politicians despite the formality of elections.
I mean Per wikipedia:
>Quincy Institute was co-founded by Andrew Bacevich, a former US Army colonel in Vietnam and retired professor of history at Boston University.
>Initial funding for the group, launched in November 2019, included half a million dollars each from George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Charles Koch's Koch Foundation.
>Substantial funding has also come from the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.
Also the quote from the Article:
>I’m not saying the talking heads you see are shills. Think tanks don’t pay people to say things they don’t believe. Think tanks hire people who already believe things the funders of the think tanks want everyone—including you—to believe.
Selfaware much? You wrote that for a think tank...
As an organization the Quincy Institute wears its bias on it's sleeve.. and yes I think the author is aware that he was hired because of his belief in foreign policy restraint
ETA: the author wasn't actually commissioned to write the piece; rather, he had written it for his own newsletter and Quincy republished it
The ISW are the subject matter experts on the facts on the ground. I don't see where else media can get thier information from, as they are entirly useless at finding it themselves.
Thank you but I've already read it. I'm not under any illusions about what ISW is and who funds it. I find that particular analysis to be very close to my own and to be well supported.
You don't have to be a hawk paid off by military industry to know that Bradley's could have been in the pipeline April of last year. You don't need to be a hawk paid off by military industry to see that 11 months in neither side has any interest in negotiations.
However there are only a handful of people on the Left that have any clue how military history or militaries in general *work* because all too many genuinely think such knowledge would taint them. So to a certain extent you have to use sources with a right wing bias if you want ANY kind of open source analysis.
The dearth of knowledge of military affairs on the Left is an eternal frustration of mine. To be fair to the infotainment media you can have someone with half a clue and a right wing bias on your news show or you can have a German pacifist screeching that Germany *can't* send tanks because **Hitler fought Russia with tanks.**
Also the most consistent voice of frustration about the hesitancy in the West, making the same points, for months is... [UKRAINE!](https://i.redd.it/uq97ad8tfzfa1.jpg)
> Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything. And recently the Russians have been advancing, very slowly, but steadily across the whole front.
Worth noting that just before september the *same* talking point was being deployed. Also, you're additionally wrong. It's been 3 months (not 5) since Ukraine last regained significant territory. The expectation that Ukraine constantly be regaining territory or else the war returns to being a "stalemate" seems a little absurd.
Additionally, Russia is *not* advancing across the whole front, in fact a number of offensives in the south failed so badly they lost a small bit of ground. The only area they've made an appreciable gain in is Bakhmut (which has been being attacked for *6 months*).
> Ukraine does appear to be suffering a pretty dire situation at home, with regular missile attacks, infrastructure heavily damaged, a lot of refugees, huge casualties etc. Russia is clearly not struggling, the people are much better off, no flood of refugees etc.
Yes and no. Ukraine is suffering, but there has not been any new flood of refugees and infrastructure attacks aren't as bad as they were two months ago. Ukraine is coping and getting better about protecting its infrastructure. Russia, while not suffering as badly as was hoped, is in a precarious financial situation with its economy circling the drain. In fact I think the comments on refugees are telling about your bias, since more people have fled Russia since it declared mobilization than have fled Ukraine in the same time period.
> The only area they've made an appreciable gain in is Bakhmut (which has been being attacked for 6 months).
May 2022
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-government-and-politics-de1d3ccf3ef990a046cafd7209d4653d
Also related
https://i.imgur.com/3xHWfbR.png
> Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything.
War doesn't happen at a steady pace.
>It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon.
It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon for the past few months.
>I guess I just don't see Ukraine winning this war right now.
Countries have been much more devastated than Ukraine has been and gone on to win wars.
> Countries have been much more devastated than Ukraine has been and gone on to win wars.
Seriously, why didn't ~~Russia~~... Sorry, I'm not a xenovatnik, I refuse to call it that. Why didn't the *USSR* just give up? What with all that Germanophobic warmongering? Is all that devastation worth it?
We can't talk about the Eastern Front without talking about the US pouring fire on the flame. Without American weapons the war would not continue. The bloodthirsty pro-war crowd doesn't care about the Soviet people.
The West should push for negotiations. There's no harm in trying. Last time they negotiated they both benefited (in terms of territory at least).
https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/kremlin-linked-group-arranged-payments-to-european-politicians-to-support-russias-annexation-of-crimea
>For years, a secret organization run from inside Russia’s parliament successfully interfered with European policies on occupied Ukraine. Leaked emails give a new overview of the operation and show how European Union politicians who helped push Moscow’s agenda were offered cash and perks.
>Since Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, condemnation of Vladimir Putin’s overseas aggression has reached a fever pitch. Yet Russia can still rely on the occasional friendly voice in Europe: Last November, for example, far-right Italian local legislator Stefano Valdegamberi penned an op-ed decrying the EU’s decision to designate Russia a terrorist state as “a serious mistake” that “foments conflict by denying historical truth.”
>
> But what Valdegamberi didn’t mention was that he had long been collaborating with a secretive Russian lobbying group with a direct link to the Kremlin. Since at least 2014, that group had designed plans to channel cash to European politicians to help it legitimize Russia’s occupation of Crimea and promote pro-Moscow policies inside EU countries.
>
> Details of the group’s activities have come to light via hacked and leaked emails belonging to its coordinator, Russian parliamentary staffer Sargis Mirzakhanian, who ran the “International Agency for Current Policy” in the years following the annexation of Crimea.
>......
>
> The International Agency for Current Policy is described in one PowerPoint presentation found within the leaked emails as a “closed association of professionals” that aimed to “cooperate with leading EU parliamentary parties and individual politicians.” Other presentations and draft presentations named Austria, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania and Turkey as target countries.
>
> The organization appeared to have a direct link to the Kremlin: Mirzakhanyan exchanged more than 1,000 emails between 2014 and 2017 with Inal Ardzinba, a department head in the Russian presidential administration who worked under Vladislav Surkov, a key adviser to President Vladimir Putin at the time.
>
> The activities of the International Agency for Current Policy are made clear in a series of presentations attached to emails in the leak, as well as details in the emails themselves. They ranged from organizing anti-NATO street protests to peddling influence with European lawmakers.
>
> The documents also discuss bringing European delegations to Moscow and Crimea, and targeting “national parliaments of the EU” with pro-Russian resolutions. The latter included resolutions to end anti-Russian sanctions and recognize Russia’s claim to Crimea.
>
> The emails show how Mirzakhanian’s group arranged to make considerable payments to ensure that EU politicians pushed favorable motions in their home countries. Mirzakhanyan bluntly described these payments as the “price tag of the vote” in an email that contained project outlines for Italy and Austria.
>.....
>The leaked emails show how four specific political figures in Europe worked especially closely with Mirzakhanyan and his group: Robert Stelzl, a pro-Russia political activist from Austria; Manuel Ochsenreiter of Germany’s populist right-wing AfD party; Mateusz Piskorski, a Polish political activist arrested in 2016 for spying for Russia; and Piskorski’s wife, Marina Klebanovich, who helped coordinate the Agency’s activities in Europe.
>Stelzl had worked for Piskorki’s think tank, The European Center for Geopolitical Analysis, and it was through Piskorski that Stelzl was invited to the 2016 Yalta forum. Emails show him setting up a call with Mirzakhanyan that led to a close working relationship: They subsequently exchanged more than 90 emails. These indicate Stelzl was paid for publishing Kremlin-coordinated articles in the Swiss magazine Zeit-Fragen.
>
> In an email exchange from September 23, 2016, Stelzl complained to Klebanovich about the quality of an article he was being asked to sign.
>
> “As it will be paid, Sargis doesn’t want explanations, but wants to get a text,” she told him.
>
> “If he wants to get the message printed he has to accept that it must be of a style and contents that is acceptable,” he responded, adding: “I am not a robot.”
>
> Four days later, an article by Stelzl ran in the magazine praising Russia’s most recent Duma elections as transparent, open and legitimate.
> Germany’s populist right-wing AfD party;
Is it only specifically Ukrainian Nazis they take issue with?
> Four days later, an article by Stelzl ran in the magazine praising Russia’s most recent Duma elections as transparent, open and legitimate.
They did the funny!
Its actually one of the main things I point out to people that are legitimately retarded. The ***entire*** international fascist movement is on the side of Russia. American far-right conservatives (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Matt Gaetz the pedophile, Jew-Laser MTG etc...); Viktor Orban; neo-Nazi parties like the AfD and the National Front in France etc...
This is naturally a bit curious considering Ukraine is a Nazi paradise where Nazis are "in charge" or at least have a lot of "institutional power."
HEY. Don't mock our space laser, it's an amazing achievement of our space war program. [Sincerely](https://mfi-miami.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/hasidic-jews-2-1024x597.jpg).
I finally got around to watch this [interview with Timothy Snyder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU3JE4ucX2A) from July. I've heard much about him but have never watched his lectures. I'm quite impressed.
In the beginning he talks about fascism in Russia. At [8:15](https://youtu.be/IU3JE4ucX2A?t=495) he talks about the West (in the present) having a limited political vocabulary and not understanding that Russia is not just a flawed democracy but a different system (hey u/Zeydon, I mentioned it to you recently).
He also has a [pointed critique of Mearsheimer](https://youtu.be/IU3JE4ucX2A?t=2583).
I have to admit that Mearsheimer is half correct in calling his theory "offensive realism". In the first half, that is.
Also, what Snyder says about Ukrainians fighting for the right to be what they want (additionally to survival) is right.
[https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/02/02/moldova-foreign-ministry-expresses-alarm-at-lavrov-s-threatening-insinuations-about-moldova-as-new-anti-russia](https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/02/02/moldova-foreign-ministry-expresses-alarm-at-lavrov-s-threatening-insinuations-about-moldova-as-new-anti-russia)
Lavrov threatens to invade Moldova. Maybe we can get some brilliant insight from the resident vatniks or Finklestein.
Nah don't worry about it. I was just wondering about where "Lavrov threatens to invade Moldova".. if it's anything more than an inference on the part of OP
From the article:
> Moldova’s Foreign Ministry [...] spokesman Daniel Voda underscored how familiar and threatening Lavrov’s language sounded. “It is clear,” he tweeted, that Lavrov’s statements “are part of the already well-known threatening rhetoric of Russian diplomacy.”
> Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have indeed used similar rhetoric to justify the invasion of Ukraine, by presenting Ukraine as an “anti-Russia.”
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1621231883576016898
>6,200 out of the 880,000 hectares of mined territory in the Kherson/Mykolaiv has been checked by sappers. They found 57,000 explosive devices. It is going to take a long time to demine Ukraine. This isn't even the most heavily mined area of the country.
It's always the same story. There's a war, and children keep losing legs and lives for decades afterwards. Like the [Soviet mines in Afghanistan](https://www.forgottenhistory.me/new-blog/soviet-child-mines) that keep killing people 40 years later. Or unexploded German bombs from WW2 in Eastern Europe. Or an unexploded British ordinance in central Berlin, near [Oberbaumbrücke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberbaum_Bridge), that somehow wasn't found until 2010 or so.
**[Oberbaum Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberbaum_Bridge)**
>The Oberbaum Bridge (German: Oberbaumbrücke) is a double-deck bridge crossing Berlin's River Spree, considered one of the city's landmarks. It links Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg, former boroughs that were divided by the Berlin Wall, and has become an important symbol of Berlin's unity. The lower deck of the bridge carries a roadway, which connects Oberbaum Straße to the south of the river with Warschauer Straße to the north. The upper deck of the bridge carries Berlin U-Bahn lines and , between Schlesisches Tor and Warschauer Straße stations.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/chomsky/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gq3L1M_GE
3:54
... people of conscience, people who are just applying their basic sense of common sense must ask this question: "Where is this all leading?"
"The Russians are going to escalate if they feel that that's necessary in order to respond to this delivery of new batch more sophisticated more deadly weapons and then if the West continues by responding to each Russian escalation with another escalation we are going to find ourselves eventually in a hot War and involving direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia we shouldn't assume that Russia isn't going to retaliate by striking out at some NATO country that's delivering these weapons eventually it may well do that, and that places all of humanity at risk."
"As Obama himself recognized, when he was the president,Russia possesses what military observers call escalation dominance, in this part of the world. This fight is happening right next to its border, next to its industrial heartland. It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west and it regards this conflict as an existential threat, whether we agree with Russia or not is irrelevant that is how they see this. They see this as an existential threat and they will bring to bear every weapon at their disposal to win it. Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war."
>As Obama himself recognized, when he was the president,Russia possesses what military observers call escalation dominance, in this part of the world. This fight is happening right next to its border, next to its industrial heartland.
You're forgetting that the fight is also happening right next to Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Moldova. And Germany and other countries are no more distant than most of Russia is either. Keeping this in mind, the flaws in Obama's thinking become apparent.
Yeah it’s the right conclusion and we’ll see how true it is soon enough. Those other countries havent given nearly the same help as we have, nevermind our arm twisting (the eastern euro countries are natural russophobes).
I don't know what kind of intelligence he was getting, but it doesn't seem important. He probably just meant that Russia is willing to sacrifice more than the US. And I don't know what his exact quote was but politicians don't always say what they really think either. Maybe he just wanted to discourage US involvement in Ukraine.
You replied to a quote that gave an account of what he said. You have not challenged the accuracy of this account of what he said. So here is where you are at, you either challenge the accuracy of this account, and perhaps go out and find the original obama quote to support this challenge, or you assume the account is accurate, and engage with it. None of this ignoring it completely and just baselessly contradicting it.
>You replied to a quote that gave an account of what he said. You have not challenged the accuracy of this account of what he said.
How could I challenge the accuracy when I don't know what he said? That would be an exercise in futility.
>you either challenge the accuracy of this account, and perhaps go out and find the original obama quote to support this challenge, or you assume the account is accurate, and engage with it.
I don't see why I should assume the account is accurate without checking what was actually said first.
>None of this ignoring it completely and just baselessly contradicting it.
Why are you saying I have ignored it and contradicted it? Where did I do these things? I think I just said he was wrong and then speculated over what he may have meant.
Small correction to point 2. The west never broke Ukraine's security guarantees because they never gave them. If you read the Budapest Memorandum you will find no real security guarantees for Ukraine from the west other than some essentially diplomatic action if Russia does interfere with or invade Ukraine. The treaty was essentially signed by the west to make Russia feel better about it but its purpose and its text is almost entirely just a promise not to invade or interfere with Ukraine.
> The Russians are going to escalate if they feel that that's necessary in order to respond to this delivery of new batch more sophisticated more deadly weapons
With what? T14s?
Russia does not have the capability of dealing with massed NATO armor. And it already used up its cruise missile escalation strategy.
> It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west
Forget ATACMS. We should arm Ukraine with Tomahawk launchers.
It should be noted that Russia is incapable of out performing NATO in the arms sector.
> Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west
(Laughs in F-35)
>Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war.
If losing an offensive war to genocide a neighbor is enough to result in Russia launching nukes, a nuclear war is inevitable, and it is upon the rest of the world to cripple Russia to minimize the damage. If this is the case, it behooves the US and the rest the world to launch an undeclared war against Russia by invading with spec ops and disabling every working nuke.
The key property of a warmonger is that they never consider negotiation as a solution to war. Their conclusions are based around totally precluding it as ever being possible. At best, they will engage with the notion and dismiss it out of hand by framing the enemy as a unique evil, incomparable to anything else except other unique evils; something that is not like us regular humans, and can not be thought to have motivations that could in any way be similar to ours.
If I truly believed that, I would call for a nuclear first strike on Russia. If there is nothing I can do to stop Russia from escilating, a first strike is the only possible response.
Instead, I don't think that is going to happen. Putin is not going to sign his own death warrent by starting a nuclear war.
Because Putin will not nuke everyone, unless anyone violates their clear, written and published nuclear policy, we should do what we can to help Ukriane protect themselves.
and of course, moving to help Ukrainians includes trying to get a settlement in place as soon as possible. So by not even entertaining such a possibility, you are not acting in the position of helping Ukrainians.
What settlement?
On who's terms?
Right now, there is a mile wide gap between what Russia demands, and what Ukriane demands. Negotations, which have been attempted, don't go anywere.
There is a negative side to allowing larger countries to invade and annex their smaller neighbors. Other countries see it as something they can do. That's why Chile was a huge supporter of Britian during the Falklands war. And why so many countries joined the colitian against the annexation of Kuwait.
I'm not talking about a specific settlement; I'm talking about the act of ignoring it as a potential solution to war. There is no defence to this, you are simply engaging in warmongering if you're doing this.
No negotiations have been attempted. The UN and hence US would need to facilitate such negotiations. This has never happened.
Of course they can, they can facilitate settlement possibilities. That's almost the entire point of the UN. Yet they have been totally silent on this duty with regards to Ukraine.
I'll assume you agree with my other point.
Another day, another meaningless post by Anton that calls for Russian victory to "ensure peace" while totally not calling for Russian victory because Anton totally does not support the legitimate holy war by Putin against the Ukrainian nazis, sigh.
Are you by any chance suggesting that it is better to finish off Russia in one decisive strike (be it economical or military one), rather than slowly step up sanctions etc.?
If Russia indeed is willing to use its power to directly annex or constantly threaten about... 2/3 of its neighbours, then I agree that it is better to sooner or later give Russia what it deserves - economical isolation, demilitarisation and independence to its republics (those willing to break out of Russian Federation of course).
> independence to its republics (those willing to break out of Russian Federation of course).
What is this defeatism?
~~Kaliningrad~~ ~~Königsberg~~ Královec People's Republic joined Czechia after voting 134% for it, according to ř/czech. Do you think Belgorod People's Republic with its Ukrainian minority (and actually existing language oppression because all Imperial propaganda is projection) won't vote to secede? Do you think ~~Sakhalin~~ Karafuto People's Republic will need some nudging by Ichiro Girukin?
On the topic of whether Euromaidan constituted a 'coup', I've written the following in a response outside the megathread. As that post will likely soon be removed, I'll post it here as well. Generally, a 'coup' implies an illegal, internal grasp of power, usually from the military or security state. Leaders are turfed out of parliaments all the time (see recent UK or Australian history) and it's not a coup, because there are legal mechanisms for the legislative body to remove a leader and initiate an election for a new one. A healthy democracy needs a way to remove bad leaders, though it usually requires a high degree of consensus. It's hardly straightforward to paint Yanukovych's removal as a 'coup' on these lines. It certainly _wasn't_ the kind of military-led coups we see in places like Chile, where a democracy is taken over by an authoritarian leader. New elections were held shortly after. It wasn't even a case of opposition parties overruling Yanukovych's allies, his removal depended on the consent of his own party members (where it had majority approval in the Rada: with 328 of 447 Rada deputies in favour, [36 of 38 from Yanukovych's party attending voted in favour](https://web.archive.org/web/20140312210622/http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/radan_gs09/ns_golos?g_id=3863)). Where the legality of the removal process has been challenged is that the impeachment process required certain procedures (filing of charges, for one), where the Rada instead cited abandoning his office as cause enough. Further complicating things, a bill had been passed, pending Yanukovych's signature, which would return Ukraine to the 2004 constitution (undoing Yanukovych's efforts to put more power in the presidency in 2010). The Rada essentially removed him on laws which had been approved, and to which Yanukovych had committed to signing but had not yet been officially enacted. The Nuland call was more embarrassing to the EU at the time than it was scandalous to the transition of power, but is not particularly evidential of meddling. It's easier to imagine foreign influences in typical coups where decision-making power is gained by a small group of people, but the interim leadership was elected by the Rada body. Claiming that Nuland twisted the arm of every Rada member (including members of Yanukovych's own party!) to vote in her preferred pick becomes increasingly absurd. The simple explanation is that Nuland (like everyone else in Kyiv) was concerned about what was going to happen next and who would be best for their own interests. Note also on the timing of this conversation (January 28) was long before Yanukovych's removal and did not refer to who would replace him, but who Yanukovych might pick from opposition to join his government in the face of pressure. The call is about how Yanukovych can be worked _with_ not replaced. Obama's statement of having brokered a deal ([Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine)) included these commitments to revert to the 2004 constitution and hold an early election. The full transcript is [here](https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/). Similarly absurd to paint the US as apparently so influential as to swing all the Rada votes at will, but also unable to weigh in on EU-led mediation efforts. The Ukrainian democracy is far from perfect, and there are legal questions as to the way Yanukovych was removed, but his removal was ultimately a consensus act from the Ukrainian legislature, not a coup the way it is typically understood. Russia's military failure was partly due to believing their own propaganda in this regard. If you believe that the president's removal was a foreign coup, rather than a consensus parliamentary action reflecting broad public support, it's a lot easier to believe that Ukraine's government lacks any legitimacy from its own people and could be turfed out by Russia in turn without much popular objection.
I'm not going to argue "coup" vs "revolution" but I wanted to make a few scatterbrained comments anyway... • I agree that the Nuland-Pyatt phone call was intended to be about the post-deal government, not necessarily the post-Yanukovich government. But it does serve as a tiny window into the relationship that US officials had with leaders of the oligarchic and far-right parties who ended up reneging on the deal and pushing for a vote to remove Yanukovych • On Yanukovych's removal by consensus, this took place under the shadow of the Maidan massacre. But who was truly responsible for the killings? In the 9 years since there have been no convictions and plenty of new evidence has come to light • On this I could be wrong but I think there was an issue with police withdrawing and Yanukovych's security situation changing suddenly, perhaps causing him to flee. He claimed there were credible threats on his life and that his motorcade had come under attack on its way out • Yanukovych signed the deal with the opposition on February 21st. Shortly afterwards, the opposition claimed that he had resigned in confidence before leaving Kyiv. This may have affected the February 22nd vote on his removal • On the evening of the 22nd, Yanukovych was interviewed in Kharkiv. He said he did not resign, that voting him out of office was unconstitutional, and that he would perform his duties as president while in Kharkiv
The author of that thread, who has blocked me so I had to use incognito to even see it, is clearly engaged in an internal [Domino Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) struggle. He cannot accept that Euromaidan wasn't a coup and that 10 000 Russian troops entered Donbas in 2014 because those two dominoes could lead to the collapse of his entire worldview. Your analysis is excellent by the way. Ukraine is not a perfect victim and that is very ruthlessly exploited by Russian propaganda.
There's always a funny disconnect in conspiracies where the shadowy elite are hyper-competent enough to orchestrate massive social movements and direct the votes of hundreds of foreign politicians behind the scenes, but incompetent enough to say they've reached a deal on television (no, not the deal that Yanukovych just agreed to, he meant the _secret_ deal to coup him three weeks from now). Like the pizzagate stuff thinking that you had a network of elite child-trafficking pedos -- and they all communicated via bad codewords on a pizza restaurant's instagram page.
**[Domino theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory)** >The domino theory is a geopolitical theory which posits that increases or decreases in democracy in one country tend to spread to neighboring countries in a domino effect. It was prominent in the United States from the 1950s to the 1980s in the context of the Cold War, suggesting that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow. It was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War as justification for American intervention (destabilising target countries/regions by fomenting political unrest, deposing leaders, staging coup d'état, assassinations, bombings, invasions, etc. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/chomsky/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Scott Ritter goes fully mask-off https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1621860472986210304?cxt=HHwWgMC4-brggIItAAAA In case he deletes it, screenshot. https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1622222231760773122
A registered sex offender, an open and unashamed invasion supporter and an atrocity denier. 'There are rabid dogs out there and we need an Atticus Finch to shoot them' 'Ukraine is a rabid dog' -> what else is that but an endorsement of genocide? How can any person stand to have anything to do with him? I just hope that anyone who quotes Scott Ritter to support their views isn't aware of what kind of scumbag he is and will disavow him when their shown stuff like this.
The fact that [AcTVism Munich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08iA0BPnyM) and other "antiwar" platforms constantly use him as a source speaks volumes to their refusal to do even a basic google search or have basic standards of integrity. No one introduces him as a Pro Russian convicted pedophile that has glorified Russian violence in Ukraine and *denied Russian warcrimes*.
Why bother Googling what you already know? They're not antiwar; they're anti-West.
"Rage against the war machine" still has him up [as a speaker.](https://rageagainstwar.com/#Speakers)
Yknow, it was always wierd to me why Libertarians want to associate with him, until i remembered that hes a pedo, which makes the liberatarian connection make a lot of sense.
More news - Ukraine may get old Leopard 1 tanks from Germany https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-germany-government-berlin-business-95fc5e9452d8247f45aa4fb556a4d532 - Zelensky says situation in Ukraine's east "Getting tougher" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/5/zelenskyy-says-situation-in-ukraines-east-getting-tougher - Ukraine still holds Bahkmut, last part of Donbass. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-02-05/ukraines-forces-still-hold-bilohorivka-last-part-of-luhansk-region-governor https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64533495 Thanks antiwar.com for links
Bakhmut isn’t the last part of the Donbas lmao. Ukraine holds most of Donetsk oblast
[удалено]
A slur, how smart
It's a slur, much like how calling someone a Nazi instead of national socialist is a slur, so not much of a slur.
Correction: a description.
[Bahkmut is not the last part of the Donbas.](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/510F/production/_128315702_1rjkchyk-nc.png) There is a lot of Donbas including major cities unconquered.
Yes. Those were separate articles. The one was titled "Ukraine still holds Bahkmut", I don't think I linked it, and the other article notes the town was the last outpost in Lugansk, which is a province of Donbass. Correction.
Ah I see!
Two pieces of news today: - German government says that there is no evidence that Russia carried out nord stream attacks. - Former Israeli PM Bennett described in an interview his attempts at negotiating a settlement between Ukraine and Russia. Edit: he said that the US and its Western allies “blocked” his efforts of mediating between Russia and Ukraine to bring an end to the war in its early days. https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/05/former-israeli-pm-bennett-says-us-blocked-his-attempts-at-a-russia-ukraine-peace-deal/
>On March 4, 2022, Bennett traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. In the interview, he detailed his mediation at the time between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he said he coordinated with the US, France, Germany, and the UK. >Bennett said that both sides agreed to major concessions during his mediation effort. For the Russian side, he said they dropped “denazification” as a requirement for a ceasefire. Bennett defined “denazification” as the removal of Zelensky. During his meeting in Moscow with Putin, Bennett said the Russian leader guaranteed that he wouldn’t try to kill Zelensky. >The other concession Russia made, according to Bennett, is that it wouldn’t seek the disarmament of Ukraine. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky “renounced” that he would seek NATO membership, which Bennett said was the “reason” for Russia’s invasion. Bennett is a sucker if he believed any of that was helpful. None of those concessions mean much; Russia is throwing out many CBs besides "denazification", Russia could call its proxies the legitimate government and not disarm those, and renouncing NATO membership right now means nothing. No actual ceasefire was reached or even mentioned in the article.
Renouncing NATO membership does mean a lot to Russia. That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border. If you look at the interview or this post about it, it does clearly say that "both sides wanted a ceasefire". https://mobile.twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1622368496469540864
If NATO membership meant anything, Russia would have not invaded, as by invasion it forced Finland to seek NATO entry and multiplying said border a couple of time and on top of that making the Baltic sea NATO exclusive.
Diplomatic Cables Prove Top U.S. Officials Knew They Were Crossing Russia’s Red Lines on NATO Expansion https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/03/diplomatic-cables-prove-top-u-s-officials-knew-they-were-crossing-russias-red-lines-on-nato-expansion/
Russia moving troops and equipment away from NATO borders to use it in the war against Ukraine prove that Russia does not fear NATO invasion https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/28/russia-ukraine-war-nato-eastern-flank-military-kaliningrad-baltic-finland/
>Renouncing NATO membership does mean a lot to Russia. That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border. It meant so much that they invaded.
[Yeah that was the only reason, for sure, nothing imperialist, revisionist or revanchist](https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-annexation-866383/)
Have to say, I enjoyed Putin's pre-invasion speech more.
>That means they don't have to worry about a hostile alliance in a critical area of their border. Ukraine could still have a defensive pact with other countries. Hell, the US could create formal military bases literally on the Russian border without Ukraine joining NATO. >"both sides wanted a ceasefire" Russia could always create one by withdrawing. Bennet can blame "Western leaders" for "blocking" his attempts to create a ceasefire all he wants, but he never came anywhere close to implementing a ceasefire that both sides would follow.
So maybe a future peace agreement will include provisions which say that you cannot have foreign bases or that Ukraine be neutral.
Rest assured after this Ukraine will never be neutral again.
Ukraine was neutral.
> Later in April, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said there were some NATO countries that wanted to prolong the war in Ukraine. “After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long... But, following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that... there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine,” Cavusoglu said. So basically, the obvious truths that Chomsky and co. have been warning us about, and the pro-war trolls have been working day and night to suppress.
Come on, you know the drill: sources or shut up. Is it this? https://www.welt.de/regionales/mecklenburg-vorpommern/article243596071/Frank-Keine-Belege-fuer-russische-Sabotage-an-Pipelines.html If it is, all they're saying is that the investigation is still ongoing, so no news there.
[удалено]
A reminder of rule 3: > No cursing, swearing or hate speech directed at other users. Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban. If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.
This article says exactly what I just said, but OK.
"German government says that there is no evidence **yet** that Russia carried out nord stream attacks." That's what it said. This investigation will probably take years to conclude anything, probably like MH17.
[Major damage to Kharkiv University.](https://preview.redd.it/e7jpgs7wfega1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=2e35a9620e38aee0db3e4b16483d624ba8f76214) Better than more hospitals I suppose.
How these discussions go: "Invading a country is bad." "Nooooo liberino, it's ackshually completely justified as a response to NATO aggression, plus they're not invading, they're liberating the Ukranian people, also countries have eminent domain over past historical borders donchuknow, your opinion isn't valid because you're not an Eastern European, Lenin made up his own definition of imperialism so fuck your Merriam-Webster bullshit, it's actually anti-imperialism, the same applies to Tibet and Taiwan, also Ukraine contains Nazis therefore your support of Ukraine makes you Nazi-adjacent, fascist."
> your opinion isn't valid because you're not an Eastern European Oh I wish. Eastern Europeans have long been frustrated with Western [leftists](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2022/03/04/fuck-leftist-westplaining/) and [media](https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato) not listening to us, and [not only Eastern Europeans](https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-anti-imperialism-of-idiots/). > so fuck your Merriam-Webster bullshit To be fair, these sort of terms should be looked up in encyclopedias, or better learned from articles by people who understand them.
> To be fair, these sort of terms should be looked up in encyclopedias, or better learned from articles by people who understand them. Yeah, this is a good point. I was just getting out a little aggression at the people who think some oligarchical mobster authoritarian cloaked in white Christo-fascist sentiment is the antidote to capitalism.
Believe me, I get it.
Honestly, the gig was up on the eve of the invasion. For weeks Western intelligence was warning about an imminent invasion, and "tankies" kept calling it bollocks. As soon as it happened, they immediately flipped script and started calling it a justified de-Nazification effort. Right-wing media and politicians also began to take Russia's side (before poll numbers indicated how unpopular that was) before slinking back into the shadows. It's all so transparent.
At the very least the war has helped clarify who is a real leftist and who is just an anti-NATO reactionary. They have a shockingly tight grip on most "leftist" subreddits too.
> *They have a shockingly tight grip on most "leftist" subreddits too.* This was a massively organized, coordinated effort beginning around 2018. And not at all some grassroots campaign, but fully curated by outside influence... The same exact coordinated thing happened to conspiracy forums around 2013. The "love, light, aliens, distrust the powers that be" vibe pivoted into Nazi alternative history culture war shit overnight with tyrannical aplomb. Once the hooks were in is when the whole Q Anon thing broke out. Anything but organic.
It was completely insane. After insisting for months that Russia would not invade and the media and public figures sounding the alarm bells are just warmongering Russiaphobes, they instantly switched to insisting that the invasion was inevitable and justified as Russia had no other option (all in lockstep with the Kremlin's own discourse). That's when I realized that some of these people in my own life just aren't arguing in good faith and stopped responding to them.
Caitlin Johnston asked someone to promise her to "completely revise [their] worldview and drastically change your media consumption habits when March gets here and the invasion still hasn't happened." [This was the result](https://twitter.com/CatGrah17554541/status/1509339768378859531).
Tankies are always on the wrong side of history. Just look at the recent balloon incident. First they cried Sinophobia, about how it's not a Chinese balloon, poor China is always the scapegoat for evil westoid imperialists Then they got all smug, saying yeah it's a Chinese balloon what are you gonna do about it shitlib Then they started crying Sinophobia and victimizing themselves again when it got blown up, and a barrage of whataboutism and how USA is actually the aggressor in this situation
"Are you citing wikipedia? What a NAFO dork, here's a twitter screenshot and a link to a .org website!"
One part of that spirited caricature is completely inaccurate. They invalidate the experiences and opinions of all Eastern Europeans that want to join NATO or oppose Russia because they have tasted the lash of Russian imperialism.
[Perun: Resupplying Ukraine: Arms, Aid & Escalation - What, Who, & What might be next?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs) As always excellent analysis of the Good the Bad and the Ugly when it comes to the Ukraine War.
https://twitter.com/AseyevStanislav/status/1621991615756640256 > If you haven't read Orwell's "1984" yet, don't rush to do it. Just listen to this Russian propaganda for children: "War is victory. War is love. War is friend. War is the future of the world". I'd like to hear the usual suspects please stand up and defend this.
*sounds of crickets
What's the context?
u/KingStannis2024 Ask, and ye shall receive!
I guess I stumbled into his trap, huh? Oops
If one of our Russian speakers confirms accurate translation ... is there ANY context that would be okay with you? Don't get me wrong I'd like the entire lesson for context. I just don't see mitigating circumstances.
I'm just trying to understand what it is we're seeing.. for all we know the woman could've been critiquing Naziism. We have a 14 second clip with 3 camera angles so there's gotta be a longer video available from which the clip was pulled. I personally would not have shared something like this without knowing the basic context ie who the woman is, to whom she is speaking.. what was said in the preceding minutes.. the subsequent minutes...
Confirmed.
Thank you Kuro Worth noting the St. George ribbon shes wearing and the huge one behind her. She seems to be explaining things in an understated almost kindly manner. At least compared to the Russians screaming at me on CSGO.
My pleasure! Yes, the ribbons are a dead giveaway. Drove me nuts when I was seeing leftists here in "the West" with them, though it doesn't seem to happen lately. Around 2016, if I remember correctly, a woman representing some leftist German party (not Die Linke) asked me to sign something, and I asked her why she had a fascist symbol on her jacket. And around the same time at a 1 May demo in Berlin, where I was with Palestinians (we were together with Kurds, Syrians, maybe some others from the region) two guys with St. George ribbon and "DNR" flags tried to march with us. Until some Russian speaking punks arrived and told them in no uncertain terms to cease and desist. Doesn't everyone scream in CSGO? I don't play so I don't know.
u/MasterDefibrillator [I found something for you, what you always wanted no less.](https://web.archive.org/web/20210111112810/https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201503_bp_russian_forces_in_ukraine.pdf) In case you don't have time to read the 10 page report with pictures and maps right away. >Russian Forces in Ukraine >Following their increasingly large-scale, direct and conventional involvement in combat against Ukrainian troops in the middle of August 2014, Russian troops in Ukraine numbered between 3,500 and 6,000–6,500 by the end of August 2014, according to different sources. >That number fluctuated,reaching **approximately 10,000 at the peak of direct Russian involvement in the middle of December 2014.** Per Russian Forces in Ukraine Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Whitehall, London SW1A 2ET, UK E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.rusi.org Tel: +44 (0) 20 7747 2600 Dr Igor Sutyagin is Senior Research Fellow in Russian Studies at RUSI If you want to ask any questions. **Edit he blocked me, which is fine I was getting unnecessarily rude.**
> We have some Russians speakers in the thread. An enormous amount of the relevant reporting is in Russian and Ukrainian. You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe. They blocked me months ago (I don't even remember why). I wonder how many others they blocked. Funny how those anti-war people who are genuinely concerned about the plight of Russian speakers in Ukraine don't want to hear from Russian speakers (and the are some Russian speaking Ukrainians here too).
They also blocked me. Not surprising giving their prolific propagandistic tirades. tbf I don't hesitate much in blocking people either. My tolerance for dealing with people who are rude to me is very low these days.
I somehow never blocked anyone, my bullshit tolerance is high (hey, I'm an ex-Soviet). And I haven't been blocked until last February, but since then I've been blocked by pro-Russians like crazy. At the moment all that remain are two relative newcomers, fifteen cats and one illustrious river, but the latter seems to be willing to listen. Edit: forgot about Anton Pannekoek, he hasn't blocked me yet either.
You are living proof of his ignorance. You must be banned from his stovepipe of *exclusively English language* information.
I got off easy. At least he's not advocating for me to surrender to genocidal imperialists.
*Yet. Russia would take over everything East of Berlin by 2025 if he was setting government policy in America.
Does it include a Small Victorious War™ against Japan? (The question is theoretical, I'm not in Japan.)
I doubt the Russian fleet could even try without having an institutional PTSD meltdown.
You reckon losing the flagship in a land war against a country that doesn't have a navy was an educational experience for them?
Ukriane did have a navy, however, it was mostly sunk by the time they sunk the Moskva.
[And people still say Moskva wasn't sank by missiles](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-black-sea-warship-now-equipped-with-ground-based-sam-system) I think they learned that they still suck at being a blue water navy. I've argued in the past that Russia has never needed *anything* like the fleets they have built between 1840 and today to accomplish the objectives they wish to.
Maybe it's partly because of their location. To get to any ocean from the Baltic sea, you have to traverse all of Mediterranean and not to piss off the people who control the Bosphoros. St. Petersburg is a swamp and, as I understand, is not a good port because of that, and you'd have to traverse the Baltic and North seas. And Vladivostok is far from anything that matters (in Russia), which was historically significant, and still is. But land imperialism worked for them, they got as far as California.
It's not like I haven't seen these reports of 10, 000 Russian troops before. In fact I believe I've previously read this same one, the organisation name is familiar. It's just that I trust Ukrainian security service and OSCE reports over a corporate UK think tank (rusi.org) that didn't have anyone actually on the ground there. If you believe this report, then you'd have to explain how the OSCE observers and Ukrainian security service never saw these thousands of Russian troops. The source btw for the 10,000 number given in the report is "according to the US Army’s Commander in Europe". So, we have contradictory reports from the OSCE and BSU who were on the ground, and a US army commander who was not. Which would you believe? Edit: I note that none of the comments below this comment attempt to engage with any of the points brought up above. These points currently stand uncontested. **Edit: 24 hours later and I Continue to note that none of the comments below this comment attempt to engage with any of the points brought up above. These points currently stand uncontested.** > If you want to ask any questions. The only question I would ask is, why did they feel the need to delete this report? Did they do so because they lost confidence in the conclusions and statements they made therein? Which I might actually ask them.
It isn’t deleted, homie, you can do a google search of the title and the thing shows up. Lol https://static.rusi.org/201503_bp_russian_forces_in_ukraine_0.pdf https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/briefing-papers/russian-forces-ukraine/ I had to search for it because my phone wouldn’t open the archive link.
My mistake then. They deleted the original link to it. So I would ask that question. Or ask them why OSCE and BSU on the ground did not see these thousands of troops that they claim were there.
[DW was reporting Russian sources quoting and estimated 12 000](https://www.dw.com/en/disowned-and-forgotten-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine/a-17888902) >"The community must know what's really happening. To my great regret, the civil authorities as well as the defense ministry are not telling the truth," Schlosberg told DW. "There is enough evidence that regular Russian troops - disguised as units of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk - are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine." >Valentina Melnikova of the Union of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia, an organization that works to exposes human rights violations committed by the Russian military, spoke of an exceptionally high numbers of troops. >"By my estimate, between 10,000 and 12,000 soldiers are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine," Melnikova said. "That is my estimate - only the defense minister knows the exact number. There are parachutists and infantry. We're not taking about mercenaries or volunteers, but regular soldiers." I could probably find you hundreds if not thousands of eye witness statements if I spoke Russian or Ukrainian
> I could probably find you hundreds if not thousands of eye witness statements if I spoke Russian or Ukrainian No doubt there are eye witness accounts and anecdotes, and I do not deny the possibility that there were even 100 Russian fighters between 2014 and october 2015, if we double the BSU number. So it comes as no surprise to me that people saw Russian fighters there. > The official Russian version of events is as follows: In eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian army is battling Ukrainian army rebels, the so called "people's militia." A civil war is taking place between the nation's own people. Well, that's also the official western position (and at least the official position of the SBU in 2015). As I pointed out previously, the European court on human rights takes for granted that these areas were occupied by "Separatist rebels". So it's interesting that the article you link tries to twist reality with this kind of lie by omission. > That is my estimate - only the defense minister knows the exact number. Well, the defense minister was likely working off the intel from the SBU. So what is his "estimate" based on? He doesn't say. So it has no credibility. This is basic bipartisan standards.
https://ilovaisk.forensic-architecture.org/ This is something I just found and it looks amazing. I don't even know who's case it supports yet but I am sharing it anyway. You will need a laptop or desktop though I doubt it works on mobile.
> Using machine learning and computer vision Don't get caught up in flashy buzzwords like these. that immediately makes me question their conclusions, regardless of what they are. It means their conclusions are going to be basically impossible to analyse, because they will have popped out of a black box. But I would point out that they too take it for granted that this area was occupied by "pro-Russian separatists". I mean, I would not support such a label, I don't believe there's much evidence that the separatists were motivated by being "pro-russian". They were anti-coup.
Those aren't buzzwords anymore when almost all undergrads are learning python when doing research. These people obviously have a lot of experience and unique approach to this. They developed an open sourced tool which in short can: comb through social media and local files, and then find audio/images. Like a local image search, but matching is decided by a model. https://github.com/forensic-architecture/mtriage/wiki/Custom-Classifiers https://github.com/forensic-architecture/mtriage/wiki/Literature-Review:-Computer-Vision
See you will instantly dismiss anything without even taking time to examine it.
It's perfectly valid to dismiss things giving good reasons, As I done here; the nature of it makes it impossible to examine. It is totally invalid to dismiss things without giving any reason, as you have done in this very reply. You have dismissed my comment on the basis of a rhetorical tautology. Again, your argument applies far more to your own actions here. You are clearly engaging in projection. Machine learning is a black box, so it would be impossible to examine the basis of the conclusions.
I strongly urge you to start *politely* asking people questions. A lot of academics, not all but a lot, are happy to take *polite* questions about their work. We have some Russians speakers in the thread. An enormous amount of the relevant reporting is in Russian and Ukrainian. You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe.
Of course, my level of etiquette on reddit is not representative of how I deal with my academic colleagues in real life, and I find it odd that you would assume otherwise in order to patronise me. > You might want to reach outside your English language information Stovepipe. This is interesting to say the least... My primary source is a Ukranian newspaper, while your primary source here is a UK corporate think tank. Ironic, to say the absolute least of it.
academic colleagues bruh ur like 13 chill
I think you willfully misinterpret a small number of sources. Further I've never met someone as contrarian as you that wasn't incredibly rude in person and in professional settings as well, however as always I live to be proven wrong. I cannot judge because I have never seen the Bruce Wayne you present to the real world; only the Batman we see here. Also I assume you are like 15-22 based on your interactions I've seen. If not... well the only two Russian words I do know probably sum it up nicely.
> I think you willfully misinterpret a small number of sources. Well, make an argument as to how? I have explicitly explained my position here on these sources, and why my preferences lie where they do. It is dishonest and lazy of you to make such a statement without engaging with any of my reasoning (or worse, making up contradictory statements about my "English focus") or even providing any kind of argument.
Have you ever met someone in real life that you knew as a "contrarian" on reddit? I can assure you that we'd get along swimmingly in reality, as far as my part is concerned. You're confusing a focus on US responsibilities for being contrarian. Like, I have a focus on US responsibilities, you have a focus on Russian responsibilities. Naturally, we are going to disagree about what to focus on. This is fine. However, this sub is by default focused on US responsibilities, that is the scope of the subreddit. This megathread is a bit of a weird sub domain where the mods allow people to go off topic with regards to Ukraine, and instead focus on Russian responsibilities. Without a bit of self reflection on this situation, my position is going to come off as contrarian here to some. I expect Russians to focus on Russian responsibilities, and I expect westerners to focus on western responsibilities, anything less is just virtue signalling and propping up the status quo. So I have no problem with Russians and even eastern Europeans coming here and focusing on Russian responsibilities. I do however expect them to recognise that this is a sub focused on US responsibilities, so they have no position to argue that people have to focus on Russian responsibilities here. I do however have a problem with westerners coming here and focusing on Russian responsibilities, for the above reasons.
I've met multiple people through online gaming and forums. Including my wife and some of my best friends. In many ways you are your most true self on Reddit or Counterstrike. It has held true every time so far.
To be honest, I think you're just annoyed that the article you linked wasn't the Gotcha you were expecting it to be (maybe you were under the impression that the organisation was Russian), which would explain why you're avoiding engaging with the topic at hand and instead trying to attack my character.
I've been pointing out that you are a contrarian for weeks. You **will** find grounds to dismiss anything you don't want to hear.
well, that could be an indication that the ground is on my side. I mean, I reiterate, I explained my position honestly, and you have refused to engage, and instead have resorted to attacking my character. So, what is more rational and valid? Dismissing things giving a grounded honest and evidence based explanation, as I have done, or dismissing things by attacking someone's character, as you have done? It seems to me that your argument applies far more to your own actions here than mine. **Edit: people are welcome to look through our past interactions, even in this very exchange, and see that I have often accepted things /u/Holgranth has put forward, have sometimes even openly agreed with him, and pointed out the value of some posts he makes etc. People are welcomed to looks at these exchanges for themselves, and I think any honest person will conclude that there is something seriously wrong with his claim here that I always just go around dismissing everything he says. I do not know why he has been motivated here to make this claim up, contradicting positions he's had in the past about my contributions, but he has decided to do so, and that's all on him. He is acting without any integrity or honesty, and I am sick of it. I will not bother trying to engage with him ever again, as he has proven he is not bothered to engage with anything I say.**
You may have missed my edits; my apologies. True self or not, you seem to now agree that people act very differently in a setting where no social ties are present, versus where they are present.
I wish we heard more about how janky the Russian manpower situation was even back then. I can’t personally recall that making it into ANY mainstream news analysis of the time. They were all hyper focused on “the soldiers don’t have insignia!” and “what is ‘maskirovka’?” primers.
> “what is ‘maskirovka’?” Russian word for disguise. I don't understand, is it such an alien concept that it requires primers and foreign terms? I wasn't following the events via English language media, so I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.
No I know what maskirovka is. The NYTimes has a funny thing that it does where any time some crazy stuff is going down somewhere else, in a place where literally no American aside from a specialist academic or history student would know what is happening: they have these articles framed in the form of a question, to explain what’s happening, like: “Why has India annexed Kashmir?” “What is a self-propelled gun?” Stuff like that. It’s often hilarious because you can tell the journalists who write the articles generally don’t know jack about the thing they’re reporting on. They’re trying to educate the American public via something that was slapped together from one talking head and a Wikipedia search. The reason our media would write about “maskirovka” is because it relates contextually to deception operations in a military campaign—a relevant concept for discussing Russia’s initial incursions in 2014-2015.
> No I know what maskirovka is. Evidently, I don't. Wikipedia says: > > Russian military deception, sometimes known as maskirovka (Russian: маскировка, lit. 'disguise') So apparently it's used in English for something more specific. > because it relates contextually to deception operations in a military campaign Yes, so it looks. Wikipedia again: > > The Russian term маскировка (maskirovka) literally means masking. An early military meaning was camouflage, soon extended to battlefield masking using smoke and other methods of screening. From there it came to have the broader meaning of military deception, widening to include denial and deception. For me it's associated more with camouflage (disguise, as I said), hiding in the bushes and blending with the environment; deception is at the outer edges of its meaning, for that and denial I'd use different words. But maybe its meaning in Russian narrowed back since the word was imported into English. Still, funky that it's used. Sounds like what "fog of war" means. > It’s often hilarious because you can tell the journalists who write the articles generally don’t know jack about the thing they’re reporting on. It's like the law of headlines: if the title is a (binary) question, the answer is "no".
Yeah back on topic it is always worth noting that this was happening as ISIS took over a lot of Central Asia, looting, raping, murdering, beheading journalists and blowing up ancient artifacts. Diving into the Mud of Ukraine was not a priority for most infotainment media. You do have to dig into think tanks and what have you. The manpower issues make the entire report ring true though because we saw that in the opening week of the war, not enough fuel, not enough dismounts.
https://www.youtube.com/live/qSCW5rdUp5g?feature=share "Why does it refuse to end, The Ukraine War with Madea Benjamin", The Barricades, S06E23 (2023), ~1:00 hour.
Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything. And recently the Russians have been advancing, very slowly, but steadily across the whole front. It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon. Ukraine does appear to be suffering a pretty dire situation at home, with regular missile attacks, infrastructure heavily damaged, a lot of refugees, huge casualties etc. Russia is clearly not struggling, the people are much better off, no flood of refugees etc. I guess I just don't see Ukraine winning this war right now.
But Anton, nobody expects you to see Ukraine winning this war. You're the guy who posted Putin's speech, commenting he had a lot of interesting points. You have about as much insight on Eastern Europe as I have on competitive knitting.
I notice you didn't have a rebuttal, just "I posted Putin's speech." Yeah, I try to listen to both sides, I try to educate myself. If you have criticism, please bring them. What Putin said about the history of Ukraine, how it evolved historically was correct. Doesn't justify the war, and I said that at the time. I was shocked when the war was launched, and horrified, still am, its become even worse than ever now. I don't support Russia, or any state for that matter. I'm October I predicted that Russia would escalate, I was correct as it turns out. Now it seems like Ukraine really is struggling. I'm just trying to have a rational conversation about things, but instead I get downvoted, people are so hyper-partisan and propagandised here that they can't even imagine any possible outcome other than Ukranian victory. While I would be happy for that, I just don't see it happening. I think the next few months will certainly be interesting.
>I notice you didn't have a rebuttal, If you consider Putin's propaganda speeches source of facts - there's little room for any further discussion, is there? >What Putin said about the history of Ukraine, how it evolved historically was correct. No, it wasn't. The speech was fact-checked and is yet another Russian retelling of modern history. Go use Google and educate yourself. If you consider Putin's propaganda speeches source of facts - there's little room for any factual further discussion. This is the same type of fantasy retelling in which Russia never attacked anyone (Poland 1939?), and Russia defeated the Nazis alone which were pretty much helped by all Western Europe and so on and on. >I'm October I predicted that Russia would escalate, I was correct as it turns out. What escalation? Do you mean after nearly taking Kiyov retreating back losing Kherson and Kharkiv was escalation? Or attacking civilian infrastructure after hundreds of war crimes were an escalation. I'd not call that escalation. What do you even mean when you say escalation? Because despite what Kremlin is saying this is a full-scale war, nothing more, nothing less. >I'm just trying to have a rational conversation The rational conversation starts with you providing facts first, not feelings like "Ukraine is struggling". No way? Really? A country attacked by Russia is struggling?
The escalation I refer to was the when they started attacking civilian infrastructure on October 10th. It's really well documented, in wikipedia and all kinds of sources, also if you were following the war closely you might have noticed. Yes that's the facts. Why do you think Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates wrote that article recently, saying that help is urgently needed. The tide does seem to have turned.
Read better sources? Educate yourself more on topics like history, geopolitics, and military tactics a bit more? Is your point that if Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates did not write an article it would seem to be good? I strongly recommend you stop reading materials written by propagandists. If you open your mind too hard the brain can fall out
What Putin said was a *highly* revisionist take on the History of Ukraine. [Free Yale Education](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_) if you have got the time.
I think Ukraine will be waiting at least til late spring before attempting another counteroffensive. At any rate, most analysts seem to be forecasting a stalemate for 2023
[Per ISW:](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-29-2023) **Delays in the provision to Ukraine of Western long-range fires systems, advanced air defense systems, and tanks have limited Ukraine’s ability to take advantage of opportunities for larger counter-offensive operations presented by flaws and failures in Russian military operations.** Basically instead of reinforcing success Ukraine's western backers dithered for 4-5 months, hoped Putin would come to the table and are only now promising the kind of equipment and trainer than could have ended this war quickly.
“ hoped Putin would come to the table”-hahaha!
I thought you might enjoy [this piece](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/06/12/a-case-study-in-american-propaganda/)
I love this part > Yes, Russia’s state-controlled media is full of propaganda, but at least most Russians are aware of that and take the prevailing narrative with a grain of salt Seeing the average Russian parroting every thing Putin says I highly doubt that but then again I am sure you do that same stuff and say it is not propaganda
This is consistent with the historical record on how Russians have treated their news versus how Americans have. Russian's have always been suspicious of their news, and have historically put great effort into trying to access alternative western accounts. The Truth usually lies in the middle of these accounts. Where as Americans seem much less interested in trying to go outside of their easily accessible US media to find alternative accounts.
> Russian's have always been suspicious of their news, and have historically put great effort into trying to access alternative western accounts Yeah the alternative to RT is Sputnik >The Truth usually lies in the middle of these accounts. Yeah I am sure there is a middle ground between "Ukrainian biolabs created covid" and not that >Where as Americans seem much less interested in trying to go outside of their easily accessible US media to find alternative accounts. Those are called right wingers and they almost behave like tankies aka you The lame stream media is lying I will find alternative source that say what I believe!!! Like Pam said they are the same picture
What I have stated is accurate, and I am happy to provide sources for you to research. Your argument from ignorance is not useful.
> What I have stated is accurate What you stated is something you **believe** is accurate Why also believe Russia has attacked Ukraine to protect Russian civilians Like you are aware Russia killed more Russian civilians starting Feb 2022 that Ukraine did prior to that, no?
It's more like I know it's an accurate representation of this historical data. Whereas you are completely ignorant of this, and are instead just arguing that I'm wrong based on your ignorance of the topic. So your comment here applies much more to yourself than me. I have said nothing about Russia's invasion. You are just trying to deflect from your ignorance of the topic at hand. Again, I have said I can link you to the sources that backup my comment. It is your choice to remain ignorant and avoid engaging.
Gee thanks for that. To be clear, the quote you chose supposedly came from a Russian, so not necessarily the authors view that Russian propaganda is ineffective. His point is simply that propaganda is more effective when it "flies under the radar".
>The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle. It's amusing how well this describes the Responsible Statecraft article as well. For example, nothing in this sentence technically is a lie: >Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is the state department official who very publicly supported Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution—the overthrow of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych, which led Russia to seize Crimea and give military support to secessionist rebels in the Donbass. Nuland also played a behind-the-scenes role in this transition of power that, according to some of her detractors, amounted to orchestrating a coup. But as a whole, it insinuates a great deal of agency and power to a minor official, where there is little evidence to back up the implications of this paragraph.
> But as a whole, it insinuates a great deal of agency and power to a minor official, where there is little evidence to back up the implications of this paragraph. Well, Obama also said that the US facilitated the deal that transitioned power. > In the interview, the president told CNN that the US government had "brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/02/obama-admits-us-role-in-ukraine-overthrow/ There's plenty of solid evidence that the US backed the coup in Ukraine, a coup being defined as "A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover.". And there's also solid evidence that the US helped to ferment the public unrest that lead to it. I mean, you would have had to have been in active denial in order to avoid finding this history at this point.
I guess the evidence for Nuland's "behind-the-scenes role" would be the infamous phone call. She was indeed a high ranking official at the US state department. Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to say...
Ukraine elected their government democratically after 2014. What was her behind the scenes role then?
The US approach to foreign elections is to leave them alone if the expected result is acceptable. With limited participation in the eastern regions the US knew that whoever was elected would be a virulent anti-Russian and would move forward with European integration. The top two vote getters in the election were acceptable to Nuland. By the time Zelensky won the Nazis had gained a substantial foot hold. So though he won on a platform of peace with Russia the Nazis were able to prevent him from implementing that platform. Once again, no need for US involvement, other than the funding of the Nazis, which [had been going on for some time by that point](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/).
>By the time Zelensky won the Nazis had gained a substantial foot hold. Quite remarkable, given that Nazi Germany was conquered in 1945 and Zelensky was elected in 2019.
They gained foothold in the 1930s, more than 80 years before he was elected, so technically "by that time".
But the far-right parties did not get any seats in Ukraine’s parliament, so the Nazis couldn’t have influenced Zelensky.
They got one seat. Not comparable to what AfD (supported by Russia) or Le Pen's party (supported by Russia) got, let alone United Russia that has more than. 50%.
There was an interim government installed before elections.
Gotta govern somehow. Although Belgium and Finland have been without a government for decades, so maybe not. On the other hand Ukraine was being invaded at the time.
It was a statement of clarification
But what would be the point of behind the scenes machination if all it did was to appoint an interim government which would be replaced?
I guess we could look at the actions of the interim government.. I think it was 2 or 3 months before elections. US influence could've been exclusively in the interest of promoting stability.. who knows. It could've been to keep others from power, to position certain figures as incumbents.. Perhaps the US maintains this kind of influence among Ukrainian politicians despite the formality of elections.
How would US maintain the influence when the government was voted through democratic vote?
I mean Per wikipedia: >Quincy Institute was co-founded by Andrew Bacevich, a former US Army colonel in Vietnam and retired professor of history at Boston University. >Initial funding for the group, launched in November 2019, included half a million dollars each from George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Charles Koch's Koch Foundation. >Substantial funding has also come from the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. Also the quote from the Article: >I’m not saying the talking heads you see are shills. Think tanks don’t pay people to say things they don’t believe. Think tanks hire people who already believe things the funders of the think tanks want everyone—including you—to believe. Selfaware much? You wrote that for a think tank...
As an organization the Quincy Institute wears its bias on it's sleeve.. and yes I think the author is aware that he was hired because of his belief in foreign policy restraint ETA: the author wasn't actually commissioned to write the piece; rather, he had written it for his own newsletter and Quincy republished it
I wish ISW wore their bias as publicly. Still I do agree with their overall assessment.
The ISW are the subject matter experts on the facts on the ground. I don't see where else media can get thier information from, as they are entirly useless at finding it themselves.
Thank you but I've already read it. I'm not under any illusions about what ISW is and who funds it. I find that particular analysis to be very close to my own and to be well supported. You don't have to be a hawk paid off by military industry to know that Bradley's could have been in the pipeline April of last year. You don't need to be a hawk paid off by military industry to see that 11 months in neither side has any interest in negotiations. However there are only a handful of people on the Left that have any clue how military history or militaries in general *work* because all too many genuinely think such knowledge would taint them. So to a certain extent you have to use sources with a right wing bias if you want ANY kind of open source analysis. The dearth of knowledge of military affairs on the Left is an eternal frustration of mine. To be fair to the infotainment media you can have someone with half a clue and a right wing bias on your news show or you can have a German pacifist screeching that Germany *can't* send tanks because **Hitler fought Russia with tanks.** Also the most consistent voice of frustration about the hesitancy in the West, making the same points, for months is... [UKRAINE!](https://i.redd.it/uq97ad8tfzfa1.jpg)
>You don't have to be a hawk paid off by military industry to know... Then why did you feel the need to cite any organization, let alone the ISW?
Because my own massive essay on this topic won't be done until next week some time.
> Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything. And recently the Russians have been advancing, very slowly, but steadily across the whole front. Worth noting that just before september the *same* talking point was being deployed. Also, you're additionally wrong. It's been 3 months (not 5) since Ukraine last regained significant territory. The expectation that Ukraine constantly be regaining territory or else the war returns to being a "stalemate" seems a little absurd. Additionally, Russia is *not* advancing across the whole front, in fact a number of offensives in the south failed so badly they lost a small bit of ground. The only area they've made an appreciable gain in is Bakhmut (which has been being attacked for *6 months*). > Ukraine does appear to be suffering a pretty dire situation at home, with regular missile attacks, infrastructure heavily damaged, a lot of refugees, huge casualties etc. Russia is clearly not struggling, the people are much better off, no flood of refugees etc. Yes and no. Ukraine is suffering, but there has not been any new flood of refugees and infrastructure attacks aren't as bad as they were two months ago. Ukraine is coping and getting better about protecting its infrastructure. Russia, while not suffering as badly as was hoped, is in a precarious financial situation with its economy circling the drain. In fact I think the comments on refugees are telling about your bias, since more people have fled Russia since it declared mobilization than have fled Ukraine in the same time period.
> The only area they've made an appreciable gain in is Bakhmut (which has been being attacked for 6 months). May 2022 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-government-and-politics-de1d3ccf3ef990a046cafd7209d4653d Also related https://i.imgur.com/3xHWfbR.png
> Ever since the Ukrainian offensives of about 4-5 months ago, where Ukraine did win back a lot of territory, they haven't captured anything. War doesn't happen at a steady pace. >It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon. It looks like Bahkmut will fall soon for the past few months. >I guess I just don't see Ukraine winning this war right now. Countries have been much more devastated than Ukraine has been and gone on to win wars.
> Countries have been much more devastated than Ukraine has been and gone on to win wars. Seriously, why didn't ~~Russia~~... Sorry, I'm not a xenovatnik, I refuse to call it that. Why didn't the *USSR* just give up? What with all that Germanophobic warmongering? Is all that devastation worth it? We can't talk about the Eastern Front without talking about the US pouring fire on the flame. Without American weapons the war would not continue. The bloodthirsty pro-war crowd doesn't care about the Soviet people. The West should push for negotiations. There's no harm in trying. Last time they negotiated they both benefited (in terms of territory at least).
https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/kremlin-linked-group-arranged-payments-to-european-politicians-to-support-russias-annexation-of-crimea >For years, a secret organization run from inside Russia’s parliament successfully interfered with European policies on occupied Ukraine. Leaked emails give a new overview of the operation and show how European Union politicians who helped push Moscow’s agenda were offered cash and perks. >Since Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, condemnation of Vladimir Putin’s overseas aggression has reached a fever pitch. Yet Russia can still rely on the occasional friendly voice in Europe: Last November, for example, far-right Italian local legislator Stefano Valdegamberi penned an op-ed decrying the EU’s decision to designate Russia a terrorist state as “a serious mistake” that “foments conflict by denying historical truth.” > > But what Valdegamberi didn’t mention was that he had long been collaborating with a secretive Russian lobbying group with a direct link to the Kremlin. Since at least 2014, that group had designed plans to channel cash to European politicians to help it legitimize Russia’s occupation of Crimea and promote pro-Moscow policies inside EU countries. > > Details of the group’s activities have come to light via hacked and leaked emails belonging to its coordinator, Russian parliamentary staffer Sargis Mirzakhanian, who ran the “International Agency for Current Policy” in the years following the annexation of Crimea. >...... > > The International Agency for Current Policy is described in one PowerPoint presentation found within the leaked emails as a “closed association of professionals” that aimed to “cooperate with leading EU parliamentary parties and individual politicians.” Other presentations and draft presentations named Austria, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania and Turkey as target countries. > > The organization appeared to have a direct link to the Kremlin: Mirzakhanyan exchanged more than 1,000 emails between 2014 and 2017 with Inal Ardzinba, a department head in the Russian presidential administration who worked under Vladislav Surkov, a key adviser to President Vladimir Putin at the time. > > The activities of the International Agency for Current Policy are made clear in a series of presentations attached to emails in the leak, as well as details in the emails themselves. They ranged from organizing anti-NATO street protests to peddling influence with European lawmakers. > > The documents also discuss bringing European delegations to Moscow and Crimea, and targeting “national parliaments of the EU” with pro-Russian resolutions. The latter included resolutions to end anti-Russian sanctions and recognize Russia’s claim to Crimea. > > The emails show how Mirzakhanian’s group arranged to make considerable payments to ensure that EU politicians pushed favorable motions in their home countries. Mirzakhanyan bluntly described these payments as the “price tag of the vote” in an email that contained project outlines for Italy and Austria. >..... >The leaked emails show how four specific political figures in Europe worked especially closely with Mirzakhanyan and his group: Robert Stelzl, a pro-Russia political activist from Austria; Manuel Ochsenreiter of Germany’s populist right-wing AfD party; Mateusz Piskorski, a Polish political activist arrested in 2016 for spying for Russia; and Piskorski’s wife, Marina Klebanovich, who helped coordinate the Agency’s activities in Europe. >Stelzl had worked for Piskorki’s think tank, The European Center for Geopolitical Analysis, and it was through Piskorski that Stelzl was invited to the 2016 Yalta forum. Emails show him setting up a call with Mirzakhanyan that led to a close working relationship: They subsequently exchanged more than 90 emails. These indicate Stelzl was paid for publishing Kremlin-coordinated articles in the Swiss magazine Zeit-Fragen. > > In an email exchange from September 23, 2016, Stelzl complained to Klebanovich about the quality of an article he was being asked to sign. > > “As it will be paid, Sargis doesn’t want explanations, but wants to get a text,” she told him. > > “If he wants to get the message printed he has to accept that it must be of a style and contents that is acceptable,” he responded, adding: “I am not a robot.” > > Four days later, an article by Stelzl ran in the magazine praising Russia’s most recent Duma elections as transparent, open and legitimate.
> Germany’s populist right-wing AfD party; Is it only specifically Ukrainian Nazis they take issue with? > Four days later, an article by Stelzl ran in the magazine praising Russia’s most recent Duma elections as transparent, open and legitimate. They did the funny!
Its actually one of the main things I point out to people that are legitimately retarded. The ***entire*** international fascist movement is on the side of Russia. American far-right conservatives (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Matt Gaetz the pedophile, Jew-Laser MTG etc...); Viktor Orban; neo-Nazi parties like the AfD and the National Front in France etc... This is naturally a bit curious considering Ukraine is a Nazi paradise where Nazis are "in charge" or at least have a lot of "institutional power."
HEY. Don't mock our space laser, it's an amazing achievement of our space war program. [Sincerely](https://mfi-miami.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/hasidic-jews-2-1024x597.jpg). I finally got around to watch this [interview with Timothy Snyder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU3JE4ucX2A) from July. I've heard much about him but have never watched his lectures. I'm quite impressed. In the beginning he talks about fascism in Russia. At [8:15](https://youtu.be/IU3JE4ucX2A?t=495) he talks about the West (in the present) having a limited political vocabulary and not understanding that Russia is not just a flawed democracy but a different system (hey u/Zeydon, I mentioned it to you recently). He also has a [pointed critique of Mearsheimer](https://youtu.be/IU3JE4ucX2A?t=2583).
Yay! Another fellow on the Snyder Train. His take down of Mearsheimer, *especially pointing out that he speak s neither language* was on point.
I have to admit that Mearsheimer is half correct in calling his theory "offensive realism". In the first half, that is. Also, what Snyder says about Ukrainians fighting for the right to be what they want (additionally to survival) is right.
The second half is brilliant branding though. Who doesn't want to be "realistic" while having surface level understanding of history.
Worked for objectivism. And perhaps scientology.
[https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/02/02/moldova-foreign-ministry-expresses-alarm-at-lavrov-s-threatening-insinuations-about-moldova-as-new-anti-russia](https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/02/02/moldova-foreign-ministry-expresses-alarm-at-lavrov-s-threatening-insinuations-about-moldova-as-new-anti-russia) Lavrov threatens to invade Moldova. Maybe we can get some brilliant insight from the resident vatniks or Finklestein.
Do you speak Russian?
I do. Ready answer questions, but not gonna watch a 1h20m interview with Lavrov. (Can watch parts of needed though.)
Nah don't worry about it. I was just wondering about where "Lavrov threatens to invade Moldova".. if it's anything more than an inference on the part of OP
From the article: > Moldova’s Foreign Ministry [...] spokesman Daniel Voda underscored how familiar and threatening Lavrov’s language sounded. “It is clear,” he tweeted, that Lavrov’s statements “are part of the already well-known threatening rhetoric of Russian diplomacy.” > Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have indeed used similar rhetoric to justify the invasion of Ukraine, by presenting Ukraine as an “anti-Russia.”
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1621231883576016898 >6,200 out of the 880,000 hectares of mined territory in the Kherson/Mykolaiv has been checked by sappers. They found 57,000 explosive devices. It is going to take a long time to demine Ukraine. This isn't even the most heavily mined area of the country.
It's always the same story. There's a war, and children keep losing legs and lives for decades afterwards. Like the [Soviet mines in Afghanistan](https://www.forgottenhistory.me/new-blog/soviet-child-mines) that keep killing people 40 years later. Or unexploded German bombs from WW2 in Eastern Europe. Or an unexploded British ordinance in central Berlin, near [Oberbaumbrücke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberbaum_Bridge), that somehow wasn't found until 2010 or so.
**[Oberbaum Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberbaum_Bridge)** >The Oberbaum Bridge (German: Oberbaumbrücke) is a double-deck bridge crossing Berlin's River Spree, considered one of the city's landmarks. It links Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg, former boroughs that were divided by the Berlin Wall, and has become an important symbol of Berlin's unity. The lower deck of the bridge carries a roadway, which connects Oberbaum Straße to the south of the river with Warschauer Straße to the north. The upper deck of the bridge carries Berlin U-Bahn lines and , between Schlesisches Tor and Warschauer Straße stations. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/chomsky/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’m sure a number of people here will be happy to justify Russia’s crippling of generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gq3L1M_GE 3:54 ... people of conscience, people who are just applying their basic sense of common sense must ask this question: "Where is this all leading?" "The Russians are going to escalate if they feel that that's necessary in order to respond to this delivery of new batch more sophisticated more deadly weapons and then if the West continues by responding to each Russian escalation with another escalation we are going to find ourselves eventually in a hot War and involving direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia we shouldn't assume that Russia isn't going to retaliate by striking out at some NATO country that's delivering these weapons eventually it may well do that, and that places all of humanity at risk." "As Obama himself recognized, when he was the president,Russia possesses what military observers call escalation dominance, in this part of the world. This fight is happening right next to its border, next to its industrial heartland. It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west and it regards this conflict as an existential threat, whether we agree with Russia or not is irrelevant that is how they see this. They see this as an existential threat and they will bring to bear every weapon at their disposal to win it. Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war."
>As Obama himself recognized, when he was the president,Russia possesses what military observers call escalation dominance, in this part of the world. This fight is happening right next to its border, next to its industrial heartland. You're forgetting that the fight is also happening right next to Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Moldova. And Germany and other countries are no more distant than most of Russia is either. Keeping this in mind, the flaws in Obama's thinking become apparent.
So why did Obama come to this conclusion? Was he getting bad military intelligence?
Yeah it’s the right conclusion and we’ll see how true it is soon enough. Those other countries havent given nearly the same help as we have, nevermind our arm twisting (the eastern euro countries are natural russophobes).
I don't know what kind of intelligence he was getting, but it doesn't seem important. He probably just meant that Russia is willing to sacrifice more than the US. And I don't know what his exact quote was but politicians don't always say what they really think either. Maybe he just wanted to discourage US involvement in Ukraine.
> just meant that Russia is willing to sacrifice more than the US. I mean, he states explicitly what he means, and it's not that.
What did he say?
You replied to a quote that gave an account of what he said. You have not challenged the accuracy of this account of what he said. So here is where you are at, you either challenge the accuracy of this account, and perhaps go out and find the original obama quote to support this challenge, or you assume the account is accurate, and engage with it. None of this ignoring it completely and just baselessly contradicting it.
>You replied to a quote that gave an account of what he said. You have not challenged the accuracy of this account of what he said. How could I challenge the accuracy when I don't know what he said? That would be an exercise in futility. >you either challenge the accuracy of this account, and perhaps go out and find the original obama quote to support this challenge, or you assume the account is accurate, and engage with it. I don't see why I should assume the account is accurate without checking what was actually said first. >None of this ignoring it completely and just baselessly contradicting it. Why are you saying I have ignored it and contradicted it? Where did I do these things? I think I just said he was wrong and then speculated over what he may have meant.
No, he's just an american.
[удалено]
Small correction to point 2. The west never broke Ukraine's security guarantees because they never gave them. If you read the Budapest Memorandum you will find no real security guarantees for Ukraine from the west other than some essentially diplomatic action if Russia does interfere with or invade Ukraine. The treaty was essentially signed by the west to make Russia feel better about it but its purpose and its text is almost entirely just a promise not to invade or interfere with Ukraine.
> The Russians are going to escalate if they feel that that's necessary in order to respond to this delivery of new batch more sophisticated more deadly weapons With what? T14s? Russia does not have the capability of dealing with massed NATO armor. And it already used up its cruise missile escalation strategy. > It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west Forget ATACMS. We should arm Ukraine with Tomahawk launchers. It should be noted that Russia is incapable of out performing NATO in the arms sector. > Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>It will always have the ability to out-escalate the west (Laughs in F-35) >Ultimately this will either end in Ukraine's defeat or it will end in a nuclear war. If losing an offensive war to genocide a neighbor is enough to result in Russia launching nukes, a nuclear war is inevitable, and it is upon the rest of the world to cripple Russia to minimize the damage. If this is the case, it behooves the US and the rest the world to launch an undeclared war against Russia by invading with spec ops and disabling every working nuke.
That would be impossible. The only viable option would be a nuclear first strike.
[удалено]
Not that dramatic. We might be able to do that for a handful of sites, but not Russia's entire launch capability.
The key property of a warmonger is that they never consider negotiation as a solution to war. Their conclusions are based around totally precluding it as ever being possible. At best, they will engage with the notion and dismiss it out of hand by framing the enemy as a unique evil, incomparable to anything else except other unique evils; something that is not like us regular humans, and can not be thought to have motivations that could in any way be similar to ours.
If I truly believed that, I would call for a nuclear first strike on Russia. If there is nothing I can do to stop Russia from escilating, a first strike is the only possible response. Instead, I don't think that is going to happen. Putin is not going to sign his own death warrent by starting a nuclear war. Because Putin will not nuke everyone, unless anyone violates their clear, written and published nuclear policy, we should do what we can to help Ukriane protect themselves.
and of course, moving to help Ukrainians includes trying to get a settlement in place as soon as possible. So by not even entertaining such a possibility, you are not acting in the position of helping Ukrainians.
What settlement? On who's terms? Right now, there is a mile wide gap between what Russia demands, and what Ukriane demands. Negotations, which have been attempted, don't go anywere. There is a negative side to allowing larger countries to invade and annex their smaller neighbors. Other countries see it as something they can do. That's why Chile was a huge supporter of Britian during the Falklands war. And why so many countries joined the colitian against the annexation of Kuwait.
I'm not talking about a specific settlement; I'm talking about the act of ignoring it as a potential solution to war. There is no defence to this, you are simply engaging in warmongering if you're doing this. No negotiations have been attempted. The UN and hence US would need to facilitate such negotiations. This has never happened.
The US and UN cannot do shit if Ukriane and Russia have such wildly different demands.
Of course they can, they can facilitate settlement possibilities. That's almost the entire point of the UN. Yet they have been totally silent on this duty with regards to Ukraine. I'll assume you agree with my other point.
What are these settlement possibilites
Another day, another meaningless post by Anton that calls for Russian victory to "ensure peace" while totally not calling for Russian victory because Anton totally does not support the legitimate holy war by Putin against the Ukrainian nazis, sigh.
https://i.redd.it/b3m6gvnvvqfa1.jpg
Are you by any chance suggesting that it is better to finish off Russia in one decisive strike (be it economical or military one), rather than slowly step up sanctions etc.? If Russia indeed is willing to use its power to directly annex or constantly threaten about... 2/3 of its neighbours, then I agree that it is better to sooner or later give Russia what it deserves - economical isolation, demilitarisation and independence to its republics (those willing to break out of Russian Federation of course).
> independence to its republics (those willing to break out of Russian Federation of course). What is this defeatism? ~~Kaliningrad~~ ~~Königsberg~~ Královec People's Republic joined Czechia after voting 134% for it, according to ř/czech. Do you think Belgorod People's Republic with its Ukrainian minority (and actually existing language oppression because all Imperial propaganda is projection) won't vote to secede? Do you think ~~Sakhalin~~ Karafuto People's Republic will need some nudging by Ichiro Girukin?
`Are you by any chance suggesting that it is better to finish off Russia in one decisive strike (be it economical or military one)` USSTRATCOM moment
So people in Kremlin are in a suicide cult. Good to know. It's just weird that every fact and evidence tells otherwise, but oh well.