Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

That wasn’t directed at you, but those who indignantly cry “Russian propaganda!” at the mere suggestion things aren’t going well for the “good guys”.  We should also expect to hear a chorus of backpedaling insisting that the point of spending hundreds of billions in debt financed Ukraine aid and countless lives was never to win a conventional conflict or reclaim territory lost, but that the goal all along was only to inflict military losses on Russia to disrupt their plans to mount a full scale invasion of Europe. Brilliant.

This. Fools. Ukraine never had the capability to win this. It’s a simple math problem. 

[disgruntledemployee]

13 hours ago, gearhog said:

To Putin,

[ClearedHot]

20 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

This. Fools. Ukraine never had the capability to win this. It’s a simple math problem. 

What's the math?  Ukraine is killing six for every one they lose. 

The math of Russia's economy is also very telling.

[gearhog]

Romania just cancelled its Presidential election. Calin Georgescu was up around 30% in the polls. Apparently, he favors de-escalation of the conflict with Russia and has a bit of an anti-globalism position.

Ukraine cancelled its election. South Korea had its attempted coup, French government is in crisis, UK and Germany aren't far behind.

I thought we were all about promoting, and in some cases imposing, "democracy". What are the odds the USA has anything to say as watch yet another one of our allies move toward tyranny as the obviously corrupt government attempts to cling to power in spite of the will of the people? Bad people are leading good nations. I keep saying it... they are the real threat.

https://x.com/james_freeman__/status/1865180136720523344

[gearhog]

I did some digging, found this clip of Blinken accusing Russia of interfering in the election. One day later, the election is cancelled. Such bullshit.

 

[BashiChuni]

On 12/1/2024 at 7:49 AM, ClearedHot said:

What's the math?  Ukraine is killing six for every one they lose. 

The math of Russia's economy is also very telling.

ah so that's why Z wants to negotiate now. cause the russian economy is on the BRINK! SIKE!

i wont go back and find the numbers but a simple google search of pre/post start of the war order of battle tells you everything. ukraine was doomed from the start.

the neocons KNEW this and WANTED us to get actively involved for WW3

[raimius]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

The neocons KNEW this and WANTED us to get actively involved for WW3

Are you ok, dude?  

That's a high grade crazy kind of claim.  Global thermonuclear war isn't in anyone's best interest.

[Vice]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

i wont go back and find the numbers but a simple google search of pre/post start of the war order of battle tells you everything. ukraine was doomed from the start.

Doomed is a great way to describe year 3 of a 3 day operation where your handlers' country can't even capture a major Ukrainian city (Kharkiv) less than 40km away from the border. Lick those boots harder, it's not working.

[BashiChuni]

8 hours ago, raimius said:

Are you ok, dude?  

That's a high grade crazy kind of claim.  Global thermonuclear war isn't in anyone's best interest.

ah but here's where you get the calculus wrong.

they think and are on record saying putin is bluffing. of course they dont want nuclear war

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Vice said:

Doomed is a great way to describe year 3 of a 3 day operation where your handlers' country can't even capture a major Ukrainian city (Kharkiv) less than 40km away from the border. Lick those boots harder, it's not working.

war of attrition fits in perfectly with russian objectives

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

war of attrition fits in perfectly with russian objectives

To have internalized this as "success" is the ultimate moving of the goal-post. To not recognize it as such? Well I can't even begin to grasp at the words that would be required to describe such a mental pretzel twist. Yet here we are. Vietnam was a larger tactical success for the US than this is for the Russians. And so is every other war we've ever fought in - including those we've "lost". There is no way that this can be considered a successful operation from any perspective. Russian, or otherwise. You not giving even the slightest inch on this - when it is obvious to literally everyone - lays bare how wholly captured you are by whatever your daily propaganda diet is. You are an ideologically bound to their "success". Winning is Losing. Losing is Winning. Every day this drags on, Russian objectives recede further and further.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

To have internalized this as "success" is the ultimate moving of the goal-post. To not recognize it as such? Well I can't even begin to grasp at the words that would be required to describe such a mental pretzel twist. Yet here we are. Vietnam was a larger tactical success for the US than this is for the Russians. And so is every other war we've ever fought in - including those we've "lost". There is no way that this can be considered a successful operation from any perspective. Russian, or otherwise. You not giving even the slightest inch on this - when it is obvious to literally everyone - lays bare how wholly captured you are by whatever your daily propaganda diet is. You are an ideologically bound to their "success". Winning is Losing. Losing is Winning. Every day this drags on, Russian objectives recede further and further.

what was their objective then? to capture all of ukraine? no.

define what their success is:

 

also the US has ZERO strategic objective in this fight. ZERO. ukraine means nothing to any US national security. shameful how some of you suck down the MIC propaganda. ukraine is not nato and we have no business interfering on behalf of a corrupt eastern european country.

Edited December 7 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

 Every day this drags on, Russian objectives recede further and further.

is that why Z is floating peace talks?

[SurelySerious]

what was their objective then? to capture all of ukraine? no.
define what their success is:
 
also the US has ZERO strategic objective in this fight. ZERO. ukraine means nothing to any US national security. shameful how some of you suck down the MIC propaganda. ukraine is not nato and we have no business interfering on behalf of a corrupt eastern european country.

Translation: doesn’t know what Russia’s objective is, and would like an authoritarian dictator to be successful in taking whatever he wants.

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

what was their objective then? to capture all of ukraine? no.

define what their success is:

also the US has ZERO strategic objective in this fight. ZERO. ukraine means nothing to any US national security. shameful how some of you suck down the MIC propaganda. ukraine is not nato and we have no business interfering on behalf of a corrupt eastern european country.

Well I don't know what MIC is, and as the US we have business doing whatever the eff we want. We created and maintain the post-war order, and until the victor of the next world war emerges, we get to do as we please, seeing as how the entire Western world owes their existence to us. Anyway, moving on.

That is precisely what their objective was but they failed. See: their attempt to move directly on Kiev in the first couple days of the war which stalled. Toppling their government meant they got to achieve all of their other objectives. They went for the throat but missed, now they're in a knock-down, drag-out Royce Gracie-style grappling fight they hoped to avoid. You remember that part of the war, right? Don't you? They attempted to go straight to Kiev to overthrow the government of Ukraine. Like you agree that happened? Or don't you? They failed at that, and re-directed their efforts to the eastern portion of Ukraine, the Donbas. But that's all in the past now.

Russia was unable to overthrow their government, which would have enabled them to gain their primary objective: control of east Ukraine's oil and gas resources. They tried, and were unable to seize the capital. Instead, they settled for their secondary objective and re-directed all their combat power where it was actually needed. Partially because that's what matters to them strategically, partially to save face.

You see, Russia is basically an oil supplier to Europe. If they don't have that leverage over Europe, they lose a lot of political power (and money). If they have to compete with Ukraine for who gets to supply Europe with oil and gas, that's bad for Russia. They don't want to do that, but admitting that you're going to war over oil is politically fraught, as we have learned over the last decades, so it's never the spoken reason.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/b2201E#:~:text=However%2C additional source rocks possibly,unit were not estimated quantitatively.

"The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country." It's all right there for you if you care to look at it. This war is about economic power - i.e. it's like most other wars. This one is about oil and gas. And it is definitely in our strategic interest for multiple reasons:

• We don't need the majority of NATO beholden to Russian energy
• We don't need Russia at their full strength for whenever China decides to do whatever they're going to do - look at it as intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Grind them down now, so we can save the majority of our combat power for the Pacific

I could go on, but if these obvious ones didn't occur to you, you can do some homework on those for a while.

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

is that why Z is floating peace talks?

He is floating peace talks because he's hedging. Or he's doing it because he thinks it's feasible. Or he thinks our support for him will run out. Who the hell knows, he was the one who was attacked! He has every interest in stopping the violence against his country. I'm sure he would have sued for peace earlier if it was possible.

For the record, I just want you to put it in writing: you think Russia's efforts thus far constitute success? Like for serious?

[Boomer6]

[Longhorn15]

For those who don’t want Ukraine to negotiate an end of the war with Russia, how do you see this war concluding?

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, Longhorn15 said:

For those who don’t want Ukraine to negotiate an end of the war with Russia, how do you see this war concluding?

nato intervention and WW3

[SurelySerious]

nato intervention and WW3

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

you're the clown when you hear the UK and France talking about deploying troops inside ukraine and not associate that with any risk of escalation.

ukraine is a dumpster fire of corruption and money laundering

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Dibs?

[SurelySerious]

Dibs?

Internet champion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

On 12/7/2024 at 8:26 AM, BashiChuni said:

war of attrition fits in perfectly with russian objectives

No it does not, that math is not mathing..Yes Ukraine has taken horrible losses, Russia has taken six times that and they still have not won.  Ukraine is willing to negotiate now because of Donald...plain and simple.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

No it does not, that math is not mathing..Yes Ukraine has taken horrible losses, Russia has taken six times that and they still have not won.  Ukraine is willing to negotiate now because of Donald...plain and simple.

not plain and simple. ukraine is and has been losing for awhile now. i'm glad trump will put a end to this foolish ukraine money laundering adventure

[SurelySerious]

not plain and simple. ukraine is and has been losing for awhile now. i'm glad trump will put a end to this foolish ukraine money laundering adventure

^ still has no idea what Russia’s objective is, but gladly supports authoritarian government’s land grab