Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Russian invasion of Ukraine [Official Thread]

Rate this topic


Message added by Haji 2003,

Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Must watch (rather, listen) video

This is a lecture given at Yale University. It's long, but it gives a full background. Well worth your time.

I volunteered to do some menial admin task for work and had this running in the background.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

People gather in Russia to show support for Donbass, Zaporozhye, Kherson referendums

The first results of the five-day vote are expected by Wednesday

Quote

People have gathered across Russia in support of the referendums which will determine if the Donbass republics and the Russian-controlled territories of southern Ukraine officially join Russia.

Thousands have shown up in Moscow near the Kremlin, holding Russian flags, as well as flags of the country’s regions and political parties. 

https://www.rt.com/russia/563408-moscow-rally-donbass-vote/

RT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 9/2/2022 at 7:40 AM, -Rejector- said:

Although I'm not sure why Putin waited so long to invade Ukraine, I'm sure that he has a reason. This is a man who not only is beating the living daylights out of the West's morale via Ukraine, but also achieving what we all long for: the destruction and death of the Great Satan.

Anyway, linking back to the main point, Putin is not only destroying the West, but he's destroying the West through the West. What deserves more respect than this?

This has aged well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Donbass referendum results revealed

The republics previously recognized by Moscow have opted to join Russia, based on preliminary polls

Quote

The majority of citizens of both the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) support the idea of uniting with Russia, according to local election commissions.

In the DPR, more than 99% of voters backed the idea of joining Russia, early official figures outline. The referendum in the LPR yielded a similar result, with more than 98% of voters behind the potential reunification. In both republics, all the ballots have already been counted, local authorities added.

The polls were conducted in the republics, as well as in the Moscow-controlled parts of Ukraine’s Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, between September 23 and 27.

https://www.rt.com/russia/563562-donbass-referendums-results-polls/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I don’t believe that Putin is truly opposed to the Western-fronted NWO. There are many illiberal Russian nationalists, especially traditionalist Orthodox, who claim that Putin has been too reluctant to defend Russian Imperial interests. These figures claim that Russia should have launched a full-scale invasion and annexation of Ukraine in 2014, at a time when Ukraine was militarily weak and a large number of Ukrainians would have welcomed Russian influence. There are devout Orthodox monarchists, including militants such as Igor Girkin (“Strelkov”), who yearn for a stridently traditionalist, militaristic, messianic leadership in Moscow, and view Putin as someone who merely attempts to appease the nationalists without supporting them, while stifling criticism of Zionism by banning Holocaust revisionism etc. Western MSM even admit that Putin’s real enemies are on the Russian traditionalists rather than the pro-Western liberals, as the first link illustrates.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Obviously he'd like his own colonial order, but for the rest of us what matters is some competition amongst the colonialists

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Obviously he'd like his own colonial order, but for the rest of us what matters is some competition amongst the colonialists

 

Facts. I can't say I'm a particulary big fan of either Russia or China - but a multipolar world beats a unipolar one any day of the week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Zelensky reacts to Musk’s peace proposal

The Ukrainian president rallied his followers against “the Elon Musk who supports Russia.”

Quote

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky responded on Monday to a peace plan put forward by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, which called on Ukraine to make some concessions to Russia. 

In a poll on Twitter, Zelensky asked his followers “which Elon Musk” they “like more”: the one “who supports Ukraine,” or the one “who supports Russia.” At time of writing, just under 85% chose the former.
...
Earlier on Monday, Musk suggested that Russia hold new UN-supervised referendums in its newly-acquired territories, while Ukraine formally relinquishes its claim to Crimea, guarantees the peninsula’s water supply, and declares itself a neutral country. 

“This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end,” Musk continued, adding that it is “just a question of how many people die before then.”

Musk put the plan to a poll, where around 60% of respondents approved before the vote swung against him. Musk attributed this rapid change in results to the “biggest bot attack I’ve ever seen.”

 

Quote

Musk has lent Zelensky his support before, offering Ukraine terminals to access his satellite-based Starlink internet service in the early days of the conflict. However, he resisted pressure from “some governments” to block Russian news sites on the service, and admitted to colleagues that he thought RT made “some good points.”

https://www.rt.com/russia/564001-zelensky-elon-musk-poll/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 10/3/2022 at 4:12 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Obviously he'd like his own colonial order, but for the rest of us what matters is some competition amongst the colonialists

 

Competition is good. To keep things balanced. But it's not quite clear that Putin is "sane" enough to create balance. China appears to be a much more legitimate nation that produces balance. Putin on the other hand, threatening the use of nuclear weapons, it's basically just lunacy. And I mentioned this a few months ago at how crazy such "saber rattling" is. It's a "I can't win in conventional warfare so I'm going to threaten a nuclear apocalypse" that Putin is flexing. And the fallout of such actions wouldn't spare any nation on earth. 

I feel like people don't quite understand that if Putin uses nuclear weapons, it wouldn't be just western nations and eastern European nations that would suffer. Really the entire world would be pulled under by a complete collapse of global order. And not like in an entertaining mad-max kind of way that would be a fun time or would bring back a divine savior or anything like that. Such an action very well could result in a nuclear world war, which means you would likely see, not just Los Angelas and Seattle destroyed, or Moscow and St Petersburg destroyed, but you would also see entire nations like North Korea and Iran turned into flattened sheets of melted crystal. Every nation on earth would be effected in drastic ways that no nation would ever want to experience, assuming any of us would even survive the nuclear fallout.

At this point, it doesn't matter how much people might hate the US. Every single nation should be denouncing this "I'm going to have my way or I'm going to start a nuclear world war" muscle flexing by Putin. This kind of mentality isn't worthy of being a competitor on the world stage, because it's really just crazy. 

And we just have to hope that Putin isn't actually as crazy as he sounds. 

Otherwise, excluding use of nuclear weapons, it's not really clear to me how Putin intends to get out of this one. I'm not sure that the partial mobilization will be sufficient to defeat Ukraine's military. Rather it seems like it would just more likely drag out and protract the war unless there were a more full scale mobilization. But even then, with the continual failures of the Russian military month after month, it's questionable if there is any way they can win at all, barring nuclear weapons use.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 12345
53 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Competition is good. To keep things balanced. But it's not quite clear that Putin is "sane" enough to create balance. China appears to be a much more legitimate nation that produces balance. Putin on the other hand, threatening the use of nuclear weapons, it's basically just lunacy. And I mentioned this a few months ago at how crazy such "saber rattling" is. It's a "I can't win in conventional warfare so I'm going to threaten a nuclear apocalypse" that Putin is flexing. And the fallout of such actions wouldn't spare any nation on earth.

Has Putin actually threatened the use of nuclear weapons?

I was under the impression that he was reiterating their nuclear doctrine, within the context of the "public" Russian Military Doctrine and the possibility of incorporating the four regions into Russia? I am pretty sure most nuclear states have a similar doctrine.

Additionally, the US has been the only country to actually use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state. I could easily see the US justifying their use, as easily as Russia is able to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Putin on the other hand, threatening the use of nuclear weapons, it's basically just lunacy.

Over the years I have come across lots of Americans who consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an act of charity i.e. it avoided a lot of casualties that would otherwise have taken place.

Could Putin be following a similar logic, or is it exclusive to the U.S.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

Over the years I have come across lots of Americans who consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an act of charity i.e. it avoided a lot of casualties that would otherwise have taken place.

Could Putin be following a similar logic, or is it exclusive to the U.S.?

I would say this is flawed logic, because we don't live in the age of the Manhattan project anymore. Nuclear missiles today are thousands of times more powerful than they were back then. And we have thousands more today than we did back then, and everyone has them.

Imagine if Japan had nuclear weapons during world war 2 and america bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Imagine if Hitler and Russia and all of the eu also had nuclear weapons during WW2.

It would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet if someone used nuclear weapons. And that's why Putin can't use one today, if he did, every nation would crumble by the force that would be unleashed, globally in a current nuclear world war. It would be catastrophic for everyone.

I think that anyone who thinks that it would be a good thing if Putin use nuclear weapons, you must be off your rocker. It's absolute lunacy.

And I understand that people don't like the United States in some countries. And I understand people maybe sour about what happened back in the 1940s. But we don't live in the '1940s anymore. It would be truly catastrophic if Putin used nuclear weapons, and every nation should denounce such posturing. With no exceptions.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

But it's not quite clear that Putin is "sane" enough to create balance.

So countering the US in Syria wasn't creating balance? Or how about helping Iran when the US sanctions it? Not creating balance either? What about rejecting America's will to have Ukraine as an ally? Is this just 'lunacy' as well?

7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"I can't win in conventional warfare

Uhh... you're joking, right?

Did you not hear about the referenda to count eastern Ukraine as a part of Russia? Do you know what that means? The special military operation is over. Now, it's an anti-terrorism operation. Under Russian law, Putin now has the right to unleash more power on the nazis. That's why he mobilized 300,000 people... or did you miss that too?

7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

And the fallout of such actions wouldn't spare any nation on earth.

Trust me, unless Ukraine does something (else) stupid, Putin sees no need to use nuclear weapons. And now that we're about to see Russia's potential in the next few weeks, nuclear weapons will be out of the picture.

7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Otherwise, excluding use of nuclear weapons, it's not really clear to me how Putin intends to get out of this one. I'm not sure that the partial mobilization will be sufficient to defeat Ukraine's military.

I'm sure you've heard that Ukraine is running this 'counter offensive' which is turning out to be really successful and they're gonna drive the Russians out of Ukraine... etc. 

By the way, Ukraine is running out of weapons... and fast. Not only do they not know how to use the weapons, but they're actually running short. Even the West can't keep up with Ukraine's constant demand. When Ukraine runs out of weapons, that's when we'll see Russia come down hard.

And guess when the mobilized troops are going to be ready? Just as Ukraine uses its last weapons. Just as they run out of energy (and luck). Just wait and see what happens then. 

7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Rather it seems like it would just more likely drag out and protract the war unless there were a more full scale mobilization. But even then, with the continual failures of the Russian military month after month, it's questionable if there is any way they can win at all, barring nuclear weapons use.

Are you fully understanding the picture here? It doesn't sound like it.

It sounds like you think that Russia's objective was to capture all of Ukraine in like two days, and keep the land for Russia.

No.

Russia's objectives, from the very beginning, had been to 'demilitarise' and 'denazify' Ukraine. Those are the words that Putin used. It was never going to take one day, one week, or even one month, and Putin knew that very well. 

Killing the nazis in Ukraine was going to take a long time, (especially when their own President is one himself - he praised soldiers wearing nazi patches on his instagram).

Anyway, it was (and is) planned to be a long-term operation. Not some unreasonable land-grab but Vladimir 'Putler' (as they call him) which failed dramatically. 

17 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I would say this is flawed logic, because we don't live in the age of the Manhattan project anymore. Nuclear missiles today are thousands of times more powerful than they were back then. And we have thousands more today than we did back then, and everyone has them.

Imagine if Japan had nuclear weapons during world war 2 and america bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Imagine if Hitler and Russia and all of the eu also had nuclear weapons during WW2.

It would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet if someone used nuclear weapons. And that's why Putin can't use one today, if he did, every nation would crumble by the force that would be unleashed, globally in a current nuclear world war. It would be catastrophic for everyone.

I think that anyone who thinks that it would be a good thing if Putin use nuclear weapons, you must be off your rocker. It's absolute lunacy.

And I understand that people don't like the United States in some countries. And I understand people maybe sour about what happened back in the 1940s. But we don't live in the '1940s anymore. It would be truly catastrophic if Putin used nuclear weapons, and every nation should denounce such posturing. With no exceptions.

No one's saying nuclear weapons are good. Not even Putin.

And please know the context of Putin's nuclear threat.

Putin only threatened to use nuclear weapons after he acknowledged "the statements of some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO member-states about the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons against Russia."

Only after mentioning NATO threatening to use nuclear weapons did he go on to say:

"To those who allow themselves to make such statements about Russia [i.e. threatening to use nuclear weapons against us], I would like to remind you that our country also has many different types of these weapons, and in some aspects  even more modern than those of the NATO countries. And when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. It’s not a bluff."

Sorry, but please remind me who it was that was shelling Zaporozhye nuclear power plant? Who escalated and put the world at a nuclear risk first? Ukraine was shelling the Zaporozhye plant ages before Putin even mentioned nuclear weapons. Who's doing the escalation here?

The way you see it is that Putin was the one to mention and threaten to use nuclear weapons. Rather, it was NATO and the West to brought them up. Putin doesn't want to use nuclear weapons, but when his enemies mention them, he has to respond accordingly. He says, in the same speech:

"And those who are trying to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the wind rose can also turn in their direction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Guest 12345 said:

Has Putin actually threatened the use of nuclear weapons?

I was under the impression that he was reiterating their nuclear doctrine, within the context of the "public" Russian Military Doctrine and the possibility of incorporating the four regions into Russia? I am pretty sure most nuclear states have a similar doctrine.

Additionally, the US has been the only country to actually use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state. I could easily see the US justifying their use, as easily as Russia is able to do.

In Putin's most recent speech, he made a few comments. He referred to defending Russia by any means. And then described utilizing nuclear weapons in response to potential threats involving nuclear weapons allegedly coming from western nations. Now why the west would fire nukes at Moscow when Ukraine has been winning with conventional weapons anyway is beyond me. The United States struggles just sending certain missile types with their himars, let alone has there ever been any claim by President Biden that Ukraine would be given nuclear weapons. So it's really just absurd. But further,

the referendums are significant now. Even though Russia doesn't actually have military control over the regions that they've annexed, And even though millions of people who lived in his regions have temporarily fled, Russia still now claims control over these territories based on some allegedly fair and honest voting scheme. Including locations where Ukraine civilians and the Ukraine military still control and live. They literally annexed land including dozens of towns that they never even gained control of, let alone could they collect votes from the people who live there. Which is obviously a really absurd situation. They hardly have fair votes in their own country, let alone would votes in the middle of a battlefield in Ukraine be legitimate.

 But this gives Putin the pseudo justification to use nuclear weapons to "defend" the "homeland" by any means. 

and nobody should be supporting such posturing. Or even entertaining ideas for why such lunacy might be justified. 

So the next question becomes, if Russia continues to lose ground, what will they do now that they claim ownership of the territory that they're losing or never had control of to begin with? Russia has been getting wipped really since day 1 when they failed their attack on kiev. So it's not really clear what will happen as they presumably continue to lose, barring maybe a slow-down over winter.

 

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

So countering the US in Syria wasn't creating balance? Or how about helping Iran when the US sanctions it? Not creating balance either? What about rejecting America's will to have Ukraine as an ally? Is this just 'lunacy' as well?

Uhh... you're joking, right?

Did you not hear about the referenda to count eastern Ukraine as a part of Russia? Do you know what that means? The special military operation is over. Now, it's an anti-terrorism operation. Under Russian law, Putin now has the right to unleash more power on the nazis. That's why he mobilized 300,000 people... or did you miss that too?

Trust me, unless Ukraine does something (else) stupid, Putin sees no need to use nuclear weapons. And now that we're about to see Russia's potential in the next few weeks, nuclear weapons will be out of the picture.

I'm sure you've heard that Ukraine is running this 'counter offensive' which is turning out to be really successful and they're gonna drive the Russians out of Ukraine... etc. 

By the way, Ukraine is running out of weapons... and fast. Not only do they not know how to use the weapons, but they're actually running short. Even the West can't keep up with Ukraine's constant demand. When Ukraine runs out of weapons, that's when we'll see Russia come down hard.

And guess when the mobilized troops are going to be ready? Just as Ukraine uses its last weapons. Just as they run out of energy (and luck). Just wait and see what happens then. 

Are you fully understanding the picture here? It doesn't sound like it.

It sounds like you think that Russia's objective was to capture all of Ukraine in like two days, and keep the land for Russia.

No.

Russia's objectives, from the very beginning, had been to 'demilitarise' and 'denazify' Ukraine. Those are the words that Putin used. It was never going to take one day, one week, or even one month, and Putin knew that very well. 

Killing the nazis in Ukraine was going to take a long time, (especially when their own President is one himself - he praised soldiers wearing nazi patches on his instagram).

Anyway, it was (and is) planned to be a long-term operation. Not some unreasonable land-grab but Vladimir 'Putler' (as they call him) which failed dramatically. 

No one's saying nuclear weapons are good. Not even Putin.

And please know the context of Putin's nuclear threat.

Putin only threatened to use nuclear weapons after he acknowledged "the statements of some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO member-states about the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons against Russia."

Only after mentioning NATO threatening to use nuclear weapons did he go on to say:

"To those who allow themselves to make such statements about Russia [i.e. threatening to use nuclear weapons against us], I would like to remind you that our country also has many different types of these weapons, and in some aspects  even more modern than those of the NATO countries. And when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. It’s not a bluff."

Sorry, but please remind me who it was that was shelling Zaporozhye nuclear power plant? Who escalated and put the world at a nuclear risk first? Ukraine was shelling the Zaporozhye plant ages before Putin even mentioned nuclear weapons. Who's doing the escalation here?

The way you see it is that Putin was the one to mention and threaten to use nuclear weapons. Rather, it was NATO and the West to brought them up. Putin doesn't want to use nuclear weapons, but when his enemies mention them, he has to respond accordingly. He says, in the same speech:

"And those who are trying to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the wind rose can also turn in their direction."

You've been talking up their army since the very beginning, but all we've seen are consistent Russian defeats since last February. Hence the need for a mandatory draft on their population. The "special operation" has been a failure.

Personally, I'm not convinced that this mobilization is going to be enough for them. 

But we can plan on returning in another 6 months and reassess.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/24/2022 at 9:00 AM, Guest Guest said:
On 9/2/2022 at 1:40 AM, -Rejector- said:

destruction and death of the Great Satan.

Anyway, linking back to the main point, Putin is not only destroying the West, but he's destroying the West through the West. What deserves more respect than this?

This has aged well.

Agree 1000%

kudos to brother 

@Rejector

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Russia still now claims control over these territories based on some allegedly fair and honest voting scheme. Including locations where Ukraine civilians and the Ukraine military still control and live. Which is obviously a really absurd situation. They hardly have fair votes in their own country, let alone would votes in the middle of a battlefield in Ukraine be legitimate.

 please read some history bro, this is the western modus operandi since 1800s and until 1950s

please see Arizona,  California,  Texas,  Alaska,  Puerto Rico,  Hawaii , and the list goes on.

See northern Ireland, French satellites,  British empire satellites,  etc...

 

Pots meet kettle bro

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Hasani Samnani said:

 please read some history bro, this is the western modus operandi since 1800s and until 1950s

please see Arizona,  California,  Texas,  Alaska,  Puerto Rico,  Hawaii , and the list goes on.

See northern Ireland, French satellites,  British empire satellites,  etc...

 

Pots meet kettle bro

We aren't living in the 1800s anymore. World war II was back in 1940 when our grandparents, assuming they're even living, were infants or potentially not even born yet. 

Should we talk about the Achaemenid empire as well? Iran's a great Satan because of what their ancestors did back in 550 BC? Should we talk about the Islamic slave trade too? At some point you just have to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I would say this is flawed logic, because we don't live in the age of the Manhattan project anymore. Nuclear missiles today are thousands of times more powerful than they were back then. And we have thousands more today than we did back then, and everyone has them.

 

I expect Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons. Also the Ukrainians don't have nuclear weapons.

The attraction of such a move (for Putin) is that would put the West in a quandary, as to how to respond.

They can't supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons and anyway why would the UKRs nuke their own country?

An attack on Russia itself is out of the question.

So the move would force NATO/UKR to the negotiating table, just as nuking Hiroshima brought forward Japan's surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

We aren't living in the 1800s anymore. World war II was back in 1940 when our grandparents, assuming they're even living, were infants or potentially not even born yet. 

Should we talk about the Achaemenid empire as well? Iran's a great Satan because of what their ancestors did back in 550 BC? Should we talk about the Islamic slave trade too? At some point you just have to move on.

bro Hawaiis royal family was put to the death and they took over in the 1950s in an illegal referendum,  read some history .... they became state in 1959 same year as Cuban revolution....

seriously 

you don't really get much time to read maybe...

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

I expect Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons. Also the Ukrainians don't have nuclear weapons.

Remember  of the reasons for the ltd action was Zelenksy spouting off about re establishing nuclear weapons and the biological warfare labs in Ukrainian.

and to save ethnic Russians in donbas and lugansk/luhansk.

the only reason the Russians have not been as successful as they were I'm Georgia or south ossetia was the special forces of the west helping the Ukinazis to fight 

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Now why the west would fire nukes at Moscow when Ukraine has been winning with conventional weapons anyway is beyond me.

Again you're mentioning this misinformation which was created by Western media to rally people in support of Ukraine. 

When Russia makes advances, they do so at the expense of Ukrainian forces while preserving their own.

When Ukraine makes advances, they do so at the expense of Ukrainian forces while Russia preserves its own.

When Ukraine is done with this offensive, what will they replace their losses with? It's not like the US will just supply an infinite amount of weapons to Ukraine that they don't even know how to use.

12 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

The United States struggles just sending certain missile types with their himars, let alone has there ever been any claim by President Biden that Ukraine would be given nuclear weapons. So it's really just absurd.

You know what else is absurd? Blaming Russia for the nuclear threat while Ukraine is shelling Zaporozhye.

14 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Russia doesn't actually have military control over the regions that they've annexed

That's why they wanted those regions... to use more power on Ukraine once it blows through its supply of weapons. 

15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

So the next question becomes, if Russia continues to lose ground, what will they do now that they claim ownership of the territory that they're losing or never had control of to begin with?

First of all, that's a big 'if'. The mobilization will be ready as soon as Ukraine's advances here and there stop. 

16 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Russia has been getting wipped really since day 1 when they failed their attack on kiev.

Russia never tried to attack Kiev. They advanced towards Kiev to shock the Ukrainians, but there was never an intention to take the city. The low ratio of Russian soldiers to Ukrainian soldiers clearly shows this.

In fact, Russia used this same tactic in Syria. They progressed further into the battlefield than they needed to, in order to scare the enemies, but then they withdrew from those areas and focused on their main objective.

Not to mention that Russian forces didn't even surround the city of Kiev, let alone attempt to take it.

18 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

So it's not really clear what will happen as they presumably continue to lose, barring maybe a slow-down over winter.

Not a 'slow-down', but a stop. Ukraine is rapidly running out of weapons, and it doesn't look like the West is too keen on giving them more. Like I said, the 300,000 troops will be ready as soon as Ukraine finishes it's offensive. We'll see what that means in the next few weeks. 

17 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

You've been talking up their army since the very beginning

Yes, I have. And why wouldn't I 'talk up' an army which is fighting against a country staunched deep in nazism? Why wouldn't I talk up an army which protects its civilians against the corrupt Kiev regime?

30 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

but all we've seen are consistent Russian defeats since last February...The "special operation" has been a failure.

Right... but they've taken all of what they wanted, and even more.

image.png.6712d370d9a6115d64d8de2e7eeef59f.png

32 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Hence the need for a mandatory draft on their population.

It's not a draft, it's a mobilization. The only people who will be going to fight in Ukraine are people who are already in the military and already have training. There will be no new soldiers.

And might I remind you, if you think that Ukraine's military is so strong and Russia is losing by so much, that Ukraine was originally trying to advance in the south. They tried to take the southern city of Kherson using Western weapons, but they failed. There was so much hype about it in the media and nothing happened.

Now, they turned to the north and seemed to have more luck around Izyum and Lyman. It seems like Ukraine's plan is to take back Lugansk, but it seems like in the past few days they've hit a brick wall with their Kharkov offensive. They can't penetrate Russian troops in the frontlines of Lugansk.

44 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Personally, I'm not convinced that this mobilization is going to be enough for them. 

But we can plan on returning in another 6 months and reassess.

More like 6 weeks. God bless Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 12345
4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

In Putin's most recent speech, he made a few comments. He referred to defending Russia by any means. And then described utilizing nuclear weapons in response to potential threats involving nuclear weapons allegedly coming from western nations. Now why the west would fire nukes at Moscow when Ukraine has been winning with conventional weapons anyway is beyond me. The United States struggles just sending certain missile types with their himars, let alone has there ever been any claim by President Biden that Ukraine would be given nuclear weapons. So it's really just absurd.

Following your train of thought – as I understand it – as long as Ukraine or the West doesn’t use nuclear weapons, Russia won’t. I don’t understand what the issue is?

It doesn’t seem to me that Russia is looking to use their nuclear weapons offensively?

Also, would you consider the use of nukes to defend against nukes, lunacy? I thought the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was what kept things “civil” during the Cold War, with ongoing “threat” of nuclear warfare?

4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Even though Russia doesn't actually have military control over the regions that they've annexed, And even though millions of people who lived in his regions have temporarily fled, Russia still now claims control over these territories based on some allegedly fair and honest voting scheme. Including locations where Ukraine civilians and the Ukraine military still control and live. They literally annexed land including dozens of towns that they never even gained control of, let alone could they collect votes from the people who live there. Which is obviously a really absurd situation. They hardly have fair votes in their own country, let alone would votes in the middle of a battlefield in Ukraine be legitimate.

 But this gives Putin the pseudo justification to use nuclear weapons to "defend" the "homeland" by any means. 

and nobody should be supporting such posturing. Or even entertaining ideas for why such lunacy might be justified. 

As you mentioned earlier, “[t]he United States struggles just sending certain missile types with their himars, let alone has there ever been any claim by President Biden that Ukraine would be given nuclear weapons."

If the trend continues, I don’t see how the use of nuclear weapons - those that threaten humanity - comes into play?

Even if it did, I would be surprised to see any one launch a nuke against their “civilians” or within their “land” – even if it claims are contested. The fallout would be bad, especially if what we take the US media apparatus's word, that Putin's reign beginning to weaken.

And, as @Haji 2003 mentioned, they could use lower grade munitions.

4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

So the next question becomes, if Russia continues to lose ground, what will they do now that they claim ownership of the territory that they're losing or never had control of to begin with? Russia has been getting wipped really since day 1 when they failed their attack on kiev. So it's not really clear what will happen as they presumably continue to lose, barring maybe a slow-down over winter.

I don’t think we’ll be getting the full story for a long time.

“We lost five people for every one they did," said Ihor, a 30-year-old [Ukrainian] platoon commander who injured his back when the tank he was riding in crashed into a ditch.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/07/ukraine-kherson-offensive-casualties-ammunition/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 12345

Zelensky himself is unsure that Russia will use nuclear weapons.

Speaking in English at the president's office in Kyiv, President Zelensky said: "They begin to prepare their society. That's very dangerous.

"They are not ready to do it, to use it. But they begin to communicate. They don't know whether they'll use or not use it. I think it's dangerous to even speak about it."

Then, in Ukrainian, he said through a translator: "What we see is that Russia's people in power like life and thus I think the risk of using nuclear weapons is not that definite as some experts say, because they understand that there is no turning back after using it, not only the history of their country, but themselves as personalities."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63173443

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

The "special operation" has been a failure

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/10/06/report-us-special-operations-forces-are-on-the-ground-in-ukraine/

Also we should add that even Intelligence officials are double minded on misusing an old Obama administration order regarding countering malign influence in certain Countries.

So it's only due to an Afghanistan type Zbigniew Brezenski type of quagmire ,that this war goes on.

8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Putin's most recent speech, he made a few comments. He referred to defending Russia by any means. And then described utilizing nuclear weapons in response to potential threats involving nuclear weapons allegedly coming from western nations. Now why the west would fire nukes at Moscow when Ukraine has been winning with conventional weapons anyway is beyond me.

Listen to the  actual speech not the BBC version, then less things will be beyond your ken.

From Zerohedge.com,  After President Biden's ultra-alarmist nuclear "Armageddon" statements related to the war in Ukraine given at a fundraiser in New York City Thursday night, naturally the first question to arise was whether his assessment is based in any clear evidence or observed heightened nuclear posture coming out of Russia. US intelligence has answered...

 

On Friday CNN cited multiple unnamed US intelligence officials to say "The US still has seen no evidence that Putin is moving toward using Russia’s nuclear capability, nor is there any intelligence showing he’s decided to do so."

 "Biden’s blunt assessment caught several senior US officials by surprise, largely due to that lack of any new intelligence to drive them and the grim language Biden deployed."

 

This strongly suggests the American public could be getting prepped for yet another major escalation and intervention against a foreign power based on an exaggerated and false WMD assessment, or what the intelligence community calls "threat inflation".

 

Biden had asserted the threat of nuclear "Armageddon" is at its highest level since the Cuban missile crisis. 

Whose actually nuclear Sabre rattling here. 

More pot meet kettle.

The west is bring slow walker into a nuclear conflagration by the Zionazi Israeli first Neocon crowd of Jake Sullivan,  Blinken, Victoria Nuland and egged on by same tribal cross dressing madman Zelenksy.

If this happens,  it will fulfill the red death prediction before the Imam's Zahoor, but very very sadly brought about by synagogue of Satan members.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Crimea bridge damaged by truck explosion

Moscow reveals that a truck was blown up on the motorway section of the Crimean Bridge from the Taman Peninsula, causing seven fuel tanks of a train traveling to the Crimean peninsula to go up in flames.

Quote

The Russian National Anti-Terrorist Committee has reported that a truck exploded on the Crimean Bridge earlier this morning:

"Today, at 6:07 am, a truck was blown up on the motorway section of the Crimean Bridge from the Taman Peninsula, which caused seven fuel tanks of a train traveling to the Crimean peninsula to go up in flames. Two motorway sections of the bridge have partially collapsed. The arch over the land part of the bridge has not been damaged," the report says.

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/crimea-bridge-damaged-by-truck-explosion-2-motorway-sections

Crimean Bridge reopens for traffic after explosion

Cars and buses have already started moving, and the railway part is expected to reopen later on Saturday

Quote

Road traffic on the Crimean Bridge, which was damaged by a truck explosion earlier on Saturday, has partly resumed, and trains are expected to start moving later in the evening.

“The movement of vehicles along the Crimean Bridge has resumed. At the moment, traffic is open to cars and buses with a full inspection procedure,” the head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, announced on Telegram.

https://www.rt.com/russia/564303-crimean-bridge-traffic-resumed/

What does this mean for the war?

Quote

Ukraine strike on Crimea Bridge complicates both civilian and military logistics to Crimea - the former more so than the latter;

- The bridge attack is likely to be followed by anticipated offensive operations by Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia toward Melitopol;
- The bridge attack + Melitopol offensive is meant to isolate Crimea;
- Ukraine's offensive will leave its forces overextended, depleted and vulnerable to Russian forces who have throughout the duration of Ukraine's offensives preserved their manpower and equipment;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AE8X-G-p94

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'n rather surprised the Ukranians didn't launch an offensive to coincide with their attack on the Crimean Bridge, as the Russians will now increase security and make future strikes much harder. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, HzAbbas said:

Russians will now increase security and make future strikes much harder. 

Let's hope so...., and I can't believe I am writing this but hopefully cooler heads will prevail and listen to sensible voices...like Elon Musk.:help:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Hasani Samnani said:

Let's hope so...., and I can't believe I am writing this but hopefully cooler heads will prevail and listen to sensible voices...like Elon Musk.:help:

Agreed. 

I am not that old, but I'm guessing it must have felt similar during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Like we are walking open-eyed into disaster.

There is no good way how this can end for anyone if this continues.

Edited by HzAbbas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, HzAbbas said:

I'n rather surprised the Ukranians didn't launch an offensive to coincide with their attack on the Crimean Bridge, as the Russians will now increase security and make future strikes much harder.

I think they're going to in the next few days.

Russia-Ukraine Update: Crimean Bridge Traffic Resumes, Ukraine's Growing Arms/Ammo Crisis

Quote

 

Crimean Bridge is back in operation - further repairs are required but road and rail traffic resumes;
- Western media notes the US is out of ammunition to send Ukraine and that US allies have even less;
- Nations like France have reached the limits of what they can send in terms of heavy weapons;
- Regional weather and subsequent mud is limiting the mobility of ground forces on both sides, giving the advantage to Russia which possess a larger air force, more drones, and long-range weapons indifferent to ground conditions;
- Ukrainian forces are losing ground in Bakhmut, indicating Ukrainian forces are already overextended - a situation that will only worsen in time;
- Russian forces are preserving their men and equipment and will soon be reinforced by an additional 300,000 troops;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WTHESzml70

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

I think they're going to in the next few days.

Russia-Ukraine Update: Crimean Bridge Traffic Resumes, Ukraine's Growing Arms/Ammo Crisis

They failed to destroy bridge or the railway tracks, so the Russians will still be able to transport heavy equipment and supplies to Crimea.

Ukrainian casualties are going to be horrific, seems political (or symbolic) victories are more important to them than military ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, HzAbbas said:

Ukrainian casualties are going to be horrific, seems political (or symbolic) victories are more important to them than military ones. 

Ukraine will be  shell of  a country... a partially eaten carcass...upon which the anglozionists will feast , like the vultures they have alwys been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Russia launched a major air attack in retaliation for the damage to the Crimean Bridge. I heard that Kiev was struck. Anyone have info on what cities were bombed and how many people died? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...