Ukraine advances 100-125km+ into Russia.

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, Something Funny said:

What does it matter if they have satelites that can show you where russian troops are?

As far as I am aware, video evidence of anything helps the satellites locate troop movements, its why partisans filming what is going on and where is so crucial. These are big areas of land, and to hit a drone on a moving target a distance away isn't that easy, but it is slightly easier with a missile.

[Something Funny]

@BlueOak i see, that makes sense.

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Something Funny said:

This is such an utter bullshit.

Nobody was at war with "Russian speaking population". Dnipro, Kharkiv, Kherson, and even Kyiv at that time were mostly Russian speaking.

Ukraine was fighting a hybrid war against Russia for territories that rightfully belong to it.

I will never believe that people of Donbass and Lugansk would go to war on their own. Those were some of the most prosperous and well developed regions of Ukraine that weren't mistreated in any way.

Sure. The results of that referendum were as true as results of Russia's domestic elections, lol.

Right, after they killed of all resistance, they've put their own people in power and sigbed aan agreement with them. I guess you could say that both "sides" accepted the terms, lol.

Once again, this is a totally dihinest way to put it. I was still at school in Ukraine at this time, living in a bordering region. And we had RUSSIAN LANGUAGE lessons. Most people spoke Russian and nobody was being oppressed.

...

 

Also, if NATO is such a threat to Russia, and is truly the reason for this war, then how come Finland was allowed to become a NATO member with no issues and no retaliation whatsoever, despite its border being 400km from St. Petersburg?

Hypocrite much?

That's totally fine and no issue at all, right? While Ukraine shluld not be allowed to make any independent decisions whatsoever.

Wests behaviour during this war clearly showed that they don't want an escalation and conflict with Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance and would never attack Russia on its own. And Russia nows that.

So all this bullshit about war being caused because Ukraine wanted to potentially join NATO or EU in 20 something years, is just that - bullshit.

Absolutely not, the Donbas region was being attacked by Ukraine, you can call it a civil war, but it concerns Russia too, because the minority being attacked (minority in the country, not in the region) was from their nationality too. From that the Minks Accords came. This was being reported, to the ones willing to listen, nothing in the West, of course. The thing was getting worse for them in the whole country, with an only Ukrainian nationalist approach growing. I told you, if it was a Moldovan minority in trouble, that would be bad for them, but Russia is the big brother, and if you hit someone's little brother, you know what happens next.

In the context of the Ukrainian war, NATO used the chance to expand in Finland and Sweden. Indeed, Russia can't do shit about that now, they have their most capabilities in Ukraine, which is much more meaningful to them for historical and cultural reasons. It's a bad deal for these two countries because they've lost their neutrality, and in a hypothetical case of an escalation, they would be hit fast too for their proximity, so they are not safer now, and they gotta pay big, it's not free to be in NATO, you gotta buy US manufactured weapons, equipment, and let them put their bases on your territory. An awful deal, if you ask me.

[Bobby_2021]

20 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

While Ukraine shluld not be allowed to make any independent decisions whatsoever.

Ukraine's democratically elected government was overthrown in 2014. So your case for an independent Ukraine is dubious.

22 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

NATO is a defensive alliance and would never attack Russia on its own.

Lmao...  Was the invasion of Iraq a defensive move?

NATO is an offensive alliance.

Correct for these facts and rethink your positions.

The actual reason for the special military operation is far deeper and complicated that most people couldn't grasp it on a whim. Western intervention is to blame in short.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They would not be able to hold on to it. They are not able to hold positions deep in Ukraine, and you think Ukraine forces could hold ground in Russia. Not going to happen.  They are going to be exterminated, and we will all move to the next news cycle leaving this in the dust. the war. 

Part of the strategy is to bleed Russia. So fighting withdrawals are common. Its more sensible when they don't hold too long, as they sometimes do before withdrawing, because they lose experienced soldiers doing so. When you are fighting a bigger opponent, you pick and choose your battles.

Holding terrain is more beneficial than attacking it. If they do bunker down here, it'll cost Russia a lot more than the almost nothing it took Ukraine to take it. It is already in the backline, and their convoys are being hit.

However, just making this a raid to take out critical infrastructure like the airports, then capturing prisoners and supplies, taking out bottlenecked reinforcements, and forcing Russia to commit a sensible amount of manpower to defending the border is a victory all the same.
 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

So, they keep sacrificing precious Ukrainian (and Russian) lives instead of sitting for talks that could actually end the war. 

There will be no end to the war because Russia is ironclad it'll give up no territory. So there is nothing to negotiate. As I've said a dozen times to you the battlefield is where the negotiations are taking place. I don't like it but it is what it is.

 

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, Hatfort said:

Absolutely not, the Donbas region was being attacked by Ukraine, you can call it a civil war

Thjs civil war would have never happened without Russia's people there, actively fueling it? 

And what the fuck was Ukraine supposed to do? Just let go?

What if Texas decided to become independent tomorrow (even without external influence), what do you think the US would do?

Framing it as some kind of minority oppression is pathetic and is not true at all.

4 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

I told you, if it was a Moldovan minority in trouble, that would be bad for them, but Russia is the big brother, and if you hit someone's little brother, you know what happens next.

If you think that Russia cares about those people than you are super naive. Russian government doesn't even care about its own citizens.

But I think that at this point you are just being intentionally dishonest, tbh.

5 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

In the context of the Ukrainian war, NATO used the chance to expand in Finland and Sweden.

Oh wait, so nobody is afraid of Russia nuking the world to shit afterall, right? So we now agree that it's just a dumb excuse?

7 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

It's a bad deal for these two countries

Sure, it's muxh better to be in a situation Ukraine is right now. Finland and Sweden must just be stupid and were deceived into joining NATO.

[Something Funny]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Ukraine's democratically elected government was overthrown in 2014. So your case for an independent Ukraine is dubious.

It wasn't overthrown. They escaped on their own, after doing an awful job at handling the protests. 

8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Lmao...  Was the invasion of Iraq a defensive move?

NATO is an offensive alliance.

Correct for these facts and rethink your positions.

The actual reason for the special military operation is far deeper and complicated that most people couldn't grasp it on a whim. Western intervention is to blame in short.

I don't have much knowledge on Iraq, so I can't comment on this. My point is that NATO would never attack Russia first, and it is still a valid point.

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Ukraine's democratically elected government was overthrown in 2014. So your case for an independent Ukraine is dubious.

Lmao...  Was the invasion of Iraq a defensive move?

NATO is an offensive alliance.

Correct for these facts and rethink your positions.

The actual reason for the special military operation is far deeper and complicated that most people couldn't grasp it on a whim. Western intervention is to blame in short.

Ukraine has been independent since the 90's and for 100's of years in the past. Your dislike for their internal politics or even their democratic process is irrelevant. Should I say every authoritarian country that has either rigged its elections, killed their opponents off or just abandoned them is not independent?

Again. NATO did not invade Iraq.

I understand why people from large or collectivist countries associate people together. I've been trying to do the same in communication when I refer to BRICS, because I understand that's how the general understanding is from many of the people there. So I understand 'the west' , NATO, BRICS, etc being used as a collective reference.

But honestly the downside is, that it just empowers the otherside. You just create enemies that weren't there to start with. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Most of NATO had nothing at all to do with the Iraq war. 
 

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

Again. NATO did not invade Iraq.

Oh, so what he said isn't even true, okay.

[BlueOak]

57 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Good faith negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are possible. You paint Ukraine like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, but after the coup of 2014, they've been at war with the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas and other regions, and they opened a the facto red carpet to NATO, and NATO armed the most radical Ukrainians they could find as they always do, the Nazi Azov guys in this case.

Crimea was annexed via referendum, it was over 90% Russian people in there. I know sometimes big countries get to ask more than small ones, if it was Moldova asking to anex a part with 90% of Moldovans from Ukraine, it wouldn't have happened. Is this fair? Not for Moldova, but in this specific case, for Crimeans, absolutely yes, because they don't want to be Ukrainian, they want to be Russian. Is it fair for Chechnya? Probably not, but after a bloody war, they finally sat, and agreed on some terms both sides could accept. In any case, Russia took the path of annexing Crimea when Ukraine took its Antirussian route.

A war was prevented in 2015 with the Minsk Accords, to calm the conflict in the Donbas, with both Zelensky and Putin signing. Russia could have attacked then, but opted to sign an accord. But that's why I say negotiations have to be in good faith, in this case, they were not on the part of NATO and Zelensky, because the hostility or war against the Russian-speaking minority continued. The NATO-founded militarization continued in the whole country, specially in the East, and after having to accept Poland and the Baltic countries joining NATO before, even if that was agreed that wouldn't happen in the 90's, Russia saw where this was going. If Ukraine is so stupid to join the EU, that's their decision, but if they want to break their neutrality status with NATO, that's Russia's business too.

So what have we got now? Russia got Crimea before, and most of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson now, and they are not going to leave them, that's a no-return situation, because in the eyes of Russia, Ukraine had the chance to negotiate before that didn't take, and that had a cost for Russia too. Zelensky and NATO refused these terms, they want the whole of these five regions back. Trump said he would concede Crimea, but ask for the rest back, laughable at this point, and he has his own race to win first, if he can. It may go slowly, but Russia seems to be able to get the full of these regions by force, and maybe some more. Ukraine's capabilities to sustain the war get worse with time, not even mercenaries want to be butchered when they have a much safer job in Gaza killing unarmed civilians, instead of facing a well-trained and equipped army in Donetsk, for the same pay. The USA is not going to send its troops to Ukraine, and neither is France, not that France would make a difference, but since Macron said it, I acknowledge it.

Starve a people. Bring in your own.
Deport, assassinate and torture anyone who disagrees with you.
Put a gun to their head. Tell them to vote. Sometimes twice.

And here you are telling me that's its something I should consider legitimate. 

Again: Russia has had 8 wars on former USSR territories to take control of them back. Nobody can or will trust Putin. Putin was offered Ukranian neutrality and he refused it. 

[BlueOak]

13 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Oh, so what he said isn't even true, okay.

Well its partially something to consider. Because when these countries got done playing warmonger, NATO now defends them after the fact. However, it needs to be stated in that way to be accurate. Just as BRICS are beginning to protect Russia's warmongers or China's warmongers. A similar thing but with fewer military guarantees.

 

Edited August 10 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

2 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Thjs civil war would have never happened without Russia's people there, actively fueling it? 

And what the fuck was Ukraine supposed to do? Just let go?

What if Texas decided to become independent tomorrow (even without external influence), what do you think the US would do?

Framing it as some kind of minority oppression is pathetic and is not true at all.

If you think that Russia cares about those people than you are super naive. Russian government doesn't even care about its own citizens.

But I think that at this point you are just being intentionally dishonest, tbh.

Oh wait, so nobody is afraid of Russia nuking the world to shit afterall, right? So we now agree that it's just a dumb excuse?

Sure, it's muxh better to be in a situation Ukraine is right now. Finland and Sweden must just be stupid and were deceived into joining NATO.

The war wouldn't have happened if NATO wasn't arming the Azov battalions to the teeth.

Russia wasn't asking for the Donbass to be Russia then, that wasn't in the Minsk Accords, it was asking for Ukraine to remain neutral, meaning no undercover NATO training the Azov battalions, and respect for their cultural brothers. But Ukraine and NATO were doing the opposite of what they signed. They thought any threat of Russia attacking would be a bluff, and that if they did, that could collapse Putin, Russia, their military power, and their economy. They were wrong in everything.

Now it's just stupidity, and the US military-industrial lobby pushing forward, the only ones benefiting from this war short term. In the long term Russia will get an expansion, which is good, but with a big human soldier cost. Ukraine has that cost too, but they will lose the East and perhaps the whole connection to the sea if Russia decides to invade Odessa too. This defeat will harm NATO too, it was perceived as unbeatable before, but now it's not. The EU is getting a bad deal too, it lost its gas source from Russia, now they have to get it more expensive, and that increases the prices of everything. China and India got stronger from this.

By the way, you know who is not losing their independent country status or territorial integrity? Belarus. Yeah, they have accords and dependency with Russia, but they are surviving as a nation 100%. If you tell me they are not really independent for this, no country in the world is completely independent then. With all the flaws their regime has, which I won't object, but there they are.

[Bobby_2021]

17 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

NATO did not invade Iraq.

Sure.

It invaded Afganistan. It bombed Yugoslavia.

Now will you accept that NATO is an offensive alliance?

[Bobby_2021]

Do you think Putin will forget the Iraq war because NATO wasn't involved, technically speaking? 

You can argue with me in forum about these small points that is too tiny to be considered in the larger geopolitical realm, which is what the Russian government considers. They know how NATO behaves and who is controlling it.

At the end of the day, NATO is an offensive alliance, because their kingpin is an offensive belligerent. 

[Something Funny]

48 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

The war wouldn't have happened if NATO wasn't arming the Azov battalions to the teeth.

So, let me get this right, you are saying that Russia decided to invade Ukraine because USA was arming a 2000 men strong batallion? Is that correct?

50 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

By the way, you know who is not losing their independent country status or territorial integrity? Belarus. Yeah, they have accords and dependency with Russia, but they are surviving as a nation 100%. If you tell me they are not really independent for this, no country in the world is completely independent then. With all the flaws their regime has, which I won't object, but there they are.

Belarus is not just dependent on Russia like every other country is the world is dependent on someone. Belarus is literally a dictatorship where you will go to jail if you sneeze wrong.

Belarus is not dependent on Russia, Belarus is lkterally Russia's puppet, with Lukashenko being Putin's buddy.

Do you realise that people of Belarus literally have no right to elect anyone else and can't even overthrow Lukashenko because then Russia would invade them just like it did Ukraine.

Do you have any idea what it's like to live in a country like that?

I am not sure what your agenda is here, but I am honestly tired of you and your disingenious arguments.

[Hatfort]

12 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

So, let me get this right, you are saying that Russia decided to invade Ukraine because USA was arming a 2000 men strong batallion? Is that correct?

No, it's not correct at all, those are not my words. Go up in the thread and you will read what I said clearly, in more than one line, obviously.

I don't have a personal agenda for either side. I can acknowledge both sides have their fair claims, that happens in most conflicts in history. But NATO is the one pushing the war in this case, this didn't need to happen, because they want hegemony, and the ones doing the dying part are Ukrainians, which they don't give a fuck for.

Edited August 10 by Hatfort

[Something Funny]

@Hatfort what you said is that Ukraine doesn't have a right to fight for its own territories, doesn't have a right to have an army, and needs to walk on needles all the time because any bit of help from the west they get might anger the great Putin.

The fact that you are victim blaming so much and trying to justify Russia's actions is absolutely disgusting.

You must have been cheering for Sauron when watching LOTR.

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Something Funny said:

@Hatfort what you said is that Ukraine doesn't have a right to fight for its own territories, doesn't have a right to have an army, and needs to walk on needles all the time because any bit of help from the west they get might anger the great Putin.

The fact that you are victim blaming so much and trying to justify Russia's actions is absolutely disgusting.

You must have been cheering for Sauron when watching LOTR.

Ukraine has its rights for an army, but they are part of an international context, and joining NATO is breaking a minimum neutrality Russia, NATO and themselves agreed in the past, which other countries like Poland, Estonia, Letonia, and Lituania broke in the past, and Russia said not this time.

Some of Russian's actions are justified, NATO has to stop messing in neutral countries.

In LOTR I cheered for the human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, alliance, like everyone else. If anyone is trying to control the rest of the world like Sauron with the rings, that would be the US empire and NATO. About this book of Tolkien, George RR Martin gave some interesting thoughts. What did King Aragorn do with all this ugly orcs, goblins, and trolls after winning the war against Sauron? Did he give them equal rights like everyone else in the middle Earth? Did he inprison them in Mordor? Who knows...

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Sure.

It invaded Afganistan. It bombed Yugoslavia.

Now will you accept that NATO is an offensive alliance?

It bombed Serbia because Albania was being ethnically cleansed. Neither of us is doing that situation a service by such a simple take on one of the most complicated regions in the world.

Afghanistan was attacked because several thousand Americans were brutally murdered by an extremist group within Afghanistan, protected by the government there. Unlike Iraq, which happened because of a small man's pride, oil money, weapon sales, and certain people's lust for war, I fully supported Afghanistan until the mission was accomplished. Nation-building, as Russia tries to do in Ukraine, or America tried to do in the Middle East and Afghanistan was a massive failure, and it is completely self-serving, egotistical, and narcissistic. However, I understand if you rip something down, something needs to be built in its place, just not a copy of yourself.
 

[Something Funny]

4 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Ukraine has its rights for an army, but they are part of an international context, and joining NATO is breaking a minimum neutrality Russia, NATO and themselves agreed in the past, which other countries like Poland, Estonia, Letonia, and Lituania broke in the past, and Russia said not this time.

Some of Russian's actions are justified, NATO has to stop messing in neutral countries.

Did Ukraine join NATO? Would it really get accepted into NATO anytime soon? If yes, then when, in 50 years?

Russia's initial occupation of Crimea and East of Ukraine had nothing to do with Ukraine joining Nato. Ukraine had no real government for like 2 months and Russia used that opportunity to grab some territories. 

7 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

In LOTR I cheered for the human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, alliance, like everyone else. If anyone is trying to control the rest of the world like Sauron with the rings, that would be the US empire and NATO. About this book of Tolkien, George RR Martin gave some interesting thoughts. What did King Aragorn do with all this ugly orcs, goblins, and trolls after winning the war against Sauron? Did he give them equal rights like everyone else in the middle Earth? Did he inprison them in Mordor? Who knows...

You have some twisted view of the world and poor understanding of the Tolkien universe if you think this way.