Request to Leo, to make blog post/video about Putin behavior in Ukraine.

[Preety_India]

@hello1234 this is what I was talking about. 

On 01/03/2022 at 8:47 AM, Leo Gura said:

It would not have cost anything to negotiate a compromise deal. Obviously any deal would only hold if there was never a future invasion.

Russia has been asking for legal promises that Ukraine not join NATO for a decade now. This compromise was not taken seriously, leaving Putin few options.

Just because you don't think Ukraine joining NATO is a big problem doesn't mean it is that way from Russia's POV. It's not a problem for you because you live in the West. But it is a big problem for Putin. It's such a big problem that he was willing to start a war over it. Think about that. Maybe you're not appreciating the depth of the problem.

 

3 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

so hitler is what a great leader is in your opinion?

oooook

who else is a great leader these days?

You definitely need some history lesson. Germany was in abject poverty before Hitler. He got Germany out of it. Germany was on the verge of total economic collapse. Hitler became famous and Germany adored Hitler because he had done so much for them, that became a part of his charisma. He had helped poor people. That's how he rose to power. That's the secret behind his sudden rise. He might not have been a great leader for the world, but for the poor Germans who he helped, he was a great person for them. There are footages and footages of Hitler being welcomed with flowers and waving and cheers both in Austria and in Germany. 

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

@hello1234 this is what I was talking about. 

 

You definitely need some history lesson. Germany was in abject poverty before Hitler. He got Germany out of it. Germany was on the verge of total economic collapse. Hitler became famous and Germany adored Hitler because he had done so much for them, that became a part of his charisma. He had helped poor people. That's how he rose to power. That's the secret behind his sudden rise. He might not have been a great leader for the world, but for the poor Germans who he helped, he was a great person for them. There are footages and footages of Hitler being welcomed with flowers and waving and cheers both in Austria and in Germany. 

also because of hitler the germans were bombed into oblivion

german troops sent to death in the russian winter en masse

while hitler was hammered on drugs

he wasn't a great leader you're losing the plot here

 

 

[Preety_India]

Just now, PurpleTree said:

also because of hitler the germans were bombed into oblivion

german troops sent to death in the russian winter en masse

while hitler was hammered on drugs

he wasn't a great leader you're losing the plot here

 

 

Yes he made wrong decisions later. Yet he was selected at first because he helped Germany become a super power in no time. Putin helped Russia, defeated Chechnya terrorists. Yes Putin is making wrong moves. The problem is that no leader is perfect. They make a combination of both right and wrong decisions. Also the pressure of being a leader is extreme and can contribute to their failures. 

 

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

also because of hitler the germans were bombed into oblivion

german troops sent to death in the russian winter en masse

while hitler was hammered on drugs

he wasn't a great leader you're losing the plot here

 

 

In a twisted way, Hitler helped Germany overcome the ultimate fate. I think in the absence of Hitler, Russia would have captured Germany and today Germany would have been another Soviet state. Nobody wants that. Hitler deeply feared Russian occupation. It's a fate he didn't want for Germany. Well at least Germany is Germany now, not a Russian Slave. 

Germany is free and Hitler's dream came true. Although posthumously. 

 

[WikiRando]

Anybody who's worldview is different enough from yours, you will label crazy. It's not a useful label at all because it says little about the person you're labelling, and more about the limits of your own capacity to be multi-perspectival. To a materialist atheist, both Leo and the Scientology guy are just equally crazy cult leaders with little distinction between them. Hardly a meaningful label

Edited March 4, 2022 by WikiRando

[vladorion]

Interesting conversation.

[vladorion]

 

[Ryan_047]

6 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Hitler got Germany out of poverty within just 2 years. 

It wasn't Hitler that lifted Germany out of misery, but it was the directives made by the Weimar Republic, which had collapsed prior to his rise to power. He just took advantage of those economical directives that needed time to materialize. The Nazi Golden Era is a historical myth, that exists because of Nazi propaganda.   

8 hours ago, Preety_India said:

He had helped poor people.

One of the basis of fascism is helping poor people. But fascism also suggests creating artificial enemies in order to justify brutal actions. He "helped" anyone who wasn't Jewish or "undesirable". 

8 hours ago, Preety_India said:

He had helped poor people. That's how he rose to power. That's the secret behind his sudden rise.

That's plain wrong. He rose to power through propaganda, physical violence and political backstabbing in a very hostile environment filled with political and economic instability, which wasn't exclusive only to Germany in that era. Yes, he did bring stability by crushing all resistance internally, but can you really call him a good leader for that? You intentionally and conveniently forget the brutality of the military branch of the NSDAP and the fact Hitler himself ordered the murder of members of his party when things did not go his way. The Nazi economy was based on the idea of "Lebensraum" that being economic growth through conquest, and it was structured like a crime syndicate that worked to enrich the elites of the state, not the average German.

8 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Germany is free and Hitler's dream came true. Although posthumously. 

Hitler would commit suicide again if he found out that Austria and Eastern Prussia are no longer part of Germany. 

You've got lots of holes in your understanding of Nazi Germany and you're thus spreading a wrong image of it. Putin is not Hitler for many different reasons, but I wouldn't go as far to say that both of them are good leaders when in both cases the average German/Russian ultimately suffered more because of their actions.

[zurew]

@Knowledge Hoarder I can be wrong on this one, but as far as i know, Putin thought he can invade really fast and take over Ukraine. Now, because more and more time bassing by, Ukraine could really set up its defenses and its really really hard to invade even if you have a lot more military power than your enemy. The question is how much time Putin have left, because he is losing so much money every day and Russia's economy is in a really bad place right now. I don't understand why they attacked the nuclear power plant either. I don't know if it was intentional though. Because if something bad will happen there, it will be bad for Russians too.

So i think he didn't want to hurt civillians but becuase he starting to be in a position where from his pov  he has no other chance than using certain kind of bombing to fast up the invading pace. So he is more and more desperate the longer the war takes.

If i know this correctly Russia is using its reserves right now to be able to continue the war.

[zurew]

@Knowledge Hoarder Yeah i agree with you, and i don't think either, that bombing near the nuclear power plant is a smart move.

[Fleetinglife]

4 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

not so much about manpower, since Russia still has plenty - it's about logistics, amunition, replacing destroyed military technology, daily war cost, etc. - those are some of the main reasons why Putin wants to take Ukraine quickly - while also, of course, keeping most cities as intact as possible (there are reports of Russia bombing civilian targets everywhere - but those are handpicked, in my opinion - Russia still wants civilians to be unharmed, probably).

It took the Soviet Union six months to retake Ukraine from 1943-44, and with Nazi German whole Army Groups stationed there, and after 1945 - later 5 more years to secure it completely in whole, because they fought a long, dragged out war with Ukranian nationalist insurgency and guerilla in the Carpathian mountains during that whole time period, that weren't just a nuisance but were a non-naive threat for their hold in Ukraine. 

It also took the almost of the whole of Nazi Germanies military might push westwards, on only one military front 9 days to take and occupy the country the size of Belgium and two or more weeks of not even the whole of Poland during the start of WWII in 1939.

Nobody could have reasonably expected for Kyiv or any other major Ukranian city to fall in two-to-three days given the actual population size of those cities and Ukraine as a whole - even with a presupposed Blitzkrieg slightly emulated military strategy way or war doctrine of doing that if that was really what was attempted to be actually achieved with the Ukranian military, armed resistance and government under the guise of "the special operation". 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Fleetinglife]

1 hour ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

I actually understand the reason for taking the nuclear power plant - cutting the enemy off from a major source of energy/electricity, thus effectively paralyzing the country.

Yeah that makes sense more in contrast to the hyped up, sensationalist, click and view baity more profiting and profitable headlines and reporting of the event, emotionally and safety manipulative content way of reporting on the event for people's sense of safety and security regarding the hyped up fear injecting and magnifying of the possible risks of unintended and unexpected consequences caused by this military operation, grim prospects and intentions they were circulating in the news outlets regarding that everywhere on Russians military  intents, aims and part regarding that operation even though it seems that main problem with the aim that they are trying to achieve is that they are doing it too recklessly and that if something unexpected and serious happens it would be the result of their recklessness and collateral damage, focused too much on all ining that military strategy, of possible unpredicted ecological externalities caused, with the military strategic aim that you mentioned above they planned to actually achieve with these attempts of controlling it and having the ability of cutting of the part of country putting up the most and fierce resistance from energy/electricity supplies with their actual attempt of it's strategic capture in order to play their hand with this important crucial strategic resource in their possession and forcefully put forward with it's control the pacification or demoralization of whole scale military or civilian resistance to them and the Russian military in some parts of the country and maybe attempt to force their surrender or outright capitualation in some parts. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

What sense does it make for him to bomb/shell atomic power plants? That had to be a mistake on Russian part, otherwise I can't explain. Destroying that particuliar nuclear power plant, would be even worse than destroying Chernobyl.

Obviously they have no intention of destroying that power plant. They were capturing it because it has strategic importance.

The way all war works is that stuff and people get caught in the crossfire as targets of strategic importance are fought over.

This is kindergarten level stuff.

Every war comes with collateral damage. Bemoaning the collateral damage of war does not make it terrorism or insanity -- it just means you don't understand what war is.

[zurew]

@Knowledge Hoarder True, and also why not be more strategic and not using shells near a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't call this either just collateral damage, i would call it being too risky and not being strategic enough from Russia's part . "Buildings at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine - the largest in Europe - have been damaged after it was hit by shelling".

[vizual]

I have seen video of civilian house blocks ravaged by bombs. That’s not tactical or strategic, unless the Russians are extremely incompetent. It’s just causing pure mayhem to put more pressure on Zelensky to surrender so that the Russian army doesn’t have to push harder through Kyiv and lose more casualties. 

[PurpleTree]

Picture of the Russian city Grosny Chechnya after bombed by the Russians in the 90s

Edited March 4, 2022 by PurpleTree

[BlueOak]

Of course they are not looking to blow up a nuclear powerplant but its also tactically stupid to fire any large munitions anywhere near a nuclear power plant. Whichever local commander or dumb officer ordered it is probably being relieved of his command right now. Its obviously going to get enlarged to be: Russia targets nuclear power plant, or Russia terrorist attack.

It blowing up is not the likely outcome either, it leaking is and the resulting fallout blowing anywhere.

One thing confirmed to be certain is, Russia's accuracy is garbage and dangerous. Its also why whatever their actual intent, it will always come off as looking like they are targetting civilian buildings. I am sure that goes on, especially when they shell cities, but in the beginning I think it was more accidental missiles landing near their targets or government buildings. Now though in this stage of the war, where they look to break through urban areas, there will be much more civilian buildings being destroyed.

[JTL]

 

Good video by kraut. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by JTL

[vladorion]

 

[Hardkill]

This may sound cowardly, but given that it's very likely that Russia will end up taking over all of Ukraine, maybe the Ukrainians should surrender to Russia in order to prevent anymore unnecessary bloodshed and destruction within the country and to prevent any further disruption for the entire global economy.

I am thinking that if they surrendered soon, then the Ukrainian resistance could then work on making a deliberate and elaborate plan for overthrowing the Russian government in the future in a way that would greatly reduce the cost of so many innocent lives and invaluable property in their country being ruined and taken by Russia. 

Would this be wiser for the people of Ukraine or would this actually be a mistake for them?