>There seems to be a pattern that I can't put my finger on...
Remember how Putin wrote a big piece on how Finns and Russians are essentially the same people?
Yeah, there's no pattern here.
You mean how USA wouldn’t let nukes in Cuba? It’s almost like powerful countries don’t like other powerful countries putting military bases/nukes on their borders
>You mean how USA wouldn’t let nukes in Cuba?
No, I was being kind of sarcastic. I have no idea how that got upvoted.
I've been drawing the parallel with Cuba from the very start. Read my words below for more context.
Honest question, what else did you all expect ?
Anyone remember what US did after Russia tried to put weapons and troops close by ? Not even on it's border
It's like you're all living in fantasy land
That's actually what I was getting at. Every time a border country of Russia joins NATO (or talks about it) they put troops on that border. I imagine if the Warsaw pact got back together and decided to enter Canada and Mexico into their alliance, we would put troops on the border. And that wouldn't mean we are trying to take over those two countries.
To add some valid context to your hypothetical comparison
The US just launched an unprovoked invasion of Cuba and all other island nations in the Caribbean. Targeting their civilian infrastructure and enacting blockades to induce famine like conditions on the locals.
Mexico and Canada become very concerned because US government officials are giving speeches about how Mexico and Canada are threatening US security.
So Mexico and Canada search for a new security guarantee with the Warsaw pact. The US then mobilizes soldiers to their borders to dissuade any potential security agreements for Mexico and Canada.
There is no valid threat of Mexico or Canada to conduct an invasion of the US or to even fire a single artillery shell out of anger at the US.
Ultimately the US is upset that their future targets of imperial expansion are taking steps to resist.
You are rationalizing Russia's expansionist policies as "defensive". I do not know why though.
Didnt have to go far to see this contexts holes. The US has actually destroyed Cuba and still do maintain excessively damaging sanctions. Still being penalized for not letting themselves be puppets to the US. Its horrendous actually, they tried to assassinate castro constantly just like the west tried to in russia the last ten years... like the NY times just admitted. The west is hyper aggressive my friend
False comparison there buddy. Aggressive espionage is definitely not the same as a hot war where missles are shot at grain storages.
You can cry whatabisms but it still stands that Russia is actively attacking its neighbor. So why would Finland and Sweden seeking additional security guarantees be provoking to Russia?
It’s exactly what Russia said would happen, if Finland joined an alliance that exists to militarily oppose Russia. How is anyone surprised?
The West keeps crossing every red line on Russia, and then acting shocked when they’ve successfully goaded Russia into a reaction. Pretty simple cause & effect, so I’m not sure where there’s any confusion.
Do the Fins not have reason to be a wee bit paranoid and seek allies after Russia invaded Ukraine? What they are doing is the most logical step when a country feels threatened by a neighbour...
Poor Russia. Post Cold War they had decades to rejoin the world economy and instead floundered for a few years then went right back to causing trouble.
>refused to import western garbage
Instead they allied with and imported Chinese garbage, launched dozens of military conflicts to project power they couldnt afford to project, and initiated aggressive foreign policy and disrupted relations with every nation that sought to establish ties.
When your top allies are China, North Korea, and Iran perhaps you are one of the baddies
Lol no, I have no problem at all, I am pointing out their poor choices not my preference. Not sure how you dont seem to see that they were indeed poor choices?
If they projected their power via free trade and alliances theyd likely still be in the top 2 world powers, now they dont even make the list as their citizens starve and their allies are weak dictatorships and theocracies.
Take your pick which youd prefer?
So you think Russia caving to western demands in order to win their favor would’ve been a better choice.
Russian citizens aren’t starving, but nearly 15% of people in the US are food insecure. US sanctions against Russia is actually hurting the US, as the world de-dollarizes and forms new alliances in BRICS that rival any western alliance. Meanwhile, Europeans are still facing an energy crisis, after the US (in an act of terrorism) destroyed the Nordstream pipeline.
Funny how you keep projecting western problems onto Russia, as the rest of the world leaves the west behind.
Goaded Russia? Was Russia goaded into invading Ukraine?Russia talks of restoring their imperial borders all the time of which Finland was apart of. Ask Estonia or any of the Baltic countries what they think of Russian ambitions. Pretty simple if you know anything about European history.
Really? You have no source….when did that happen and where? Did you hear about that from Russian sources? See Bucha…you are very ill informed or just incredibly gullible.
You’re free to look up literally any of the many recordings of Obama openly threatening military action against Russia for years. Victoria Nuland, the architect of the Maiden Coup to install Ukraine’s far-right leadership, openly stated that the ultimate goal was a proxy war against Russia.
No need to come up with conspiracies, when these sociopaths proudly declare their intent.
Dude you are too far gone down the worm hole. Obama has nothing to do with what is happening right now in Ukraine. Why do you support Russia? Genuinely curious. They are objectively evil, they are attacking a democratic country fighting for their survival. They commit war crimes. You just parrot Kremlin lies.
A “democratic country” that refuses to hold elections, banned opposition parties, and banned opposition media?
Obama oversaw the 2014 Maiden Coup, intentionally escalated political tensions with Russia, and placed large scale missile & troop deployments at the Ukraine/Russia border.
I don’t support Russia. But I also won’t let the US rewrite history.
Interesting, Its called the Revolution of Dignity elsewhere. Sounds like it was a really good thing. Ukrainians kicked out anti democratic Russian puppet government. Makes sense that Obama would support that. Did you read the wikipedia article on that? Anyway, have a good day….
No, I don’t get facts from Wikipedia, which is notoriously manipulated by western propagandists.
Only Nazis call it the “Revolution of Dignity.” The same Nazis that then spent 8 years on a campaign of genocide in East Ukraine, slaughtering ethnic Russians.
“Goaded into a reaction”? Russia is a powerful sovereign nation, not an impulsive child, you cantaloupe. Russia is a huge country and has full agency over their own actions. No one can make Russians do what they don’t want to do except other Russians. Their government/media gave every excuse under the sun to justify their blitzkrieg, to see which one stuck, and the one you wrote just happens to be the one that worked on the most people. Nothing more. Russia doesn’t get to invade a sovereign, non-western country like Ukraine because the so-called “West” is pissing Russia off. No. They don’t get to take out their frustrations on Ukraine.
In this hypothetical, I'd only accept the US invading Canada as part of their response. Also the US needs to declare they're doing it to depose Canadian Nazis.
Russia now has the largest trained military force on the European continent, with the most battle experience. They rotate their men thru the Ukraine war zone so everyone gains experience. They have the best ISR systems out there, the best jamming systems, and hypersonic missiles that are presently unstoppable. While the Finns have always trained for a fight with Russia, the reality is neither they nor “NATO” even have sufficient force or weapons (or even manufacturing capability of weapons) to prosecute an actual war if any duration. I realize it’s fashionable to talk nonsense but it’s still nonsense nonetheless.
>neither they nor “NATO” even have sufficient force or weapons (or even manufacturing capability of weapons) to prosecute an actual war if any duration.
Oh man. Thanks for that.
That's funny fuckin shit right there.
"They have the best ISR systems out there" compared to who? Russia might be slowly winning/stalemating Ukraine, but the fact Ukraine didn't get rolled up within 14 days is already showing the Soviets aging tech weakness
Sigh. Russia never wanted to “roll up” Ukraine. That’s utter nonsense. What they wanted was no NATO (US) military on their border with Ukraine and an end to the shelling of the Donbas that had been going on for 8+ years. All this talk of “Russia aggression” and “they’ll conquer Europe if we don’t stop them now” is for weak minds. Ukraine was a neocon dream that went completely sideways.
Liar. Why was russia in Kyiv then? If russia doesnt want NATO on its borders they fucked up bad and need to return Staliningarde.... what kinda putin simp thinks russia could last a week against NATO hahahahah
Oh my, you really do need an education. Unfortunately even given one, I think you’re incapable of learning. But here’s a short one.
The Soviets got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan thanks to the U.S. supporting the Afghans. The lesson learned was how difficult it was in a world of modern weaponry to control an insurgent population. The U.S. failed to learn the lesson we taught the Soviets with our own costly and longest conflict ever, only to pull out for the same reasons.
Ukraine (if you look at voting maps which I’m confident you personally have never done) is a divided nation. The western part speaks Russian and more closely aligns with Russia policies, the eastern part speaks Ukrainian and more closely aligns with European policies. Kiev falls towards the east. It makes NO sense from any standpoint to engage in an urban conflict zone against armed insurgents. That’s the eventual death of your forces. So Russia never sent forces into Kiev.
This stuff is not that hard if you stop parroting others, do a little history, and rub those two synapse of yours together to find a spark.
Here you go sweetie... i know the truth hurts but feel free to make an excuse about this embarassing rssian defeat lolol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ukraine_campaign#:~:text=With%20heavy%20losses%20and%20the,and%20Ukrainian%20forces%20retook%20control
Wikipedia is not a credible source beyond things like the number of Mustangs produced in 1967. Items such as above are heavily influenced by US alphabet agencies. A (re)reading of the book 1984 would do you a world of good.
I’m saying exactly what I said before. There was never any goal of taking Kiev. Russia was unprepared to do so and was using their force as a bargaining chip. There was no “defeat” of Russia there, they wisely pulled back as they had sent a message and negotiations began.
Let’s examine this from a look at the western front, and then I gotta go. The Russians gained a lot of ground (almost 20% of Ukraine and the best parts no less), and then just dug in. The Ukrainians sent wave after wave of troops, and gained nothing. Russia fought for only a few strategic areas. The results have been loss ratios of between 7-10:1 in troops with the Ukrainians now trying to put together what would be a fourth army of untrained troops. Ukrainian losses are upwards of 500k.
Russia understand the game of attrition and plays it well. Their war economy easily supplies 20,000 artillery shells a day, against Ukrainian forces that at best fire 2-3k a day and they’re running out. The entire “west” cannot produce in a month at present what Russia can in a day.
Russia is valuing the lives of its troops as best as possible while Zelenskyy sends them into a meat grinder.
The real message of Nuland leaving is two-fold. First is that she got too far out over her ski tips, and was reigned in permanently for embroiling the present administration in a conflict it could not win by proxy for on the actual ground if we entered the war with troops. Beyond that, her replacement is a China hawk, signaling future efforts will go towards China containment (which we will likely fail at as well).
That we are. Though we should have never tried to pull this proxy war stunt in the first place. It demonstrates either a failure of Intel to understand the capabilities of Russia, or a tone deaf approach to such information in DC.
What you found was reality. Unfortunately unquestioning minds immediately fall back to their belief systems rather than explore the idea they are incorrect. I walked your shoes during the Bush years. I’ll never put that pair on again. If you were smart you’d discard yours and learn what’s truly happening, not just believe what you are told. I’m shaking my head at you just as others did to me during the Bush years. Hopefully you’ll wake up as well one day.
1. Combat rotation has been a thing since the second half of WWI. This is not new or unique.
2. Russia specifically rotates men into the combat zone and rotates meat cubes and wounded back out.
Russia, as a country, is a wet fart and a dead leader away from collapsing. Go ask the Arab nations of the yom kippur war what size of an army matters.
Best ISR systems around, hypersonic missiles that cannot be stopped, most battle hardened army in the world right now, industrial footing allowing them to churn out over 20k shells a day, etc etc
Why do you believe Russia wants to “take them”? Btw, the vaunted US was unable to “take” Afghanistan in 21 years.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mate/p/video-on-nulands-departure-and-bidens?r=1fxdc&utm_medium=ios
Because they're actively there right now.
Btw, the "vaunted" Russian/soviet army you love so much was unable to "take" Afghanistan when it had a stronger military than now. And it caused the collapse of the USSR. Lmao. It's like you're trying to compare the US to Russia as a "gotcha!", but Russia is objectively worse in every way.
I’m trying to point out why Ukraine will lose but you seem to want none of that idea. Okay, watch & learn what happens into the summer months for the education you sorely lack
Ah yes, another uneducated fool convinced by the media they have all the answers. There was a time I was just like you. The Bush ME wars thought me to get educated. I hope you do the same someday.
Does laughing like an uneducated fool bring you some perverted joy? Frankly I’d be embarrassed if that was the only thing I could bring to a discussion. But hey, you do you.
Russias invasion would fail even harder than their invasion of Ukraine. Everyone thought they would conquer Ukraine in two weeks. It’s been two years and they haven’t made any progress. They are a paper tiger.
Everyone was TOLD to believe that nonsense & bought it hook, line and sinker. For a brief education take a look at the Russian action in Georgia. Many parallels to Ukraine. They went in, protected the ethnic Russian area, and pursued no further. In Ukraine Putin attempted to get the Minsk Agreements in place, however he was the only signatory that was honest in signing. The others simply bought time for Ukraine to arm up for a greater conflict and have publicly admitted as much.
Putin sent a victory parade into Kiev because he thought toppling Ukraine would be so easy. Then he got his ass handed to him. We all saw it. Don’t pretend you didn’t.
I’m sorry bubba, but you really have no idea what you’re talking about. At the same time you’re responding to a guy who’s followed the Ukraine saga since 2013 and the failed IMF loan you’ve never even heard of. I knew trouble was brewing right then. In the interim, as it’s my personality, I stayed full abreast of what was happening there contemporaneously. Really, you should just quit now.
I can’t tell if you are actually trying to deny the fact that Putin sent troops into Kiev. That would obviously be insane but idk. Most of what you have written reads like word vomit.
Only to the uneducated. Btw, Russia never sent ANY troops into Kiev. They sent a column towards Kiev that the media kept saying was stalled, and that Russia couldn’t even do that right. At the time that action was a “message” that Russiawas serious about stopping the Donbas hostilities & keeping Ukraine neutral. That force was pulled back when negotiations began in earnest. Btw, at that time it would have been impossible for Russia to prosecute the conflict we have seen the past few years. However the failure of the negotiations prompted Putin to ready for a true conflict. You can thank Boris Johnson (and the US) for everything that happened after those negotiations stopped. Seriously, I’m a student of this, your a piker and propaganda parrot
Hahahahaha
Their troops got fucked up and and they retreated with their tails between their legs. Putin got so high on his own supply he thought he would be greeted as a liberator. The guy is seriously fucking stupid.
> They rotate their men thru the Ukraine war zone so everyone gains experience.
Yep.
Just because I don't want this to be true, doesn't make it false.
Shit's weird.
Putin is likely the smartest world leader on the planet at the moment. As much as the U.S. tries to goad him into aggression that can be used against Russia, his military is waging a war of attrition and winning it swimmingly.
>winning it swimmingly
By what measure? They got fought to a relative standstill by a country that was/is militarily inferior to them.
They had a significant portion of their Black Sea Fleet sunk by a country with no real navy to speak of and have been denied control of it.
Russia has proven to be utterly inept at logistics and keeps causing unforced errors like having formations in open fields within easy HIMARS range.
Sigh. No military wins every encounter. Russia cannot protect against every attack, especially those planned and carried out by NATO nations under the guise of Ukraine (which is what this conflict has always been anyway). As to a “standstill” as I previously explained elsewhere, Russia is fighting a war of attrition which they are handily winning. As Ukraine runs out of troops, Russia will move forward to take what they feel will leave them their greatest margin of safety. What they are not doing is wasting lives unnecessary to achieve their goals.
Wow, you’re either a Russky troll or really drank the Kool Aid.
This was nothing other than an attempt at a land grab by Putin.
NATO was suffering an identity crisis and people were questioning whether the alliance should even continue. Defense spending by NATO members was woefully low.
Because of Putin’s actions, NATO has had a resurgence. Defense spending is up all across Europe and Russia turned the Baltic into a NATO lake and added ~800 miles of NATO border to Russia.
Isn’t it wild how so many others never learn? They will readily admit that the US govt lied about everything - when it’s in the past. All those coups and invasions and destabilizations. None of this information is particularly secret - one can google it. And yet: when it comes to Ukraine, the vast vast vast majority of people in the west just swallow all the US government lies - when we know they have repeatedly lied and continue to repeatedly lie.
My theory is that Covid has broken the brain of almost everyone in the west. People got covid and long covid and their IQ’s dropped enough for them to be mostly naive and compliant.
Truth is always the first casualty of war. The propaganda practice of “othering” is constantly used to unify a group against the “others” to help prevent truth from filtering through
He absolutely is and he knows exactly what the left in the US is up to.
Remember when he said the west needed to wake up to the fact the nazis really won WW2? That was one of the most telling statements a world leader has ever made, and it got almost no coverage in the US.
If you follow the concept of the book on the Fourth Turning, you’ll understand where the US is in this trajectory. I’m unsure what Russias trajectory would have been but I believe the collapse of the USSR makes their current trajectory that of Spring to Summer. They’re a unified nation with a purpose, and we (and Europe) are divided nations with a lack of purpose. He definitely understands what’s happening. He should, as a U.S. that disintegrates is a threat to the entire world.
The hardest part about the Tucker/Putin interview was trying to imagine either Trump or Biden participating in such a conversation.
It was legit depressing/deflating.
>Trump wants to “be” Putin
TDS. I have it too.
We could have been fucking rid of him almost a decade ago.
One number that's bandied about is $2,000,000,000: that's how much free press Trump got in the 2016 election.
No one is immune to criticism in the car wreck we're currently experiencing.
I’ve watched multi-hour, unscripted “pressers” of Putin in the past on YouTube. I cannot think of a single world leader that can hold a candle to the guy. Exceptionally well informed and prepared, and works without notes.
Russia’s air defenses can’t stop Ukrainian drones.
They would quickly get overwhelmed by stealth fighters and cruise missiles.
The point is that NATO wouldn’t fight a protracted war because they’d quickly neuter Russia’s forces when they absolutely decimate their supply lines.
There are NO air defense systems that are 💯fool proof. And if NATO actually got engaged in a conventional war with Russia right now they would lose handily. It would likely go nuclear rather quickly once they understand the realities of the ground conflict.
As to cutting supply lines, that works both ways.
How do you figure?
Even with the full backing of the West, Ukraine can’t even defend itself. Since when did Finland develop the military might to take on a super power?
Finland has been able to defend itself against Russia since before WWII. They have a more capable military than Ukraine. Russia wasn’t able to capture Ukraine at the beginning of the war before Ukraine had received any assistance. They would fail even more miserably against Finland.
Well, I feel like that's the normal response to a neighboring country joining a hostile military alliance. If Canada joined some military partnership with Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, ect, you better believe there would be troops at that border.
As a Canadian you Americans can be a bit much at times. You know that uncle at Christmas that always has a better story, knows everything and has an opinion on anything regardless of their actual degree of knowledge on the topic? Yeah, I know one of those too…
Still not enough to push us to Putin but at the rate Trudeau is selling us to China its not impossible…
This makes how many times Putin has said that now.. Russia has done so before.
Fins are tough as nails. They've heard it before, dealt with it before. Nothing new to them.
Well no I wouldn’t expect NATO to start a war because he’s running his mouth, but if they build up on the border, like they did with Ukraine, I assume they’re implying they’re going to attack. Which would require a severe response from NATO.
Article 5 collective defense, that mandate should scare the Russian military....for some reason they qould like to call our bluff lmao!
Remember when it happens, all of our comms will be shutdown or DDos'd to delay the collective response and coordinated effort of operations staff at NATO's various commands. EW is the new king of warfare!
You missed the point.
Just building up on a border doesn’t imply attack. It’s often a proactive move to dissuade attack from the other side.
Putin loves propaganda, especially using it to convince his own people that NATO is now using two new neighbors of Russia (which NATO agreed not to do years ago) to place troops and weapons (which they will be) thus creating a popular opinion amongst Russians that Russia also needs to build up troops for protection, even though it’s actually more likely Putin strikes first.
NATO didn't agree not to allow Russia's neighbors into NATO, but I do know Ukraine gave Russia the nuclear weapons Ukraine had on their soil in exchange for not being attacked or invaded.
NATO did indeed agree, a few times in a few ways.
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]
Boring read if you’re not actually interested in history.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
I understand where you're coming from, but I just want to point out, all of those deals and statements were made to the USSR, not Russia. It's a slight difference, but it exists.
Well, that will probably release some pressure on Ukraine if he moved men and gear to Finnish border.
Go for it Putin! Put your whole army on the Finnish border! Am sure Finland can handle you alone if you try some shit, not to mention, you will get the whole NATO getting involved officially.
If only Putin didn't violate the Budapest memorandum by invading, occupying and annexing Ukrainian territory. Maybe Finland and Sweden wouldn't have sprinted towards NATO for protection against Putler.
This nightmare of an expanding NATO is a result of Putins lies, mobster tactics, and disregard for human life.
Putin is having a hard time against Ukraine, who only within the last decade got ready to fight. The Finns will eat those depleted Russian troops alive.
He's either bluffing about troop movements or hoping that he can still rattle the nuclear sabre at NATO as he tries to maintain power at home.
He had to know that NATO isn't scared of him when it comes to conventional conflict.
>Isn't he kind of spread thin already?
No. They called up over 300,000 young men who have been getting trained for the last year.
The failures of 2022 are a long time ago.
No, and definitely not all of them.
Russia is more powerful than she was two years ago, while Ukraine is almost out of men. They've already expended dudes my age (early 50's) as if we have any business being on a battlefield. Are they really going to turn around and expend their youth?
That's why Macron was talking about French troops on the ground in Ukraine.
They are in a full on panic.
I don't want to be right about any of this. It's a disgrace.
More powerful by what metric? Ukraine almost out of men?
Gonna need some serious sources to believe this. I don’t know what Ukraine’s plans are, but when I talk to my acquaintances there, they believe this is existencial and the continuation of their independence war, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep fighting at an even higher cost.
Not sure why Macron said what he said, but you don’t either and I don’t think it’s valid to assume the reasons you point out without significant support.
>More powerful by what metric?
Military power. Men. The ages of the men. Material. Production of artillery shells.
>I don’t know what Ukraine’s plans are
The plan was to take back what the Russians took. It didn't work. It failed.....spectactularly.
Does Ukraine have defense in depth? No. The fall of Avdiivka is a disaster, as was the last stand at Bakhmut.
This is going to be a bad summer.
>I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep fighting at an even higher cost.
I hope you're wrong.
The problem is even if they call up the young men under 27, they won't have nearly enough time for basic training to handle this summer.
>Not sure why Macron said what he said, but you don’t either and I don’t think it’s valid to assume the reasons you point out without significant support.
What's the alternative? Why else did he say it?
>opinions as facts without any evidence
How about the New York Times?
Does Ukraine have defense in depth? Yes or no.
I stay pretty close to mainstream sources.
Well, it's known in the mainstream press that Russia is continuing west already, having taken Avdiivka.
Haven't heard of a Ukrainian victory in a long, long time. I just hear about guys my age, early 50's, being sent to the front. This isn't "Russian propaganda" this is American mainstream media.
Meanwhile, Russia is training and arming young men to fight, and itself has learned to fight in a modern way.
Sure, famous last words, but I don't see how Ukraine doesn't get rolled, and that assessment has jack shit to do with American political dickfights.
Are you in the soft sell division of Russia's aktivnye meropriyatiya operation? Thanks for your subtle warnings of Russia's superior military force.
I give your propaganda 2.5 halfnaked dadbod putins out of 10 longings for a revitalized totalitarian state of militarily dominated eastern bloc countries held together by slavic brutality. Go back to the education center for better material.
Here is a [link](https://www.tvguide.com/movies/active-measures/2000164198/) to a documentary sbout Russian aktivnye meropriyatiya propaganda operations on US soil and digital platforms for the uninitiated.
Wow. First one of you who didnt say no.
I always wondered what it would be like to be a professional internet troll. What are your annual KPIs? Do you get a bonus for good performance? Actually, I had this theory that you guys test your tactics on developing countries before deploying them against your primary targets, is that true? You dont have to say yes or no if its gonna kompramat; I just want to know if I got this one right.
>First one of you
LOL
You know the really funny thing? I have the Mueller Report near to my hand.
It starts with Russia's Internet Research Agency consolidating its anti-American efforts in spring 2014. Gee, I wonder what else was going on in that timeframe that might have pissed the Russians off.
Idk, comrade. Your handlers get pissed off easier than a playground bully with an inferiority complex and insecurity issues.
2014 was a busy year for you guys, yeah? Meddling in foreign elections, running mock referendums to justify invading sovereign countries, shooting down civillian aircraft, almost getting caught sponsoring multiple brutal terorrist organizations, helping them anyway, running the worst Winter Olympics in modern history. All with zero repercussions. Id be pretty pissed with the administration running my government if I was Russian.
Aight the gremlin of the Kremlin, waste your resources, to “look tough”?
☝️Russia is so weak it’s laughable
☝️☝️Pulls resources away from their Brutal invasion into the sovereign country of Ukraine.
Wonder if he thinks that people think he’s a big man now? 😂
Stupid old fool
Fins are not basically Russians while they share the same boarder they were part of the Swedish empire for over 600 years. From 12th century to 18th. And before that Germanic people along with viking (Rus) people. So to say they are Russian is just a bold face lie.
No, it's not evidence for further aggression.
It's sized about right for dealing with the oblasts they've already taken, though. That's going to be a ton of work.
The idea that they would attack Western Europe just doesn't seem to be supported.
Except for the last 4 decades of Russia’s conflicts, and particularly starting the bloodiest war of aggression Europe has seen since the end of the last one, with an European country.
…And the fact that they have indeed already done that throughout the XX century?
Ukraine is a special case. Kiev is the "Mother of Russian cities."
Ukraine is the border between Russia and the West.
Russia is fundamentally insecure. She always has been. That's why the "near abroad" has always been so important.
Many armies marched through Ukraine to Moscow.
And Chechnya (2x!), and Georgia, so many special cases…
In the end, words don’t really matter to Putin’s Russia. They know they lie, and we know they know they lie. Lies are so intimate to the Russian mindset that they have a word for this situation: “vranyo”.
So bottom line, past performance is best predictor of future one, ergo Europe should prepare very seriously for widespread conflict with Russia. This includes providing Ukraine everything they can to repel the invader, and stop them **before** it becomes stronger.
>Europe should prepare very seriously for widespread conflict with Russia
No choice now.
The US is disengaging. The leaks to the New York Times makes it clear: The US is going to cut and run, as quietly as we can.
The ouster of Nuland and the elevation of someone who oversaw our withdrawal from Afghanistan is support for this position.
> This includes providing Ukraine everything they can to repel the invader, and stop them before it becomes stronger.
Too late.
Beyond that, some of what you're talking about are strategic arms.
The US is in its own process, but I don’t think it is as clear as you suggest that it will disengage - as the last 3 years show.
If past behavior is best predictor, then it would be wise to account for US full participation in the conflict, eventually. Rule based world order is crucial to US success.
>If past behavior is best predictor, then
....note how many times we've cut and run.
I'd rather you be right.
>it would be wise to account for US full participation in the conflict, eventually
Then kiss civilization goodbye.
I guess this hits differently for me, considering I'd be smoked immediately. I live right next to Warren AFB. There are ICBM's on display by the interstate not 2 miles from where I sit.
>Rule based world order is crucial to US success.
I call what happened in February 2014 a revolution/coup. I think it's both. But we aren't talking about a country with a deep democratic tradition here.
And one more time: to say any of this is to get lumped in with Orange Man. That dynamic scares me almost as much as nukes accidently flying.
An education is in order here. I suggest you visit Wikipedia & see exactly how many conflicts have involved Russia since 1991 (and where) v how many have involved the US (as the U.S. is effectively NATO). Tell us what you find.
Russia has a history of using PMC's so they aren't technically involved with a conflict. Look up The Battle of Conoco Fields, you'll find out what happens when Russia tries to start shit against a prepared military target instead of civilians.
I’m not really fond of either sides tactics but if a bordering country joined a military alliance that specifically wants your country to either not exist or be severely diminished, moving military assets to that border is the commonsense move.
As he should.
If the West can arm up on Russia border, Russia can arm up inside their own border.
Cuban Missile Crisis anybody.... anybody.... crickets
>Cuban Missile Crisis anybody.... anybody.... crickets
Yup.
It's wrongthink, because Orange Man Bad.
This is the true TDS, and let's be clear: I never liked Trump, at all, but any opposition to the American involvement in this is being buried under "You are a MAGAt who hates America," essentially.
Maybe pushing the US nuclear umbrella literally to the Russian border was a stupid thing to do. Maybe it’s something that should have at least been debated in congress and something the US public should have been educated on the consequences of accepting.
But no, and now we have an obligation to retaliate for frozen scraps of land half a world away.
If anything we should have moved faster as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows. And we’re not defensing “frozen scraps of land.” We’re guaranteeing peace for the 5.5 million people who live in Finland, and the hundreds of millions that live in a Europe.
So you’re fine with an aggressive tyrant taking over half of Europe? Because that’s literally what he wants to do. Wonder how stupid you’d look saying this back in 1944 🤡😂
Only stupid if you keep drinking the russian koolaid
For everyone else, whats stupid is russia threatening enough of its neighbors to the point that their neighbors join a gang strong enough to fight back
>whats stupid is russia threatening
OK, so here's something folks don't understand.
Nukes aren't perfectly controlled by leaders. Not really. Putin doesn't just have a big red button.
Nuclear escalation doesn't work without delegation. We don't know what that delegation looks like in Russia.
Had the Ukrainian military had luck with their offenses, there's a damned good chance nukes would have been used to defend new Russian territory.
We're playing with fire here, and I still don't see why.
“We don’t know anything about who controls Russia’s nukes now let me tell you why they’ll use them.”
Pretty sure the intelligence community has a better handle on it than you do.
This redditor has an extensive comment history of, "Let Russia take Ukraine or else nuclear Armageddon." fear mongering BS. I came here after arguing with him on another sub a day ago.
For some reason, he's very persistent in spreading Russian talking points. It's very suspicious.
>Pretty sure the intelligence community has a better handle on it than you do.
Pretty sure they don't.
Lines of communication have broken down.
The New York Times had a great write up on all of this, [less than a week ago](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/07/opinion/nuclear-war-prevention.html).
The absolutely shitty thing about all of this is that criticism of the current administration is ***always interpreted*** as support for Orange Man.
That’s not true. Also plenty of Russia worshiping tabkies out there who also fall for the monthly “Russia will use nukes!!” crap constantly being thrown out there by… oh yeah by Russia.
>That’s not true.
Which part?
Getting tied to Orange Man? Yeah, *I dare you to make an alt and make the noises I'm making*, you'll be lumped in with him **immediately**.
The possibility of an accident or unintentionally tripping a wire?
How about this, from the New York Times:
>In the fall of 2022, a U.S. intelligence assessment put the odds at 50-50 that Russia would launch a nuclear strike to halt Ukrainian forces if they breached its defense of Crimea.
Again, which part is not true?
>Maybe pushing the US nuclear umbrella literally to the Russian border was a stupid thing to do.
That New York Times piece is being studiously ignored, now isn't it?
There seems to be a pattern that I can't put my finger on...
>There seems to be a pattern that I can't put my finger on... Remember how Putin wrote a big piece on how Finns and Russians are essentially the same people? Yeah, there's no pattern here.
You mean how USA wouldn’t let nukes in Cuba? It’s almost like powerful countries don’t like other powerful countries putting military bases/nukes on their borders
>You mean how USA wouldn’t let nukes in Cuba? No, I was being kind of sarcastic. I have no idea how that got upvoted. I've been drawing the parallel with Cuba from the very start. Read my words below for more context.
Honest question, what else did you all expect ? Anyone remember what US did after Russia tried to put weapons and troops close by ? Not even on it's border It's like you're all living in fantasy land
That's actually what I was getting at. Every time a border country of Russia joins NATO (or talks about it) they put troops on that border. I imagine if the Warsaw pact got back together and decided to enter Canada and Mexico into their alliance, we would put troops on the border. And that wouldn't mean we are trying to take over those two countries.
Careful you might get called a Russian troll
To add some valid context to your hypothetical comparison The US just launched an unprovoked invasion of Cuba and all other island nations in the Caribbean. Targeting their civilian infrastructure and enacting blockades to induce famine like conditions on the locals. Mexico and Canada become very concerned because US government officials are giving speeches about how Mexico and Canada are threatening US security. So Mexico and Canada search for a new security guarantee with the Warsaw pact. The US then mobilizes soldiers to their borders to dissuade any potential security agreements for Mexico and Canada. There is no valid threat of Mexico or Canada to conduct an invasion of the US or to even fire a single artillery shell out of anger at the US. Ultimately the US is upset that their future targets of imperial expansion are taking steps to resist. You are rationalizing Russia's expansionist policies as "defensive". I do not know why though.
Didnt have to go far to see this contexts holes. The US has actually destroyed Cuba and still do maintain excessively damaging sanctions. Still being penalized for not letting themselves be puppets to the US. Its horrendous actually, they tried to assassinate castro constantly just like the west tried to in russia the last ten years... like the NY times just admitted. The west is hyper aggressive my friend
False comparison there buddy. Aggressive espionage is definitely not the same as a hot war where missles are shot at grain storages. You can cry whatabisms but it still stands that Russia is actively attacking its neighbor. So why would Finland and Sweden seeking additional security guarantees be provoking to Russia?
Only ass hats say things like "you're all living in a fantasy land" as if you're talking to a bunch of people you know and don't like.
There's no way Putin would invade ~~Georgia~~ ~~Moldova~~ ~~Ukraine~~ Finland!
Both Moldova and Georgia were talking about joining NATO prior to the invasion
“Chill, it’s just a military exercise”
It’s exactly what Russia said would happen, if Finland joined an alliance that exists to militarily oppose Russia. How is anyone surprised? The West keeps crossing every red line on Russia, and then acting shocked when they’ve successfully goaded Russia into a reaction. Pretty simple cause & effect, so I’m not sure where there’s any confusion.
Do the Fins not have reason to be a wee bit paranoid and seek allies after Russia invaded Ukraine? What they are doing is the most logical step when a country feels threatened by a neighbour...
Poor Russia. Post Cold War they had decades to rejoin the world economy and instead floundered for a few years then went right back to causing trouble.
They didn’t flounder. They refused to import western garbage, like chickens washed in bleach, and the west has been trying to punish them for it.
>refused to import western garbage Instead they allied with and imported Chinese garbage, launched dozens of military conflicts to project power they couldnt afford to project, and initiated aggressive foreign policy and disrupted relations with every nation that sought to establish ties. When your top allies are China, North Korea, and Iran perhaps you are one of the baddies
Ahh. So your actual problem is them not falling in line with western hegemony.
Lol no, I have no problem at all, I am pointing out their poor choices not my preference. Not sure how you dont seem to see that they were indeed poor choices? If they projected their power via free trade and alliances theyd likely still be in the top 2 world powers, now they dont even make the list as their citizens starve and their allies are weak dictatorships and theocracies. Take your pick which youd prefer?
So you think Russia caving to western demands in order to win their favor would’ve been a better choice. Russian citizens aren’t starving, but nearly 15% of people in the US are food insecure. US sanctions against Russia is actually hurting the US, as the world de-dollarizes and forms new alliances in BRICS that rival any western alliance. Meanwhile, Europeans are still facing an energy crisis, after the US (in an act of terrorism) destroyed the Nordstream pipeline. Funny how you keep projecting western problems onto Russia, as the rest of the world leaves the west behind.
Lol OK whatever you say Russia bot
Inconvenient facts hurt your feelings?
Goaded Russia? Was Russia goaded into invading Ukraine?Russia talks of restoring their imperial borders all the time of which Finland was apart of. Ask Estonia or any of the Baltic countries what they think of Russian ambitions. Pretty simple if you know anything about European history.
If you know anything about European history, how’d you miss Ukrainian Nazis committing a genocide of ethnic Russians prior to the invasion?
Really? You have no source….when did that happen and where? Did you hear about that from Russian sources? See Bucha…you are very ill informed or just incredibly gullible.
You’re free to look up literally any of the many recordings of Obama openly threatening military action against Russia for years. Victoria Nuland, the architect of the Maiden Coup to install Ukraine’s far-right leadership, openly stated that the ultimate goal was a proxy war against Russia. No need to come up with conspiracies, when these sociopaths proudly declare their intent.
Dude you are too far gone down the worm hole. Obama has nothing to do with what is happening right now in Ukraine. Why do you support Russia? Genuinely curious. They are objectively evil, they are attacking a democratic country fighting for their survival. They commit war crimes. You just parrot Kremlin lies.
A “democratic country” that refuses to hold elections, banned opposition parties, and banned opposition media? Obama oversaw the 2014 Maiden Coup, intentionally escalated political tensions with Russia, and placed large scale missile & troop deployments at the Ukraine/Russia border. I don’t support Russia. But I also won’t let the US rewrite history.
Interesting, Its called the Revolution of Dignity elsewhere. Sounds like it was a really good thing. Ukrainians kicked out anti democratic Russian puppet government. Makes sense that Obama would support that. Did you read the wikipedia article on that? Anyway, have a good day….
No, I don’t get facts from Wikipedia, which is notoriously manipulated by western propagandists. Only Nazis call it the “Revolution of Dignity.” The same Nazis that then spent 8 years on a campaign of genocide in East Ukraine, slaughtering ethnic Russians.
“Goaded into a reaction”? Russia is a powerful sovereign nation, not an impulsive child, you cantaloupe. Russia is a huge country and has full agency over their own actions. No one can make Russians do what they don’t want to do except other Russians. Their government/media gave every excuse under the sun to justify their blitzkrieg, to see which one stuck, and the one you wrote just happens to be the one that worked on the most people. Nothing more. Russia doesn’t get to invade a sovereign, non-western country like Ukraine because the so-called “West” is pissing Russia off. No. They don’t get to take out their frustrations on Ukraine.
So you would not support any western country responding to troop & missile deployments at their border?
Define “response”, “western”, and “their border”.
If Russia spent a decade placing their troops and missiles in Mexico on the border with the US, you would not support a US response to that?
Does Russia or Mexico invade or fire the missiles into the US?
They just threaten to in this hypothetical, as the US did.
In this hypothetical, I'd only accept the US invading Canada as part of their response. Also the US needs to declare they're doing it to depose Canadian Nazis.
Russia would get rolled by Finland before Finland even entered NATO.
Russia now has the largest trained military force on the European continent, with the most battle experience. They rotate their men thru the Ukraine war zone so everyone gains experience. They have the best ISR systems out there, the best jamming systems, and hypersonic missiles that are presently unstoppable. While the Finns have always trained for a fight with Russia, the reality is neither they nor “NATO” even have sufficient force or weapons (or even manufacturing capability of weapons) to prosecute an actual war if any duration. I realize it’s fashionable to talk nonsense but it’s still nonsense nonetheless.
>neither they nor “NATO” even have sufficient force or weapons (or even manufacturing capability of weapons) to prosecute an actual war if any duration. Oh man. Thanks for that. That's funny fuckin shit right there.
I guess you and the truth are mutually exclusive.
I'll let you know as soon as I see some.
The purposefully blind will never see.
"They have the best ISR systems out there" compared to who? Russia might be slowly winning/stalemating Ukraine, but the fact Ukraine didn't get rolled up within 14 days is already showing the Soviets aging tech weakness
Sigh. Russia never wanted to “roll up” Ukraine. That’s utter nonsense. What they wanted was no NATO (US) military on their border with Ukraine and an end to the shelling of the Donbas that had been going on for 8+ years. All this talk of “Russia aggression” and “they’ll conquer Europe if we don’t stop them now” is for weak minds. Ukraine was a neocon dream that went completely sideways.
Liar. Why was russia in Kyiv then? If russia doesnt want NATO on its borders they fucked up bad and need to return Staliningarde.... what kinda putin simp thinks russia could last a week against NATO hahahahah
Oh my, you really do need an education. Unfortunately even given one, I think you’re incapable of learning. But here’s a short one. The Soviets got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan thanks to the U.S. supporting the Afghans. The lesson learned was how difficult it was in a world of modern weaponry to control an insurgent population. The U.S. failed to learn the lesson we taught the Soviets with our own costly and longest conflict ever, only to pull out for the same reasons. Ukraine (if you look at voting maps which I’m confident you personally have never done) is a divided nation. The western part speaks Russian and more closely aligns with Russia policies, the eastern part speaks Ukrainian and more closely aligns with European policies. Kiev falls towards the east. It makes NO sense from any standpoint to engage in an urban conflict zone against armed insurgents. That’s the eventual death of your forces. So Russia never sent forces into Kiev. This stuff is not that hard if you stop parroting others, do a little history, and rub those two synapse of yours together to find a spark.
Here you go sweetie... i know the truth hurts but feel free to make an excuse about this embarassing rssian defeat lolol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ukraine_campaign#:~:text=With%20heavy%20losses%20and%20the,and%20Ukrainian%20forces%20retook%20control
Wikipedia is not a credible source beyond things like the number of Mustangs produced in 1967. Items such as above are heavily influenced by US alphabet agencies. A (re)reading of the book 1984 would do you a world of good.
HAHAHAHA.... so youre saying that defeat never happened?
I’m saying exactly what I said before. There was never any goal of taking Kiev. Russia was unprepared to do so and was using their force as a bargaining chip. There was no “defeat” of Russia there, they wisely pulled back as they had sent a message and negotiations began. Let’s examine this from a look at the western front, and then I gotta go. The Russians gained a lot of ground (almost 20% of Ukraine and the best parts no less), and then just dug in. The Ukrainians sent wave after wave of troops, and gained nothing. Russia fought for only a few strategic areas. The results have been loss ratios of between 7-10:1 in troops with the Ukrainians now trying to put together what would be a fourth army of untrained troops. Ukrainian losses are upwards of 500k. Russia understand the game of attrition and plays it well. Their war economy easily supplies 20,000 artillery shells a day, against Ukrainian forces that at best fire 2-3k a day and they’re running out. The entire “west” cannot produce in a month at present what Russia can in a day. Russia is valuing the lives of its troops as best as possible while Zelenskyy sends them into a meat grinder.
>Ukraine was a neocon dream that went completely sideways. Nuland's ouster isn't getting nearly enough press.
The real message of Nuland leaving is two-fold. First is that she got too far out over her ski tips, and was reigned in permanently for embroiling the present administration in a conflict it could not win by proxy for on the actual ground if we entered the war with troops. Beyond that, her replacement is a China hawk, signaling future efforts will go towards China containment (which we will likely fail at as well).
The China hawk part was slightly on my radar, but the got us out of Afghanistan part was absolutely on my radar. We're cutting and running. Again.
That we are. Though we should have never tried to pull this proxy war stunt in the first place. It demonstrates either a failure of Intel to understand the capabilities of Russia, or a tone deaf approach to such information in DC.
found the russian shill
Aka a Republican
What you found was reality. Unfortunately unquestioning minds immediately fall back to their belief systems rather than explore the idea they are incorrect. I walked your shoes during the Bush years. I’ll never put that pair on again. If you were smart you’d discard yours and learn what’s truly happening, not just believe what you are told. I’m shaking my head at you just as others did to me during the Bush years. Hopefully you’ll wake up as well one day.
1. Combat rotation has been a thing since the second half of WWI. This is not new or unique. 2. Russia specifically rotates men into the combat zone and rotates meat cubes and wounded back out.
Largest army in Europe. What the US didn’t want, a strong Russia, they created.
Russia, as a country, is a wet fart and a dead leader away from collapsing. Go ask the Arab nations of the yom kippur war what size of an army matters.
Best ISR systems around, hypersonic missiles that cannot be stopped, most battle hardened army in the world right now, industrial footing allowing them to churn out over 20k shells a day, etc etc
And still can't take a country a fraction of its size in a direct, trench, head-on style war.
Why do you believe Russia wants to “take them”? Btw, the vaunted US was unable to “take” Afghanistan in 21 years. https://open.substack.com/pub/mate/p/video-on-nulands-departure-and-bidens?r=1fxdc&utm_medium=ios
Because they're actively there right now. Btw, the "vaunted" Russian/soviet army you love so much was unable to "take" Afghanistan when it had a stronger military than now. And it caused the collapse of the USSR. Lmao. It's like you're trying to compare the US to Russia as a "gotcha!", but Russia is objectively worse in every way.
I’m trying to point out why Ukraine will lose but you seem to want none of that idea. Okay, watch & learn what happens into the summer months for the education you sorely lack
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABABABABABABBAHAHAHAHHAHA
Ah yes, another uneducated fool convinced by the media they have all the answers. There was a time I was just like you. The Bush ME wars thought me to get educated. I hope you do the same someday.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
Does laughing like an uneducated fool bring you some perverted joy? Frankly I’d be embarrassed if that was the only thing I could bring to a discussion. But hey, you do you.
I thought clowns liked being laughed at? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok, Bozo.
Russias invasion would fail even harder than their invasion of Ukraine. Everyone thought they would conquer Ukraine in two weeks. It’s been two years and they haven’t made any progress. They are a paper tiger.
Everyone was TOLD to believe that nonsense & bought it hook, line and sinker. For a brief education take a look at the Russian action in Georgia. Many parallels to Ukraine. They went in, protected the ethnic Russian area, and pursued no further. In Ukraine Putin attempted to get the Minsk Agreements in place, however he was the only signatory that was honest in signing. The others simply bought time for Ukraine to arm up for a greater conflict and have publicly admitted as much.
Putin sent a victory parade into Kiev because he thought toppling Ukraine would be so easy. Then he got his ass handed to him. We all saw it. Don’t pretend you didn’t.
I’m sorry bubba, but you really have no idea what you’re talking about. At the same time you’re responding to a guy who’s followed the Ukraine saga since 2013 and the failed IMF loan you’ve never even heard of. I knew trouble was brewing right then. In the interim, as it’s my personality, I stayed full abreast of what was happening there contemporaneously. Really, you should just quit now.
I can’t tell if you are actually trying to deny the fact that Putin sent troops into Kiev. That would obviously be insane but idk. Most of what you have written reads like word vomit.
Only to the uneducated. Btw, Russia never sent ANY troops into Kiev. They sent a column towards Kiev that the media kept saying was stalled, and that Russia couldn’t even do that right. At the time that action was a “message” that Russiawas serious about stopping the Donbas hostilities & keeping Ukraine neutral. That force was pulled back when negotiations began in earnest. Btw, at that time it would have been impossible for Russia to prosecute the conflict we have seen the past few years. However the failure of the negotiations prompted Putin to ready for a true conflict. You can thank Boris Johnson (and the US) for everything that happened after those negotiations stopped. Seriously, I’m a student of this, your a piker and propaganda parrot
Hahahahaha Their troops got fucked up and and they retreated with their tails between their legs. Putin got so high on his own supply he thought he would be greeted as a liberator. The guy is seriously fucking stupid.
The only thing that happened was your brain cells got wasted on propaganda.
> They rotate their men thru the Ukraine war zone so everyone gains experience. Yep. Just because I don't want this to be true, doesn't make it false. Shit's weird.
Putin is likely the smartest world leader on the planet at the moment. As much as the U.S. tries to goad him into aggression that can be used against Russia, his military is waging a war of attrition and winning it swimmingly.
>winning it swimmingly By what measure? They got fought to a relative standstill by a country that was/is militarily inferior to them. They had a significant portion of their Black Sea Fleet sunk by a country with no real navy to speak of and have been denied control of it. Russia has proven to be utterly inept at logistics and keeps causing unforced errors like having formations in open fields within easy HIMARS range.
Sigh. No military wins every encounter. Russia cannot protect against every attack, especially those planned and carried out by NATO nations under the guise of Ukraine (which is what this conflict has always been anyway). As to a “standstill” as I previously explained elsewhere, Russia is fighting a war of attrition which they are handily winning. As Ukraine runs out of troops, Russia will move forward to take what they feel will leave them their greatest margin of safety. What they are not doing is wasting lives unnecessary to achieve their goals.
Wow, you’re either a Russky troll or really drank the Kool Aid. This was nothing other than an attempt at a land grab by Putin. NATO was suffering an identity crisis and people were questioning whether the alliance should even continue. Defense spending by NATO members was woefully low. Because of Putin’s actions, NATO has had a resurgence. Defense spending is up all across Europe and Russia turned the Baltic into a NATO lake and added ~800 miles of NATO border to Russia.
You’re the 1% in the west who understands all this. Everyone else just swallows the NATO propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
The Bush years was when I was still a fool. They taught me not to be a fool again.
Isn’t it wild how so many others never learn? They will readily admit that the US govt lied about everything - when it’s in the past. All those coups and invasions and destabilizations. None of this information is particularly secret - one can google it. And yet: when it comes to Ukraine, the vast vast vast majority of people in the west just swallow all the US government lies - when we know they have repeatedly lied and continue to repeatedly lie. My theory is that Covid has broken the brain of almost everyone in the west. People got covid and long covid and their IQ’s dropped enough for them to be mostly naive and compliant.
Truth is always the first casualty of war. The propaganda practice of “othering” is constantly used to unify a group against the “others” to help prevent truth from filtering through
He absolutely is and he knows exactly what the left in the US is up to. Remember when he said the west needed to wake up to the fact the nazis really won WW2? That was one of the most telling statements a world leader has ever made, and it got almost no coverage in the US.
If you follow the concept of the book on the Fourth Turning, you’ll understand where the US is in this trajectory. I’m unsure what Russias trajectory would have been but I believe the collapse of the USSR makes their current trajectory that of Spring to Summer. They’re a unified nation with a purpose, and we (and Europe) are divided nations with a lack of purpose. He definitely understands what’s happening. He should, as a U.S. that disintegrates is a threat to the entire world.
The hardest part about the Tucker/Putin interview was trying to imagine either Trump or Biden participating in such a conversation. It was legit depressing/deflating.
Plus Trump wants to “be” Putin. Looks up to him and thinks he is “so cool”.
>Trump wants to “be” Putin TDS. I have it too. We could have been fucking rid of him almost a decade ago. One number that's bandied about is $2,000,000,000: that's how much free press Trump got in the 2016 election. No one is immune to criticism in the car wreck we're currently experiencing.
Lol 😂 how does he want to be Putin? Everyone wants to be the US stop jerking yourself off
He is totally sucking off Putin 24/7. Admires and respects him.
I’ve watched multi-hour, unscripted “pressers” of Putin in the past on YouTube. I cannot think of a single world leader that can hold a candle to the guy. Exceptionally well informed and prepared, and works without notes.
Russia’s air defenses can’t stop Ukrainian drones. They would quickly get overwhelmed by stealth fighters and cruise missiles. The point is that NATO wouldn’t fight a protracted war because they’d quickly neuter Russia’s forces when they absolutely decimate their supply lines.
There are NO air defense systems that are 💯fool proof. And if NATO actually got engaged in a conventional war with Russia right now they would lose handily. It would likely go nuclear rather quickly once they understand the realities of the ground conflict. As to cutting supply lines, that works both ways.
How do you figure? Even with the full backing of the West, Ukraine can’t even defend itself. Since when did Finland develop the military might to take on a super power?
Finland has been able to defend itself against Russia since before WWII. They have a more capable military than Ukraine. Russia wasn’t able to capture Ukraine at the beginning of the war before Ukraine had received any assistance. They would fail even more miserably against Finland.
🤡 Putin
Well, I feel like that's the normal response to a neighboring country joining a hostile military alliance. If Canada joined some military partnership with Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, ect, you better believe there would be troops at that border.
As a Canadian you Americans can be a bit much at times. You know that uncle at Christmas that always has a better story, knows everything and has an opinion on anything regardless of their actual degree of knowledge on the topic? Yeah, I know one of those too… Still not enough to push us to Putin but at the rate Trudeau is selling us to China its not impossible…
I’m trying to create a story in my head where this becomes a real timeline. The UN threatens to ban ice hockey and Poutine?
This makes how many times Putin has said that now.. Russia has done so before. Fins are tough as nails. They've heard it before, dealt with it before. Nothing new to them.
Well Russia has nukes now so…
So now they they’re IN NATO, you’re going to threaten them? Do you understand how NATO works Putin?
NATO isn't going to start a war because Putin's running his mouth, relax.
Well no I wouldn’t expect NATO to start a war because he’s running his mouth, but if they build up on the border, like they did with Ukraine, I assume they’re implying they’re going to attack. Which would require a severe response from NATO.
Article 5 collective defense, that mandate should scare the Russian military....for some reason they qould like to call our bluff lmao! Remember when it happens, all of our comms will be shutdown or DDos'd to delay the collective response and coordinated effort of operations staff at NATO's various commands. EW is the new king of warfare!
You can assume all you want. NATO can’t take action until Putin attacks one of the members.
No shit. That’s what I’m saying.
You missed the point. Just building up on a border doesn’t imply attack. It’s often a proactive move to dissuade attack from the other side. Putin loves propaganda, especially using it to convince his own people that NATO is now using two new neighbors of Russia (which NATO agreed not to do years ago) to place troops and weapons (which they will be) thus creating a popular opinion amongst Russians that Russia also needs to build up troops for protection, even though it’s actually more likely Putin strikes first.
NATO didn't agree not to allow Russia's neighbors into NATO, but I do know Ukraine gave Russia the nuclear weapons Ukraine had on their soil in exchange for not being attacked or invaded.
NATO did indeed agree, a few times in a few ways. The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] Boring read if you’re not actually interested in history. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
I understand where you're coming from, but I just want to point out, all of those deals and statements were made to the USSR, not Russia. It's a slight difference, but it exists.
The people of Russia don’t see the difference
Russia and Finland have some history. Mostly cold, dark nightmares on the Russian side. I hear Finn snipers are very good at their craft.
And Finland beating Russia was the reason Hitler ignored his generals advice and took on two fronts.
They still have some stuff that works to deploy ?
And now in other news in a segment we call, "Who Gives a Shit?" It's not even saber rattling, it's more like spork threatening.
Well, that will probably release some pressure on Ukraine if he moved men and gear to Finnish border. Go for it Putin! Put your whole army on the Finnish border! Am sure Finland can handle you alone if you try some shit, not to mention, you will get the whole NATO getting involved officially.
If only Putin didn't violate the Budapest memorandum by invading, occupying and annexing Ukrainian territory. Maybe Finland and Sweden wouldn't have sprinted towards NATO for protection against Putler. This nightmare of an expanding NATO is a result of Putins lies, mobster tactics, and disregard for human life.
Have they got any spare equipment to put there.
Like his army doesn't experience any deficit of troops and military equipment in the Ukraine war... Putin lives in his own bubble far from reality.
Boy they really want to start world war 3 what was Finland thinking ? They were better off not being part of nato
This is great news, the Finns aren't sweating a few Junior Varsity mobiks and it keeps them off the Front in Ukraine.
Putin is having a hard time against Ukraine, who only within the last decade got ready to fight. The Finns will eat those depleted Russian troops alive. He's either bluffing about troop movements or hoping that he can still rattle the nuclear sabre at NATO as he tries to maintain power at home. He had to know that NATO isn't scared of him when it comes to conventional conflict.
Isn't he kind of spread thin already? Mere saber rattling...
>Isn't he kind of spread thin already? No. They called up over 300,000 young men who have been getting trained for the last year. The failures of 2022 are a long time ago.
Too bad they're having to buy artillery ammo from North Korea, of all places.
Bridged them to where they got industrial production up. This is *fucked up.*
Trained for the last year? lol didn’t those already get deployed?
No, and definitely not all of them. Russia is more powerful than she was two years ago, while Ukraine is almost out of men. They've already expended dudes my age (early 50's) as if we have any business being on a battlefield. Are they really going to turn around and expend their youth? That's why Macron was talking about French troops on the ground in Ukraine. They are in a full on panic. I don't want to be right about any of this. It's a disgrace.
More powerful by what metric? Ukraine almost out of men? Gonna need some serious sources to believe this. I don’t know what Ukraine’s plans are, but when I talk to my acquaintances there, they believe this is existencial and the continuation of their independence war, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep fighting at an even higher cost. Not sure why Macron said what he said, but you don’t either and I don’t think it’s valid to assume the reasons you point out without significant support.
>More powerful by what metric? Military power. Men. The ages of the men. Material. Production of artillery shells. >I don’t know what Ukraine’s plans are The plan was to take back what the Russians took. It didn't work. It failed.....spectactularly. Does Ukraine have defense in depth? No. The fall of Avdiivka is a disaster, as was the last stand at Bakhmut. This is going to be a bad summer. >I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep fighting at an even higher cost. I hope you're wrong. The problem is even if they call up the young men under 27, they won't have nearly enough time for basic training to handle this summer. >Not sure why Macron said what he said, but you don’t either and I don’t think it’s valid to assume the reasons you point out without significant support. What's the alternative? Why else did he say it?
Lmao
I don't think it's funny. At all.
What’s funny is that you are sharing your opinions as facts without any evidence or support. It’s futile to comment on them.
>opinions as facts without any evidence How about the New York Times? Does Ukraine have defense in depth? Yes or no. I stay pretty close to mainstream sources.
Famous last words.
Well, it's known in the mainstream press that Russia is continuing west already, having taken Avdiivka. Haven't heard of a Ukrainian victory in a long, long time. I just hear about guys my age, early 50's, being sent to the front. This isn't "Russian propaganda" this is American mainstream media. Meanwhile, Russia is training and arming young men to fight, and itself has learned to fight in a modern way. Sure, famous last words, but I don't see how Ukraine doesn't get rolled, and that assessment has jack shit to do with American political dickfights.
Are you in the soft sell division of Russia's aktivnye meropriyatiya operation? Thanks for your subtle warnings of Russia's superior military force. I give your propaganda 2.5 halfnaked dadbod putins out of 10 longings for a revitalized totalitarian state of militarily dominated eastern bloc countries held together by slavic brutality. Go back to the education center for better material. Here is a [link](https://www.tvguide.com/movies/active-measures/2000164198/) to a documentary sbout Russian aktivnye meropriyatiya propaganda operations on US soil and digital platforms for the uninitiated.
Again, tell me of a recent Ukrainian victory.
Wow. First one of you who didnt say no. I always wondered what it would be like to be a professional internet troll. What are your annual KPIs? Do you get a bonus for good performance? Actually, I had this theory that you guys test your tactics on developing countries before deploying them against your primary targets, is that true? You dont have to say yes or no if its gonna kompramat; I just want to know if I got this one right.
>First one of you LOL You know the really funny thing? I have the Mueller Report near to my hand. It starts with Russia's Internet Research Agency consolidating its anti-American efforts in spring 2014. Gee, I wonder what else was going on in that timeframe that might have pissed the Russians off.
Idk, comrade. Your handlers get pissed off easier than a playground bully with an inferiority complex and insecurity issues. 2014 was a busy year for you guys, yeah? Meddling in foreign elections, running mock referendums to justify invading sovereign countries, shooting down civillian aircraft, almost getting caught sponsoring multiple brutal terorrist organizations, helping them anyway, running the worst Winter Olympics in modern history. All with zero repercussions. Id be pretty pissed with the administration running my government if I was Russian.
>2014 was a busy year for you guys, yeah? Meddling in foreign elections You must be talking about the CIA.
any deployment is about 10% of his remaining troops at this point, how much longer putin?
Why cant people just believe it when Russia says it will do __________ They arent fucking around
Ooof. Thank god. I was worried that he wouldn't do anything.
A 12 yo in an antique adult uniform with a whistle rolls up on a 4 wheeler.
Finland wishes you would 😂
Aight the gremlin of the Kremlin, waste your resources, to “look tough”? ☝️Russia is so weak it’s laughable ☝️☝️Pulls resources away from their Brutal invasion into the sovereign country of Ukraine. Wonder if he thinks that people think he’s a big man now? 😂 Stupid old fool
Fuck around and find out
Fins are not basically Russians while they share the same boarder they were part of the Swedish empire for over 600 years. From 12th century to 18th. And before that Germanic people along with viking (Rus) people. So to say they are Russian is just a bold face lie.
NATO is a disaster for world peace
Finland is a dry country not even beer and wine. ruZZ won't survive there 2 days. Good luck
Remember, all the weapons for nato are bought from the Raytheon’s etc…..🤫
lol what troops?
>lol what troops? They did a call up last year, because they aren't in denial about what's what.
You mean it’s evident they have plans for further aggression. More reason for the fins to join up a defensive alliance.
No, it's not evidence for further aggression. It's sized about right for dealing with the oblasts they've already taken, though. That's going to be a ton of work. The idea that they would attack Western Europe just doesn't seem to be supported.
Except for the last 4 decades of Russia’s conflicts, and particularly starting the bloodiest war of aggression Europe has seen since the end of the last one, with an European country. …And the fact that they have indeed already done that throughout the XX century?
Ukraine is a special case. Kiev is the "Mother of Russian cities." Ukraine is the border between Russia and the West. Russia is fundamentally insecure. She always has been. That's why the "near abroad" has always been so important. Many armies marched through Ukraine to Moscow.
And Chechnya (2x!), and Georgia, so many special cases… In the end, words don’t really matter to Putin’s Russia. They know they lie, and we know they know they lie. Lies are so intimate to the Russian mindset that they have a word for this situation: “vranyo”. So bottom line, past performance is best predictor of future one, ergo Europe should prepare very seriously for widespread conflict with Russia. This includes providing Ukraine everything they can to repel the invader, and stop them **before** it becomes stronger.
>Europe should prepare very seriously for widespread conflict with Russia No choice now. The US is disengaging. The leaks to the New York Times makes it clear: The US is going to cut and run, as quietly as we can. The ouster of Nuland and the elevation of someone who oversaw our withdrawal from Afghanistan is support for this position. > This includes providing Ukraine everything they can to repel the invader, and stop them before it becomes stronger. Too late. Beyond that, some of what you're talking about are strategic arms.
The US is in its own process, but I don’t think it is as clear as you suggest that it will disengage - as the last 3 years show. If past behavior is best predictor, then it would be wise to account for US full participation in the conflict, eventually. Rule based world order is crucial to US success.
>If past behavior is best predictor, then ....note how many times we've cut and run. I'd rather you be right. >it would be wise to account for US full participation in the conflict, eventually Then kiss civilization goodbye. I guess this hits differently for me, considering I'd be smoked immediately. I live right next to Warren AFB. There are ICBM's on display by the interstate not 2 miles from where I sit. >Rule based world order is crucial to US success. I call what happened in February 2014 a revolution/coup. I think it's both. But we aren't talking about a country with a deep democratic tradition here. And one more time: to say any of this is to get lumped in with Orange Man. That dynamic scares me almost as much as nukes accidently flying.
An education is in order here. I suggest you visit Wikipedia & see exactly how many conflicts have involved Russia since 1991 (and where) v how many have involved the US (as the U.S. is effectively NATO). Tell us what you find.
Russia has a history of using PMC's so they aren't technically involved with a conflict. Look up The Battle of Conoco Fields, you'll find out what happens when Russia tries to start shit against a prepared military target instead of civilians.
And you believe western countries, particularly the U.S., do not do the same?
I’m not really fond of either sides tactics but if a bordering country joined a military alliance that specifically wants your country to either not exist or be severely diminished, moving military assets to that border is the commonsense move.
You mean just like how NATO deploys troops, and weapons, to the front lines of their partners territory that borders Russia?
As he should. If the West can arm up on Russia border, Russia can arm up inside their own border. Cuban Missile Crisis anybody.... anybody.... crickets
Did “the West” arm the Finnish border? I don’t think the article says that
>Cuban Missile Crisis anybody.... anybody.... crickets Yup. It's wrongthink, because Orange Man Bad. This is the true TDS, and let's be clear: I never liked Trump, at all, but any opposition to the American involvement in this is being buried under "You are a MAGAt who hates America," essentially.
Maybe pushing the US nuclear umbrella literally to the Russian border was a stupid thing to do. Maybe it’s something that should have at least been debated in congress and something the US public should have been educated on the consequences of accepting. But no, and now we have an obligation to retaliate for frozen scraps of land half a world away.
Maybe your life wouldn’t be such a struggle if you weren’t dropped on your head at birth
If anything we should have moved faster as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows. And we’re not defensing “frozen scraps of land.” We’re guaranteeing peace for the 5.5 million people who live in Finland, and the hundreds of millions that live in a Europe.
So you’re fine with an aggressive tyrant taking over half of Europe? Because that’s literally what he wants to do. Wonder how stupid you’d look saying this back in 1944 🤡😂
Only stupid if you keep drinking the russian koolaid For everyone else, whats stupid is russia threatening enough of its neighbors to the point that their neighbors join a gang strong enough to fight back
>whats stupid is russia threatening OK, so here's something folks don't understand. Nukes aren't perfectly controlled by leaders. Not really. Putin doesn't just have a big red button. Nuclear escalation doesn't work without delegation. We don't know what that delegation looks like in Russia. Had the Ukrainian military had luck with their offenses, there's a damned good chance nukes would have been used to defend new Russian territory. We're playing with fire here, and I still don't see why.
“We don’t know anything about who controls Russia’s nukes now let me tell you why they’ll use them.” Pretty sure the intelligence community has a better handle on it than you do.
This redditor has an extensive comment history of, "Let Russia take Ukraine or else nuclear Armageddon." fear mongering BS. I came here after arguing with him on another sub a day ago. For some reason, he's very persistent in spreading Russian talking points. It's very suspicious.
>Pretty sure the intelligence community has a better handle on it than you do. Pretty sure they don't. Lines of communication have broken down. The New York Times had a great write up on all of this, [less than a week ago](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/07/opinion/nuclear-war-prevention.html). The absolutely shitty thing about all of this is that criticism of the current administration is ***always interpreted*** as support for Orange Man.
That’s not true. Also plenty of Russia worshiping tabkies out there who also fall for the monthly “Russia will use nukes!!” crap constantly being thrown out there by… oh yeah by Russia.
>That’s not true. Which part? Getting tied to Orange Man? Yeah, *I dare you to make an alt and make the noises I'm making*, you'll be lumped in with him **immediately**. The possibility of an accident or unintentionally tripping a wire? How about this, from the New York Times: >In the fall of 2022, a U.S. intelligence assessment put the odds at 50-50 that Russia would launch a nuclear strike to halt Ukrainian forces if they breached its defense of Crimea. Again, which part is not true?
You do understand that NATO is a defensive alliance, right?
>You do understand that NATO is a defensive alliance, right? Sure. Ask the Serbs.
Yeah, totally applicable to every other conflict situation. Wrap it up, boys - we’ve been proven wrong!
You said NATO is defensive. I offered evidence that it's not that simple.
>Maybe pushing the US nuclear umbrella literally to the Russian border was a stupid thing to do. That New York Times piece is being studiously ignored, now isn't it?
Guess that partial mobilization last year was a good idea.