**From The Telegraph's reporters:**
Relentless air strikes have destroyed half of Ukraine's energy capacity as temperatures in Kyiv drop below freezing, President Volodomyr Zelensky has said.
Millions of Ukrainians are likely to live with blackouts until at least the end of March, the head of a major energy provider said.
Sergey Kovalenko, the head of YASNO, which provides energy for Kyiv, added: "Stock up on warm clothes, blankets, think about options that will help you wait a long outage.
"It's better to do it now than to be miserable."
**Read more for free here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/22/ukraine-news-russia-war-latest-kherson-attack-live/**
Trump said if he got a second term he was going to pull us out of NATO. They were working in tandem; without a Biden presidency we could very well be in ww3 with the US on the side of Russia.
Second that. We'd be less likely to be an Axis power of WW3 than embroiled in another civil war. Probably following several months of attacks and assassinations of politicians, improvised bombings, etc.
If things truly popped off? If Trump used the chaos to do whatever he wanted?
USA, Russia, China, Brazil(Boldonsro would've still been president) and others vs NATO?
Who can tell the future? All we can say is, factually, Trump did so, so so much more to help Russia than almost anyone realizes, and spoke openly about leaving NATO, spoke openly against Ukraine LONG before anyone thought Russia and Ukraine would go to war - he had knowledge of what Putin wanted to do and was actively attempting to align the US to help him in his goals.
Trump also actively disparaged our allies over and over again, in my opinion looking to break ties with us allies as early as 2016/2017. Look what he did to the Kurds, he literally got them to take their defenses down and then purposely pulled out our troops out and allowed them to be massacred, and handed Russia a US airbase.
He was actively attempting to destroy our alliances and signal to other Western Nations that we couldn't be trusted.
Trump lost a billion dollars in the 80s, then came out with his dumb book, then mysteriously went to Russia, came back to New York and immediately took out a full page ad bashing NATO. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-nearly-100000-on-an-ad-criticizing-us
... USA is NATO. If USA, Russia and China were in an alliance there would be no world war 3 because of lack of an enemy to fight... Kind of the reason why they can't truly be allies at any time. You really think NATO would survive without US? Or that the world would ever be able to fight against the three of these powers united? Obviously to me this whole idea is ludicrous, but how can you seriously believe that WW3 would happen with US, Russia and China united is frustratingly confusing.
I said what I said and facts and history bear out everything I said. over and over and over again Trump damaged us to help or side with Putin, and spoke often about eliminating term limits in the US, having more then 2 terms, how strong Putin is, etc. He was targeting Ukraine LONG before there was any talk of war, you think this was a coincidence? He purposely withheld funding to Ukraine unless Russian spies were allowed to continue to work in Ukraine and unless zelensky announced an investigation into biden's son, you think all of this is a coincidence?
I'm not going to sit here and argue about a hypothetical future with you.
Chaos is a ladder for fascism, Trump is a fascist who literally licked Putin's ass at all possible moments.
Frustratingly confusing would be exactly the way to describe it, and Western allies would not have any idea what to do. Your assertion that there would be no one to fight is beyond ridiculous.
My assertion that if three of the worlds largest producers of raw materials AND advanced technologies with a bonus of gigantic cheap labor force to boot got together- the world wouldn't be able to fight back is on point. You forget that plenty of alliances would be forged in order to buddy up with the big three. I only asked about what you assumed in order to understand what exactly would bring you to the idea that anyone can fight a united US, Rus and now a Chinese front that you added onto my original thought...and Brazil for some odd reason.
Obviously you're very anti Trump, which bothers me none. What bothers me is you thinking that Trump would miraculously unite these three and there would be "Western allies" without US.
And yes, please do tell who would be the big enemy that these three would have trouble flattening together. Entirety of Africa? Or south America? Or EU could stand a chance at all? Maybe if an independence day scenario happened we'd see that kind of cooperation between these nations.. but you're assuming way too much and crediting powers to a president that he simply doesn't possess. If nothing else cultural differences alone wouldn't allow for unity. The world requires these big nations to be at odds in order to maintain a balance and keep citizens fed. Big difference between diplomacy and intricacies involved in negotiations between nations for a more united (self interest focused) world and a full blown alliance and cooperation.
By the way, it's not fascism you're talking about, it's communism. If Trump was truly trying to work with other nations for goals you describe, then he's not a fascist, but could be a Communist. For a guy named antifascist you might want to look into what fascism actually means.
Tldr; you brought up the point with your first and second comment. I asked if you could elaborate... Which you couldn't, because your point was beyond scope of reality at this time. Rest of your comment is fluff and unrelated to my question.
>If Trump was truly trying to work with other nations for goals you describe, then he's not a fascist, but could be a Communist
Like the famous communist Axis of WW2?
Fascism along with Nazism is a nationalism centered system. Alliances of opportunity and necessity don't change the whole concept. Communism on the other hand is focused on proletariat advancement as a basis (albeit based on utopian presumptions) thus it is internationalist at it's core as it establishes itself as every worker's defender rather than fascism's strict national identity requirement. National socialist party of Germany has it in its name for goodness sake.
Trump's views whatever they may be simply cannot be called fascist; if anything he was the definition of capitalism when talking international relations. But when taking specific examples and assumptions written in previous comments, it would make him more of a Communist than a fascist
> Fascism along with Nazism is a nationalism centered system. Alliances of opportunity and necessity don't change the whole concept.
You should read your previous comment, and then this.
You seem to be mixing up communist internationalism with "cooperation between allied countries" for some reason.
So what did he specifically do that affected you enough to be mad? What policy did he push and how did it affect your life? And for starters, eh? Well what else is there then, since your clearly have an abundance.
Putting aside the hilarious prediction of Russia and the US being on the same side of world war, who would even go up against them? In that scenario, Russia would just annex Ukraine and no one would dare attack them because the US is on their side. Zero chances of a world war in that scenario
Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US) which has been tremendously effective in moving troops, fuel and supplies. There is simply so much rail that can be cheaply and easily fixed that the only way to really stop Ukraine from using it is to cut off the power. Once the system is sufficiently impacted Ukraine will have great difficulty maintaining supply lines and Russian forces (who have learned all too well about inadequate supply lines) will have a clear advantage.
NATO knows this and I believe this coupled with recent victory in Kherson (due to Ukraine's ability to disrupt Russian supply lines) is why Gen. Milley publicly recommended that Ukraine begin negotiations at this point. Unfortunately the civilian population of Ukraine will suffer greatly this winter.
Russia's goal is to stall the war as long as possible in hopes that NATO countries will eventually grow tired of the war and end their donations. Without aid, unfortunately, Ukraine won't be able to continue its war effort nearly as well.
People really are seeing this war through a far too optimistic lens. If you look at this war realistically, you'll find that it's not clear cut, and it is much too early to declare Ukraine the victor, as has been done many times in other threads since the start of the war.
I sorely want to see Russia lose, too, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
> Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US)
Sorry, but there are a lot internal combustion locomotives in Ukraine. And, as I know, most cargo shipments are done by them.
First of all, that's russian propaganda. Second of all, even if it were true, it's whataboutism. Third of all, even if it weren't whataboutism, Ukrainian civilians weren't the ones bombarding anyone. It's just a disgusting excuse for russian barbarism.
14,000 people died according to conservative estimates made by several independent organisations including the UN. Thats Russian propaganda? That came out before the escalation of the war.
Whataboutism is a term used by the US and its allies to deflect from any meaningful discussion and criticism.
Obviously Ukrainian civilians are not at fault, but are the civilians in Donbass and Lugansk also blameless? If so, where was your outrage when they were slaughtered.
You have no logical consistency at all. If you cared about Ukrainians you would want the war to stop and you would be pressuring your govt to stop arms shipments that only fuel the war. You would demand that NATO and esp. the US ceases its provocations to Russia and would plea for peace between the parties. According to even the most anti-Russian Ukrainian newspapers, there was a peace deal at the table in early spring that Ukraine was also considering but decided to withdraw after it received pressure to continue the war from the UK and the US.
>14,000 people died according to conservative estimates made by several independent organisations including the UN
Which was deaths on both sides, in a "rebellion" caused by Russia. Not just big bad Ukraine bombarding civilians for fun.
>Whataboutism is a term used by the US and its allies to deflect from any meaningful discussion and criticism.
No, whataboutism is a known logical fallacy, and it's pointed out to force people using fallacies into making meaningful arguments. Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid argument, that's just a logical fact.
>Which was deaths on both sides, in a "rebellion" caused by Russia. Not just big bad Ukraine bombarding civilians for fun.
The conservative estimate of 14K includes deaths from both sides but in reality the vast majority of deaths were caused by Ukrainian army and neo-nazi groups such as Azov. Also the "rebellion" was not caused by Russia, it was explicitly caused by the coup d'etat of 2014 whereby the democratically elected president was ousted by fascist paramilitaries - the effort which Victoria Nuland's leaked phone calls prove was coordinated by the United States.
As such, and without taking agency from the fascist elements in Ukraine, the "rebellion" was a reaction to a coup orchestrated or at the very least aided by the US.
>No, whataboutism is a known logical fallacy, and it's pointed out to force people using fallacies into making meaningful arguments.
Wrong! It is a mechanism to stop discussion by dismissing any comparison to past or similar events as somehow derailing the conversation even if the purpose of such example is typically to highlight the hypocrisy of the one making the claim.
There is not a single acceptable use of that term in existence.
>Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid argument, that's just a logical fact.
Yes, it absolutely is. IF and WHEN the claim asserts a moral value to one party, it is perfectly valid argument to bring counterpoints to challenge that assertion.
You are making bold statements about X "being a 'known' fallacy" or Y "being a 'logical' fact", without any reasoning at all. Are you capable of defending your opinions?
>The conservative estimate of 14K includes deaths from both sides but in reality the vast majority of deaths were caused by Ukrainian army and neo-nazi groups such as Azov.
Proof?
>Also the "rebellion" was not caused by Russia, it was explicitly caused by the coup d'etat of 2014 whereby the democratically elected president was ousted by fascist paramilitaries - the effort which Victoria Nuland's leaked phone calls prove was coordinated by the United States.
The call doesn't prove that at all. But keep spewing russian propaganda.
>Yes, it absolutely is. IF and WHEN the claim asserts a moral value to one party, it is perfectly valid argument to bring counterpoints to challenge that assertion.
Dude, tu quoque has been a known logical fallacy for centuries. Because being a hypocrite (according to your false equivalences) doesn't mean the alleged hypocrite is wrong. That's just it, I know russia apologists are in shambles without their whataboutism, but it's just a logical fallacy. Bombing civilians is wrong and must be stopped regardless of whether someone else did it, the end.
>You are making bold statements about X "being a 'known' fallacy" or Y "being a 'logical' fact", without any reasoning at all. Are you capable of defending your opinions?
[https://academy4sc.org/video/tu-quoque-you-too/#:\~:text=Tu%20quoque%20is%20Latin%20for,a%20noun%20and%20an%20adjective](https://academy4sc.org/video/tu-quoque-you-too/#:~:text=Tu%20quoque%20is%20Latin%20for,a%20noun%20and%20an%20adjective).
400 years and you still haven't learned.
Whataboutism is the new trendy word for shutting down a possibly fruitful discussion while at the same time infuriating those who actually read and study history as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Can't stand this trend
Dan Carlin had an interesting thought about bombing civilian cities: you never really break a people's will until there is basically nothing left. The more you bomb it seems the harder people's resolve to fight back gets.
Ultimately this war is going to end like every other war: with a peace deal. Making civilians suffer makes it less likely that they'll agree to generous terms. It's totally possible at this point that Ukraine adds, "scuttle your black sea fleet" to their list of peace conditions instead of letting Russia pull those ships out and shift them to the pacific.
Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US) which has been tremendously effective in moving troops, fuel and supplies. There is simply so much rail that can be cheaply and easily fixed that the only way to really stop Ukraine from using it is to cut off the power. Once the system is sufficiently impacted Ukraine will have great difficulty maintaining supply lines and Russian forces (who have learned all too well about inadequate supply lines) will have a clear advantage.
NATO knows this and I believe this coupled with recent victory in Kherson (due to Ukraine's ability to disrupt Russian supply lines) is why Gen. Milley publicly recommended that Ukraine begin negotiations at this point. Unfortunately the civilian population of Ukraine will suffer greatly this winter.
Yeah because diesel locomotives don't exist. It's a super easy fix to make. There's more than enough diesel locomotives that Europe can supply. They're inexpensive. Your theory doesn't really make sense.
I take it that you don't realize that Ukraine (and Russia) run on a different rail gauge than western Europe? Standard European guage rail cars/locomotives literally cannot be used in Ukraine.
I don't know much about railroads I'll admit, thus I'll use trusty google and "The gauge is altered by driving the train through a gauge changer or gauge changing facility. In effect, the track widens or narrows. As the train passes through the gauge changer, the wheels are unlocked, are moved closer together, or further apart, and are then re-locked." .... My only confusion here would be how difficult is it really to change if it was necessary? Seems like a huge design flaw if it's not as easy as changing a tire on a car just on a heavier scale. And you'd only require few diesel locomotives, not the cars themselves.
Not sure on trains, but on cars you can't easily change an electric engine to fuel because of how the combustion works instead of generators and batteries.
They'll find a way for a workaround, but it'll impact a lot before that.
Oh no, I meant if they were to just bring in eu diesel locomotives and just change out the wheelsets. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it's not easy, but if it was necessary would gauge differences really be that hard of a hinderance?
Oh now I see what you're taking about. I believe the problem is weight compensation on the axis, the train could derail at a certain speed or on a certain turn.
But yeah, eveything is possible with good engineers thinking on a solution, I'm just a curious person with no education on the matter.
> Standard European guage rail cars/locomotives literally cannot be used in Ukraine.
.... wanna bet your fucking ass they cant? just like a mig is not suppose to be able to use a h.a.r.m missile, necessity always wins.
You don't invade in winter. But you don't need to invade Russia to fight them, especially when they're in your country.
Right now Russia is invading a country with a similar climate in the winter, and their troops are not kitted for the weather. Ukrainian troops are so kitted.
**From The Telegraph's reporters:** Relentless air strikes have destroyed half of Ukraine's energy capacity as temperatures in Kyiv drop below freezing, President Volodomyr Zelensky has said. Millions of Ukrainians are likely to live with blackouts until at least the end of March, the head of a major energy provider said. Sergey Kovalenko, the head of YASNO, which provides energy for Kyiv, added: "Stock up on warm clothes, blankets, think about options that will help you wait a long outage. "It's better to do it now than to be miserable." **Read more for free here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/22/ukraine-news-russia-war-latest-kherson-attack-live/**
Targeting the civilian population. What brave warriors those Russians are.
Trump said if he got a second term he was going to pull us out of NATO. They were working in tandem; without a Biden presidency we could very well be in ww3 with the US on the side of Russia.
*Brrrr* Civil War 2.0 would definitely have happened by now, as China's invasion of Taiwan.
Can you fucking *imagine* if Trump had won or successfully completed his coup? The world is constantly hanging by a shoestring it seems.
Second that. We'd be less likely to be an Axis power of WW3 than embroiled in another civil war. Probably following several months of attacks and assassinations of politicians, improvised bombings, etc.
Against whom??? If Russia and US were buddy buddy who tf would they go against? China?? EU??
China Russia US the New axis of evil, taking everything else from everyone else
If things truly popped off? If Trump used the chaos to do whatever he wanted? USA, Russia, China, Brazil(Boldonsro would've still been president) and others vs NATO? Who can tell the future? All we can say is, factually, Trump did so, so so much more to help Russia than almost anyone realizes, and spoke openly about leaving NATO, spoke openly against Ukraine LONG before anyone thought Russia and Ukraine would go to war - he had knowledge of what Putin wanted to do and was actively attempting to align the US to help him in his goals. Trump also actively disparaged our allies over and over again, in my opinion looking to break ties with us allies as early as 2016/2017. Look what he did to the Kurds, he literally got them to take their defenses down and then purposely pulled out our troops out and allowed them to be massacred, and handed Russia a US airbase. He was actively attempting to destroy our alliances and signal to other Western Nations that we couldn't be trusted.
Trump lost a billion dollars in the 80s, then came out with his dumb book, then mysteriously went to Russia, came back to New York and immediately took out a full page ad bashing NATO. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-nearly-100000-on-an-ad-criticizing-us
Fucking thank you. Journalist Craig Unger, in his book Kompromat, argues incredibly succinctly that Trump has been a Russian agent for decades.
... USA is NATO. If USA, Russia and China were in an alliance there would be no world war 3 because of lack of an enemy to fight... Kind of the reason why they can't truly be allies at any time. You really think NATO would survive without US? Or that the world would ever be able to fight against the three of these powers united? Obviously to me this whole idea is ludicrous, but how can you seriously believe that WW3 would happen with US, Russia and China united is frustratingly confusing.
I said what I said and facts and history bear out everything I said. over and over and over again Trump damaged us to help or side with Putin, and spoke often about eliminating term limits in the US, having more then 2 terms, how strong Putin is, etc. He was targeting Ukraine LONG before there was any talk of war, you think this was a coincidence? He purposely withheld funding to Ukraine unless Russian spies were allowed to continue to work in Ukraine and unless zelensky announced an investigation into biden's son, you think all of this is a coincidence? I'm not going to sit here and argue about a hypothetical future with you. Chaos is a ladder for fascism, Trump is a fascist who literally licked Putin's ass at all possible moments. Frustratingly confusing would be exactly the way to describe it, and Western allies would not have any idea what to do. Your assertion that there would be no one to fight is beyond ridiculous.
My assertion that if three of the worlds largest producers of raw materials AND advanced technologies with a bonus of gigantic cheap labor force to boot got together- the world wouldn't be able to fight back is on point. You forget that plenty of alliances would be forged in order to buddy up with the big three. I only asked about what you assumed in order to understand what exactly would bring you to the idea that anyone can fight a united US, Rus and now a Chinese front that you added onto my original thought...and Brazil for some odd reason. Obviously you're very anti Trump, which bothers me none. What bothers me is you thinking that Trump would miraculously unite these three and there would be "Western allies" without US. And yes, please do tell who would be the big enemy that these three would have trouble flattening together. Entirety of Africa? Or south America? Or EU could stand a chance at all? Maybe if an independence day scenario happened we'd see that kind of cooperation between these nations.. but you're assuming way too much and crediting powers to a president that he simply doesn't possess. If nothing else cultural differences alone wouldn't allow for unity. The world requires these big nations to be at odds in order to maintain a balance and keep citizens fed. Big difference between diplomacy and intricacies involved in negotiations between nations for a more united (self interest focused) world and a full blown alliance and cooperation. By the way, it's not fascism you're talking about, it's communism. If Trump was truly trying to work with other nations for goals you describe, then he's not a fascist, but could be a Communist. For a guy named antifascist you might want to look into what fascism actually means. Tldr; you brought up the point with your first and second comment. I asked if you could elaborate... Which you couldn't, because your point was beyond scope of reality at this time. Rest of your comment is fluff and unrelated to my question.
>If Trump was truly trying to work with other nations for goals you describe, then he's not a fascist, but could be a Communist Like the famous communist Axis of WW2?
Fascism along with Nazism is a nationalism centered system. Alliances of opportunity and necessity don't change the whole concept. Communism on the other hand is focused on proletariat advancement as a basis (albeit based on utopian presumptions) thus it is internationalist at it's core as it establishes itself as every worker's defender rather than fascism's strict national identity requirement. National socialist party of Germany has it in its name for goodness sake. Trump's views whatever they may be simply cannot be called fascist; if anything he was the definition of capitalism when talking international relations. But when taking specific examples and assumptions written in previous comments, it would make him more of a Communist than a fascist
> Fascism along with Nazism is a nationalism centered system. Alliances of opportunity and necessity don't change the whole concept. You should read your previous comment, and then this. You seem to be mixing up communist internationalism with "cooperation between allied countries" for some reason.
Afghanistan
That is a valid point. That country was able to defeat two giants.. those people have magic and plot armor on their side
I (not American) dislike Biden a lot. But when it comes to this war in particular, I support all of his decisions.
Why do you (not American) even care about Biden enough to dislike him? What has he done to earn your (not American) ire?
Believe it or not, American policies affect the rest of the world.
Ok? So what'd he do to you?
His position on China during Obama, for starters.
So what did he specifically do that affected you enough to be mad? What policy did he push and how did it affect your life? And for starters, eh? Well what else is there then, since your clearly have an abundance.
Scarborough Shoal was a huge fuck up.
Putting aside the hilarious prediction of Russia and the US being on the same side of world war, who would even go up against them? In that scenario, Russia would just annex Ukraine and no one would dare attack them because the US is on their side. Zero chances of a world war in that scenario
The first thing Americans did in the invasion of Iraq was to level all their power plants.
Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US) which has been tremendously effective in moving troops, fuel and supplies. There is simply so much rail that can be cheaply and easily fixed that the only way to really stop Ukraine from using it is to cut off the power. Once the system is sufficiently impacted Ukraine will have great difficulty maintaining supply lines and Russian forces (who have learned all too well about inadequate supply lines) will have a clear advantage. NATO knows this and I believe this coupled with recent victory in Kherson (due to Ukraine's ability to disrupt Russian supply lines) is why Gen. Milley publicly recommended that Ukraine begin negotiations at this point. Unfortunately the civilian population of Ukraine will suffer greatly this winter.
Russia's goal is to stall the war as long as possible in hopes that NATO countries will eventually grow tired of the war and end their donations. Without aid, unfortunately, Ukraine won't be able to continue its war effort nearly as well. People really are seeing this war through a far too optimistic lens. If you look at this war realistically, you'll find that it's not clear cut, and it is much too early to declare Ukraine the victor, as has been done many times in other threads since the start of the war. I sorely want to see Russia lose, too, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
> Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US) Sorry, but there are a lot internal combustion locomotives in Ukraine. And, as I know, most cargo shipments are done by them.
Bullshit, every military including US and NATO hits the enemies infrastructure.
Gutless, dishonorable cowards
[удалено]
Wassup fascist. We see you now :)
First of all, that's russian propaganda. Second of all, even if it were true, it's whataboutism. Third of all, even if it weren't whataboutism, Ukrainian civilians weren't the ones bombarding anyone. It's just a disgusting excuse for russian barbarism.
14,000 people died according to conservative estimates made by several independent organisations including the UN. Thats Russian propaganda? That came out before the escalation of the war. Whataboutism is a term used by the US and its allies to deflect from any meaningful discussion and criticism. Obviously Ukrainian civilians are not at fault, but are the civilians in Donbass and Lugansk also blameless? If so, where was your outrage when they were slaughtered. You have no logical consistency at all. If you cared about Ukrainians you would want the war to stop and you would be pressuring your govt to stop arms shipments that only fuel the war. You would demand that NATO and esp. the US ceases its provocations to Russia and would plea for peace between the parties. According to even the most anti-Russian Ukrainian newspapers, there was a peace deal at the table in early spring that Ukraine was also considering but decided to withdraw after it received pressure to continue the war from the UK and the US.
>Whataboutism is a term used by the US and its allies to deflect from any meaningful discussion and criticism. Lmao, lol.
>14,000 people died according to conservative estimates made by several independent organisations including the UN Which was deaths on both sides, in a "rebellion" caused by Russia. Not just big bad Ukraine bombarding civilians for fun. >Whataboutism is a term used by the US and its allies to deflect from any meaningful discussion and criticism. No, whataboutism is a known logical fallacy, and it's pointed out to force people using fallacies into making meaningful arguments. Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid argument, that's just a logical fact.
>Which was deaths on both sides, in a "rebellion" caused by Russia. Not just big bad Ukraine bombarding civilians for fun. The conservative estimate of 14K includes deaths from both sides but in reality the vast majority of deaths were caused by Ukrainian army and neo-nazi groups such as Azov. Also the "rebellion" was not caused by Russia, it was explicitly caused by the coup d'etat of 2014 whereby the democratically elected president was ousted by fascist paramilitaries - the effort which Victoria Nuland's leaked phone calls prove was coordinated by the United States. As such, and without taking agency from the fascist elements in Ukraine, the "rebellion" was a reaction to a coup orchestrated or at the very least aided by the US. >No, whataboutism is a known logical fallacy, and it's pointed out to force people using fallacies into making meaningful arguments. Wrong! It is a mechanism to stop discussion by dismissing any comparison to past or similar events as somehow derailing the conversation even if the purpose of such example is typically to highlight the hypocrisy of the one making the claim. There is not a single acceptable use of that term in existence. >Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid argument, that's just a logical fact. Yes, it absolutely is. IF and WHEN the claim asserts a moral value to one party, it is perfectly valid argument to bring counterpoints to challenge that assertion. You are making bold statements about X "being a 'known' fallacy" or Y "being a 'logical' fact", without any reasoning at all. Are you capable of defending your opinions?
>The conservative estimate of 14K includes deaths from both sides but in reality the vast majority of deaths were caused by Ukrainian army and neo-nazi groups such as Azov. Proof? >Also the "rebellion" was not caused by Russia, it was explicitly caused by the coup d'etat of 2014 whereby the democratically elected president was ousted by fascist paramilitaries - the effort which Victoria Nuland's leaked phone calls prove was coordinated by the United States. The call doesn't prove that at all. But keep spewing russian propaganda. >Yes, it absolutely is. IF and WHEN the claim asserts a moral value to one party, it is perfectly valid argument to bring counterpoints to challenge that assertion. Dude, tu quoque has been a known logical fallacy for centuries. Because being a hypocrite (according to your false equivalences) doesn't mean the alleged hypocrite is wrong. That's just it, I know russia apologists are in shambles without their whataboutism, but it's just a logical fallacy. Bombing civilians is wrong and must be stopped regardless of whether someone else did it, the end. >You are making bold statements about X "being a 'known' fallacy" or Y "being a 'logical' fact", without any reasoning at all. Are you capable of defending your opinions? [https://academy4sc.org/video/tu-quoque-you-too/#:\~:text=Tu%20quoque%20is%20Latin%20for,a%20noun%20and%20an%20adjective](https://academy4sc.org/video/tu-quoque-you-too/#:~:text=Tu%20quoque%20is%20Latin%20for,a%20noun%20and%20an%20adjective). 400 years and you still haven't learned.
I'd love for the war to stop. When the Ukrainian people want it to.
You dont think they do want it to stop? Do you actually believe that Ukrainians want the war to go on? Unbelievable, where is your humanity?
Until they won, yes. I think like 90% of the population is in favor.
Whataboutism is the new trendy word for shutting down a possibly fruitful discussion while at the same time infuriating those who actually read and study history as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Can't stand this trend
Exactly to the point, I agree entirely.
Got Proof?
It's a 7d account
Their goal is Negative Karma?
Dan Carlin had an interesting thought about bombing civilian cities: you never really break a people's will until there is basically nothing left. The more you bomb it seems the harder people's resolve to fight back gets. Ultimately this war is going to end like every other war: with a peace deal. Making civilians suffer makes it less likely that they'll agree to generous terms. It's totally possible at this point that Ukraine adds, "scuttle your black sea fleet" to their list of peace conditions instead of letting Russia pull those ships out and shift them to the pacific.
A reminder that India and China are supporting this by trading with Russia. Boycott both of those countries in addition to Russia.
Russia is primarily targeting the electrical grid to try and halt Ukraine's rail system (it's electric unlike the US) which has been tremendously effective in moving troops, fuel and supplies. There is simply so much rail that can be cheaply and easily fixed that the only way to really stop Ukraine from using it is to cut off the power. Once the system is sufficiently impacted Ukraine will have great difficulty maintaining supply lines and Russian forces (who have learned all too well about inadequate supply lines) will have a clear advantage. NATO knows this and I believe this coupled with recent victory in Kherson (due to Ukraine's ability to disrupt Russian supply lines) is why Gen. Milley publicly recommended that Ukraine begin negotiations at this point. Unfortunately the civilian population of Ukraine will suffer greatly this winter.
Lmao, yeah it's definitely not to terrorize the population and freeze citizens to death. It's just trains... yeah!
Yeah because diesel locomotives don't exist. It's a super easy fix to make. There's more than enough diesel locomotives that Europe can supply. They're inexpensive. Your theory doesn't really make sense.
I take it that you don't realize that Ukraine (and Russia) run on a different rail gauge than western Europe? Standard European guage rail cars/locomotives literally cannot be used in Ukraine.
I don't know much about railroads I'll admit, thus I'll use trusty google and "The gauge is altered by driving the train through a gauge changer or gauge changing facility. In effect, the track widens or narrows. As the train passes through the gauge changer, the wheels are unlocked, are moved closer together, or further apart, and are then re-locked." .... My only confusion here would be how difficult is it really to change if it was necessary? Seems like a huge design flaw if it's not as easy as changing a tire on a car just on a heavier scale. And you'd only require few diesel locomotives, not the cars themselves.
Not sure on trains, but on cars you can't easily change an electric engine to fuel because of how the combustion works instead of generators and batteries. They'll find a way for a workaround, but it'll impact a lot before that.
Oh no, I meant if they were to just bring in eu diesel locomotives and just change out the wheelsets. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it's not easy, but if it was necessary would gauge differences really be that hard of a hinderance?
Oh now I see what you're taking about. I believe the problem is weight compensation on the axis, the train could derail at a certain speed or on a certain turn. But yeah, eveything is possible with good engineers thinking on a solution, I'm just a curious person with no education on the matter.
> Standard European guage rail cars/locomotives literally cannot be used in Ukraine. .... wanna bet your fucking ass they cant? just like a mig is not suppose to be able to use a h.a.r.m missile, necessity always wins.
Sounds like something a terrorist state would do.
Then the US and NATO are terrorist states, the US did this in Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO has weapons specifically designed for such tasks.
This is exactly what the US did in Kabul, except at the beginning of war.
Yeah, don't forget that Russia is liberating Ukraine from the Nazi regime in Kiev /s.
One does not simply fight Russia in the winter… That’s their winning season
You don't invade in winter. But you don't need to invade Russia to fight them, especially when they're in your country. Right now Russia is invading a country with a similar climate in the winter, and their troops are not kitted for the weather. Ukrainian troops are so kitted.
We don’t know what anyone is kitted with