I thought it may be interesting to introduce a non-mainstream commentator’s analysis about the Ukraine war here, because it’s interesting to see the stark contrast between Brian’s conclusions and those in the MSM. Copied from the show notes:
Russia continues its war of attrition - focusing
on exhausting and overwhelming critical
Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut in eastern
Ukraine/western Russia;
Despite claims that Russian missile stockpiles
are depleted, Russia continues carrying out
regular, large-scale missile barrages against
Ukrainian infrastructure;
Latest US assistance package for Ukraine
continues the trend of dwindling, inadequate
support for Ukraine;
US government procurement numbers over
the course of the next 2-5 years indicates that
at no time in the near future will the US be
capable of producing let alone supplying
Ukraine with the number of weapons and
ammunition it requires;
While Russian production data is not available,
the fact that Russia's stockpiles and military
were configured for large-scale protracted and
intense combat suggests its military industrial
output is likewise configured for such demands;
The Western media is now admitting that
Ukraine can neither win, nor is there any moral
imperative to ensure that it does.
Despite claims that Russian missile stockpiles are depleted, Russia continues carrying out regular, large-scale missile barrages against Ukrainian infrastructure;
Basically 100% of what the West does boils down to "it's OK when we do it" and "do as I say, not as I do". Don't be racist expired as soon as they wanted to ban Russian athletes, and don't invade other countries will expire as soon as they want to invade yet another country.
NATO bombs killed plenty of people, including in the civilian targets that they gleefully bombed.
And the Russian targeting of the power supply has had rather few casualties, so the West is not crying about civilian casualties, but about how wrong it is to do what they themselves did to Yugoslavia and many other countries.
It's bad when they do it! They bad! Our bombs good!
No retard sounds of yours (a retard), and no "War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the East has some costs" too.
They didn't "gleefully bombed" and it was always extremely controversial in their (our) countries.
Oh, if it being 'controversial' justifies it, then you need to make up your mind about whether the war is controversial in Russia or not.
The political leaders who never apologized are Putin's buddies Schroeder and Blair.
Impressive how you can turn the destruction of Yugoslavia into "Putin bad". Do we then agree that it was bad for the corrupt west to wreck that country?
We had no state TV shows where people talked about exterminating Serbia in our "jihad" against "Satan" while smiling.
And being controversial means a plenty of people thought it was unjustified, wrong, and even actually criminal, and spoke about it as such. They were in mass media, they were in politics, and they weren't being jailed for this.
It wasn't Yugoslavia, this country had ceased to exist 8 years prior. It was the new "SFR Yugoslavia", and even this minus Montenegro even before Montenegro formally seceded from Serbia. It was really just this, Serbia and Kosovo. And NATO killed only about 3-4% or so of the civilians who died in the Kosovo war.
We had no state TV shows where people talked about exterminating Serbia in our "jihad" against "Satan" while smiling.
I am not sure why bombing a country to smithereens is better depending on what your state TV is broadcasting.
And being controversial means a plenty of people thought it was unjustified, wrong, and even actually criminal, and spoke about it as such. They were in mass media, they were in politics, and they weren't being jailed for this.
It was criminal, and yet they did it. And if they could, they'd have jailed their critics as well. For now, they must be satisfied with just calling them Putin puppets or Russian spies.
It wasn't Yugoslavia, this country had ceased to exist 8 years prior. It was the new "SFR Yugoslavia", and even this minus Montenegro even before Montenegro formally seceded from Serbia. It was really just this, Serbia and Kosovo. And NATO killed only about 3-4% or so of the civilians who died in the Kosovo war.
So a special military operation in order to protect the Muslims of Albania against Nazi drug addicts? How interesting. But do tell me again that it's OK when you do it.
It wasn't any "corrupt west" that did things like that in the actual "destruction of Yugoslavia" (another one caught, convicted in Serbia and extradited to Croatia):
But do tell me if you will condemn what the corrupt West did there.
Look, the reason I find Western apologists particularly obnoxious is because of the hypocrisy. If you'd just admit that it's jingoism and your hatred for everything Russian, that's fine. But none of this "our shit don't stink".
This war isn't publicly controversial in Russia, because the dissent is criminalized. (They can't even call it a war.)
I've seen plenty call it a war, and the Russian commentators I follow are quite critical of the Kremlin for being soft. In quite harsh terms, too. Miraculously, they haven't been killed yet, unlike Al-Awlaki and his son.
It wasn't in winter, NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
Just to be clear: you would not be complaining if Russia had done this at the beginning?
NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements
Oh, you're without power cause we bombed your country to smithereens? We're so sowwy about that! Tehehehe!
and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
You watch too much Russian television, or rather, follow the Twitter account of that insane woman too much.
War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the West has some costs.
There was no "thousands". It was 505 civilians and most of them were Kosovars. In one notorious instance, NATO bombs killed some in prison in Kosovo and then the guards gathered in the courtyard and killed many of the rest with gunfire and grenades from the walls. In all, it wasn't even 1% of civilians killed in the Yugoslav wars that Milosevic all started.
Yes, electricity and heating is important in winter for survival of population.
Stop making retard noises while talking to me, you actual retard.
In one notorious instance, NATO bombs killed some in prison in Kosovo and then the guards gathered in the courtyard and killed many of the rest with gunfire and grenades from the walls.
And in another notorious instance, they bombed the Chinese embassy and the civilian target which was the national media.
In all, it wasn't even 1% of civilians killed in the Yugoslav wars that Milosevic all started.
They got to 1% of all the Yugoslav wars in just three months? Impressive civilian exterminating.
Yes, electricity and heating is important in winter for survival of population.
Interesting. Apparently, no one told our governments, given the sanctions they keep imposing on Russia.
Stop making retard noises while talking to me, you actual retard.
Are you still so panicked about Russian mobilization that you're throwing tantrums?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument. It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that. I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s. I think certain things like taking out all power were commonly accepted SOP back then, but would not be seen in the same light now in any NATO operations. I cite the 2011 bombing of Libya, which, according to my general understanding and research I just refreshed, did not target civilian infrastructure and did not target the electric grid. So things have changed even since the 1990s. I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed. And for the record, I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
In a "total war" scenario, I think hitting pretty much all infrastructure is legitimate, however, Putin has been very clear that this is a "special military operation" not a war at all, let alone anything remotely like a "total war". As examples of total wars, I would only point to WW2.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv, and a few other places. It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
So yeah, I think it's pretty bullshit for butthurt russians to go out of their way to try to make things as hard on the Ukrainian civilians as possible and cause as many indirect deaths as possible, especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I agree. My point is not that what Russia does is 'right' - morality is unfortunately irrelevant in international affairs.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv [sic], and a few other places.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
It's obvious that playing Mr. Nice Guy while the West justifies all the atrocities committed by its allies, and gives weapons with which Ukraine can commit war crimes and blow up civilians in Moscow, is stupid as well as ineffective, so Putin stopped cucking.
especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
Hypocrisy and whataboutism are different things. Here, you are engaging in whataboutism, not identification of hypocrisy. It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Instead, what you are doing is saying "it's okay when we do it, because other people did it in the past", which is garden variety whataboutism.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
Yes, we agree on this. I 100% agree with the Russian position when it is correct in a principled way. I also was against the NATO bombing of Libya & intervention in Syria. I also support Armenia against Azerbaijan's aggression.
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it while Democrats are more likely to slavishly follow whatever the media says. One example of how globohomo cucks American power is how the media demonized burn pits, depleted uranium ammo, and white phosphorus, even though all these things are completely legitimate, important military tools.
The US was also forced to fight its wars with huge limitations the Russians don't follow, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in Vietnam. So of course the globohomo condemns the Russians for not following its rules.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
You see on Reddit and Twitter that the Left is like a cult, where even if you agree with them 99% of the time, if you violate the sacred party line even once, you will be marked as an apostate and condemned.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree. God forbid I hold 1 position that isn't the top-polling survey answer for the "far right", I get called all kinds of names and downvoted, lol. Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha. And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
I used to think Perun was a clown when he was new, but as time has gone on and his channel has grown, he puts a lot more work and research into his videos now, so I consider them useful. His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
But I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. I was accusing the Empire of Lies of being hypocrites. And I think the Russians would not object to bombing infrastructure specifically, but point out instead that the Yugoslavia war was completely unjustified and that the West defended what it attacks now.
It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Joe Biden.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it
Like with the war in Iraq. Which wasn't exactly great. That said, the US suffered no international consequences for that. No one stole the reserves of the Fed.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination. The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda, and Germany and the US handed Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and/or precurors which he used to "kill his own people" as they later called it. The EU is presently supporting the genocidal government of Azerbaijan, funding his war machine, and taking photo-ops with Aliyev as a "reliable partner". Going further back, the US and UK aided the Soviet Union in its cover-up of the Katyn massacre that it committed.
So yes, they are perfectly fine with genocide when it suits them. As are the Russians, obviously, The problem is that you are in denial about the people you support, or don't support as in the case of Biden, because you have convinced yourself that he isn't as bad as Whoever.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree.
It isn't exactly the cream of the crop that moved to this Win. But even they are better than the radical left, as they are far more tolerant of slight dissenters like you and me than the radical left would be of someone who disagreed with them on that much.
Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
Some of them definitely have issues, yeah. However, I think I can say with confidence that I have never downvoted you. Because even when I disagree, you generally post interesting and substantive stuff.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha.
But it's odd for this to be 'exceptional' when Russia is doing it. After all, it's standard practice for the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Many people don't understand why. The pro-Russia explanation appears to be that the Kremlin isn't taking the war seriously.
And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
Like I told you, you generally post good stuff, but accusing random people of being FSB officers is pretty crazy stuff. And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
I don't support going after civilians. But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets. The sooner this was can be brought to an end, the better. And as you perhaps remember, I supported making peace in the early weeks in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of the People's Republics and Crimea, because I thought that long wars are rarely worth it.
His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
We'll see.
True only if they are not the aggressor.
With due respect to your country, and I think you often mistake criticism of its foreign policy as an attack on the country or its people, but when in the recent past has the US not been the aggressor? And I say that while being OK with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination.
I consider Xinjiang a cultural genocide, but Russians in Ukraine is just whining and being over-sensitive. Ukraine is fully within its rights to make Ukrainian the official language, yet it didn't go that far. It isn't like Xinjiang where the CCP makes it illegal to own a Koran or to even speak the Uyghur language in private. Ukraine doesn't regulate non-public/government use of Russian.
Russia forcibly relocating Ukrainians in occupied territories and resettling them around Russia is a well-known type of cultural genocide, though, and one the USSR has used many times in the past.
The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda
At the end of the day, even though the Democrats very much wanted to, they did not do so for 2 reasons: (1) the lack of US logistics and infrastructure necessary to even consider any kind large scale of military deployment there, and (2) the clusterfuck of Somalia was fresh in Democrat minds.
Not caring about a genocide in central africa enough to spend enormous money and risking US lives to stop it isn't the same as supporting it.
It isn't exactly the cream of the crop that moved to this Win. But even they are better than the radical left, as they are far more tolerant of slight dissenters like you and me than the radical left would be of someone who disagreed with them on that much.
True, it's unfortunate that there aren't more reasonable people who you can actually have a discussion with. Too many people have a more zealot type mindset and can't be reasoned with. I have had a few people openly try to "drive me out" but I just blocked them so I don't get them in my inbox. I can still see their comments, though, if I look manually, and they're still at it, unaware I can't see their comments usually.
Some of them definitely have issues, yeah. However, I think I can say with confidence that I have never downvoted you. Because even when I disagree, you generally post interesting and substantive stuff.
I don't think I've downvoted you. I generally upvote your comments when I see them because you're usually putting effort into your comments even though they come from a very different perspective.
And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
I agree, it was a virtue signal to be look "look how culturally sensitive I am! I am using the local dialect!" Here's a whole article about why the libs changed it because the dirty Russians use "Kiev". It's always been Kiev in English and that's all that matters. We don't call Germany Deutschland. We don't call VW "fow vey". We don't call Japan "Nihon". We don't call "french fries" Pommes Frites (actually some snooty restaurants here do).
Dugina
I don't think Ukraine was able to pull off a car bombing in Moscow, and there's no evidence it was Ukraine. [FSB says it was based on "trust me, bro, there was totally a chick but she ran away"] If they did it, I would have expected them to keep going and kill a lot more people, and more important ones than her.
But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets.
But the military has plenty of generators and doesn't rely on the civilian power grid, so it isn't really serving any significant military purpose. Bridges in key military areas? Sure. But going after the civilian power grid really isn't going to affect Ukrainian military forces.
And as you perhaps remember, I supported making peace in the early weeks in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of the People's Republics and Crimea, because I thought that long wars are rarely worth it.
Problem was Russia wouldn't agree to that back then because they felt like they were winning, and now Ukraine won't agree to it because they feel like they're winning.
With due respect to your country, and I think you often mistake criticism of its foreign policy as an attack on the country or its people, but when in the recent past has the US not been the aggressor? And I say that while being OK with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
I think Russia acts that way, not the US. People criticize the US all the time and we don't bomb or threaten them for it. Russia makes threats constantly over the smallest slights or perceived lack of respect.
Korea & Vietnam were purely defensive wars, to protect South Korea & Vietnam respectively.
Gulf War 1 was to liberate Kuwait, Iraq being the aggressor.
Kosovo was a NATO operation to protect Kosovo from a Serbian attack. While I disagree with NATO and think Serbia was justified, NATO was intervening to defend Kosovo not attacking unprovoked.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, which was an attack on the US launched by Al Qaeda, which was hosted by the Taliban.
Gulf War 2, continuation of 1 over WMD. More of a grey area.
Libya & Syria = yeah just bullying an unpopular (with the EU) dictator to take advantage of a moment of weakness.
Youtuber is Brian Berletic, an American who claims he lives in Thailand. He works for the Russian government and has had his accounts banned from Facebook and other social media sites for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour.” He was also suspended from Twitter as a propaganda account. For a long time he lied about his name and claimed to be "Tony Cartalucci", but later switched to Brian Berletic. His social media pages trace back to both thailand & Moscow.
He is a paid Russian agent. He has done collab videos with known paid CCP agents such as Daniel Dumbrill. So everything he says should be taken as simple mouthpiece regurgitation of Russian state media talking points.
And, of course, he has been shilling for Russia since day 1 of the war.
Relzung, the OP reposting the Russian agent here, has a post history of pure Russian shilling.
At this point I can only laugh, because all of this is just copium at this point. It is totally divorced from reality. This dude is just giving false talking points to soothe the pain of the people who were rooting for Russia.
Russia continues its war of attrition - focusing on exhausting and overwhelming critical Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine/western Russia;
Russia has been doing this for months and made 0 gains. Bakhmut remains in Ukrainian hands, and it is obviously so well fortified at this point that Russia has no hope of taking it. The only result of Russia's attacks have been lots and lots of dead Russians and lost equipment. An entrenched defender has a huge advantage.
The fact that Russia keeps doubling down on stupid failure at Bakhmut proves that they simply don't have what it takes to win the war. They don't fight with any intelligence or grand strategy. Instead, the only things Russia has proven to be good at in this war are (1) rapid retreats, and (2) extensive entrenchments in some areas. Russia has had 0 offensive success anywhere since the beginning of July, which is now over 5 months ago. Even then, it was a slow and grinding capture of a very small amount of land around Lysychans'k. And that was their only success after their initial surge in February.
Despite claims that Russian missile stockpiles are depleted, Russia continues carrying out regular, large-scale missile barrages against Ukrainian infrastructure;
I follow a lot of big Ukraine commentators on Twitter and nobody is saying Russian missile stockpiles are depleted. They are much lower than at the start of the war, but Russia has been buying lots and lots of Iranian prop missiles (drones) to supplement and allow for the continued attacks on civilian infrastructure, primarily against the civilian electric grid.
Latest US assistance package for Ukraine continues the trend of dwindling, inadequate support for Ukraine;
The US has been giving Ukraine more than enough to sustain its stockpiles and maintain its current needs.
US government procurement numbers over the course of the next 2-5 years indicates that at no time in the near future will the US be capable of producing let alone supplying Ukraine with the number of weapons and ammunition it requires;
Laughably false and totally ignorant of the tens of billions of dollars in extra funding Biden got to massively increase production.
While Russian production data is not available, the fact that Russia's stockpiles and military were configured for large-scale protracted and intense combat suggests its military industrial output is likewise configured for such demands;
lol no, Russia was not so configured. Russia has only been able to sustain thus far because it had lots of cold war stockpiles. We've already seen Russia being forced to dig up 1960s cold war tanks out of storage to replace losses. We have also seen that Russia has had to take lots of ammo from Belarus. Russia has been scraping the barrel in many ways.
Personally, I don't think Russia will run out of ammo, only that it will be forced to ration ammo, meaning that the days of June 2022 where Russia was firing in the high tens of thousands of artillery shells per day are long gone. Russia will never be able to return to those levels for any sustained amount of time.
The Western media is now admitting that Ukraine can neither win, nor is there any moral imperative to ensure that it does.
Of course Ukraine can win. Can it win through decisive military offensives? Probably not, but so what? Afghanistan won its war with Russia, despite having no significant offensive capability at all, unlike Ukraine. Chechnya also won its 1st war against Russia, not by decisively defeating it on the battlefield, but merely by outlasting the russians and humiliating them with some guerilla warfare.
Russia's losses and humiliation in the present war against Ukraine far far outstrip its losses against Afghanistan and Chechnya. Russia's tank inventory has been decimated to the point where it's down to being forced to use T-62s, a 1960s mothballed tank. Russia's artillery inventory has been sharply reduced from its May and June highs. Russia's air forces continue to slowly suffer irreplaceable losses and bleed, when Russia could only afford to buy something like 10 new fighters a year. Russia's helicopter attack forces have been decimated and are not combat effective since they simply can't survive against MANPADS. Russia hasn't been able to use its air force at all except with standoff weapons.
In the war of attrition, Russia has been losing far more, and has far less capacity to adsorb losses. While on paper, Russia is "bigger" than Ukraine, Ukraine is all-in on this war and will fight to the last, whereas Russians are not happy with the war and have gotten nothing but demoralizing bad news for half a year now. Russian sons are dying at high rates, and are going home maimed. Russia has already resorted to emptying to prisons for manpower.
Can Russia sustain anything other than a Korean-War-style locked down defensive line with little to no offensive action on either side? Not at all. Can Ukraine sustain the same? Easily, because Western support for Ukraine will continue indefinitely. The West's economic depth is many orders of magnitude greater than Russia's. Ukraine's manpower depth is far greater than Russia's available manpower since Russia cannot fully mobilize.
He works for the Russian government and has had his accounts banned from Facebook and other social media sites for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour.” He was also suspended from Twitter as a propaganda account.
I will be honest, I find it hilarious to see you on HERE using this as one of your reasons why he is not okay. We talk about social media moderation being absolute ass, they lie about you, etc. yet suddenly their judgement is used as a reason to judge someone?
Not saying he is bad, not saying he isn't. But this is funny.
Same as when certain posters rant about the medical establishment and public education, then moan about how much they want artificial wombs to exist, so they can outsource their kids to those people from before conception.
Chechnya also won its 1st war against Russia, not by decisively defeating it on the battlefield, but merely by outlasting the russians and humiliating them with some guerilla warfare.
The Chechens did win on battlefield, in Grozny in August 1996 when they either killed, captured or surrounded thousands of Russian occupation troops while most of the collaborationist police either defected (Paris 1944 / Prague 1945 style) or deserted. https://reliefweb.int/report/russian-federation/chechens-deadly-swagger
(This most certainly also happened in Warsaw 1944, where the cops were forced back to work by Germans on the pain of death, I just don't remember reading about it specifically other then the Polnische Polizei just never being mentioned by anyone, and all police reinforcements being just the German police from the Warthegau annexed territory, with their strange furred backpacks. While the Russians just shot literally all the police officers they captured in 1939, either immediately or in early in 1940 after interrogations.)
I will be honest, I find it hilarious to see you on HERE using this as one of your reasons why he is not okay. We talk about social media moderation being absolute ass, they lie about you, etc. yet suddenly their judgement is used as a reason to judge someone? Not saying he is bad, not saying he isn't. But this is funny.
I've never been banned anywhere except libtard reddit subs and by reddit tranny admins. Never had an issue with Twitter.
While Twitter did engage in some high profile Democrat-assisting fuckery, it also did an actually good job of taking down foreign propaganda operations. I know this because it is reported on by ADVChina (youtube) who follow CCP propaganda accounts and report on them. Generally speaking these accounts get banned on twitter pretty often, but Google lets them have free reign on Youtube.
Just because SOME moderation is bad, doesn't mean ALL moderation is bad.
There are tons of pro-Russia accounts on twitter. They get retweeted all the time by pro-ukraine posters. I just checked twitter and saw multiple posts citing to and retweeting Russian state media reporters in Ukraine, as well as Russian nationalists like Igor Girkin. So it's obvious that Twitter hasn't been banning the "pro russia" side. Instead, they only ban accounts which do things like post undisclosed propaganda. Sometimes Twitter just flags the account as state affiliated, other times it bans the account if other rules are violated. Generally all the bans have to do with bot-related activity, such as the stealth propaganda account being boosted by bot farms controlled by China/Russia.
Blah blah fucking blah. 32 minutes of a bald cunt sucking russian dick and not actually reporting anything. I am rooting for Russia only because I want this shit to be over soon and it makes western parasites scream. These propaganda shills are just as bad as the western MSM and can fuck off.
My expectation is that the war ends in a peace treaty that cedes Crimea and the majority-russian areas of the country to Russia, or to a newly formed Russia-aligned puppet state.
I thought it may be interesting to introduce a non-mainstream commentator’s analysis about the Ukraine war here, because it’s interesting to see the stark contrast between Brian’s conclusions and those in the MSM. Copied from the show notes: Russia continues its war of attrition - focusing on exhausting and overwhelming critical Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine/western Russia;
And the West continues to cry about it.
Go back to when NATO was doing it, and they were defending it and putting the blame on their victims.
Basically 100% of what the West does boils down to "it's OK when we do it" and "do as I say, not as I do". Don't be racist expired as soon as they wanted to ban Russian athletes, and don't invade other countries will expire as soon as they want to invade yet another country.
This "strange materiał" I mentioned was this, from non-explosive bombs (and so not killing anyone): https://youtube.com/watch?v=QY904Uj859g
Your other commenter mentioned Libya, where they used non-explosive (concrete filled, no warheads) smart bombs to target firing positions and vehicles in civilian areas. "They" here being the French (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/france-dropping-non-explosive-bombs-libya/350160/), with the Americans and the Brits also employing small warhead munitions like the Brimstone missile.
NATO bombs killed plenty of people, including in the civilian targets that they gleefully bombed.
And the Russian targeting of the power supply has had rather few casualties, so the West is not crying about civilian casualties, but about how wrong it is to do what they themselves did to Yugoslavia and many other countries.
It's bad when they do it! They bad! Our bombs good!
Thank you, me lord, for... sometimes refraining from using non-explosive "smart" bombs in your war of aggression.
They didn't "gleefully bombed" and it was always extremely controversial in their (our) countries.
The political leaders who never apologized are Putin's buddies Schroeder and Blair.
Biden: https://youtube.com/watch?v=urspubn1pmw
No retard sounds of yours (a retard), and no "War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the East has some costs" too.
Oh, if it being 'controversial' justifies it, then you need to make up your mind about whether the war is controversial in Russia or not.
Impressive how you can turn the destruction of Yugoslavia into "Putin bad". Do we then agree that it was bad for the corrupt west to wreck that country?
We had no state TV shows where people talked about exterminating Serbia in our "jihad" against "Satan" while smiling.
And being controversial means a plenty of people thought it was unjustified, wrong, and even actually criminal, and spoke about it as such. They were in mass media, they were in politics, and they weren't being jailed for this.
It wasn't Yugoslavia, this country had ceased to exist 8 years prior. It was the new "SFR Yugoslavia", and even this minus Montenegro even before Montenegro formally seceded from Serbia. It was really just this, Serbia and Kosovo. And NATO killed only about 3-4% or so of the civilians who died in the Kosovo war.
I am not sure why bombing a country to smithereens is better depending on what your state TV is broadcasting.
It was criminal, and yet they did it. And if they could, they'd have jailed their critics as well. For now, they must be satisfied with just calling them Putin puppets or Russian spies.
So a special military operation in order to protect the Muslims of Albania against Nazi drug addicts? How interesting. But do tell me again that it's OK when you do it.
It wasn't any "corrupt west" that did things like that in the actual "destruction of Yugoslavia" (another one caught, convicted in Serbia and extradited to Croatia): https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/12/serbia-extradites-vukovar-massacre-convict-to-croatia/
This war isn't publicly controversial in Russia, because the dissent is criminalized. (They can't even call it a war.)
But do tell me if you will condemn what the corrupt West did there.
Look, the reason I find Western apologists particularly obnoxious is because of the hypocrisy. If you'd just admit that it's jingoism and your hatred for everything Russian, that's fine. But none of this "our shit don't stink".
I've seen plenty call it a war, and the Russian commentators I follow are quite critical of the Kremlin for being soft. In quite harsh terms, too. Miraculously, they haven't been killed yet, unlike Al-Awlaki and his son.
It wasn't in winter, NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
Just to be clear: you would not be complaining if Russia had done this at the beginning?
Oh, you're without power cause we bombed your country to smithereens? We're so sowwy about that! Tehehehe!
You watch too much Russian television, or rather, follow the Twitter account of that insane woman too much.
War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the West has some costs.
"Insane woman" for her showing the madness that millions of Russians watch every day?
Biden personally apologized to Serbia years ago. Without making your retard sounds.
"At the beginning" there was winter too.
I note you immediately grasped whom I was talking about.
Hey, about that whole killing thousands of your fellow countrymen? I'm sorry! [poses before fireplace] C'mon man, don't be lame and such as!
Time does fly.
Then in May. Or would you then say that it's not OK because winter is coming?
It would just be easier if you made your standard 'anything Russia does bad, anything Murica does good'.
And about this massacre, as it happens a suspect was just arrested few days ago: https://balkaninsight.com/2022/12/02/kosovo-police-arrests-suspect-for-dubrava-prison-massacre/
I note you're medically retarded.
There was no "thousands". It was 505 civilians and most of them were Kosovars. In one notorious instance, NATO bombs killed some in prison in Kosovo and then the guards gathered in the courtyard and killed many of the rest with gunfire and grenades from the walls. In all, it wasn't even 1% of civilians killed in the Yugoslav wars that Milosevic all started.
Yes, electricity and heating is important in winter for survival of population.
Stop making retard noises while talking to me, you actual retard.
And in another notorious instance, they bombed the Chinese embassy and the civilian target which was the national media.
They got to 1% of all the Yugoslav wars in just three months? Impressive civilian exterminating.
Interesting. Apparently, no one told our governments, given the sanctions they keep imposing on Russia.
Are you still so panicked about Russian mobilization that you're throwing tantrums?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument. It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that. I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s. I think certain things like taking out all power were commonly accepted SOP back then, but would not be seen in the same light now in any NATO operations. I cite the 2011 bombing of Libya, which, according to my general understanding and research I just refreshed, did not target civilian infrastructure and did not target the electric grid. So things have changed even since the 1990s. I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed. And for the record, I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
In a "total war" scenario, I think hitting pretty much all infrastructure is legitimate, however, Putin has been very clear that this is a "special military operation" not a war at all, let alone anything remotely like a "total war". As examples of total wars, I would only point to WW2.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv, and a few other places. It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
So yeah, I think it's pretty bullshit for butthurt russians to go out of their way to try to make things as hard on the Ukrainian civilians as possible and cause as many indirect deaths as possible, especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I agree. My point is not that what Russia does is 'right' - morality is unfortunately irrelevant in international affairs.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
It's obvious that playing Mr. Nice Guy while the West justifies all the atrocities committed by its allies, and gives weapons with which Ukraine can commit war crimes and blow up civilians in Moscow, is stupid as well as ineffective, so Putin stopped cucking.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
Hypocrisy and whataboutism are different things. Here, you are engaging in whataboutism, not identification of hypocrisy. It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Instead, what you are doing is saying "it's okay when we do it, because other people did it in the past", which is garden variety whataboutism.
Yes, we agree on this. I 100% agree with the Russian position when it is correct in a principled way. I also was against the NATO bombing of Libya & intervention in Syria. I also support Armenia against Azerbaijan's aggression.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it while Democrats are more likely to slavishly follow whatever the media says. One example of how globohomo cucks American power is how the media demonized burn pits, depleted uranium ammo, and white phosphorus, even though all these things are completely legitimate, important military tools.
The US was also forced to fight its wars with huge limitations the Russians don't follow, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in Vietnam. So of course the globohomo condemns the Russians for not following its rules.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
You see on Reddit and Twitter that the Left is like a cult, where even if you agree with them 99% of the time, if you violate the sacred party line even once, you will be marked as an apostate and condemned.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree. God forbid I hold 1 position that isn't the top-polling survey answer for the "far right", I get called all kinds of names and downvoted, lol. Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha. And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
wat
Here's a video from a popular youtuber named Perun about how going after civilians is not an effective strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE6RINU8JLg
I used to think Perun was a clown when he was new, but as time has gone on and his channel has grown, he puts a lot more work and research into his videos now, so I consider them useful. His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
True only if they are not the aggressor.
But I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. I was accusing the Empire of Lies of being hypocrites. And I think the Russians would not object to bombing infrastructure specifically, but point out instead that the Yugoslavia war was completely unjustified and that the West defended what it attacks now.
Joe Biden.
Like with the war in Iraq. Which wasn't exactly great. That said, the US suffered no international consequences for that. No one stole the reserves of the Fed.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination. The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda, and Germany and the US handed Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and/or precurors which he used to "kill his own people" as they later called it. The EU is presently supporting the genocidal government of Azerbaijan, funding his war machine, and taking photo-ops with Aliyev as a "reliable partner". Going further back, the US and UK aided the Soviet Union in its cover-up of the Katyn massacre that it committed.
So yes, they are perfectly fine with genocide when it suits them. As are the Russians, obviously, The problem is that you are in denial about the people you support, or don't support as in the case of Biden, because you have convinced yourself that he isn't as bad as Whoever.
It isn't exactly the cream of the crop that moved to this Win. But even they are better than the radical left, as they are far more tolerant of slight dissenters like you and me than the radical left would be of someone who disagreed with them on that much.
Some of them definitely have issues, yeah. However, I think I can say with confidence that I have never downvoted you. Because even when I disagree, you generally post interesting and substantive stuff.
But it's odd for this to be 'exceptional' when Russia is doing it. After all, it's standard practice for the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Many people don't understand why. The pro-Russia explanation appears to be that the Kremlin isn't taking the war seriously.
Like I told you, you generally post good stuff, but accusing random people of being FSB officers is pretty crazy stuff. And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
Dugina.
I don't support going after civilians. But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets. The sooner this was can be brought to an end, the better. And as you perhaps remember, I supported making peace in the early weeks in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of the People's Republics and Crimea, because I thought that long wars are rarely worth it.
We'll see.
With due respect to your country, and I think you often mistake criticism of its foreign policy as an attack on the country or its people, but when in the recent past has the US not been the aggressor? And I say that while being OK with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
I consider Xinjiang a cultural genocide, but Russians in Ukraine is just whining and being over-sensitive. Ukraine is fully within its rights to make Ukrainian the official language, yet it didn't go that far. It isn't like Xinjiang where the CCP makes it illegal to own a Koran or to even speak the Uyghur language in private. Ukraine doesn't regulate non-public/government use of Russian.
Russia forcibly relocating Ukrainians in occupied territories and resettling them around Russia is a well-known type of cultural genocide, though, and one the USSR has used many times in the past.
At the end of the day, even though the Democrats very much wanted to, they did not do so for 2 reasons: (1) the lack of US logistics and infrastructure necessary to even consider any kind large scale of military deployment there, and (2) the clusterfuck of Somalia was fresh in Democrat minds.
Not caring about a genocide in central africa enough to spend enormous money and risking US lives to stop it isn't the same as supporting it.
True, it's unfortunate that there aren't more reasonable people who you can actually have a discussion with. Too many people have a more zealot type mindset and can't be reasoned with. I have had a few people openly try to "drive me out" but I just blocked them so I don't get them in my inbox. I can still see their comments, though, if I look manually, and they're still at it, unaware I can't see their comments usually.
I don't think I've downvoted you. I generally upvote your comments when I see them because you're usually putting effort into your comments even though they come from a very different perspective.
I agree, it was a virtue signal to be look "look how culturally sensitive I am! I am using the local dialect!" Here's a whole article about why the libs changed it because the dirty Russians use "Kiev". It's always been Kiev in English and that's all that matters. We don't call Germany Deutschland. We don't call VW "fow vey". We don't call Japan "Nihon". We don't call "french fries" Pommes Frites (actually some snooty restaurants here do).
I don't think Ukraine was able to pull off a car bombing in Moscow, and there's no evidence it was Ukraine. [FSB says it was based on "trust me, bro, there was totally a chick but she ran away"] If they did it, I would have expected them to keep going and kill a lot more people, and more important ones than her.
But the military has plenty of generators and doesn't rely on the civilian power grid, so it isn't really serving any significant military purpose. Bridges in key military areas? Sure. But going after the civilian power grid really isn't going to affect Ukrainian military forces.
Problem was Russia wouldn't agree to that back then because they felt like they were winning, and now Ukraine won't agree to it because they feel like they're winning.
I think Russia acts that way, not the US. People criticize the US all the time and we don't bomb or threaten them for it. Russia makes threats constantly over the smallest slights or perceived lack of respect.
Korea & Vietnam were purely defensive wars, to protect South Korea & Vietnam respectively.
Gulf War 1 was to liberate Kuwait, Iraq being the aggressor.
Kosovo was a NATO operation to protect Kosovo from a Serbian attack. While I disagree with NATO and think Serbia was justified, NATO was intervening to defend Kosovo not attacking unprovoked.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, which was an attack on the US launched by Al Qaeda, which was hosted by the Taliban.
Gulf War 2, continuation of 1 over WMD. More of a grey area.
Libya & Syria = yeah just bullying an unpopular (with the EU) dictator to take advantage of a moment of weakness.
Youtuber is Brian Berletic, an American who claims he lives in Thailand. He works for the Russian government and has had his accounts banned from Facebook and other social media sites for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour.” He was also suspended from Twitter as a propaganda account. For a long time he lied about his name and claimed to be "Tony Cartalucci", but later switched to Brian Berletic. His social media pages trace back to both thailand & Moscow.
He is a paid Russian agent. He has done collab videos with known paid CCP agents such as Daniel Dumbrill. So everything he says should be taken as simple mouthpiece regurgitation of Russian state media talking points.
And, of course, he has been shilling for Russia since day 1 of the war.
Relzung, the OP reposting the Russian agent here, has a post history of pure Russian shilling.
At this point I can only laugh, because all of this is just copium at this point. It is totally divorced from reality. This dude is just giving false talking points to soothe the pain of the people who were rooting for Russia.
Russia has been doing this for months and made 0 gains. Bakhmut remains in Ukrainian hands, and it is obviously so well fortified at this point that Russia has no hope of taking it. The only result of Russia's attacks have been lots and lots of dead Russians and lost equipment. An entrenched defender has a huge advantage.
The fact that Russia keeps doubling down on stupid failure at Bakhmut proves that they simply don't have what it takes to win the war. They don't fight with any intelligence or grand strategy. Instead, the only things Russia has proven to be good at in this war are (1) rapid retreats, and (2) extensive entrenchments in some areas. Russia has had 0 offensive success anywhere since the beginning of July, which is now over 5 months ago. Even then, it was a slow and grinding capture of a very small amount of land around Lysychans'k. And that was their only success after their initial surge in February.
I follow a lot of big Ukraine commentators on Twitter and nobody is saying Russian missile stockpiles are depleted. They are much lower than at the start of the war, but Russia has been buying lots and lots of Iranian prop missiles (drones) to supplement and allow for the continued attacks on civilian infrastructure, primarily against the civilian electric grid.
The US has been giving Ukraine more than enough to sustain its stockpiles and maintain its current needs.
Laughably false and totally ignorant of the tens of billions of dollars in extra funding Biden got to massively increase production.
lol no, Russia was not so configured. Russia has only been able to sustain thus far because it had lots of cold war stockpiles. We've already seen Russia being forced to dig up 1960s cold war tanks out of storage to replace losses. We have also seen that Russia has had to take lots of ammo from Belarus. Russia has been scraping the barrel in many ways.
Personally, I don't think Russia will run out of ammo, only that it will be forced to ration ammo, meaning that the days of June 2022 where Russia was firing in the high tens of thousands of artillery shells per day are long gone. Russia will never be able to return to those levels for any sustained amount of time.
Of course Ukraine can win. Can it win through decisive military offensives? Probably not, but so what? Afghanistan won its war with Russia, despite having no significant offensive capability at all, unlike Ukraine. Chechnya also won its 1st war against Russia, not by decisively defeating it on the battlefield, but merely by outlasting the russians and humiliating them with some guerilla warfare.
Russia's losses and humiliation in the present war against Ukraine far far outstrip its losses against Afghanistan and Chechnya. Russia's tank inventory has been decimated to the point where it's down to being forced to use T-62s, a 1960s mothballed tank. Russia's artillery inventory has been sharply reduced from its May and June highs. Russia's air forces continue to slowly suffer irreplaceable losses and bleed, when Russia could only afford to buy something like 10 new fighters a year. Russia's helicopter attack forces have been decimated and are not combat effective since they simply can't survive against MANPADS. Russia hasn't been able to use its air force at all except with standoff weapons.
In the war of attrition, Russia has been losing far more, and has far less capacity to adsorb losses. While on paper, Russia is "bigger" than Ukraine, Ukraine is all-in on this war and will fight to the last, whereas Russians are not happy with the war and have gotten nothing but demoralizing bad news for half a year now. Russian sons are dying at high rates, and are going home maimed. Russia has already resorted to emptying to prisons for manpower.
Can Russia sustain anything other than a Korean-War-style locked down defensive line with little to no offensive action on either side? Not at all. Can Ukraine sustain the same? Easily, because Western support for Ukraine will continue indefinitely. The West's economic depth is many orders of magnitude greater than Russia's. Ukraine's manpower depth is far greater than Russia's available manpower since Russia cannot fully mobilize.
I will be honest, I find it hilarious to see you on HERE using this as one of your reasons why he is not okay. We talk about social media moderation being absolute ass, they lie about you, etc. yet suddenly their judgement is used as a reason to judge someone?
Not saying he is bad, not saying he isn't. But this is funny.
Same as when certain posters rant about the medical establishment and public education, then moan about how much they want artificial wombs to exist, so they can outsource their kids to those people from before conception.
The Chechens did win on battlefield, in Grozny in August 1996 when they either killed, captured or surrounded thousands of Russian occupation troops while most of the collaborationist police either defected (Paris 1944 / Prague 1945 style) or deserted. https://reliefweb.int/report/russian-federation/chechens-deadly-swagger
(This most certainly also happened in Warsaw 1944, where the cops were forced back to work by Germans on the pain of death, I just don't remember reading about it specifically other then the Polnische Polizei just never being mentioned by anyone, and all police reinforcements being just the German police from the Warthegau annexed territory, with their strange furred backpacks. While the Russians just shot literally all the police officers they captured in 1939, either immediately or in early in 1940 after interrogations.)
I've never been banned anywhere except libtard reddit subs and by reddit tranny admins. Never had an issue with Twitter.
While Twitter did engage in some high profile Democrat-assisting fuckery, it also did an actually good job of taking down foreign propaganda operations. I know this because it is reported on by ADVChina (youtube) who follow CCP propaganda accounts and report on them. Generally speaking these accounts get banned on twitter pretty often, but Google lets them have free reign on Youtube.
Just because SOME moderation is bad, doesn't mean ALL moderation is bad.
There are tons of pro-Russia accounts on twitter. They get retweeted all the time by pro-ukraine posters. I just checked twitter and saw multiple posts citing to and retweeting Russian state media reporters in Ukraine, as well as Russian nationalists like Igor Girkin. So it's obvious that Twitter hasn't been banning the "pro russia" side. Instead, they only ban accounts which do things like post undisclosed propaganda. Sometimes Twitter just flags the account as state affiliated, other times it bans the account if other rules are violated. Generally all the bans have to do with bot-related activity, such as the stealth propaganda account being boosted by bot farms controlled by China/Russia.
Wow. You completely missed her point. You inexplicably threw to right field when the play was a steal of home plate. 0%. Not even close.
Russia derangement syndrome much?
We’ll see.
Blah blah fucking blah. 32 minutes of a bald cunt sucking russian dick and not actually reporting anything. I am rooting for Russia only because I want this shit to be over soon and it makes western parasites scream. These propaganda shills are just as bad as the western MSM and can fuck off.
My expectation is that the war ends in a peace treaty that cedes Crimea and the majority-russian areas of the country to Russia, or to a newly formed Russia-aligned puppet state.
Who you view that as a victory for is up to you.