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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.