Let's Invade Russia!

[Angra Mainyu]

It was shown in reality.

Everything happens in reality, so that's not informative. Again, where was it shown?

You should research more.

No, that's not true. I do research, and in fact I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find evidence supporting the claims you make and for which you provide no support at all.

That's debatable. And if it is true then so what? Important thing whether or not Russian targets civilians and they don't. There is simply no benefit for Putin to target civilians. The whole thing was devised largely for propaganda purposes for the the World, to show that Russia can do it and do it clean. Was it absolutely clean, most likely now, but what western propaganda reports was largely one sided lies.

Actually, there is more than one issue. Targeting civilians would is murder. But killing civilians without taking reasonable precautions, in the context of a war carried out for unethical reasons?
Let me give you an example: a bank robber blows up the vault's door and kills a by-standard, knowing that she would be killed, though without targeting her. Is that not murder? I guess there is a definitional issue here. But morally, it's still very bad. Russia kills civilians in massive numbers in wars it carries out for immoral purposes (not bank robbery, but other immoral purposes), so that's also pretty bad.

But moreover, let's say that this isn't the case, and the purpose is not immoral. Even so, it's pretty immoral to disregard civilian lives and kill them in masses. Let's say, for example, that a serial killer is hiding in a hospital. In order to protect people from further actions on his part, someone decides to blow up the hospital with a bomb, with everyone inside. There was no targeting of civilians, and the motivation (to stop the serial killer) was not bad. But even so, the action of the bomber was very immoral. Was it not murder? I guess one can debate semantics, so the targeting case is easier. But morally, it's still massively wrong.

There is simply no benefit for Putin to target civilians. The whole thing was devised largely for propaganda purposes for the the World, to show that Russia can do it and do it clean. Was it absolutely clean, most likely now, but what western propaganda reports was largely one sided lies.

With that criterion, there would simply be no benefit for Assad to target civilians, either. But he surely does so regularly. One of the potential motivations is that it causes terror among civilians who oppose his rule and even sympathize with some of the armed groups, and gets them to leave the area. Another possible motive is that it gets some enemy combatants to flee as well, so that their families are not targeted anymore. Another possible motive is that some civilians are nurses and doctors and would help enemy combatants. Targeting them will discourage other civilians from working at hospitals anymore. And so on. But regardless of Assad's motive, he surely targets civilians, and does so better with the assistance of Putin. What would Putin's motivation be? Well, mostly help Assad out, so that he wins the war.

Your claims about "Western propaganda" are not only not backed up by any reasonably good piece of evidence from you (or any I could find), but it's even about some groups that, if anything, are biased against the West, not for it.

True, they don't intend to bomb weddings, yet it's pretty much weekly occurrence.

It's not at all a weekly occurrence, but sure, they end up bombing and killing a lot more civilians than intended. They should change their tactics, no doubt.

These reports are not worth a shit.

Do you see the problem if you discuss in that manner?
Sure, you can always dismiss anything saying it's not worth a shit. But I look at the evidence, and your claim has nothing to back it up. There are doubts about some of the reports, no doubt. But they keep piling on, and from different sources, including sources that are surely not Western propaganda. In the end, the evidence is a lot.

They are based on reports from terrorists themselves.

While terrorists often lie to accuse their enemies of targeting civilians, overall the evidence does not seem to be like that in these cases. There are too many reports from different sources, including some of which there is no evidence to reckon they are terrorists.

You are repeating anti-russian propaganda verbatim.

Do you see how a rational discussion can't be had if one of the parties simply dismisses arguments and/or reports as "lies", "propaganda", etc., without actually giving any pieces of evidence in support of his claims?
I assess the claims of others in context, considering where they are vs. where you are, potential motivations for lying, etc.; your claims do not have any significant weight in a context like this, so if you want to make an argument, you would need to back them up in some way.

You have got to be kidding me, I am going to end this whole discussion with you. We are done here.

As you wish. But you should realize that you're very mistaken about what's going on in this exchange. The "You have got to be kidding me" clearly indicates you think you have a far better case. But you have made many claims, and provided nothing. Now, I tried to search from other sources, try to see whether there was some significant evidence in support of your claims. But there is not, as far as I can google. And I can google quite a lot. Again, if there is some obscure site where you can find evidence, I would be willing to read it, check whether it's credible, etc. The fact that you say we're done here suggests there will be nothing of the sort, though. But then, I can only assess the evidence I can find.

Until you rethink your approach and start process all information critically I see no point to respond to your propaganda rebroadcasts. Seriously what's the point? I live here I can see it myself. This propaganda is not supposed to work on me, it is supposed to work on western countries and it does work.

You're way off here (also, again, what countries are those?). You should start processing information critically. You're clearly biased towards Russia.

 

[barbos]

You are not interested in hearing opposing point of view and maybe changing your view as a result. You are interested in winning the debate by any means possible. I am as tired of western propaganda as I am tired of russian one. But at least I heard them both, you are listening only to one side and actively ignore any noise from other. There is no way I can change your one-sided and clearly misinformed opinion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are not interested in hearing opposing point of view and maybe changing your view as a result. You are interested in winning the debate by any means possible.

This is both false and unwarranted.

I am as tired of western propaganda as I am tired of russian one. But at least I heard them both, you are listening only to one side and actively ignore any noise from other. There is no way I can change your one-sided and clearly misinformed opinion.

Actually, I have read plenty of pieces from RT and Sputnik. They're absurd in their defense of Russia. On the other hand, Western media outlets are biased in several different directions, but most of them are not Western propaganda. And I take a look at claims from different sides. I do the same when it comes to, say, claims made by left-wing and right-wing media, different religions, and so on.

 

[barbos]

You are not interested in hearing opposing point of view and maybe changing your view as a result. You are interested in winning the debate by any means possible.

This is both false and unwarranted.

Sure.

I am as tired of western propaganda as I am tired of russian one. But at least I heard them both, you are listening only to one side and actively ignore any noise from other. There is no way I can change your one-sided and clearly misinformed opinion.

Actually, I have read plenty of pieces from RT and Sputnik. They're absurd in their defense of Russia.

Now you understand how western media looks to people who live in Russia.

On the other hand, Western media outlets are biased in several different directions, but most of them are not Western propaganda. And I take a look at claims from different sides. I do the same when it comes to, say, claims made by left-wing and right-wing media, different religions, and so on.

Here is a thing, you don't know shit about subject if you base your opinion on western media plus RT/Sputnik. That's why I mentioned Matlock, unfortunately it flew right through your head.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Now you understand how western media looks to people who live in Russia.

First, when I look at Western media outlets like CNN, BBC, The Guardian, NYT, WP, NBC, Fox News, etc., what I see is different degrees of bias towards left or right. Some of them make some absurd claims regularly. Others do not. None of those is a tool of Western propaganda, and in fact, some of them are leftists considerably biased against the US government, the UK government, and several other Western governments.
They are nothing like Sputnik or RT or other media who engage in defending Russia from accusations.
Second, I don't look merely at Western media, but also reports from organizations like Amnesty or HRW, and also look at their sources. They are biased in different ways, but again, those are not propaganda outlets, and Amnesty in particular is usually biased against Western governments.
Third, I also look at media from other sources, e.g., local media here.

Fourth, if Western media looks to people who live in Russia like RT/Sputnik look to me, then those people who live in Russia are very mistaken. But that's unsurprising, since Russian propaganda seems to be pretty effective in Russia (now, of course not all people who live in Russia think like that).

Fifth, by the way, I'm not in a country that is either an ally or an enemy of Russia, or of the US.

Here is a thing, you don't know shit about subject if you base your opinion on western media plus RT/Sputnik. That's why I mentioned Matlock, unfortunately it flew right through your head.

Actually, that would provide a good amount of info, especially because of some of the Western media outlets. But you should not believe I base my info only on that. As I pointed out, I also read from organizations like Amnesty or HRW (which are not media outlets), and I take a look at their sources. I also look at info that might be in the local media here (not that much, on those matters), and Al-Jazeera (biased of course, though not particularly pro-West). I also read articles in the Moscow Times sometimes.

Obviously, the amount of time I can dedicate to issues like that is limited. I do read more than most people, and also from different sources. But other than that, I repeatedly asked you to provide alternative sources if you had them, but you did not. So, I went further to search for something supporting your claims. I got nothing beyond absurd Russian propaganda and absurd pro-Russia activists. And that's it. You could still provide alternative sources, and I would read them. But on the basis of the evidence available to me (and, again, after doing a fair deal of searching), I reckon the Russian government is both murderous and oppressive.

Actually, you did not mention Matlock. You talked about some ambassador, I searched for it, and found what he said, and pointed out that even if he were correct about Crimea, the Russian government would remain murderous and oppressive, as the information against it is not limited to Crimea, and nearly all of it has nothing to do with Crimea, so it's beside the point in the context of our discussion.

Still, if you want to discuss whether Russia is a threat to its neighbors (instead of whether the government is murderous or oppressive), alright, we can discuss Ukraine (including Crimea), Georgia, etc., as well as the reasons the governments Baltic states consider Russia to be a threat.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Are you invading Russia from the East and you're Mongolian and willing to resort to genocide? Then you can succeed. Are you invading from the West. Remember the enemies you cannot fight, General Mud and General Winter.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[LordKiran]

Are you invading Russia from the East and you're Mongolian and willing to resort to genocide? Then you can succeed. Are you invading from the West. Remember the enemies you cannot fight, General Mud and General Winter.

Eldarion Lathria

Mud and winter are not the barriers to invasion they once were. Still challenging, but not nearly as so. More importantly, the winters can be planned around. The war doesn't have to end quickly, Russia has historically treated its expansive lands as a natural barrier to invasion, this can be made to work in your favor. The problem has always been that nobody wanted to get caught in a protracted war with Russia, so they(Hitler, Napoleon) tried to score a fast knock-out punch. Such victories are rare however when two opposing forces with relative parity are fighting.

 

[barbos]

Now you understand how western media looks to people who live in Russia.

First, when I look at Western media outlets like CNN, BBC, The Guardian, NYT, WP, NBC, Fox News, etc., what I see is different degrees of bias towards left or right. Some of them make some absurd claims regularly. Others do not. None of those is a tool of Western propaganda, and in fact, some of them are leftists considerably biased against the US government, the UK government, and several other Western governments.
They are nothing like Sputnik or RT or other media who engage in defending Russia from accusations.
Second, I don't look merely at Western media, but also reports from organizations like Amnesty or HRW, and also look at their sources. They are biased in different ways, but again, those are not propaganda outlets, and Amnesty in particular is usually biased against Western governments.
Third, I also look at media from other sources, e.g., local media here.

Fourth, if Western media looks to people who live in Russia like RT/Sputnik look to me, then those people who live in Russia are very mistaken. But that's unsurprising, since Russian propaganda seems to be pretty effective in Russia (now, of course not all people who live in Russia think like that).

Fifth, by the way, I'm not in a country that is either an ally or an enemy of Russia, or of the US.

Here is a thing, you don't know shit about subject if you base your opinion on western media plus RT/Sputnik. That's why I mentioned Matlock, unfortunately it flew right through your head.

Actually, that would provide a good amount of info, especially because of some of the Western media outlets. But you should not believe I base my info only on that. As I pointed out, I also read from organizations like Amnesty or HRW (which are not media outlets), and I take a look at their sources. I also look at info that might be in the local media here (not that much, on those matters), and Al-Jazeera (biased of course, though not particularly pro-West). I also read articles in the Moscow Times sometimes.

Obviously, the amount of time I can dedicate to issues like that is limited. I do read more than most people, and also from different sources. But other than that, I repeatedly asked you to provide alternative sources if you had them, but you did not. So, I went further to search for something supporting your claims. I got nothing beyond absurd Russian propaganda and absurd pro-Russia activists. And that's it. You could still provide alternative sources, and I would read them. But on the basis of the evidence available to me (and, again, after doing a fair deal of searching), I reckon the Russian government is both murderous and oppressive.

Actually, you did not mention Matlock. You talked about some ambassador, I searched for it, and found what he said, and pointed out that even if he were correct about Crimea, the Russian government would remain murderous and oppressive, as the information against it is not limited to Crimea, and nearly all of it has nothing to do with Crimea, so it's beside the point in the context of our discussion.

Still, if you want to discuss whether Russia is a threat to its neighbors (instead of whether the government is murderous or oppressive), alright, we can discuss Ukraine (including Crimea), Georgia, etc., as well as the reasons the governments Baltic states consider Russia to be a threat.

I think we are done here, You are completely wrong about everything and there is nothing anybody can do to educate you. You simply can not be educated.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are completely wrong about everything and there is nothing anybody can do to educate you. You simply can not be educated.

You're not only mistaken. You are being epistemically rational. The information available to you in no way warrants your assessment about me. Even if you had enough reasons to believe that I'm completely wrong about everything - not even close -, you should not come to believe I "can not be educated".
You are not being rational in your pro-Russia bias, and now in your anti-me bias. But I do think you can do better - much better. You just have to make an effort to keep a cool head when discussing Russia (otherwise, your ability to reason properly is likely to be harmed), and to look at the available evidence not through the prism of your pro-Russia ideology, trying to figure out why people do what they do. Your claims about Western propaganda outlets are particularly off the mark. The vast majority of the people you accuse of being so are not remotely interested in engaging in Western propaganda - and more importantly, that you should realize are not interested in that.

 

[barbos]

You are completely wrong about everything and there is nothing anybody can do to educate you. You simply can not be educated.

You're not only mistaken. You are being epistemically rational. The information available to you in no way warrants your assessment about me. Even if you had enough reasons to believe that I'm completely wrong about everything - not even close -, you should not come to believe I "can not be educated".
You are not being rational in your pro-Russia bias, and now in your anti-me bias. But I do think you can do better - much better. You just have to make an effort to keep a cool head when discussing Russia (otherwise, your ability to reason properly is likely to be harmed), and to look at the available evidence not through the prism of your pro-Russia ideology, trying to figure out why people do what they do. Your claims about Western propaganda outlets are particularly off the mark. The vast majority of the people you accuse of being so are not remotely interested in engaging in Western propaganda - and more importantly, that you should realize are not interested in that.

Again, you are flat out wrong about everything. I mean literally.

 

[SLD]

So time to resurrect this old thread. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has suddenly made the prospect of the west actually facing having to fight Russian forces if not actually invade Russia.

So let’s turn to the issue of how tactically such a war could be played out.

In my opinion, it would be largely an aerial war. Ground forces would go in only when there was minimal resistance. I don’t see NATO actually attacking into Russian territory, except to engage their air forces and shove them back. Then their ground forces in Ukraine become suddenly very vulnerable. You’d see them quickly retreat. Especially by heavy weapons, tanks, missile and artillery batteries. They would want to husband those more than infantry.

I don’t think it would last very long. I think they’ve demonstrated that they can’t do logistics at all. As such any sustained resistance will force them back, but to truly defeat them will require a serious commitment and is risky.

 

[steve_bank]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

No nukes.

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed? There's less space to conquer without Ukraine and Byelorussia and the Baltics. But of course Hitler captured all of them fairly quickly and then got bogged down. But Hitler's problem was manpower vs space to conquer. He had to control Ukraine. He pissed off the locals as well and they kept quite a few divisions tied up. Plus he was distracted by his Antisemetic policies which tied up huge numbers of troops. But still I just watched a special on Operation Bagration. What a horror show for the Germans. Even if it could be done it would be rough.

SLD

It would come to nuclear weapons if an invasion got that far. Probably well before Moscow was actually threatened.

Regardless of the circumstances Russians are very patriotic and remember WWII. Russian civilians would react as the Ukrainians are doing. Russian civilians would be galvanized.

 

[Politesse]

Russians and Ukrainians are alike in their tenacity, judging by all historical precedents.

 

[SLD]

The question though is a tactical one. Suppose that Putin decided to strike at Poland because that’s where the Ukrainian resistance supply lines are located. What’s the play after that scenario?

In my opinion, you defend the Baltic states, but don’t attack there. Instead, you use Ukraine, where their army is tied up. But first you hit their bases in Western Russia, Crimea, and Byelorussia. That has to be done quickly and coordinated. Then your free to maneuver air assets into the battlefield and armored columns through Ukraine to strike at Russian supply lines. The key is to continue striking at their supply points and disrupting their logistics. Without fuel and food the Russian armored columns are cut off, and I would expect their crews to abandon their vehicles and flee back or surrender without a fight. Then you start relieving Mariupol, driving a wedge in the Russian lines. Maybe cut them off at several points as you drive their flanks into the sea.

You stop once they retreat back to Russia and Crimea and declare victory at that point, saying to a battered and defeated Russia, that’s all you intend to do and if they want peace, they can have it now.

I don’t think that would lead to nuclear war, especially if you made it clear that you intended to go no further.

We’d keep our fleet in the Atlantic and only hit naval assets that went there, I.e. submarines. You’d leave Kaliningrad alone and otherwise just engage any air assets that crossed over Russian territory.

 

[steve_bank]

Ukraine was where Russia battled Germany.

There was short term extreme brutality on some of Pacific island campaigns.

It pales compared to the Russian battle with Germany. In Stalingrad it was room to room over who controlled a single building. It was about annihilation. Utter dehumanization.

The Russians had the numbers and it was a war of attrition. Mass attacks. Total Soviet casualty estimates run from 20 to 30 million. Te firsdt time I read the WWII casualty summaries my draw dropped.

At Sytimgrad they were short of rifles. In an attack unarmed men ran forward knowing there would be rifles to pick up.

If there is anything to the reporting, the Russian conscripts are not so tenacious and there are defections to the Ukrainian side.

It is Barbarossa in reverse. This time it is Ukrainians not Russians with their backs against the wall fighting for home and family.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ukraine was where Russia battled Germany.

There was short term extreme brutality on some of Pacific island campaigns.

It pales compared to the Russian battle with Germany. In Stalingrad it was room to room over who controlled a single building. It was about annihilation. Utter dehumanization.

The Russians had the numbers and it was a war of attrition. Mass attacks. Total Soviet casualty estimates run from 20 to 30 million. Te firsdt time I read the WWII casualty summaries my draw dropped.

At Sytimgrad they were short of rifles. In an attack unarmed men ran forward knowing there would be rifles to pick up.

If there is anything to the reporting, the Russian conscripts are not so tenacious and there are defections to the Ukrainian side.

It is Barbarossa in reverse. This time it is Ukrainians not Russians with their backs against the wall fighting for home and family.

The difference being that in WW2 Kiev was spared (due to one of military histories dumbest mistakes). This time it's ancient beautiful old city will most likely get shot to shit.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes. My point was that Russia is facing a determined adversary fighting against genocide as the Germans faced with the Russians in WWII.

In WWII post war Stalin acknowledged that without out Allied supplies Russia would have lost.

Now we are supply Ukraine against Russia.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fun fact, Zelensky is a populist candidate in one of the world's most corrupt countries. Supporting that guy is a bit like supporting ISIS in their fight against Assad. Putin's badness can impossibly fix Zelensky's glaring issues.

The good vs bad dichotomy, where Zelensky is portrayed as the hero of the nation is awfully misplaced IMHO. Any support for that guy, must surely come with a very short leash allowing the west to nudge the Ukraine away from being a failed state. Which it has been up until now.

Putin calling Zelensky a Nazi is the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't think Putin is all that wrong.

 

[Elixir]

Putin calling Zelensky a Nazi is the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't think Putin is all that wrong

WTF?
If that’s another “both sides” canard, I can only offer that I’d be quite entertained if somehow Ukranian Nazis could figure out how to lob a few missiles into the Kremlin.

Other than that fantasy, I think you’re full of shit.

 

[Politesse]

Fun fact, Zelensky is a populist candidate in one of the world's most corrupt countries. Supporting that guy is a bit like supporting ISIS in their fight against Assad. Putin's badness can impossibly fix Zelensky's glaring issues.

The good vs bad dichotomy, where Zelensky is portrayed as the hero of the nation is awfully misplaced IMHO. Any support for that guy, must surely come with a very short leash allowing the west to nudge the Ukraine away from being a failed state. Which it has been up until now.

Putin calling Zelensky a Nazi is the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't think Putin is all that wrong.

What exactly has Zelenskyy done to deserve such bitter condemnation?