• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

I am not cavalier about it. I know for a fact that russian losses are not that high. Even russian opposition media admit that.
Examples, please.
Meduza counted russian losses.
Meduza's in Latvia. And link to the article, please.
Of course they are, a russian opposition media estimated losses and they are not that high.
Links you can find yourself. I actually have never seen the source itself. I saw independent commentators who I trust (deservedly) referring to it.
MSM is lying to you. Russian forces are averse to losses, this is one of the reason why progress is "slow".
Progress, slow? Non-existant. I mean congrats on destroying telephone poles, but as far as progress, it is WWI out there, fighting and dying for scraps of land.
 
Russian forces are averse to losses
"... which is why their "human wave" tactic is so highly preferred!"

Ya sure, they're averse to losses. The top-down view may be averse to losses - because they're losses, and they've already lost hundreds of thousands.
But the bottom-up view is "Cannon Fodder - R - Us".
 
I am not cavalier about it. I know for a fact that russian losses are not that high. Even russian opposition media admit that.
Examples, please.
Meduza counted russian losses.
Meduza's in Latvia. And link to the article, please.
Of course they are, a russian opposition media estimated losses and they are not that high.
Links you can find yourself. I actually have never seen the source itself. I saw independent commentators who I trust (deservedly) referring to it.
MSM is lying to you. Russian forces are averse to losses, this is one of the reason why progress is "slow".
Progress, slow? Non-existant. I mean congrats on destroying telephone poles, but as far as progress, it is WWI out there, fighting and dying for scraps of land.
Why are you so dense? Russia is not subject to your definition of "progress".
Time is on Russia's side. Russia is winning and, for what it's worth the only side which actually fought and won any territory is Russia. Ukrainians have never won any territory as a result of actual battle. Russia simply left in these two occasions. It was simply not worth it to hold.
Compare to NATO nazis, they got themselves into a situation where it is politically impossible to give up any land.
 
I am not cavalier about it. I know for a fact that russian losses are not that high. Even russian opposition media admit that.
Examples, please.
Meduza counted russian losses.
Meduza's in Latvia. And link to the article, please.
Of course they are, a russian opposition media estimated losses and they are not that high.
Links you can find yourself. I actually have never seen the source itself. I saw independent commentators who I trust (deservedly) referring to it.
MSM is lying to you. Russian forces are averse to losses, this is one of the reason why progress is "slow".
Progress, slow? Non-existant. I mean congrats on destroying telephone poles, but as far as progress, it is WWI out there, fighting and dying for scraps of land.
Why are you so dense? Russia is not subject to your definition of "progress".
Time is on Russia's side. Russia is winning and, for what it's worth the only side which actually fought and won any territory is Russia.
Wow. 1984 in post form.
 
Ukraine invaded Russia but never took any territory?
No, Barbie. Russia invaded Ukraine from the north, was repelled, and then invaded the East. Now they’re at a standstill, even after committing thousands of war crimes against the citizens of the sovereign nation they’re trying to exterminate.
Guess what, barbi?
Russia is running out of everything except warm bodies to throw at an obviously superior military.
Their only path forward is to become China’s proxy State, or get rid of the psycho who started this war.
 
Wow. 1984 in post form.
Yep, you are desperate to invent some metric where Ukrainian regime have success somewhere. One more time, Russia does not care about immediate territorial gains.
Ukraine on the other side was explicitly told to have territorial gains to keep support high.
Even your lying media admitted that.
One more time, Russia does not care about immediate territorial gains.
 
Wow. 1984 in post form.
Yep, you are desperate to invent some metric where Ukrainian regime have success somewhere. One more time, Russia does not care about immediate territorial gains.
Ukraine on the other side was explicitly told to have territorial gains to keep support high.
Even your lying media admitted that.
One more time, Russia does not care about immediate territorial gains.
Wahoo! Great news. Pls leave Ukraine tout suite!
 
China finally came out with their peace plan. Their plan or road map to peace included "sovereignty of all countries should be upheld."


I think a positive first step. However, their plan also states that "The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.” Well, I hate to say it but "blocs" or Nato to be specific, is the only thing stopping Russia from invading other eastern European countries. The only way for a smaller country to stop a bully is to band together with other smaller countries. But again, the Chinese plan is a positive first step.
It wasn't quite as bad as I feared, but I think the motivation is still to justify sending weapons to Russia (which China is already doing, but covertly).

Xi can say, "look here, we tried peace, you guys rejected it, so now we're free to sell weapons to Russia, just like the west is doing to Ukraine."

He has zero interest in cutting slack to west and not taking advantage of the situation, both by buying cheap crude and natural gas from Russia, and selling them electronics, weapons, and other goods that Russia can't get from the west. But even then, I think it's not going to be effective to antagonize China further publicly. Xi is a petty dictator, he can't be guilt-tripped into doing the west's way. Despite differences, he should at this time be engaged with a positive message.
 
China finally came out with their peace plan. Their plan or road map to peace included "sovereignty of all countries should be upheld."


I think a positive first step. However, their plan also states that "The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.” Well, I hate to say it but "blocs" or Nato to be specific, is the only thing stopping Russia from invading other eastern European countries. The only way for a smaller country to stop a bully is to band together with other smaller countries. But again, the Chinese plan is a positive first step.
It wasn't quite as bad as I feared, but I think the motivation is still to justify sending weapons to Russia (which China is already doing, but covertly).

Xi can say, "look here, we tried peace, you guys rejected it, so now we're free to sell weapons to Russia, just like the west is doing to Ukraine."

He has zero interest in cutting slack to west and not taking advantage of the situation, both by buying cheap crude and natural gas from Russia, and selling them electronics, weapons, and other goods that Russia can't get from the west. But even then, I think it's not going to be effective to antagonize China further publicly. Xi is a petty dictator, he can't be guilt-tripped into doing the west's way. Despite differences, he should at this time be engaged with a positive message.
I would agree but we need a stick as well. Better trade deals. Stay out of the South China Sea for a few months etc. no point in antagonizing them. Pelosi did that a few months ago and it was not a smart move.

But if they supply Russia with weapons we would supply a lot to Taiwan. We would send a CVBG through the straits again. Japan would get their cV. Lots of ways to make the decision painful.
 
The Republican Party used to be the fiercest opponents of Russian aggression (Anyone remember Ronnie Raygun and his Star Wars system to protect Americans from the Russian threat?).

Now it's the fucking Muppet show, with Vlad Putin doing all the voices.

How the fuck did they go so bad, so fast?
Are you fucking serious? Putin's Russia is exactly what Republicans think is a functioning free democracy. Elections that don't matter (gerrymandering and disenfranchisement), a government that caters solely to the upper class as an oligarchy (Mercer Group, Koch Industries, the Wilks Brothers), a media that only parrots talking points (OANN, RSBN, NewsMax, Sinclair Broadcasting and of course Rupert Murdoch) and a populace isolated from dissenting views (Magiots and Q-tards).

Putin's Russia is what Republicans have been masturbating over since at least the days of the competently evil McCarthy (as opposed to the modern one). In the eyes of Republicans, the Soviet Unions biggest most unforgivable sin was that they had shitty marketing. That's it.
Well said. I shamelessly stole this for reposting it on some other places.
 
And that is how you win wars. Not. Imagine the looks on the Russian conscriptees when they open up a crate of munitions and find this garbage. Singing the praises of Putin no doubt.
 
What is the lie? Your side invaded a sovereign country.
Everything MSM tells you.

Did you forget that your country invaded way more countries than Russia?
How, exactly, would any number of countries being invaded by the US, make the Russian invasion of Ukraine not have happened?

When Hitler invaded Poland, should the British and French have simply invaded a few dozen unrelated countries to undo the German advance? Do you genuinely think that such a strategy would or could have been effective? Given that both Britain and France actually had invaded dozens of countries in the century prior to the German invasion of Poland, is it your contention that Hitler's armies stayed in Germany in September of 1939??

If a man is standing trial for murder, do you imagine that he can prove his innocence by having his lawyer point out that other people have committed far more, or far crueler murders?

<Edited for content>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I care about whom the UN recognizes as sovereign
I don't care about UN, UN can go to hell.
I agree. Russia should immediately give up the Soviet Union's permanent seat in the security council, both in recognition that it's not Russia's by right, and in protest against how mean and nasty the UN is not to agree with Russia's absurd territorial claims over her neighbours.
 
Back
Top Bottom