Technically, the British lost to Afghan farmers with muskets.
-
Features
How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?
- Thread starter Harry Bosch
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Technically, the British lost to Afghan farmers with muskets.
Well, the French army and navy helped a little bit. Louis XVI was a great ally, but he kind of lost his head over it afterwards.
Elixir
Made in America
You're asking the wrong people.
Our Conspiracy theorists already tell us everything your "sources" tell you. Thing is, though - we know our Conspiracy Theorists.
We know they're morons. And we know you're not a moron. So your intent to deceive can easily be inferred from everything you say without strong documentation. "Our" morons are unwittingly spouting the Kremlin line, with no regard for the harm they might bring to all humanity by tolerating - let alone supporting - authoritarianism over democracy at this time. Speaks well to the overall Russian propaganda machine. I bet Putler wishes his military machine worked that well.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Just because some other country was responsible for illegal wars in the past, doesn't mean Russia should be able to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And that hypocrisy works both ways: you can't condemn American invasions as "illegal" if you don't do the same to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Yes, it does. But this is not self defense. Not one inch of Russian land was attacked (until after Feb 24 last year), and not one inch is being currently occupied by Ukraine or any other country.
When Ukraine pushed back Russian forces from North-East of Ukraine, they stopped at the border. And if by some happenstance Ukraine was able to kick Russia out of their country entirely, there's no doubt they'd do the same. Ukraine isn't an imperialistic shithole like Russia. It just wants its own land back, not attack Russia. And nobody in the west doesn't seriously suggest invading Russia even after all the atrocities Russia has committed in the past year.
And their dastardly Jewish president.
This nazi bullshit you're peddling isn't convincing anybody. Russia fits the nazi germany bill much better than Ukraine, Russia has been financing nazis and other far right groups in Ukraine and Europe for years, and is currently having nazis fight the war on Russian side. Like this guy, Aleksei Milchakov, who was recently interviewed for Russian TV (the last part in the video is from an pre-war interview):
"Denazification" is just a pretext for Putin's land grab and imperialistic ambitions for the rubes.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were Ukrainian territory. Ukraine wasn't "terrorizing" them in any way that Russia doesn't terrorize its own population in Russia, and that hardly justifies an invasion. If Russia was waging this war to save the Russian-speaking Ukrainians, it wouldn't have to invade Ukraine: you could just give anyone who feels terrorized asylum in Russia, where they can live their lives free from oppression.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Check with your superiors and try to keep your stories straight. Russian MoD blamed the Brits for blowing up Nord Stream.
Based on past behaviour, I'm about 90% convinced Russia was behind the Nord Stream sabotage. But I'm willing to keep that 10% benefit of doubt until evidence surfaces either way. What I'm absolutely sure about though is that Seymour Hersh's yarn about Norway being behind the attack is 100% bullshit.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Well, he is half right.
Russia can wait for years. The western support might disintegrate before that. And Ukrainian casualties in Bakhmut are severe. Russian casualties too, but Russia can afford it. I don't think it was planned that taking Bakhmut would take this long, or that Russia could do it any faster if they wanted to, but the end result is the same: massive attrition on Ukrainian forces that makes them unable to mount a counter-attack anywhere and might lead to a collapse in the worst-case scenario.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
If you switch goal posts, then you can justify any defeat as "simply leaving".
If Kherson wasn't "worth to hold", why take it in the first place? And even if Kherson can be said to be an orderly, well-executed retreat (unlike Kharkiv), it was still a retreat. The end result is the only thing that matters.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
It seems obvious they took Kherson, because they wanted to advance to Odesa and join with the troops in Transnistria, which would allow them to bring Moldova back into the Russian fold, not to mention cutting what was left of Ukraine completely off from the Black Sea. They want Ukraine, in part, for its lucrative agricultural production, and Odesa is where the grain gets shipped from to the Middle East and Africa.
There are a lot of Russians like barbos who seem not to have understood their own history of conquest and occupation. Now we see him parroting Putin's line that Ukraine "isn't even a country", even though he cannot stop himself from otherwise speaking about it as if it is. This is why NATO didn't move to encircle Russia. The former nations occupied and dominated by Russia moved to bring themselves under the protection of NATO's guarantee of independence from imperial Russia. Revanchist Russians want to go back to being the region's "Big Brother".
Invade Libya? Never happened. We bombed him for supporting terrorism and we went after him when he turned on his people trying to stay in power, that's all.
Vietnam? Who invaded who??
Syria? Once again, a response to atrocities. We didn't invade.
Cuba? Yes.
Yugoslavia? Once again, a response to atrocities. Again, no invasion.
Russia seems to consider atrocities to be normal behavior so you perhaps to not see the distinction.
You're the one sponsoring coups. You just don't realize how unpopular you are and that countries throw you out when possible.
Occupying China????
Peacekeeping?? ROTFL!!
zorq
Veteran Member
If Putin has a problem with the Ukranian regime, then he would have stated regime change as his intention. But it's not. What he has made clear is that it is the land under the regime he wants. He isn't insisting on free and fair elections supervised by impartial observers in Ukraine. He is insisting that the land he has malevolently captured be surrendered to him.
Putin just likes to murder people and steal their land. It is really that simple. If he had any other motivations or intentions, his actions would project that.
Putin just likes to murder people and steal their land. It is really that simple. If he had any other motivations or intentions, his actions would project that.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Another key difference is what happens afterwards: in all of these cases except Cuba (which happened 120 years ago) USA left after overstaying their welcome, and did not annex any land, nor had any plans to do so.
It's also notable that Russia was also militarily involved in every one of these conflicts.
Which side crossed the border?
Once again, nope.
Partially true. Afghanistan was a way to hurt Russia. You chose to stick your dick in a meat grinder, we just made it more painful. At no point was Russia itself attacked--had you stayed home nothing would have happened.
Then Russia no longer has a right to be a country anymore as they started terrorizing the Ukrainian population back in 2014.
Since Russia invaded. You're like the kid on trial for killing his parents asking for mercy because he's an orphan.
If Russia isn't interested in territorial gains what's their objective?? As time goes on the logistics situation just gets worse and worse for them. We just saw those deep strikes beyond HIMARS range, Russia going to have to react by pulling back the transfer points beyond Ukraine's newly demonstrated range and that will take a big bite out of their ability to deliver supplies to the front lines. Russia already has major problems with delivering supplies, this is just going to make it worse.
This is standard NATO tactics--cut the logistics tail rather than direct engagement. It's not remotely a secret yet Russia obviously does not have a counter--terrible planning on Moscow's part. Likewise, you seem incapable of hunting mobile SAM launchers which makes anything above very low level flight over Ukraine basically suicide--and very low level flight means a plane that flies too close to a Stinger launcher has little chance. And MANPAD launchers are basically undetectable until the missile is in the air--and the Stinger is fire-and-forget. Even if your buddy nails the launcher it won't stop the missile.
No. Everybody loses when trying to occupy a place with an untouchable supply base. It's not the Afghan farmers that are the issue. Russia lost because we were arming the rebels. We lost because Pakistan was arming the rebels.
Note that the situation in Ukraine is the same--we are arming them, it's effectively impossible for Russia to win other than by genocide.