Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here:

Europe - Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/war-in-ukraine-thread-4-thread-rules-updated.1376293/page-146

www.bigfooty.com

If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or starts to derail the thread, report the post to us and we'll move it over there.

Seeing as multiple people seem to have forgotten, abuse is against the rules of BF. Continuous, page long attacks directed at a single poster in this thread will result in threadbans for a week from this point; doing so again once you have returned will make the bans permanent and will be escalated to infractions.

This thread still has misinformation rules, and occasionally you will be asked to demonstrate a claim you have made by moderation. If you cannot, you will be offered the opportunity to amend the post to reflect that it's opinion, to remove the post, or you will be threadbanned and infracted for sharing misinformation.

Addendum: from this point, use of any variant of the word 'orc' to describe combatants, politicians or russians in general will be deleted and the poster will receive a warning. If the behaviour continues, it will be escalated. Consider this fair warning.

Finally: If I see the word Nazi or Hitler being flung around, there had better have a good faith basis as to how it's applicable to the Russian invasion - as in, video/photographic evidence of POW camps designed to remove another ethnic group - or to the current Ukrainian army. If this does not occur, you will be threadbanned for posting off topic

This is a sensitive area, and I understand that this makes for fairly incensed conversation sometimes. This does not mean the rules do not apply, whether to a poster positing a Pro-Ukraine stance or a poster positing an alternative view.

Behave, people.

 

[Mobbs]

Let's give it a shot, shall we!

Well in previous posts, you were in terms of the logic of your arguments advocating a NATO nuclear strike on Russia. You denied it, but it was where your logic led, regardless of whether you were conscious of it.

Yeah yeah good try. I advocate loading up Ukraine with massively more resources to fight off this invasion - and I lean towards putting external troops in Ukraine, though it's a political quagmire. Your nuclear reference was bracketted as a "even such as", and no I don't support a nuclear strike. Ukraine's so-called allies need to help Ukraine defend itself. They are not sufficiently doing this. Then they demand Ukraine lower the conscription age, while denying them the resources - Ukraine rightly refuse as that translates to a meatwave approach, which is Russia's style but not Ukraine's, also there is the actual population numbers to consider.
Supporters of Ukraine have done far too little, far too late, far too often. This guy was trying to defend Lisichansk in 2022. Can just image his rage now 2 years have passed and still the supporting nations are still dicking around.
View attachment lysychansk_to_nato.mp4

Now you acknowledge that there is mass opposition in Russia to the war.

This means that there is a base for an anti war movement in Russia.

You've got to be kidding me. When have I said anything different? Putin is attacking Russia almost as much as he is attacking Ukraine.

In the days after the Feb 2024 invasion, I interacted directly with protesters in St Petersburg, alerting friends when news reports suggested authorities were acting with prejudice to dispel the protesters. One translated response:

Hello! I'm fine and I left before the mass arrests started! I saw with my friends how cars were driving about it from all sides and we quickly moved away from there, none of my friends and I were detained, it was a peaceful protest for me

It was only about a week ago I shared here a text from a mate who said "**** the war" in convo with me.
That you think I believe all Russians are pro-war, is mind-boggling! I am certain most are anti-war - though it's not safe for them to say so out loud. Media reports from Russia back this up.

There are many opinion pieces re how this is true, but also how the opportunity to rise up has been all but eradicated over the years by the Muscovian dictatorship machine.

Most Russians are quietly against war. There's also louder ones, but they are already imprisoned.

Likewise, in Ukraine, there is mass opposition to the war reflected in the rapid rise of desertions from the front, and the forced conscription of young men into the Ukrainian army.

Most Russians are quietly against war. Ukrainians are quite obviously against the war. It's a really weird thing for you to say.
I'm sure there's desertion issues, and with the RF stepping up attacks relentless over recent months, I am sure its increased - though there's no confirmation of any "rapid rise" in desertion. Guaranteed there's probably a fair bit, there is every possibility that war is hell.
The % of Ukrainian people that support Ukraine's defence against Russia's aggression, is still super high. The % of Ukrainian people that oppose a peace agreement with Russia, is also high (not because they don't want peace, but because a peace agreement with Russia doesn't get anyone peace).
Conscription is by definition always forced, ie potentially mandatory without a valid excuse. Note Ukraine opposes forced conscription of young men into the Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian government is opposing it, not just Ukrainian people. Again, they have a smaller population, and demographic already at risk, and a lack of materiel. Can you imagine being told you must now fight at the front, and when you ask for your rifle, being told "oh no, we couldn't get any rifled, we could only get some people".

So the development of an anti war movement linking up the working population in Ukraine and Russia against this war and in opposition to the governments imposing it, is a practical possiblity, and of immediate urgency.

People-power uprising amongst Russians - absolutely agree (tho see above re the difficulties). The political/governance undercurrent in your suggestion is not a topic for me to contribute to. An uprising can occur under the guidance of any idealogy.

 

[Mobbs]

There have been unverified reports of attacks on the Kerch region. I think there regional attacks seem fairly legit, but other attempts to attack the bridge itself, seem pretty flaky. Nothing has hit the bridge, perhaps there was an actual attempt to do so, really dunno.

RF has in recent times loaded up heaps of defences near the bridge, I would think that any attacks would need to start with removing those defences first.

Here's one analysis of the rumours.

 

[sdfc]

Let's give it a shot, shall we!


Yeah yeah good try. I advocate loading up Ukraine with massively more resources to fight off this invasion - and I lean towards putting external troops in Ukraine, though it's a political quagmire. Your nuclear reference was bracketted as a "even such as", and no I don't support a nuclear strike. Ukraine's so-called allies need to help Ukraine defend itself. They are not sufficiently doing this. Then they demand Ukraine lower the conscription age, while denying them the resources - Ukraine rightly refuse as that translates to a meatwave approach, which is Russia's style but not Ukraine's, also there is the actual population numbers to consider.

And bring nuclear powers into direct conflict. What do you reckon is the probability of that going drastically wrong?

 

[Mobbs]

And bring nuclear powers into direct conflict. What do you reckon is the probability of that going drastically wrong?

You don't think innocent families slaughtered by endless barrages of missiles aimed at eradicating an entire nation's population is already a sign of things going drastically wrong?

Says a lot about you, doesn't it?

 

[sdfc]

You don't think innocent families slaughtered by endless barrages of missiles aimed at eradicating an entire nation's population is already a sign of things going drastically wrong?

Says a lot about you, doesn't it?

I want it to end. You want more death. It says a lot about us.

 

[Mobbs]

I want it to end. You want more death. It says a lot about us.

Classic Lavrov-style inversion. You're defending the slaughter of innocent people, to maintain your comfort.

Sigh again I'm caught out responding to infantile trolls.

 

[sdfc]

Classic Lavrov-style inversion. You're defending the slaughter of innocent people, to maintain your comfort.

Sorry that would be you.

Sigh again I'm caught out responding to infantile trolls.

How many Ukrainians have to die before the Russians are pushed out?

 

[Mobbs]

How many Ukrainians have to die before the Russians are pushed out?

A good question to ask those allies which are denying the Ukrainians the resources and assurances they need.

 

[Andre]

Yeah yeah good try. I advocate loading up Ukraine with massively more resources to fight off this invasion - and I lean towards putting external troops in Ukraine, though it's a political quagmire.

NATO/The West doesn't need to put troops in Ukraine. The big advantage the West has is in their airforces. The Russian airforce is structured for defense against NATO aircraft with only limited attack capabilities. With their ability to engage NATO planes increasingly not capable as more and more of NATO airfleets go to 5th generation aircraft.

NATO doesn't need to jump to dropping bombs on the Kremlin. They could launch a massive set of strikes using B2, F-35's and F-22's against Russian locations (especially logistics hubs) all across Ukraine one night, then say 'Withdraw by the end of the week, or we'll bomb inside Ukraine, until there's no Russian forces alive there'. By drawing a clear line of inside Ukraine, they make it clear they aren't providing an existential threat to the Russian state, only their 'Special Military Operation'. Russia is free to try and take out any NATO/West forces they catch there. Good luck with that though.

All that stops this is the political will. The West is too weak (including Australia).

 

[Mobbs]

NATO/The West doesn't need to put troops in Ukraine. The big advantage the West has is in their airforces. The Russian airforce is structured for defense against NATO aircraft with only limited attack capabilities. With their ability to engage NATO planes increasingly not capable as more and more of NATO airfleets go to 5th generation aircraft.

NATO doesn't need to jump to dropping bombs on the Kremlin. They could launch a massive set of strikes using B2, F-35's and F-22's against Russian locations (especially logistics hubs) all across Ukraine one night, then say 'Withdraw by the end of the week, or we'll bomb inside Ukraine, until there's no Russian forces alive there'. By drawing a clear line of inside Ukraine, they make it clear they aren't providing an existential threat to the Russian state, only their 'Special Military Operation'. Russia is free to try and take out any NATO/West forces they catch there. Good luck with that though.

All that stops this is the political will. The West is too weak (including Australia).

That's tactically safer & smarter as well.

 

[Mobbs]

Results of a FAB strike in Zaporizhzhe.
View attachment 2024-12-06 18.39.11.mp4
View attachment IMG_8239.MP4

There are already nine dead and six wounded in Zaporozhye, says OVA head Fedorov
Among the victims were two children, aged 4 and 11.
UPD. The number of injured has increased to 17, — Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

[ASTRA TG]

 

[Zidane98]

Sorry that would be you.

How many Ukrainians have to die before the Russians are pushed out?

Of note here is your absolute failure to mention the 500,000 + Russian deaths attributed to Putin & his attempts to impose Russian fascism on Ukrainians.

You're not fooling anyone here.

Of course you would never say how many Russians have to die in the name of Putins dream of a new Russian empire imposed by force

Because that's not your actual concern. You want Ukraine to surrender on Russia's terms.

 

[Mobbs]

Of note here is your absolute failure to mention the 500,000 + Russian deaths attributed to Putin & his attempts to impose Russian fascism on Ukrainians.

You're not fooling anyone here.

Of course you would never say how many Russians have to die in the name of Putins dream of a new Russian empire imposed by force

Because that's not your actual concern. You want Ukraine to surrender on Russia's terms.

But Russia is under attack. You know this because Lavrov says so.

 

[Zidane98]

But Russia is under attack. You know this because Lavrov says so.

Lavrov is a genius. You can't tell he is lying because he lies all the time.

 

[IlovethePies]

NATO/The West doesn't need to put troops in Ukraine. The big advantage the West has is in their airforces. The Russian airforce is structured for defense against NATO aircraft with only limited attack capabilities. With their ability to engage NATO planes increasingly not capable as more and more of NATO airfleets go to 5th generation aircraft.

NATO doesn't need to jump to dropping bombs on the Kremlin. They could launch a massive set of strikes using B2, F-35's and F-22's against Russian locations (especially logistics hubs) all across Ukraine one night, then say 'Withdraw by the end of the week, or we'll bomb inside Ukraine, until there's no Russian forces alive there'. By drawing a clear line of inside Ukraine, they make it clear they aren't providing an existential threat to the Russian state, only their 'Special Military Operation'. Russia is free to try and take out any NATO/West forces they catch there. Good luck with that though.

All that stops this is the political will. The West is too weak (including Australia).

So now NATO should also start bombing Ukraine!!
Do you realise how insane you sound?

 

[Bloods86]

So now NATO should also start bombing Ukraine!!
Do you realise how insane you sound?

I feel embarrassed for you.

 

[IlovethePies]

NATO/The West doesn't need to put troops in Ukraine. The big advantage the West has is in their airforces. The Russian airforce is structured for defense against NATO aircraft with only limited attack capabilities. With their ability to engage NATO planes increasingly not capable as more and more of NATO airfleets go to 5th generation aircraft.

As usual, you and the other posters like you get caught up in their own pathetic self contradictions.

1) Your argument has always been that Putin is a fascist imperialist whose only goal is empire expansion. Why then is the Russian airforce only structured for defence?

2) You and your like minded friends here have always maintained that NATO never threatened Russia, that its expansion towards Russia never posed any threat to Russia, that NATO stands for democracy and freedom, blah, blah.

Why then is Russia's airforce structured for defence against NATO?

 

[IlovethePies]

I feel embarrassed for you.

As usual, your embarrassment is misplaced.

 

[Mobbs]

Very recent reports of explosions at the airfield in Maykop (behind Krasnodar, in a bit inland from Sochi). Apparently not the first time.


"The airfield is getting bombed again"

(learnt a new word today. I'd always just said "snova" for the English "again", but apparently "opyat" can mean the same thing)

 

[Mobbs]

Short off-topic aside as these words reminded me of it:

Эх, раз, ещё раз, eщё много-много раз!
Yul reckons again and again, many more times again
(my favourite Russian language song - originally likely a roma tune)

View attachment brynner+dve_gitary.mp4

(also search for Deanna Durbin's version which I reckon is brilliant)

 

[wannabejack]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-shows-off-new-rocket-drone-bid-boost-long-range-strikes-2024-12-06/

KYIV, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Ukraine showed off a new locally-produced "rocket-drone" on Friday which it said could fly 700 km (430 miles) - more than twice the longest range attributed to missiles supplied by Western allies.

The "Peklo" (Hell) drone-missile

 

[Jamolad]

They could launch a massive set of strikes using B2, F-35's and F-22's against Russian locations (especially logistics hubs) all across Ukraine one night, then say 'Withdraw by the end of the week, or we'll bomb inside Ukraine, until there's no Russian forces alive there'.

So now NATO should also start bombing Ukraine!!
Do you realise how insane you sound?

^ this is why you cannot be taken seriously.

Guy says they should bomb Russian forces and logistics that are within Ukraine.

You write a response as if he suggested randomly blowing up Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians.

Do you realise how insane you sound saying his idea sounds insane?

It's quite clear he's saying they should bomb the positions of the invading Russian forces; not indiscriminately bomb Ukraine. Please tell us what is so insane about that.

By the way - Ukraine is already blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine; and Russia is trying to blow up Ukrainian shit in the occupied (liberated?) territories of Russia. Defenders try to blow up the invading forces that occupy their lands.

Before you try to say it is insane "because escalation"; this is why he was specific about blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine.

 

[Mobbs]

^ this is why you cannot be taken seriously.

Guy says they should bomb Russian forces and logistics that are within Ukraine.

You write a response as if he suggested randomly blowing up Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians.

Do you realise how insane you sound saying his idea sounds insane?

It's quite clear he's saying they should bomb the positions of the invading Russian forces; not indiscriminately bomb Ukraine. Please tell us what is so insane about that.

By the way - Ukraine is already blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine; and Russia is trying to blow up Ukrainian shit in the occupied (liberated?) territories of Russia. Defenders try to blow up the invading forces that occupy their lands.

Before you try to say it is insane "because escalation"; this is why he was specific about blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine.

It's just an attempt to cherry-pick a couple of words, take them out of context, and run off on a disinformation tangent claiming the opposite of the original text.

Kind of reminds me of the sovereign citizen movement. Or Russia.

 

[Bloods86]

^ this is why you cannot be taken seriously.

Guy says they should bomb Russian forces and logistics that are within Ukraine.

You write a response as if he suggested randomly blowing up Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians.

Do you realise how insane you sound saying his idea sounds insane?

It's quite clear he's saying they should bomb the positions of the invading Russian forces; not indiscriminately bomb Ukraine. Please tell us what is so insane about that.

By the way - Ukraine is already blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine; and Russia is trying to blow up Ukrainian shit in the occupied (liberated?) territories of Russia. Defenders try to blow up the invading forces that occupy their lands.

Before you try to say it is insane "because escalation"; this is why he was specific about blowing up Russian shit in Ukraine.

It's simple.

At least one of the following is true:

a) they want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine
b) the sources from which they get their information want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine
c) the people/organisations that pay and prop up the sources from which they get their information, want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine

Everything else they say is just noise.

 

[Mobbs]

It's simple.

At least one of the following is true:

a) they want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine
b) the sources from which they get their information want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine
c) the people/organisations that pay and prop up the sources from which they get their information, want Russia to win, and control/subjugate Ukraine

Everything else they say is just noise.

I suspect sometimes there's a 4th option - some people just get off on being anti. They don't believe (or perhaps even understand) a word of the arguments they are presenting, but simply oppose anything that they enjoy opposing.
If NATO sang the praises of VHS, for example, these folks would instantly run out and buy a Betamax. Purely contrarian, oblivious to or sociopathically disregarding the suffering that happens outside their own periphery. It's an illness.