[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix

IRC Chat

Pleroma

Mumble

Telegram

Discord



File: 1663456633520.png (97.9 KB, 1599x1066, Flag_of_the_Miner's_Divisi….png)

 No.457563[Last 50 Posts]

Last one is full and the worst thread on leftychan must be contained.

In recent news: Ukies done a successful counteroffensive in Izium, Z gang now in shambles. Biden promises even more money for Ukraine. Putin meets Xi, Erdogan, Modi and others at the SCO summit.


Pro-Russia sources:
https://nitter.net/RWApodcast
https://nitter.net/mdfzeh
https://nitter.net/AZmilitary1
https://nitter.net/wargonzoo
https://nitter.net/TheHumanFund5
https://t.me/intelslava
https://t.me/asbmil
https://t.me/vorposte

Pro-Ukraine sources:
Everywhere else
>>

 No.463959

>>463958
Yeah, dude. I work for the CIA. You definitely aren't just a fucking idiot.
>>

 No.463960

File: 1673238944116.jpg (1.28 MB, 847x1271, Hanns-Joachim-Friedrichs-P….jpg)

>Eliot Higgins has investigated incidents including the Syrian Civil War, the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
Ahahaha, oh, wow.

check out his credentials:
>A high-school dropout,[6] he attended Haberdashers' Adams Grammar School in Shropshire from 1990–95.[7]
>He previously worked in finance and administration.[8]

>>463956
>reality is pro-NATO
how come it takes high school dropouts to defend NATO's "reality"?
>>

 No.463961

>>463960
It gets even better, he claims he learned how to do analysis from all his experience playing video games.
>>

 No.463962

>>463961
incredible
>>

 No.463963

>>463961
Libs like to call out pol-tier schizo "research" but when it's done for pro-nato ends it's suddenly acceptable and credible. The most disgusting thing about bellingcat is that they call their research "open source," bastardizing the meaning of the term and use it as an excuse for anything.
>>

 No.463964

>>463960
>how come it takes high school dropouts to defend NATO's "reality"?
I don't think NATO depends on Higgins. Why are you obsessed with this man now?
>>

 No.463965

>>463964
it was you who brought up bellingcat as credible and now you are the one pissed people are laughing at you
>>

 No.463994

>>

 No.463995

>>463936
I think the only thing that would genuinely bring a hope of rest and recovery to Ukraine would be a total Russian victory and removal of the Nazis from power. If Russia simply stops with its southeast territorial claims and doesn't pursue to Kiev to rout the American influence, their suffering will continue after the war.
>>

 No.464007

>>463965
It's one thing to say the man has made good points (he has), and another to say that NATO relies on him, which is patently false. The fact is that the man called it in Syria and MH17. Now, if you don't like it because western-aligned nations happen to agree with him. That's your problem. You do have a weird obsession with him, though, and if a high-school dropout gamer is all it takes to outdo your experts, then they weren't that great to begin with.
>>

 No.464008

>>464007
>The fact is that the man called it in Syria and MH17.
You mean helped fabricate a deception that furthers US hegemony? He sure did.
>>

 No.464017

File: 1673348530703-0.jpg (154.67 KB, 1200x1400, k7f76xee66ba1.jpg)

File: 1673348530703-1.png (640.12 KB, 549x871, bfa.png)

get your daily dose of democracy
>>

 No.464034

>>464008
He is just an osint guy. That's not that uncommon. He's notable for having the exact conclusion that legitimate investigators had. You may choose not to believe him, but State Dept stooges aren't quoting Belingcat. They're using their own reports and contacts with the Dutch, Malaysian, and UN investigators. In either case, I don't think it's a Russia purposefully knocked down a jetliner. I think it's novices with high-tech equipment mistook a jetliner for a Ukrainian cargo plane. Add in the fact that the rebels had specifically warned aircraft about crossing that zone, and you have a recipe for disaster when the aircraft failed to acknowledge that.

>>464017
Th-Thanks, Doc.
>>

 No.464035

>>464034
>just an osint guy.
His "open sources" are trash and he went after the OPCW whistleblowers for exposing the deception he helped concoct to justify US military action in Syria. His is a lapdog hired by spook agencies to lend legitimacy to US-UK geopolitical deceptions. Reminder that even Bellingcat's NATO-aligned media allies describe them as "intel service input by proxy".

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/06/07/paul-masons-covert-intelligence-grayzone/
>>

 No.464036

>>464035
>His "open sources" are trash and he went after the OPCW whistleblowers for exposing the deception he helped concoct to justify US military action in Syria.
His criticisms of that report seem very valid, though. What exactly is the problem there?
>His is a lapdog hired by spook agencies to lend legitimacy to US-UK geopolitical deceptions.
I really don't think they need him if, as you say, they control the OPCW and other large organizations. Why would they need him?
>Reminder that even Bellingcat's NATO-aligned media allies describe them as "intel service input by proxy".
But didn't Belingcat also out the US for bombing the mosque in Aleppo? Again, to me they just seem like OSINT people doing what they do.
>>

 No.464037

>>464036
>Why would they need him?
Ask the NED people who literally fund him, I'm sure they'll give you an answer.
>>

 No.464038

>>464017
What do they mean with peace-level ?
>>

 No.464044

Zelensky just appointed a literal hypnotist (and part-time sexologist multi-level marketer) to a high-level diplomatic position.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/12/28/zelensky-sexologist-pyramid-schemer-ambassador-bulgaria/

slava ukraini
>>

 No.464058

>>464037
NED funds a lot of groups, and last I checked, it was staffed by socdems, hardly what you'd call CIA hardliners.
>>

 No.464059

>>464058
You can stop now, you're not fooling anyone.

https://williamblum.org/chapters/rogue-state/trojan-horse-the-national-endowment-for-democracy

https://countercurrents.org/2022/05/the-national-endowment-for-democracy-a-second-cia/

<Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
>>

 No.464062

>>464059
What NED may have been in the past isn't what it is now. I'll have to read more on it, though, because at a simple glance, they don't look like they do much spook shit.
>>

 No.464063

>>464062
The NED is doing exactly now what it did when it was first formed and what the CIA used to do more clandestinely: they fund and promote groups to interfere in elections, mobilize coups, and orchestrate PR campaigns against countries and leaders that resist American hegemony. Bellingcat is a posterchild of the latter.
>>

 No.464071

File: 1673547900523.png (1.97 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-and-ukraine-are-not-ready-talks
Russia and Ukraine Are Not Ready for Talks
<But They Might Get There If Ukraine Keeps Winning
>Ukraine’s forces have fared far better—and Russia’s far worse—than anyone had imagined before the conflict.
>>

 No.464072

File: 1673548063348.png (2.95 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-new-winter-war
Russia’s New Winter War
<Could Putin Go the Way of Napoleon and Hitler?
>In World War I, many Russians lacked boots and had to resort to shoes made of birch bark.
>More than 90,000 German prisoners limped out of Stalingrad on frost-ravaged feet.
>>

 No.464073

File: 1673550503918.webm (1.29 MB, 640x352, Freezing Vatnik.webm)

>>

 No.464074

>>464071
>>464072
>>464073
+10USD have been deposited in your NATO Super Savers account.
>>

 No.464075

>>464073
you'd think if this retard is freezing he would dig a deeper hole
or at least zip his fucking jacket lol

truly only sub autism score idiots get drafted in wars
>>

 No.464076

>>464075
Digging a deeper hole isn't going to help. He needed some kind of insulation from the ground and actual cold weather gear. His unzipped jacket is probably because he's beginning to experience late-stage hypothermia. Coincidentally, hypothermia victims sometimes burrow as if trying to hibernate. Combine this with paradoxical undressing and sometimes they are mistaken for sexual assault victims.
>>

 No.464077

File: 1673560368302.jpeg (40.55 KB, 602x420, main-qimg-0cb2b51d871bf68….jpeg)

>>464076
>Digging a deeper hole isn't going to help.
it gets warmer, especially in humus soil, and it protects you form winds, which by the looks of him being in the middle of an open field is the problem number one

also those jackets look like absolute shit that some bum would wear
the old cheap soviet winter wool coat and ushanka would be miles better than this shit

the only logical explanation I can find why he didn't start digging is they didn't give him a shovel lol

absolute fucking bums
>>

 No.464078

File: 1673561624530.webm (2.83 MB, 640x352, 1673558676785023.webm)

Ukrainian night raid on Platoon of Russians. Russians fail to react and likely do not have night vision. No security posture is detected, likely mobiks.
>>

 No.464079

Looks like Russia has pretty much taken the town of Soledar at this point. You know what that means: Kiev's keyboard warriors need to work overtime to make Russia seem incompetent!
>>

 No.464080

>>464079
lol, I don't need ukroid screechings to see that russia is incompetent zigga

I don't even understand what russia wants to achieve in ukraine anymore, and I doubt anyone in the kremlin understands it too lol

but keep cheering brainlet, any day now europe will freeze to death and collapse kek
just a little more, just a couple more of frozen corpses..
>>

 No.464081

File: 1673568474827.jpg (147.3 KB, 1024x896, The absolute state of Russ….jpg)

>>464079
I think you need to be reminded what really happened here. The Russians threw a few brigades at a town in order to take another town which they've spent five months trying to take and still have not taken. You vatniks act like you just took Berlin.
>>

 No.464082

>>464080
>>464081
Naturally you will be telling us Bakhmut is of no importance at all when Russians finally clean out its last salt mine cavern.
>>

 No.464083

>>464082
Bakhmut is important to the Russians, and that is the only reason the Ukrainians are holding it. They don't need it for an offensive, but they know if the Russians capture it, Russia will try to launch one themselves. It's containment, so it is important in that way. Soledar is important because the Russians are attempting to use it to encircle Bakhmut. Whether they'll be successful or not remains to be seen, but it's obvious that Ukraine has better command and vision of the overall theatre. That being said, Soledar hasn't actually been taken. It may happen in the next week, but we don't actually know that.
>>

 No.464084

>>464083
>Bakhmut is important to the Russians, and that is the only reason the Ukrainians are holding it.
Truly stunning mental gymnastics.
>>

 No.464085

Is this the first war where one of the belligerents in a conflict acts like a small child? It really has been a sight to behold. Do the proud ethnonationalists in charge of Ukraine really have no self-awareness over how much they've humiliated their country the past year with their policy of constant lying? Or do they think they're so superior to everyone else that it doesn't matter how the international community perceives them?
>>

 No.464086

interview with Colonel Doug Macgregor

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=q46eEGWekRQ
>>

 No.464087

Good interview with a Swiss military expert via Scott Ritter tonight as well. He covers all the aspects of warfare individually.
>>

 No.464088

>>

 No.464089

>>464086
>If I were Mr. Zelensky I'd be very worried first and foremost about my troops coming back to deal with me long before the Russians get there.
Think we'll see Zelensky hanging from a rope before the end of the year?
>>

 No.464090

>>464089
>Think we'll see Zelensky hanging from a rope before the end of the year?
There's a decent chance the US will pull him out, because he's a very public figure now.
But if they don't, yeah he's likely going to get lynched by a Ukrainian mob. If the US abandons him he'd probably be better off surrendering to Russian forces, because the Russians are super legalistic and they'll most likely want to put him on trial for the shelling in Donbass and all that stuff. He might give politically useful testimony about the Banderites.

I'd say he's only a half-doomed man.
>>

 No.464092

>>464084
That's not mental gymnastics. That's basic military theory. If your enemy needs something, it's advantageous to take it away from them.
>>

 No.464093

>>464087
>Western media giddy about the MAGIC WEAPONS Ukraine is about to receive
When will they learn? When will they learn that their actions have consequences?
>>

 No.464094

>>464093
what consequences retard?
>>

 No.464095

File: 1673609929163.jpg (52.27 KB, 366x395, saakashvili.jpg)

>>464090
Maybe it'll be like how the president of Georgia started a war with Russia, escaped retribution after losing the war, and then somehow ended up in Ukraine and was appointed governor of an oblast there after the US-backed coup. Where can we expect to see Zelensky next after this?
>>

 No.464096

>>464095
Poland. They have territories w significant Ukro population.
>>

 No.464100

>>464096
Would Poles really tolerate him? After presiding over Stepan Bandera Day?
>>

 No.464101

>>464093
>Magic weapons
The only ones who believe that are dumfuck pidorashka. For everyone else, they're just conventional weapons. It's not NATO's fault that everything Russian sucks.
>>

 No.464103

With the Russiagate hoax taking a massive body blow recently with the simultaneous release of the Twitter files, the study from New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics demonstrating conclusively those Facebook ads had no impact whatsoever on the election, and an upcoming congressional investigation, do you think American support for this proxy war will wane?
>>

 No.464104

>>464103
>do you think American support for this proxy war will wane?
No. Republicans aren't going to help you, pidor. Americans hate Russia and the only ones selling themselves to it ar actual American fascists. Nobody is coming to help.
>>

 No.464105

>>464103
Nobody cares any more than they cared about Hunter Biden's dick pics.
>>

 No.464108

>>464101
Why do you think "everything Russian sucks" ?
Is this just shauvinism talking or do you have a reason for thinking this ?

The Russian weapons are clearly very different from the western stuff, and they have different design goals. Russian jets for example have an air-intake system that redirects airflow during takeoff. When the jet takes off the front-openings close, and a top-vent opens, so that air is sucked in from above the jet not in front of it. That way it's possible to take off on a very dirty runway without getting too much dirt into the turbine. Western jets have no such feature, they have a doctrine that air-fields must be cleaned very thoroughly by having people regularly walking the entire length of the runway to pick up dirt and debris. You can see the different approaches in military doctrine. The Russian one favors a very rugged design that's able to operate in extremely poor conditions, while the western doctrine treats it's military instruments more like high performance race-cars. There are trade-offs to both models.

Are you sure that you aren't mistaking that difference as inferiority ?
>>

 No.464109

>>464103
>With the Russiagate hoax taking a massive body blow recently
Like Brian Becker from Breakthroughnews said, imperial manipulation of public consciousness relies on some kind of mechanism that induces political amnesia for medium and long term history. There's even a common phrase for it when something gets "memory-holed".
As far i can tell all the Russia-gate-type conspiracies ended up as false, but if you can't get people to remember it and recognize it as a pattern, this trick will continue to work.
You have to figure how the psychological tricks work. Most of the serious psychological research is being done under the name of "marketing-strategies" these days so you have to dig through their really dense jargon to glean anything useful from it.
>>

 No.464115

>>464108
Yeah, too bad that doesn't seem to make a difference considering their performance against western jets, and the plane you're describing is just one model, so Russian airfields still need to be cleaned.
>Are you sure that you aren't mistaking that difference as inferiority ?
No. I'm saying their stuff is garbage because it usually is.
>>

 No.464116

File: 1673696265047.jpeg (26.64 KB, 474x316, th-1678730986.jpeg)

>>464103
>this zigga retard thinks americans support ukraine because of some spectacle for plebs
kek

bet they also supported mujaheddin because they were "the freedom fighters" lol, lmao you absolute retardoid

any day now, zigga
any day now europe will collapse and america will go bankrupt and russian bums will walk into Berlin and establish new eurasian Russki Mir in eurup kek

just a couple thousand more corpses.. the victory is just around the corner..
>>

 No.464117

>>464115
>I'm saying their stuff is garbage because it usually is.
that's just a tautology fallacy
The Russian military has more advanced rockets and anti air defenses than western militaries for example


>>464116
>americans support ukraine because of some spectacle
The west does have a strong propaganda game, they sometimes manage to distort reality to such a degree that they are almost reporting the opposite of what's happening. That is a big part why there is some popular support for Ukraine. The other reason is racism. It has to be said the support for Ukraine only goes as far as it doesn't cost standards of living. So the sanctions war probably has very little support outside the 10% of imperialism-beneficiaries.

Eurasian economic integration is going to happen no matter how much the US plays geopolitical games. Geographic tendencies are irresistible. The US is only delaying it.
>>

 No.464118

Video discussing the injection of western tanks into Ukraine

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=13MBwNsFWLs
>>

 No.464120

>>464117
>The Russian military has more advanced rockets and anti air defenses than western militaries for example
Turkey bought those air defenses and say they are garbage. This is why they're pushing to be part of the French air defense program. They also don't defeat modern NATO aircraft.
>>

 No.464121

>>464117
>That is a big part why there is some popular support for Ukraine.
The biggest part is russians being absolute retards and invading ukraine and getting bogged down and causing massive human misery and destruction.

This in part justifies russophobia because russia is a reactionary militarist nationalist shithole with the delusions of grandeur who nobody wants around. This is like living near germans in the interwar period.

>The other reason is racism.

not wanting russian bums to bring you Russki Mir is not raycism zigga lol

>It has to be said the support for Ukraine only goes as far as it doesn't cost standards of living. So the sanctions war probably has very little support outside the 10% of imperialism-beneficiaries.

Who cares about pleb "support" lol? Elites want to bankroll ukraine - and they WILL bankroll it to bleed russia.

You need to worry about your own "support" at home zigga lol.. it's always the weakest link that breaks

>Eurasian economic integration is going to happen no matter how much the US plays geopolitical games. Geographic tendencies are irresistible. The US is only delaying it.

Great Marxists "ANALysis" zygoid lol

Capitalism transcends geographic barriers. Marxism 101. Literally America and China are on the opposite ends of the world and are the biggest trading parties.

Also what is even "Eurasian economic integration" you retarded duginite? Common economic space already existed for decades and it is the same shit as any other capitalist commonwealth - ie a way to facilitate movement of cheap labor from periphery (Central Asia) to the core (Russia).
Worked for russia and other post-soviet shitholes great looking at their GDP and military performance lol.

keep suckin dick and embarrassing yourself zigga
>>

 No.464122

File: 1673706459447.png (33.26 KB, 1700x404, Turkey-air-defences.png)

>>464120
Turkey is being pressured by the US to not buy Russian made air defenses. The quality of Russian AA defenses aren't the issue. They're generally considered to be top notch and more advanced than any of the western systems. To be fair the west hasn't really diverted much effort into air-defense because they focused more on having air supremacy.
>>

 No.464123

>>464122
>To be fair the west hasn't really diverted much effort into air-defense because they focused more on having air supremacy.
It turns out that the best air defense is having aircraft in the sky. Who would have thunk it? I mean apart form absolutely every airman since World War I.
>>

 No.464125

>>464121
The Russians went into Ukraine because the US meddled in Ukraine's government. If Ukraine is to have sovereignty, the US's interference has to be addressed first, because that's what kicked off this war. But even if your assertions weren't bogus, there still is no justification for russophobia. You can't apply collective punishment to all Russians for the things the Russian government is doing. Imagine if we applied the same principles to Americans for their 250 "military interventions" since 1990. Or the French for fucking with their former colonies in Africa, and so on. There'd be no end to all the racism.

>Who cares about pleb "support" lol? Elites want to bankroll ukraine - and they WILL bankroll it to bleed russia.

Great western democracy moment.
Also i don't think that it's working, the sanctions were supposed to crash the Russian economy, and that didn't happen.

>Capitalism transcends geographic barriers.

It doesn't tho , US is playing block-politics again. If capitalism was transcendent the US couldn't have done economic sanctions or force the Europeans to commit economic suicide to fuck with the Russians. If capitalism was transcendent Euro-capitalists would have enforced their ability to buy the cheaper Russian gas over the twice as expensive US gas, because that would have been more profitable.

>Also what is even "Eurasian economic integration"

It's economic links that are created by geographic proximity.
The US is trying to separate Europe from Russia and Asia, that won't work. In the short term they can do stuff like break off economic relations between Germany and Russia with brutal means like blowing up pipelines, but eventually that process will get reversed. 10 to 20 years from now all the bad blood because of the Ukraine war will be forgotten, and trade will have been restored.

>duginite

I can't be bothered to look up what that means, is this one of those boogiemen that haunt paranoid liberals ?

>zigga

I need a derogative nickname for you
how about "Natoid" or perhaps "Nazo" ?
>>

 No.464126

>>464125
>The Russians went into Ukraine because the US meddled
This will never be true, no matter how much you repeat it.
>>

 No.464127

>>464123
>having aircraft in the sky
That requires a lot of jet-fuel and wears down planes. The Air defense systems on the ground have the advantage that they can just sit there until they are needed.
>>

 No.464128

>>464126
There is zero doubt that in 2014 the US replaced the Ukrainian government, during the Euromaidan protests (which they co-opted and turned into a color revolution)
There is zero doubt that the CIA has been arming and funding Ukraine's Nazi problem or "right-sector" (as it got rebranded).
Biden gave a speech decades ago where he stated clearly that even the attempt of integrating Ukraine into NATO would force the Russians to attack. This is so obvious, it's a proxy war between the US and Russia.
>>

 No.464129

>>464127
Yeah, that requires a competent military with resources and maintainers, you know, everything the US has and Russia does not. The US also has EW aircraft and HARM, which are designed specifically to counter air defenses like those used by countries that can't afford a competent air force, and that's not even getting into modern stealth aircraft, of which Russia has built exactly zero.
>>

 No.464130

>>464128
>There is zero doubt that in 2014 the US replaced the Ukrainian government,
There is no evidence of this. I'm sorry your Russian puppet abandoned his post. Get fucked, pidor.
>>

 No.464131

>>464128
>Biden gave a speech decades ago where he stated clearly that even the attempt of integrating Ukraine into NATO would force the Russians to attack
Another lie about a speech where he specifically says they'll come around when they realize NATO is not a threat. Seems he held them in higher esteem than they are worth.
>>

 No.464133

>>464129
>Yeah, that requires a competent military with resources and maintainers, you know, everything the US has and Russia does not.
Russia has too much landmass to defend, it's too uneconomical to cover that with planes, even if they had as much wealth as the US. The US boarders are mostly ocean so it's harder to attack too. To the extend it is publicly known US cities don't have any dedicated active air defenses neither planes nor AA missiles batteries, only the NORAD system. Russia couldn't get by with such a relatively light defense because many countries have their air-forces next to it.

>The US also has EW aircraft and HARM, which are designed specifically to counter air defenses like those used by countries that can't afford a competent air force,

Jamming a radar is risky because em-homing targeting system for rockets are a thing.
I think you are leaning to far forward, the Russian air-force is small but it's not lacking competence.
The ground to Air defense systems that Russia builds are really deadly, even the US airforce would suffer massive losses if they tried to brute force an attack.

>getting into modern stealth aircraft, of which Russia has built exactly zero.

Ironically enough it was a soviet scientist who discovered the basic underlying physics principles that are used by "stealth" radar-signature-minimization. The Soviets published it internationally because they thought that it had no military application. The Russians think that way as well and they are betting on standoff weapons launched from long range bombers instead. The US also lost a stealth-bomber because it could be detected when it opened it's bombay-doors. The B2 bomber still looks like scifi but it's so expensive that even the US can only afford a small number of them. And lastly radars will inevitably improve and eventually the stealth will loose most of it's effectiveness, the stealth feature can't be upgraded like a radar, because it's build into the shape of the air-frame.
>>

 No.464136

>>

 No.464137

>>464136
Literally no actual evidence and equivocation of the Maidan protest as being all nationalists.
>>

 No.464139

File: 1673741509369.jpg (7.06 KB, 167x144, pillsbury doughboy having ….jpg)

>>

 No.464140

==SOLEDAR HAS FALLEN=
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-journalists-witnessed-organised-retreat-142803515.html
AAAAAAAA FUCK YOU RUSSIAN VATNIKS. FUCK YOUUU!!
>>

 No.464141

>>464140
Zbros.. I can see Fashington already falling next to the Russki Mir..
today is a ditch in the middle of nowhere.. tomorrow is Reichstag..
>>

 No.464142

File: 1673748245358.jpg (481.5 KB, 1791x1052, FTiy7MCWAAA4djx.jpg)

>>464141
>a ditch in the middle of nowhere
>>

 No.464143

File: 1673753568789.jpeg (17.68 KB, 353x400, 3b6.jpeg)

>>464101
>everything Russian sucks
MY ENEMIES R BAD AND DUMB AND STINKY
>>

 No.464144

File: 1673756379426.mp4 (2.6 MB, 720x1280, SnapSave.io-Easy mistake t….mp4)

How will Zelensky be remembered?
>>

 No.464145

File: 1673759748759.png (120.54 KB, 1510x583, Screenshot 2023-01-15 at 0….png)

Damn, canada can't go without supporting nazis for 5 minutes
>>

 No.464146

>>464144
Someone doing the biding of washington won't be remembered at all since they aren't an actual leader.
>>

 No.464147

>>464121
>in part justifies russophobia
Nothing justifies racism
>>

 No.464148

>>463387
I don't get why you're defending the western account of ukraine this much. They made up a superhero called the Ghost of Kiev up for gods sake.

The real marxist analysis is that capitalism has to expand. It's run out of places to expand into and is pushing against russia in order to destroy productive forces just like every other time. All you need to know is that now Black Rock is going to be rebuilding Ukraine, just like Halliburton rebuilding Iraq.

> In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity. The epidemic of over-production.
>>

 No.464149

>>464148
>I don't get why you're defending the western account of ukraine this much.
Because facts don't depend on your ideology, and the tankie narrative is a demonstrable lie.
>>

 No.464150

>>464148
>They made up a superhero called the Ghost of Kiev up for gods sake.
No, NCD made it up and the propaganda dept played coy and ran with it until the actual MoD denied it.
>The real marxist analysis is that capitalism has to expand. It's run out of places to expand into and is pushing against russia in order to destroy productive
Russia is capitalist. I don't know why you think they somehow opposite capitalism. It's just a politically illiberal form of it, and as long as we live under capitalism, I prefer a bourgeois democracy than a bourgeois dictatorship.
>All you need to know is that now Black Rock is going to be rebuilding Ukraine, just like Halliburton rebuilding Iraq.
I don't care. Maybe Russian faggots should have stayed in Russia.
>>

 No.464151

>>464144
He'll be remembered as a CIA/Hollywood construct, a clown president at the end of US empire even more embarrassing than Juan Guaido.
>>

 No.464152

>>464150
>I prefer a bourgeois democracy than a bourgeois dictatorship.
Fact: Russia is more of a democracy than Ukraine or the United States.
>>

 No.464153

>>464152
Yes, and the sky is green.
>>

 No.464154

>>464150
>I don't know why you think they somehow opposite capitalism.
I never said that, I said they are opposing NATO expansion and to an extent nazism in Ukraine. I am anti-NATO not pro russia.
>I don't care.
All I need to know, thanks.
>>

 No.464156

>>464154
>I said they are opposing NATO expansion and to an extent nazism in Ukraine.
If that was the case they wouldn't be annexing territory. Russia didn't start this war over this, and you know it.
> I am anti-NATO not pro russia
Ukraine is not in NATO.
>>

 No.464157

>>464156
>Russia didn't start this war over this, and you know it.
They actually did, and you know it.
>>

 No.464158

File: 1673780958325.png (421.38 KB, 700x463, ClipboardImage.png)

>"This war ends when Russia leaves Ukraine"
<"No, Ukraine is NATO Nazi Russophobia Maidan words words words Eurasia multipolar words words words Europe will freeze words words words. Commander Ivan, start next conscript 500k mobiks for human waves against empty villages. Just 2 more weeks to Kyiv trust the plan Z. West no interfere or we NOOK"
>"Ok. Keep bleeding out to 80's/90's NATO hand me downs I guess"
>>

 No.464159

File: 1673781172788.png (500.98 KB, 680x565, ClipboardImage.png)

>>

 No.464160

>>464157
If that's the case, why did they trade the supposed Nazi battalion for one of Putin's friends? Why are Russians using Nazis in Russia? Why is the state line about Russia always about how the west is going to spread degeneracy to Russia?
>>

 No.464161

>>464160
>why did they trade the supposed Nazi battalion for one of Putin's friends?
don't know what this is about, but holding friendship over revenge doesn't sound so bad.

>Why are Russians using Nazis in Russia?

You assert this but Russia appears to have relatively harsh laws against that.
They do not allow stuff like ethno-nationalism.
Their official doctrine says "Russia is a multi-ethnic civilization"
>>

 No.464162

File: 1673783891005.jpeg (58.46 KB, 960x1280, EvQaxRgXAAAKEWt (1).jpeg)

>>464161
>don't know what this is about, but holding friendship over revenge doesn't sound so bad.
Trading one prisoner for the supposed Nazis you started a war iver is pretty bad, unless that wasn't the reason for the war.
>You assert this but Russia appears to have relatively harsh laws against that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusich_Group
Not harsh enough, apparently.
>Their official doctrine says "Russia is a multi-ethnic civilization"
Apparently that doesn't matter when integrating Nazis into their military, the same they accused Ukraine of doing.
>>

 No.464163

>>464159
>>464158
I can't wait to see Ruskies getting btfo by western armor.
>>

 No.464164

File: 1673784028146.jpeg (12.67 KB, 474x316, th-63584811.jpeg)

>>464152
>Fact: Russia is more of a democracy than Ukraine or the United States.
>>

 No.464165

>>464154
>I am anti-NATO not pro russia.
what's that has to do with marxism retard?
>>

 No.464166

File: 1673784199074.jpeg (12.67 KB, 474x316, th-63584811.jpeg)

>>464161
>Their official doctrine says "Russia is a multi-ethnic civilization"
2x
>>

 No.464167

Yes, Russia is very free, not like woke and degenerate Amerikkka.
>>

 No.464170

File: 1673785032822.png (268.24 KB, 600x556, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464152
Fact: My dad works at Nintendo and I smashed Kate Upton in her prime
>>

 No.464171

>>464147
>Nothing justifies racism
russian is not a race, it is a state of mind
nobody civilized wants reactionary militarist ass-raping pidorashkas around them
all was good when they stayed in their guglag ass-raping each other and didn't try to bring their Russki Mir to their unfortunate neighbors
>>

 No.464172

>>

 No.464173

>>464172
people in civilized countries don't work on weekends, pidorashka

FSB should do a better job of taking mobik's smartphones away so they don't end up shitposting on leftychan and then getting droned
>>

 No.464174

>>464162
I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with the prisoner-swap story.

One of the declared war-aims for Russia was de-nazification, which means that the political leadership and the higher military ranks have to be purged of Nazi-sympathizers. I don't know how they intent to do this in practice, but i assumed that this would be part of some kind of piece deal agreement or capitulation agreement (if it comes to that). Like it was done after ww2 with the axis-forces.

I'm not looking up political topics on Wikipedia because it has a strong political bias.

<integrating Nazis into their military

I don't know how to check up on your claim. The media is too saturated with histerical propaganda at the moment. If there were any good sources that could corroborate what you are saying, i wouldn't be able to find them, because everything gets drowned out by the noise.
>>

 No.464175

>>464174
>We can't put Nazi POWs on trial because reasons
>I can't see what you posted because I refuse to believe it
Great excuses, pidor.
>>

 No.464176

>>464171
translation: russians aren't humans

ok nazi :\
>>

 No.464177

>>464176
>Hurr racism
Says the Russian faggot as he simultaneously argues im favor of a regime that denies the existence of Ukrainian people and their country.
>>

 No.464178

File: 1673795707375.jpeg (30.88 KB, 600x315, okfag.jpeg)

>>464176
>NOOOO YOU'RE RAYCIST AGAINST GERMANS WHILE THEY SCREAM ABOUT MUH ANCESTRAL LEBENSRAUM!!! THEY'RE HOOMANS TOO NOOO!!!
Ok fag
>>

 No.464179

>>464177
no one tell this nato reddit faggot that east ukraine is 80% russian
>>

 No.464180

>>464179
yes, and I'm 35,123456789 percent hibernian
totally a real thing not made up, down to the last digit!

and this nazoid retard screams about nazism lmao
>>

 No.464181

>>464179
No one tell pidorashka that Russo-Ukrainian troops make up most of Ukraine's troops in the Donbass. No one tell him that Russo-Ukrainians are also on the receiving end of most Russian attacks.

Ukraine does not belong to Russia. Get over it. If someone there wants to be part of Russia, they should move there.
>>

 No.464182

>>464181
who east ukraine belongs to is sort of the point and outcome of this war, my money is on russia.
>>

 No.464183

>>464182
>Dis is razzia bcuz we taek it
Literally subhuman.
>>

 No.464184

>>464182
>who east John's house belongs to is sort of the point and outcome of this war, my money is on Frank.
Imagine being this fucking retarded. It's East Ukraine. It belongs to Ukraine. It's in the name, dipshit.
>>

 No.464185

File: 1673799873290.png (513.21 KB, 1190x986, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464184
>>464183

long live the USSR hopefully this time they go all the way to where ever the fuck you feds are posting from
>>

 No.464186

>>464185
russia is anti-ussr tho

imagine dying for your masters that stole the factories that the ussr built lol
imagine then defending their rule on an obscure leftist imageboard kek
imagine defending the wars they start for their profit kek

imagine the confused mind of a zigger
>>

 No.464187

>>464186

dont care they are shooting americans

imagine going over to ukraine to participate in a war that west ukraine started by shelling east ukraine and dying for zogbucks lmao

you might not think ukraine doesnt belong to russia but I think a lot of people with guns disagree with you on that point natoid
>>

 No.464188

>>464187
>but I think a lot of people with guns disagree with you on that point natoid
and a lot of people with guns on the other side disagree with you zigga

we'll see who breaks first zigga
>>

 No.464189

>>464185
Russia is not the USSR and you are a faggot lifestylist.
>>

 No.464190

>>464187
>zogbucks
And the real Nazi reveals itself
>>

 No.464191

>>464190
isreal sends guns to actual nazis in ukraine

>Russia is not the USSR and you are a faggot lifestylist.


neither of you present positions only sucking the cock on western imprealism begone faggot cia agents
>>

 No.464192

>>464191
>Not wanting Russia to invade you for their retarded spooks is CIA
Okay, Nazi.
>>

 No.464193

File: 1673802499516.png (1.01 MB, 976x549, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464192

nazis are on the west ukraines side you utter faggot lol
>>

 No.464194

>>464193
they're on both sides zigga retard
>>

 No.464195

>>464193
>Muh zog
Okay, Nazi.
>>

 No.464196

File: 1673804673684.png (423.8 KB, 746x423, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464195

>call him a nazi again agent smith
>>

 No.464197

>>464196
> Ids da feds
>Why u no liek razzia
>Why u liek ur own cuntry
>Wahhhh
You're subhuman.
>>

 No.464198

>>464197
>subhuman

woah cool it with the nazi speak nazi
>>

 No.464199

>>464198
>No u
Looks like pidorashka has run out of ideas.
>>

 No.464200

>>

 No.464201

File: 1673811756051.mp4 (8.69 MB, 1280x714, what Russians really think.mp4)

No better than animals. Vatniks are living mockeries of humanity.
>>

 No.464202

File: 1673812803404.png (195.06 KB, 660x509, hey kid meme dehumanize.png)

>>464201
>No better than animals.
>>

 No.464203

>>464201
Slava Ukraini. Death to invaders!
>>

 No.464204

>>464202
They gave up their own humanity.
>>

 No.464205

File: 1673825987888.png (427.88 KB, 615x410, america.png)

>>464204
ok patton

it wasn't funny 50+ years ago too
>>

 No.464206

File: 1673829187863.png (210.15 KB, 663x783, yt4ur1sabcca1[1].png)

Why are they like this?
>>

 No.464207

>>464206
You have to give Russian missiles credit–whenever you need a hospital, a hotel, an apartment complex, or a power plant destroyed, they will get it done.
>>

 No.464208

>>464203
Bare in mind that a significant portion of the Ukrainians in the Donbass region consider the Russians to be liberators, like in Donestsk and Lugansk for example.
>>

 No.464209

>>464206
>>464207
When the US bombed a civilian target in one of their hundreds of military campaigns of the last 3 decades, it is an honest mistake, unfortunate tactical necessity or simply collateral damage. When the Russians hit a civilian target it's proof of their savage nature.
>>

 No.464210

File: 1673861365574.webm (3.32 MB, 480x268, what-is-to-be-done.webm)

He's right you know.
>>

 No.464211

>>464209
bombs are only good when they are dropped by nato otherwise you're a asiastic horde savage and need to be put down get with the CIA program kiddo
>>

 No.464212

>>464209
The problem is the US doesn't use those incidents to brag about their weapons' effectiveness.
>>

 No.464213

>>464210
Sorry, I don't listen to discredited pedophiles.
>>

 No.464214

>>464209
The difference between Russian and American bombs would appear to be that Russian missiles are incapable of hitting anything small and mobile and are thus only good for blowing up large civilian buildings. I have no doubt that the Russians would prefer that their missiles destroy military targets, but since they cannot they are using them against the only target that they can reliably hit.
>>

 No.464215

>>464214
>le le le
The real diff bw Russian and US bombs is:
>strategic bombing vs carpet bombing

THAT'S ALL
>>

 No.464216

>>464206
I totally believe this, cuz I'm smart!
>>

 No.464217

>>464151
Insallah

t. atheist
>>

 No.464218

>>464215
The US switched away from both a long time ago. Precision bombing is the current paradigm. The fact is Russian stuff is just behind the times.
>>

 No.464219

>>464215
>le le le
I don't even get what that is supplsed to be implying.
>strategic bombing vs carpet bombing
Carpet bombing is a kind of strategic bombing, just like how a Bourdeaux is a caret. There is no difference between them; one is a type of the other like a poodle is a type of dog.
>>

 No.464220

>>464216
Or you could look it up and see that they actually posted that, dipshit vatnik.
https://twitter.com/rianru/status/1365025082402353155
>>

 No.464224

>>464218
I think the Russian military technology does have high-tech equivalent counter-parts to western tech, and the main difference is that they don't exclusively rely on that. They still use a lot of relatively dumb brute-force high-volume industrial medium-tech too. Consider that Russia trains about 30% more engineers then the US (despite only having half the population), so they do have the human capacity to make sophisticated weapons. Industrial warfare evidently is still very effective, so it's not really that surprising they went a mixed-tech route.
>>

 No.464227

>>464224
Evidently their engineers are garbage compared to American engineers. Their "high-tech" stuff isn't reliable and isn't made in large quantities for a reason.
>>

 No.464228

File: 1673960440144.png (244.68 KB, 606x455, fun with ippo-kun.png)

>>464227
Your self-delusion is adorable at this point.
>>

 No.464229

File: 1673960478080.png (45.58 KB, 803x670, war-becomes-political-econ….png)

>>464227
Russia can't afford to make large quantities of super pricey fancy weapons, I doubt that you can draw a conclusion about the quality based on that fact. However they can produce large quantities of regular weapons, which has surprised many people in the west. Pic related
sauce: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/14/world-war-3-us-russia-china-emmanuel-todd/

The US weapons industry has good engineers for sure, but their military procurement system is really shit, it's solely designed to line the pockets of the US-MIC and to create political entrenchment that makes it really hard to reform the bad system. The US is not getting what it's paying for. They also are not able to realize the potential their of engineers, like for example the Lockheed AH-56. https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=fR-r6RR1nJM
>>

 No.464230

>>464229
> Fancy weapons
They're normal modern weapons. I'm sorry Russia is stuck in the 70s.
>>

 No.464231

File: 1673961491119.jpg (483.19 KB, 1617x984, world-map-manufacturing-ou….jpg)

>>464229
>>464229
>The US weapons industry has good engineers for sure, but their military procurement system is really shit, it's solely designed to line the pockets of the US-MIC and to create political entrenchment that makes it really hard to reform the bad system. The US is not getting what it's paying for.
As opposed to Russia, who paid for night vision production almost a decade ago and yet their troops have nothing. American procurement may be overpriced, but at least you get an end product, unlike Russians who just steal everything. Also nice image, faggot. Russia has almost no productive capabilities, especially compared to the US.
>>

 No.464232

>>464230
>They're normal modern weapons.
I would say no.
What's normal depends on various factors like overall wealth, but also the productive capacity of the economy. Given that neo-liberalism has eroded the West's industrial base, they're fancy weapons for the west as well.

Russia probably made the correct decision to mix high-tech weapons with a conventional set up, where they retain the mass firepower of standard-ish weapons system, and at the same time have some high-end capabilities from the more advanced systems. The west's economy although huge on paper can't produce weapons system at industrial scale, and got outproduced by Russia in some domains like artillery ammunition.
>>

 No.464233

>>464232
>Given that neo-liberalism has eroded the West's industrial base
Again, the industrial base of western Europe and the US dwarfs that of Russia by more than an order of magnitude.
>Russia probably made the correct decision to mix high-tech weapons with a conventional
It wasn't a choice. Russia can't even make night vision tubes.
>The west's economy although huge on paper can't produce weapons system at industrial scale, and got outproduced by Russia in some domains like artillery ammunition.
It's because western militaries use less of it. How many fifth gen fighters does Russia have? Last I checked it was none.
>>

 No.464235

File: 1673981129969.jpg (689.46 KB, 1200x800, su-57.jpg)

>>464233
>How many fifth gen fighters does Russia have? Last I checked it was none.
rofl you can't even keep up with your own lies anymore. I sure hope none of Ukraine's military leaders believe some of the dumb shit you've been spewing.
>>

 No.464236

>>464228
He's right, though. Those high-performance Russian aircraft apparently can't even run wild weasel. Their anti-radiation weapons can't hit anything that isn't precisely where it is expected to be. Their ultrasuperdupersonic missles are so inaccurate that they can't hit anything of any tactical importance. Their tanks are just big targets, which, in fairness, is true of all big tanks that aren't surrounded by infantry. Russian military tech, in a word, sucks, and eveyone following this war can see that.
>>

 No.464237

>>464229
It is exceeding true that the American MIC is a bloated, corrupt mess. The bitch of it is that a modern military that is going to prosecute expeditionary wars needs to have crazy expensive stealth aircraft, rockets that can actually hit shit, a video game-like command and control system, night vision goggles, and mechanized infantry that is capable of shredding armor. A military that has those things, as we have seen time and time again since the eighties, can slice through an enormous army with just "regular" weapons like a hot knife through butter.

See, at the start of this war, we all thought that the Russians had that stuff, so everyone, Putin included, predicted that the war would be a two-week ROLFstomp. But they don't. Their stealth aircraft can't run SEAD missions. Their rockets may as well be Katyushas for how inaccurate they are. Their command and control system looks like something out of WWII. They have no night vision. Thier anachronistic love of tank columns has rendered their armor impotent against well-deployed infantry. It is a military structure that was conceived poorly.
>>

 No.464238

>>464235
Lol, the Su-57? They can't even sell the worthless things, and their reported inability to fly over Ukranian airspace is not going to help with sales efforts. If someone wants a fighter that will sit in its own airspace and fire long-range missiles of questionable effectiveness, they may as well just pick some Mig-29s from the bargain bin.
>>

 No.464240

>>464235
>Exposed engines
>Radar crosssection spec is still bigger than F-117
>Already cancelled
>No s-ducts
>Will never operate in a fifth gen role
Su-57 is to fifth gen fighters as Sega Saturn is to fifth gen consoles.
>>

 No.464241

>>462240
>Radar crosssection spec is still bigger than F-117
Sukhoi still hasn't progressed beyond re-engineering the F-117 that they stole in Serbia.
>>

 No.464242

File: 1673990326879.jpg (54.69 KB, 660x384, Su-57-Screws.jpg)

>>464241
It's much worse than that. RCS spec, not actual, on a Su-57 is .1m^2 to 1m^2. RCS on the Nighthawk is .001m^2. so even in the best case scenario, a retired US stealth aircraft is about 100 times better than the Su-57.
>>

 No.464243

>>464242
What gets me is the engines. They look like something out of the seventies. How can you call anything "stealth" with two big round nozzels on the back?

You know, this discussion got me thinking–with the international market for a stealth fighter that is significantly cheaper than the F-35 being as robust as it is, why hasn't Lockheed started offering to make new F-22s for countries like Turkey and India? It turns out that the there is still a law that prohibits the export of the F-22 a quarter-century after the first one rolled off the asembly line. Apparently, it is still top secret. Now I understand why–nobody has made a better stealth fighter since.
>>

 No.464244

>>464237
>The bitch of it is that a modern military that is going to prosecute expeditionary wars needs to have crazy expensive stealth aircraft, rockets that can actually hit shit, a video game-like command and control system, night vision goggles, and mechanized infantry that is capable of shredding armor.
I think we're going to have to upgrade you from NATO shill to US MIC shill at this point.
>>

 No.464245

>>464244
Recognizing reality doesn't make you a shill. He's right, and the US has proved it over and over again. There is a reason it is the last remaining superpower.
>>

 No.464247

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/false-democracy/

>Such painful oversimplifications of a complex world would be bad enough even if Ukraine were a genuine democracy. The country, however, did not deserve that status even before the Russian invasion, and Kiev’s lurch toward systematic repression has grown much worse since the outbreak of that conflict. Today’s Ukraine is a corrupt and increasingly authoritarian state. It is not a democracy even by the most generous definition of that term. Unfortunately, Kiev’s supporters in the West continue to ignore, minimize, or even justify the Zelensky regime’s repressive behavior.


>Genuine democracies do not ban multiple opposition parties or close opposition media outlets. Nor do they rigorously censor (and put under strict government control) media outlets that they allow to remain open. Genuine democracies do not outlaw churches that advocate policies the government dislikes. They do not imprison regime opponents, let alone without meaningful due process, much less tolerate the torture of political prisoners. Genuine democracies do not publish “blacklists” of domestic and foreign critics, thereby putting a target on their backs. Yet the Ukrainian government has committed not just one or two, but all of those abuses.
>>

 No.464248

>>464247
>Theamericanconservative.com
>Ted Galen Carpenter is senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. Carpenter served as Cato’s director of foreign policy studies from 1986 to 1995 and as vice president for defense and foreign policy studies from 1995 to 2011.
The absolute state of tankies.
>>

 No.464249

>>464248
What's the matter, is the source still not right-wing enough for you? Every one of the article's claims has a citation.
>>

 No.464250

>>464249
>Y-You're r-r-r-right w-wing!
>says the man quoting some of the most virulent right-wingers
I don't care. I'm not reading your propaganda piece by a Cato institute shill.
>>

 No.464253

>>464244
Look at the Kremlin shill trying to call other people shills. The results of the respective military doctrines is obvious–the NATO doctrine wins wars in weeks against huge veteran armies, and the Russian doctrine gets stuck in (lol) trenches for a year against the poorest country in Europe.
>>

 No.464254

>>464242
I think you might be wrong both the F22 and the Su57 have both an effective radar reflective surface of about 0.4m² against current radar tech. Different radar tech could change that, maybe that's where you get your diverging numbers from.
>>

 No.464255

File: 1674025452552.jpg (20.33 KB, 510x321, berniejets.jpg)

>>464254
"Stealth" technology is mostly a boondoggle by the aerospace industry anyway. For decades now it has been defeated by pairing short-wave with long-wave radar systems. The US has wasted trillions of dollars on a giant turkey that excels at nothing and can't even fly in the rain because the aerospace industry has been allowed to sell the myth that filling a platform up with dozens of technologies and design goals that conflict with one another (especially stealth) is the path to an effective military weapon.
>>

 No.464256

File: 1674026148823.jpg (13.73 KB, 398x229, collonel cassad.jpg)

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/

There is an interesting blog from a Russian communist who calls him self Colonel Cassad, who writes about this war.

You need a language translator because it's in Russian
I recommend using firefox with this add-on that works entirely client side (which is better for privacy)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-translations/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org
>>

 No.464257

>muh fifth generation
>muh stealth
>>

 No.464258

File: 1674030615313.jpg (14.04 KB, 768x576, F-22&Bear-H.jpg)

>>464255
The F-22 is thirty years old and was designed to function within an air force that also has B-2s doing a lot of the SEAD stuff. The F-117 was a strike aircraft that was designed before the B-2 and was expected to destroy radar installations and SAM sites all on its own, which is what the Russians foolishly planned to have the Su-57 do.

The stealth on air superiority fighters is supposed to make it particularly difficult to target, not to make it an invisible first-strike weapon like the B-2 and the old F-117. Stealth for air superiority fighters is geared toward defeating missiles and target locks. That's why the F-22 and the F-35 have those enclosed thrust-vectoring engines that greatly reduce the aircraft's infrared signature instead of the huge, round, heat-spewing nozzels that are on the Su-57. The Su-57 is trying to fill the same strike aircraft role that the F-117 filled in 1991, but it's radar signature is too large for that. Also, it's infrared signature is too large to fill the air superiority role that the F-22 currently fills. The Su-57 is a "tweener," as they say in sports–its talent lies somewhere between two different roles, which means that it is less than capable in either.
>>464255
>For decades now it has been defeated by pairing short-wave with long-wave radar systems.
For decades now, it has consistently delivered total air supremacy within days of the commencement of hostilities and allowed strike aircraft, helicopters, and HVAAs to operate with impunity within the theater. Stealth has proven itself to be devestatingly effective time and time again. In contrast, the Russian wonder weapons have only fallen flat on their faces; their inability to secure air supremacy after a full year is jaw-dropping. The Russo-Ukranian War has been the most effective free advertising campaign that Lockheed and Raytheon have ever enjoyed.

We can actually see both doctrines in action. Stealth works. Uberdoobersonic missiles and bargain bin aircraft don't.
>>

 No.464259

>>464257
We can see stealth working. We can see your shit failing. The proof is in the pudding.
>>

 No.464260

File: 1674031516941.jpeg (8.26 KB, 224x225, janny.jpeg)

>>464258
>The Russo-Ukranian War has been the most effective free advertising campaign that Lockheed and Raytheon have ever enjoyed.
You don't say…
>>

 No.464261

>>464255
You might be right stealth didn't turn out to be the killer-app (pun intended) after-all

>>464257
this guy has a point, the f16 was one of the most successful jet-fighter designs, maybe they should have kept that design philosophy instead of what they did with f35

>>464258
>The F-22 is thirty years old
The Su-57 is too, that project was started by the Soviet Union, and paused in the 90s

>Stealth has proven itself

>it has consistently delivered total air supremacy
maybe stealth was just along for the ride and it didn't do as much as you think it did
Pretty much everybody is going for longer range standoff weapons these days

>>464259
>We can see stealth working
if you can see it, it's not working 😛
>>

 No.464263

>>464254
>>464254
>I think you might be wrong both the F22 and the Su57 have both an effective radar reflective surface of about 0.4m²
This is cope. RCS is not a property of the radar. It is an inherent physical property of the aircraft and its reflectivity. F-22 has an RCS of 0.0001m^2, so the Su-57 is even more pathetic when compared to actual modern fighters.
>Different radar tech could change that, maybe that's where you get your diverging numbers from.
No. It can't, and unlike you, I didn't pull numbers straight from my ass.
>>

 No.464264

>>464257
>Pierre Sprey
Lol, what a fucking retard. That guy was firmly against the F-15 until it proved successful and then claimed credit. He has always lied about his credentials and didn't design anything, nor did he know about modern air combat theory.
>>

 No.464265

File: 1674055598480.jpeg (206.63 KB, 1704x1098, message-editor_1642931939….jpeg)

>>464255
>The US has wasted trillions of dollars on a giant turkey that excels at nothing and can't even fly in the rain
First, this is a lie by an uninformed retard. F-35 can't fly during thunderstorms, not rain. Second, it's geared toward BVR engagements and has the ability to target planes much further and before being detected. It can do what it was designed to do, and you can stay salty about it because Russia will never, ever produce something like it, and sad attempts at it like the Su-57 will always be cheap copies of old designs.
>>

 No.464266

>>464264
As usual, our little resident shill only seems capable of attacking people's character, never addressing their arguments.
>>

 No.464267

>>464266
What character? I'm saying he doesn't have the qualifications to make those claims. He wanted to rip out the fucking radar and missile racks on the F-15, you know, the most successful fighter aircraft of all time.
>>

 No.464268

>>464266
>>464267
But let's address the first two minutes to get an idea of what kind of fucking retard and shill he is. In the first two minutes, he claims credit for working on the F-15, which is a lie. He did not work on the F-15. He merely demanded that they get rid of a bunch of useful shit on it so it could be a WWII fighter with jets. Obviously he was told to fuck off. He then went on to claim about how Boyd and himself went on to work on the F-16, which relied on the methodology developed from the F-15. This is also a lie, since Boyd didn't work on the F-16. He even claims it was started in secret, which is another lie. The reason the F-16 was cheaper was because of the development of the F-15. He claims that it was designed for a single mission, which is another lie or simply the result of his ignorance on the topic, as the F-16 is a multirole aircraft, not an air superiority fighter like the F-15. What fucking arguments is Sprey making? Because all I hear are a bunch of retarded claims that always go back to him as the original source of those claims.
>>

 No.464270

>>464263
the "stealth" radar signature features do not work across the entire frequency range, that means the effective (or perhaps more accurately described as "apparent") radar reflective surface of the plane can vary with radar technology. If you go to long enough wavelengths the entire plane absorbs and re-emits the radar signals, acting more like an antenna and the special radar attenuation paint and the special deflection shape have very little effect anymore.
>>

 No.464271

>>464270
>the "stealth" radar signature features do not work across the entire frequency range, that means the effective (or perhaps more accurately described as "apparent") radar reflective surface of the plane can vary with radar technology.
You do realize, that RCS is a baseline, correct? Now, you may argue that it's only head-on or any such things, but the only way to detect a craft with smaller RCS is a more powerful radar. You don't know what you're talking about.
>If you go to long enough wavelengths the entire plane absorbs and re-emits the radar signals, acting more like an antenna and the special radar attenuation paint and the special deflection shape have very little effect anymore.
You don't know how stealth tech works. It doesn't just absorb radar emissions, it deflects them. Second, I would like you to show me a powerful radar using long wavelengths, because, last, I checked, powerful radars use extremely high frequencies and thus shorter wavelengths, you absolute retard.
>>

 No.464272

>>464268
the main points that he makes about the F35 being a multitool with too much functionality is true tho.
>>

 No.464273

>>464272
It's not. He brought up the F-16 as an example, which is proof negative of his claims. The F-35 exist as it does because those capabilities are necessary in modern combat. Sprey didn't have the expertise or technical acumen to make any of the claims he did. He said the same thing of the F-15, again, the most successful fighter of all time.
>>

 No.464274

>>464271
based on that reply you clearly haven't understood what i said.

>>464273
I'm going to ignore the comments that attack the person, and the praise of glory for the other plane (whose design appears like an overreaction to the mig-21), because those aren't real arguments.

The concrete arguments that you seem to make are:
<the f16 is a multi-tool too
<the f35 needs all that stuff

The f-16 certainly didn't have features like vtol, and most of the missions the f35 will be send on won't need vtol, so at the very least there could have been a dedicated jump-jet, which would've removed a big chunk of design compromises from the F35.

As far as the stealth aspect goes, i don't know if i really buy that as something that is needed for combat, because as soon as there's a significant battle it won't be long until big support aircraft with extremely powerful radars come into play that negate stealth anyway. So there could have been a dedicated stealth-jet as well and once again remove a big chunk of design compromises from the F35.

They could have made 3 cheaper planes, with a smaller mission profile, that each would have been better than the F35 in their respective fields.
>>

 No.464275

>>464274
>based on that reply you clearly haven't understood what i said.
No. There's an idea in your brain of what you're trying to say, but you either don't know how to write or don't know what you're talking about.
>>

 No.464276

>>464260
You have no idea what that meme means, do you? Obviously not. You are such an obvious fake.
>>464261
>You might be right stealth didn't turn out to be the killer-app (pun intended) after-all
I suppose if you entirely ignore the battlefield results. And the theory. And if you have never seen a radar screen before.
>the f16 was one of the most successful jet-fighter designs, maybe they should have kept that design philosophy instead of what they did with f35
The F-16 is an interceptor–it was designed for local defense, which is why it has such a small fuel capacity and only one engine as opposed to the F-15 and the F-22 which are air superiority fighters and, as such, were designed to project air power over distances. The F-35 is a stupid amalgum of both interceptor and air superiority fighter–a jack of all trades and a master of none.
>The Su-57 is too, that project was started by the Soviet Union, and paused in the 90s
My point in mentioning the age of the F-22 was to point out that it was designed to work in the same air force as the B-2 whereas the even older F-117 and the ill-conceived Su-57 were not.
>maybe stealth was just along for the ride and it didn't do as much as you think it did
Oh, the dipshit Russian generals have put the lie to that theory by showing just how utterly inept an air force without effective stealth is over even a country with only old Soviet SAMs.
>>464266
He was pointing out how Pierre Sprey is awful at determining how effective an aircraft is. That's not argumentum ad hominem; it's challenging a supposed "expert's" credentials upon the very topic of discussion. But hey, at least he isn't a convicted fraud and proven liar like Mercouris is.
>>464265
What exactly gives it BVR capabilities? Does it have an exceptionally long range on its radar? An F-15 can fight BVR if there are AWACS or radar installations in-theater. Link-16 is a beautiful thing.
>>464270
>the "stealth" radar signature features do not work across the entire frequency range
Radar does not work across the entire frequency range. If the frequency is too low, then the signal is prone to bouncing in every direction and dissipating.
>If you go to long enough wavelengths the entire plane absorbs and re-emits the radar signals
Kek, as I was saying… HF radio waves are not stable enough to work as radar, and the way that they bounce around makes them far too inacurate, and, no, no new technology will change that about HF frequencies. It's what they do, and it's why ham radios use them to bounce signals off the ionosphere.
>>464273
>The F-35 exist as it does because those capabilities are necessary in modern combat.
The F-35 tries to fill too many modern combat functions. As I said eariler, it tries to be both an interceptor and an air superiority fighter. It also tries to be a close air support strike fighter and a carrier-based fighter/bomber. The problem is that, by doing so, it does not excell at anything. The F-22 is clearly a superior air superiority fighter despite costing half as much, and the F-35 is far too expensive to be a successor to the cheapo F-16. I don't know enough to comment on how it will fare with the Army and Marines as close air support, nor do I know how it will work as a replacement for the F/A-18 (which was itself an inferior successor to both the F-14 and the A-6).
>He said the same thing of the F-15, again, the most successful fighter of all time.
I don't know about that. The Mig-29 was pretty damn good, even if it didn't have the superior radar-guided missiles and avionics suite that the Americans put on the F-15.
>>

 No.464277

>>464274
>The f-16 certainly didn't have features like vtol, and most of the missions the f35 will be send on won't need vtol
First, the F-35 is not a VTOL aircraft. It's a STVOL(Short-Takeoff and Vertical Landing) variant used by the Marines, the F-35B. This is because the Marines operate craft that can't launch the C variant, but can use the B variant due to their smaller size.
>so at the very least there could have been a dedicated jump-jet, which would've removed a big chunk of design compromises from the F35.
This is why they have one variant, and not every variant has this feature. See, the people working on this are smarter than you.
>As far as the stealth aspect goes, i don't know if i really buy that as something that is needed for combat
If it's not needed for combat, how do you propose that modern air defenses be defeated?
>because as soon as there's a significant battle it won't be long until big support aircraft with extremely powerful radars come into play
You realize, of course, that the F-35 and F-22 do have those extremely powerful radars, don't you? You do know that they have full systems integration with bigger planes which have bigger radars, don't you?
>So there could have been a dedicated stealth-jet as well and once again remove a big chunk of design compromises from the F35.
Yes, you're thinking of the F-22, which is our stealth air superiority fighter.
>They could have made 3 cheaper planes, with a smaller mission profile, that each would have been better than the F35 in their respective fields.
The F-35 is currently cheaper than any other comparable alternative. It's cheaper than the Rafale, cheaper than upgrading an old airframe, and unlike the Russian counterparts, actually exists.
>>

 No.464278

>>464277
>The F-35 is currently cheaper than any other comparable alternative.
Alternative what? Interceptor? Air superiority fighter? Carrier-based fighter/bomber? Close air support combat fighter?
>>

 No.464279

>>464276
>What exactly gives it BVR capabilities? Does it have an exceptionally long range on its radar? An F-15 can fight BVR if there are AWACS or radar installations in-theater. Link-16 is a beautiful thing.
True, but the F-35 has the same systems integration is much less detectable than the F-15, meaning that the F-35 would get the first hit every time.

>The F-35 tries to fill too many modern combat functions

I don't know how accurate this criticism is. While it's true that the F-35 takes on more roles, I think it's more than capable of doing them, and I think any modern stealth aircraft should be able to do these things given the specifications of what constitutes a true fifth-gen fighter. When you think of all the planes it replaces, it actually looks reasonable when comparing costs.
>The problem is that, by doing so, it does not excell at anything.
This, again, I do not know if it's accurate. The planes it replaces in some of its roles (the A-10, for example), were not particularly capable in and of themselves at their designated roles. For example, most of A-10s vehicle kills came from firing guided ordnance, not its main gun, which is actually quite inaccurate and can't kill a modern tank. The F-35 can simply fire the same ordnance.
>The F-22 is clearly a superior air superiority fighter despite costing half as much, and the F-35 is far too expensive to be a successor to the cheapo F-16.
True, but the F-35 is not a replacement to the F-22, but a compliment to it. It simply fills most roles but that of the absolute air superiority fighter that is the F-22, and has some smart capabilities that the F-22 does not have.
> I don't know enough to comment on how it will fare with the Army and Marines as close air support, nor do I know how it will work as a replacement for the F/A-18 (which was itself an inferior successor to both the F-14 and the A-6).
From what I have read and seen on it, F-35 pilots are quite happy with their new planes and wouldn't trade them for legacy aircraft, and the fact that it simplifies maintenance due to having to keep less in stock for multiple different models does end up making it cheaper than maintaining the old aircraft, which will not fare well against modern air defenses.
>I don't know about that. The Mig-29 was pretty damn good, even if it didn't have the superior radar-guided missiles and avionics suite that the Americans put on the F-15.
F-15 is a weird overreaction bird, and I think the US is simply going to keep doing it that way. Modern tech does make things better. A lot of people refuse to admit that, but they've been proven wrong time and time again.
>>

 No.464280

>>464278
Any modern plane on export today expected to be a multirole fighter. The F-35 is not one plane, it's three of them. As an interceptor, it's quite good. Name a better one that has the same standoff capabilities and low detection. As ground attack, it is also better, and other than the F-22, not much will beat it in the air, and that one is not for sale. The fact is that most of the hate for the F-35 can be traced back directly to Sprey. This idea that roles themselves don't blend is an anachronism. Modern air combat has more in common with submarine warfare than WWII dogfights.
>>

 No.464281

It's very interesting how our resident NATO shill seems to hold all the same views as the US state on both Syria and the military industry in addition to the US state line on Ukraine. Definitely not sus at all. Should we expect them to tell us Juan Guaido is the president of Venezuela next?
>>

 No.464282

>>464281
It's funny how you don't have an argument and bring up shit nobody was talking about. Your problem is that you're just a contrarian. If the state dept declared that the sky was blue, I would guess that you'd have a problem with that too. For the record, I do not think Juan Guaido is the legitimate president of Venezuela. Unlike Zelenskyy, he wasn't elected and no longer holds any position in Venezuelan government. However, if you weren't a fucking retard, you'd know things like that while not being a vatnik faggot.
>>

 No.464283

>>464281
Yeah you're not wrong about that.

However I think Guaido was officially canned by his party recently, so he probably isn't "their guy" anymore. I guess expect a new name. Although they are playing nice with Venezuela atm because they're struggling to find enough oil-production to fill the hole from the anti-russian-Sanctions.
>>

 No.464284

>>464283
Good point, maybe we'll have a debate about how China is genociding the Uyghurs next.
>>

 No.464285

>>464284
Are you going to keep deflecting? Because it's transparent and pathetic.
>>

 No.464287

File: 1674106346362-0.png (17.66 MB, 3366x2525, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1674106346362-1.png (2.15 MB, 1400x787, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1674106346362-2.png (7.62 MB, 3000x2000, ClipboardImage.png)

It's very interesting how our resident Kremlin shills seem to be deflecting to Venezuela only a few days after Russian missiles murdered 45 Ukrainian civilians in an apartment complex in Dnipro, including 6 children. S-stop Noticing Things!
>>

 No.464290

File: 1674107162963.jpg (30.76 KB, 553x236, laughing whores.jpg)

>>

 No.464291

>>464284
>Good point, maybe we'll have a debate about how China is genociding the Uyghurs next.
That narrative has been downgraded to "cultural genocide" They had to walk back from the extermination camp claims.

The material conditions for people living in the imperial core are getting worse, and people are going to switch their attention to their domestic problems more and more, the public interest for things like ebil-tshyna-bugmen is going to decline.
>>

 No.464292

>>464280
>Any modern plane on export today expected to be a multirole fighter.
How do you know, are you an armsdealer combat-systems-export-sales-coordinator that knows what customers want in a fighter-jet ?
You certainly are selling the shit out of the F35, given that it's reputation is "rather meh"
To be honest i doubt that you'll find people with the means to purchase one of those here.
>>

 No.464293

>>464287
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-apartment-strike-death-toll-1b518f84fc4e70708d56e1a1ea708929
Russian strike toll: 45 dead civilians, including 6 children
>The death toll from the Ukraine war’s deadliest attack on civilians at one location since last spring reached 45 at an apartment building a Russian missile blasted in the southeastern city of Dnipro, officials said Tuesday.
>Those killed in the Saturday afternoon strike included six children, with 79 people injured, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on the Telegram messaging app. The toll included two dozen people initially listed as missing at the multistory building, which housed about 1,700, according to Kyrylo Tymoshenko, deputy head of the Ukrainian president’s office.
>Emergency crews cleared some 9 metric tons (9.9 tons) of rubble during a non-stop search and rescue operation, the Dnipro City Council said. About 400 people lost their homes, with 72 apartments completely ruined and another 236 damaged beyond repair, it added.
>>

 No.464296

File: 1674115662319.png (1.99 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464290
>vatniks laugh about Russia's military mass murdering Ukrainian civilians including children
>are somehow shocked that we won't protest NATO sending heavy weapons to Ukraine like HIMARS and using them to annihilate Russian invaders in their lmao-tier human wave attacks against entrenched positions in empty Ukrainian villages
>will still try to change our minds on the situation with TL;DR copewalls about "Le Russkiy Mir", "HATO" and "muh Minsk"
>>

 No.464297

File: 1674115895440.png (2.78 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-crime-and-punishment-illegal-war-in-ukraine
Russia’s Crime and Punishment
<How to Prosecute the Illegal War in Ukraine
>For much of history, aggressive wars were perfectly legal.
>Support for the idea of a special tribunal to try the crime of aggression is growing.
>>

 No.464298

File: 1674115960801.png (1.68 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/sanctions-russia-are-working
The Sanctions on Russia Are Working
<Slowly but Surely, They Are Weakening Putin
>Make no mistake: sanctions are, in fact, hobbling the Russian economy.
>>

 No.464299

>>457563
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=2QRBITdPR7w

Ukraine is concentrating a lot of forces in Bahkmut and might risk them getting encircled.

Germany doesn't want to throw it's main battles tanks into the Ukraine shredder anymore than the US.
>>

 No.464300

File: 1674116102111-0.png (3.23 MB, 2000x1000, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1674116102111-1.png (4.88 MB, 2000x1500, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-desperate-victory-sends-troops-into-ukrainian-defenses-former-general-2023-1
Putin's desperate for a win, and he's throwing troops at some of Ukraine's toughest defenses to get it, former general says
>Intense fighting between Ukraine and Russia has been taking place around the eastern city of Bakhmut.
>Putin has been sending troops into some of Ukraine's most heavily defended areas, a former general said.
>Mick Ryan argues the Russian leader is trying to get a win before the war's one-year anniversary.
>>

 No.464301

>>464296
Uh oh, guess we better initiate WWIII to stop them!
>>

 No.464302

Here is the commentary of a retired German brigadier general named Erich Vad

<General Milley, Vad said, “has spoken an inconvenient truth. A truth that, by the way, was hardly published in the German media…. What is being waged in Ukraine is a war of attrition… This strategy did not work militarily then [1914-18] – and will not do so today”. To his German audience, Vad was also reminding them of the threats to German economic survival and political independence which followed the armistice of November 1918 and terms of the Versailles peace treaty of June 1919, and then led into World War II.


<He then attacked the Scholz coalition for propagandizing the older German war aim without the military capacity to implement it against the Russian forces. “Military experts [and those] who know what is going on among the secret services, what it looks like on the ground and what war really means – are largely excluded from the [German public] debate. They do not fit in with the formation of media opinion. We are largely experiencing a coordination of the media, the likes of which I have never experienced before in the Federal Republic.”


Source http://johnhelmer.net/german-general-tells-us-generals-to-lose-the-ukraine-war-as-soon-as-possible-to-prevent-losing-the-empire-in-europe/#more-70493
>>

 No.464303

File: 1674116847788.jpg (45.28 KB, 710x264, vad.jpg)

>>464302
wrong picture
>>

 No.464304

File: 1674117133912.png (266.33 KB, 2116x1568, screen.png)

>>464301
Lmfao. Russia can attack NATO or nuke Ukraine at ANY time but they'll get curb-stomped by NATO in response. The Kremlin is getting thrashed by Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe. NATO vs. Russia would be less "World War 3" and more "Gulf War / Desert Storm 2.0".
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx
>>

 No.464305

Opinion by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former defense secretary Robert M. Gates: Time is not on Ukraine’s side

<the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/07/condoleezza-rice-robert-gates-ukraine-repel-russia/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter
>>

 No.464306

>>464279
>True, but the F-35 has the same systems integration is much less detectable than the F-15, meaning that the F-35 would get the first hit every time.
Who gets the first strike has nothing to do with stealth and everything to do with radar coverage, data links, and the capabilities of the AA missiles. Stealth such as that on the F-35 can help to avoid detection (stealth is far more important for defeating the missiles that may get sent back after the first Fox-3s are away), but no weapons director is going to send them into range of hostile AA unless he knows that the opponent is effectively blind. Those machines are too damned expensive and those pilots are too well-trained to put them at risk of a lucky shot. Once the enemy's long-range radar installations are destroyed by either cruise missiles or B-2s, friendly fighters can count on always getting the first strike.
>I think it's more than capable of doing them, and I think any modern stealth aircraft should be able to do these things given the specifications of what constitutes a true fifth-gen fighter.
Sure the F-35 can theoretically run close air support, but it would be exceeding stupid to use them for such. Flying within range of fire from the ground is just too dangerous to be done by anything that costs a hundred million dollars. Aircraft will be lost doing that job, even to shit like a twenty-cal the way that that one F-117 was downed over Serbia. Besides, something that is running close-air support doesn't need the kind of stealth capabilities that an air superiority fighter does–it's a waste. A small IR signature is fantastic because that is what SAMs at that altitude use for targeting, but ground forces don't need radar to locate an aircraft doing close support.

Then you have its supposed role as an interceptor. Sure, having stealth is nice to help with incoming missiles, but interceptors have one advantage that air superiority fighters do not have: they always see hostiles well before hostiles see them. That is owing to the fact that they operate within their own air defense sector. They have ground-based long-range radar and probably some HVAAs painting everything within five-hundred miles. As such, it's a job that can be done on the cheap. Countries that are not the United States or Great Britain really only need interceptors for their air defense, and cheap, robust interceptors like the venerable F-16 also make great strike fighters. It fills out a quality air force at a bargain price. Using F-35s in that role is like driving a McLaren to the grocery store to pick up a quart of milk. Just enough stealth paired with extreme agility to defeat long range AA missiles is about all interceptors will need for the forseeable future. That could conceivably be done for a hell of a lot cheaper than a hundred-million dollars.
>When you think of all the planes it replaces, it actually looks reasonable when comparing costs.
The cost is exactly what makes it unreasonable. It is too expensive to use as close air support. It is too expensive to serve as a replacement for the old F-16 in the interceptor role. Its development cost money that should have been spent on F-22s so that the poor old F-15 could finally retire.
>True, but the F-35 is not a replacement to the F-22, but a compliment to it.
That would make sense, but what actually happened was that the Air Force was forced to only get a small number of F-22s, because the Pentagon, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the money they had earmarked for a proper fleet of F-22s would be better spent on designing a silly-assed Swiss army knife that would appease the Army, Navy and Marines who were butthurt about the Air Force getting all the big, sexy toys.
>old aircraft, which will not fare well against modern air defenses.
The old dogs work just fine once the B-2s have annihilated everything on the ground that emits radar and the F-22s have shot everything that flies out of the sky. Air defenses only last a few days when you have those babies.
>Modern tech does make things better.
Having a coherent doctrine that takes into account the realities of the modern battlefied makes things better.
>>

 No.464307

>>464304
>Russia can attack NATO
Nobody is suggesting that they would do that.
But there is always a danger that wars like the one in Ukraine can dangerously escalate.
This is a proxy between Russia and the US, and both of these are nuclear super-powers, if your mental faculties are at all governed by reason you should be worried, and lobby for a diplomatic resolution.

Russia's nuclear arsenal is sightly larger the US's and has been more recently modernized, so the narratives that one could win a nuclear war against such an opponent is anything but reasoned.
>>

 No.464308

File: 1674118560740.png (120.58 KB, 500x324, WarGames.png)

>>464307
Nobody wins a nuclear war, and, barring a U.S. invasion of Russia itself (no stolen bits of Ukraine do not count), noboy is going to push the big red button.
>>

 No.464310

>>464308
>Nobody wins a nuclear war
So why are you suggesting to escalate by making US forces engage Russian forces?
The battle of words about whether Russia has liberated or annexed these regions is besides the point. The Russians won't tolerate US forces on Moscow's doorstep, anymore then the US would tolerate Russian forces in Mexico or Canada.

I don't know where exactly the nuclear threshold for Russia is but a US troop build-up so close to them, that might cross it.
>>

 No.464311

>>464310
>So why are you suggesting to escalate by making US forces engage Russian forces?
Nobody suggested that, vatnik. US or NATO have zero need to engage Russian forces. Ukraine is doing a fine job of bleeding out the Russian occupiers. All NATO have to do is keep supplying Ukraine the heavy weapons it needs to continue doing that. Zero NATO casualties and like 4% of NATO total defense budget.
>>

 No.464312

>>464310
>>464311
*4% of NATO total defense budget to cripple and humiliate Russia in its strategic blunder of invading Ukraine. Sneed
>>

 No.464315

>>464311
>Nobody suggested that US or NATO engage Russian forces
MY bad, i thought that you were implying it.

>Ukraine is doing a fine job of bleeding out

Aside from the rhetorical barbarism, that is true. However they are not really inflicting great losses on Russia, they are being sacrificed in vein. Russia is going to win this war by any reasonable metric. When the Ukrainian military capacity is exhausted, Russia will have gained some amount of Donbass territory and a half destroyed Ukrainian rump state is going to have a peace dictate from Moscow imposed on it that will prevent it from having a strong military ever again or even consider doing anything with NATO.

>All NATO have to do is keep supplying Ukraine the heavy weapons

It's not going to make a difference, Ukraine did have a huge arsenal before this began, and it couldn't stop Russia's initially small expeditionary force. Now the Russians have mobilized much more people and weapons it's going to be even harder.

>and like 4% of NATO total defense budget.

No warmongering ain't cheap, have you looked at commodity prices recently. A brutal economic depression has already begun in Europe and will be coming to the US fairly soon. There are already rising numbers of people who can't pay rent for their homes or have trouble financing both food and utilities at the same time.

Stop spending money on this lost war, spend money on making the lives of people better.
>>

 No.464317

>>464292
>How do you know, are you an armsdealer combat-systems-export-sales-coordinator that knows what customers want in a fighter-jet ?
No, but the F-35 is selling like hotcakes. Obviously, militaries want it.
>You certainly are selling the shit out of the F35, given that it's reputation is "rather meh"
Yes, among retarded reformers and ignorant retards. Actual fighter pilots like the F-35. You've fallen for sensationalism.
>>

 No.464318

>>464298
>They Are Weakening Putin
lmao

for how long can putin be further "weakened"? I've read articles that he has
>alzheimers
>cancer
>dementia
and my personal favorite
>he's already dead, the current "putin" is a lookalike
The guy should be already dead, according to Western media.
>>

 No.464322

>>464317
>No, but the F-35 is selling like hotcakes. Obviously, militaries want it.
Not sure what conclusions you can draw based on sales, military weapons procurement is a very political process. There are strategical allegiances to consider, and of course weapons producers often sell based on lobbying work. Lockheed Martin might be able to sell a mediocre plane because it's got very effective lobbyists.
>>

 No.464330

>>464315
>However they are not really inflicting great losses on Russia
Yes they are. Quit lying.
>Russia is going to win this war by any reasonable metric.
More lying.
>Ukraine did have a huge arsenal before this began
It had left-over Soviet equipment that is being armed with hand-me-down ammunition from the rest of the foremer Soviet Bloc NATO countries.
>Russia's initially small expeditionary force.
Even that many had to be put together by conscription and by emptying Russian prisons.
>Now the Russians have mobilized much more people and weapons
More conscripts to throw at entrenched Ukranians.
>A brutal economic depression has already begun in Europe and will be coming to the US fairly soon.
That began before the war. Russia is not making the world economy collapse. It's just trying to steal its way out of the depression like every other capitalist country is doing.
>Stop spending money on this lost war, spend money on making the lives of people better.
>S-stop. Please stop.
Go home.
>>

 No.464331

>>464317
>No, but the F-35 is selling like hotcakes.
The only other option open to countries is to develop their own stealthy interceptors, which is exactly what some of them are doing. The Su-57 is not a serious competitor.
>Actual fighter pilots like the F-35.
Pilots say to the press what they are told to say. Airmen are not allowed to offer their opinions of military hardware on the record.
>464318
>for how long can putin be further "weakened"?
Putin is looking like Nicholas II during the Russo-Japanese War–presiding over a depression and prosceuting an embarrassing war that is now taking Russians out of the workforce.
>>464322
>Lockheed Martin might be able to sell a mediocre plane because it's got very effective lobbyists.
No, it can sell a plane, because it's the only one in its class that is available on the market, and the F-15s and F-16 out there are getting dangerously old. The Su-57 is trash as evidenced by its performance in the war and by the fact that every country except Algeria that has asked for a demonstration has immediately noped out of the deal. The F-22 is not available on the market, because thirty years later it's still too good to export. The J-20 is still in development. The F-35 sells by virtue of having no competition.
>>

 No.464332

File: 1674142330609.jpg (24.37 KB, 500x270, it'safraid.jpg)

>>

 No.464333

>>464331
In fact the war has broad support in Russia, even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has been calling for intervention in the Donbass for a long time.
>>

 No.464339

>>464287
>>464293
Whoops, looks like the truth leaked out in spite of your propaganda campaign.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64304310
>Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych has offered his resignation after suggesting a Russian missile which hit a building in Dnipro, killing 44 people, was shot down by Kyiv.
>Hours after Saturday's missile strike hit an apartment building in Dnipro, Mr Arestovych initially said it appeared that the Russian missile had fallen on the building after it was shot down by Ukrainian air defences.
>Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russian attacks "do not strike residential buildings" and suggested it was caused by Ukrainian air defences, a conclusion he said had also been reached by "some representatives of the Ukrainian side".
>>

 No.464341

>>464332
Lol, you really don't get memes.
>>

 No.464342

>>464333
And you they can't fill their ranks without new waves of conscription.
>>464339
Honestly, that would seem likely. The way that Russian missiles are being shot down, it would make sense that they are crashing into other things. What doesn't make as much sense, though, is why the missile's warhead detonated upon striking the building after it had been shot down. What kind of trigger did that thing have? In any case, one can hardly fault the Ukranians for shooting down Russian missiles.
>>

 No.464343

>>464342
"Yet," not "you." Fuck, I need some sleep.
>>

 No.464355

>>464342
>And you they can't fill their ranks without new waves of conscription.
Once again I think you're projecting the situation in Ukraine onto Russia. Russia has mobilized its reserve forces, it hasn't done any conscription yet.
>>

 No.464356

https://gowans.blog/2023/01/18/whats-wrong-with-the-argument-that-russia-isnt-imperialist-a-critique-of-desai-et-als-the-conflict-in-ukraine-and-contemporary-imperialism/
What’s Wrong with the Argument that Russia Isn’t Imperialist? A Critique of Desai et al’s “The Conflict in Ukraine and Contemporary Imperialism”
>Abstract

>Two years after Russia annexed Ukraine, Radhika Desai, Alan Freeman and Boris Kagarlitsky argued in “The Conflict in Ukraine and Contemporary Imperialism” that while the term imperialism continued to be an appropriate description of the pattern of Western actions, it was not so for that of Russian ones. In their paper, the trio drew on thinking about imperialism that comported with the views of Rudolph Hilferding and Nicolai Bukharan, popularized by V.I. Lenin, that imperialism is competition among capitalist states to impose their respective wills on other territories and populations in response to the needs of their capitalist class. However, they abandoned this thinking when they set out to answer the question: Is Russia imperialist? Rather than following the Hilferding-Bukharin view to its logical end, an exercise that would have identified Russia as a participant in a system of rivalry among capitalist states for economic territory, they constructed a scale of capitalist powers from weakest to strongest and then drew an arbitrary dividing line to separate imperialist capitalist states from a class of non-imperialist ones, which included Russia. The approach, based on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, conformed to no external standard, except the authors’ acknowledged desire to arrive at a characterization of Russia that avoided demonizing Moscow or giving “theoretical dignity to the ambitions of US-policy makers.” In doing so, the authors went to the opposite extreme of offering an understanding of the world that dovetailed nicely with Russia’s denial of its imperialist aims and gave theoretical dignity to the ambitions of Russian-policy makers. The role of Marxist scholars is not to act as court philosophers for one bourgeoisie in its confrontation with another, as Desai and her coauthors did, but, as Lenin argued, to assist in the project of using the struggle between competing capitalist classes to overthrow all of them.
>>

 No.464371

Highly relevant to this proxy war: the pentagon failed yet another audit and can't account for over half their assets.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/12/16/the-pentagon-audit-assets-gone-missing/
>>

 No.464374

>>464371
They're down to only half of their funding being unaccounted for? I am surprised that they improved as much as that after the last audit.
>>

 No.464388

>>464371
heads would start to roll after such an incident in any sensible country
>>

 No.464390

>>464388
the question is now:
can they enforce accounting discipline on the people who have most of the weapons ?
>>

 No.464394

File: 1674231674577.png (249.97 KB, 443x406, 1.png)

>takes Kiev in a week
nothing personnel, kid
>>

 No.464395

>>

 No.464397

It's official, Putin is dead. Ukraine will win.
>>

 No.464398

File: 1674234851668.jpg (95.15 KB, 1043x577, necro-mancer putin.jpg)

>>464395
this would be funny if it wasn't so plausible

>>464397
kek
>>

 No.464402

>>464398
>this would be funny if it wasn't so plausible

ikr?
>>

 No.464407

File: 1674245787664.png (1.09 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/dont-fear-putins-demise
Don’t Fear Putin’s Demise
<Victory for Ukraine, Democracy for Russia
>Putin’s aggression has exposed the inherent instability of his model of government.
>The United States cannot let its fears stand in the way of Ukraine’s hopes.
>>

 No.464408

>>464407
>inherent instability of his model of government
lmao, putin's popularity in Russia has risen significantly with the start of the war

wtf are these people smoking?
>>

 No.464409

>>464408
The popularity of war presidents always grows until it doesn't. Long wars, well… they are best won quickly.
>>

 No.464411

>>464407
>The United States cannot let its fears stand in the way of Ukraine’s hopes.

Just Wow, the war-monger press spreading it's insidious venom.

The Ukrainians voted for Zelensky because he promised to make peace with the Russians and end the low-intensity warfare in donbass that had begun in 2014, after the CIA regime changed the Ukrainian government with the help of fascistic groups.
Instead of fulfilling that hope, he sided with the neo-cons in Washington who wanted to have the war escalate into full blown military engagement.

>>464408
Unemployment in Russia is down, and the wages of Russian workers went up, and they are able to increase their savings. The reasons for this are increased demand for labor-power because of war-production, increasing demands for labor-power to set up new production for things that Russia can no longer import do to western sanctions, and lastly Russia's economic realignment to Asia also creates extra work that raises demand for labor.
No wonder that Putin and the Russian government have rising popularity.
>>

 No.464414

>>464408
It's a huge win to get the world off of the petrodollar. Countries are siding with China more than ever now, Russia's strong cooperation with china includes building a new reserve currency so economically this is a huge win. Also fighting nazis is pretty cool.
>>

 No.464418

>>464411
>Instead of fulfilling that hope, he sided with the neo-cons in Washington who wanted to have the war escalate into full blown military engagement.
Which Putin just herpaderped his way into? No, that theory is bullshit. NATO did not want an invasion, especcialy just then when they were expecting Ukraine to be entirely unable to defend itself. Getting the Ukranian military up to speed had barely even begun when Russia invaded, which is precicely why they did so right at that moment. No, the invasion was entirely Putin's choice.
>The reasons for this are increased demand for labor-power because of war-production
Yep, it's the classic capitalist method of using a war to create enough debt to counteract the effects of a depression.
>>

 No.464420

>>464418
>NATO did not want an invasion
There is literally a RAND Corporation report outlining that the most effective way to overextend and unbalance Russia is to lure it into a military quagmire in Ukraine.
>>

 No.464421

>>464420
LOL, the Rand Corporation. Have they ever once said that a war was a bad idea?
>>

 No.464424

>>464421
Yes, quite a few times actually. The people who commission Rand studies want honest analyses, which they attempt to provide. Their analyses have sometimes contradicted their commissioners' positions, as Daniel Ellsberg's nuclear planning studies for example did.
>>

 No.464425

>>464424
>The people who commission Rand studies want honest analyses, which they attempt to provide.
My ass they do. RAND is McDonnell-Douglass' propaganda arm. It exists to encourage weapons sales.
>>

 No.464434

File: 1674406696671.jpg (172.62 KB, 1200x750, tank girl.jpg)

About the US trying to bully the Germans to send their main-battle-tanks to Ukraine. Many people have speculated that this is the US trying to create more conflict and division between Russia and Germany, so two rivals fight and weaken each other.

That could be true, but it could also be about something more mundane like weapons exports.
The Ukrainians will have to fight with a tank without years of proper training, with sub-optimal logistical support in a terrain the tank wasn't really designed for, within in a military structure that is not complementary to the tanks strengths and weaknesses. That means combat performance is going to be poor. As a result the arms-manufacturer that is making it is going to get bad advertisement and negative reputation, that will dampen future prospects for arms sales.
>>

 No.464436

>>464434
That theory might make semse to someone who knows absoultely nothing about the tanks in question. The Leopard 2 is one of those conventional main battle tanks that the United States stopped developing a long time ago, whereas the Abrams is a logistical nightmare to sortie and requires an absurd amount of training to operate. The Ukranians can learn to operate a Leopard in quick order, but learning to operate an Abrams would take months. The reason that the Germans say that they are waiting for the U.S. to send Abrams tanks is that they know that the U.S. will not do so due to how pointless such a thing would be. Also, the Abrams is not intended to be used the way that Leopard tanks are. They are designed to accompany mechanized infantry in quick slashing attacks under the cover of air power, which is a style of fighting that the Ukranians are incapable of. The Americans don't even make the Abrams anymore. It's ridiculously expensive to operate (it bathes in JP-8), and its battlefield role is redundant within the U.S. Army. Thus, the Leopard is the only practical main battle tank in NATO's arsenal, and main battle tanks are what is needed when you are fighting a war from a hundred years in the past.
>>

 No.464437

>>464436
The Abrams is also much heavier and requires significantly more maintenance, which makes it terrible for the squishy unpaved areas in Ukraine.
>>

 No.464446

>>464436
You ignored most of the arguments for why Ukrainians will only be able to use western tanks with poorer performance. And while it's true than the US tank is more complex that the German one, it doesn't actually mean that the latter is actually easy to learn and master.

>main battle tanks are what is needed when you are fighting a war from a hundred years in the past

<Am i wrong ?, no ! , reality is in error for contradicting me.
Obviously the Ukraine war is happening in the present, this is cope.

That said i don't understand why western main-battle tanks are considered a counter to Russia's current posture. Won't those be destroyed in the same way as the old Soviet tanks that were previously delivered to Ukraine. With missiles-strikes, drones, helicopters, jets and even artillery.
>>

 No.464447

File: 1674488162181.jpg (127.28 KB, 1000x712, NeedATow.jpg)

>>464446
>You ignored most of the arguments for why Ukrainians will only be able to use western tanks with poorer performance.
The Ukranians would certainly get less out of the Abrams. Like other systems that NATO now employs, the effectiveness of the Abrams is magnified by its integration into a complex combined forces doctrine. I have never been in a Leopard.
>And while it's true than the US tank is more complex that the German one, it doesn't actually mean that the latter is actually easy to learn and master.
Easier. Significantly.
>Obviously the Ukraine war is happening in the present, this is cope.
The Russo-Ukraine War is a throwback, an absurd anachronism. That it is happening as it is only speaks to the colossal failure of the Russian military doctrine.
>That said i don't understand why western main-battle tanks are considered a counter to Russia's current posture.
As armies discovered in 1914, big lumbering metal things with canon protruding from them are a big help when attacking trenches. It's a hundred-year old solution for a hundred-year old battlefield.
>Won't those be destroyed in the same way as the old Soviet tanks that were previously delivered to Ukraine. With missiles-strikes, drones, helicopters, jets and even artillery.
Helicopters and strike aircraft are no longer a concern since Russia has abandoned any hope of achieving air supremacy. Drones that are capable of providing close air support are more expensive than tanks are and are vulnerable to AA. Russian missiles can't hit anything that moves. No, the real danger to any tanks that Ukraine might field is the same danger that Russian tanks in theater face: infantry with anti-tank weapons. If the Ukranians learn from Russia's mistake of gathering tanks into columns and instead use them in small numbers in support of infantry operations they will be useful and survivable. Otherwise, they will just be big, dumb targets for opportunistic soldiers.
>>

 No.464448

>>464447
>The Ukranians would certainly get less out of the Abrams. Like other systems that NATO now employs, the effectiveness of the Abrams is magnified by its integration into a complex combined forces doctrine.
Isn't the Leopard2 one of those "other systems that NATO now employs" and the Ukrainians would get less out of it it too.

>The Russo-Ukraine War

Nice try, but No
This is a undeniably a proxy war between Russia and the US.

>That it is happening as it is only speaks to the colossal failure of the Russian military doctrine.

Even if you are stuck in the NATO-shill-media bubble, western hardcore pro Ukraine media are beginning at hinting at a Russian victory too.

>Helicopters and strike aircraft are no longer a concern

They are still using them to destroy stuff, what are you talking about ?

>Drones that are capable of providing close air support are more expensive than tanks.

This is obviously bogus, i saw footage from the war in Iraq where Taliban operatives dropped a mortar grenade from a big consumer drone to destroy a US-tank. That drone setup cost less than an old Toyota truck.

>Russian missiles can't hit anything that moves.

The Russians have super advanced Air defense systems, that have to be able to track moving targets. Since a hostile air force wouldn't just hang stationary in the air. Proving they can do vector math and statistical analysis to project likely future positions of a moving target. This makes no sense, why wouldn't they put that technology into their missiles for striking moving ground targets ? They did destroy most of the tanks the Ukrainians had before, are you telling me they didn't bother to move them ?

>If the Ukranians use tanks in small numbers in support of infantry operations they will be useful and survivable.

The Ukrainians have been using the strategy of using small attack groups to probe the Russian lines for a while now. It wasn't very successful, because the Russians have good "battle field awareness" and can maneuver enough to counter these small forces with overwhelming firepower.
>>

 No.464456

>Abrams tank uses a gas turbine engine that requires jet fuel
>Bradley, supposedly intended for fast infantry deployment, can't even keep up with tanks and has to keep at a slow sleep of 20mph because it knocks around troops inside too much for them to be ready for combat deployment otherwise
Thanks to this proxy way I have a newfound appreciation for the incompetent scams that comprise US military hardware.
>>

 No.464460

Apparently the United States just declared the Wagner Group to be a "criminal" organization. In doing so, they and their allies can use this to justifying deny members basic rights of the Geneva conventions if captured in battle. A disturbing escalation in the continued destruction of Westphalian warfare.
>>

 No.464462

>>464460
They deserve it for all the war crimes they've committed.
>>

 No.464465

>>464448
>Isn't the Leopard2 one of those "other systems that NATO now employs"
No, the Leopard is the same age as the Abrams, but it has not had anywhere near as much gadgetry shoved into it like the fire-control systems, data link computers, and fancy crap like that. The Army had to add cooling systems to the Abrams to off-set the heat generated by all the computers inside the thing.
>Nice try, but No
It is the Russo-Ukraine War. Deal with it.
>This is a undeniably a proxy war between Russia and the US.
No, a proxy war would be like the war between the Sadinistas and the Contras with two proxies of rival superpowers fighting each other. This war is more like the Vietnamese War for Independence. One superpower itself invaded the weaker country which just so happened to be getting a bunch of free military hardware from a rival superpower for the puropse of real politik bullshit.

Hey, maybe that's what we should call it: "The Ukranian War for Independence!"
>They are still using them to destroy stuff, what are you talking about ?
LOL, they're hiding in their own air space and shooting long-range rockets. They're not doing anything resembling close air support.
>This is obviously bogus, i saw footage from the war in Iraq where Taliban operatives dropped a mortar grenade from a big consumer drone to destroy a US-tank.
You saw video of the Taliban in Iraq. Seems legit.
>The Russians have super advanced Air defense systems, that have to be able to track moving targets.
I mean, we were talking about air-to-ground missiles, but if you want to talk about SAMs for some reason, sure. Russian SAMs are good enough to shoot down Soviet Migs, which is all Ukraine has.
>Proving they can do vector math and statistical analysis to project likely future positions of a moving target.
That's one fancy calculator.
>This makes no sense, why wouldn't they put that technology into their missiles for striking moving ground targets ?
You seem to be under the impression that striking moving ground targets from beyond visual range is an easy thing. I mean, yeah, the Americans made it look easy, but it's a pretty complicated trick, as the Russians are discovering with their worthless hypersonic missiles.
>They did destroy most of the tanks the Ukrainians had before, are you telling me they didn't bother to move them ?
Did they? I would be curious to see how that happened, if indeed it did. Frankly, your recollection of things that supposedly happend in this war has proven to be less than reliable. My guess is that Ukraine lost a lot of tanks to infantry. Anti-tank weapons have forced the tank into a supporting battlefield role
>>

 No.464466

>>464448
>The Ukrainians have been using the strategy of using small attack groups to probe the Russian lines for a while now. It wasn't very successful, because the Russians have good "battle field awareness" and can maneuver enough to counter these small forces with overwhelming firepower.
LOL, yeah, that's how trench warfare works… or rather how it worked a hundred years ago.
>>

 No.464471

File: 1674564224924.png (977.39 KB, 905x744, y3no06ahvyda1.png)

Ukrainians are about to be encircled AGAIN! The ø mark is the rail bridge the Ukrainians just blew up.

This means one of two things: either 1) Ukrainians are so fucking dumb that they don't learn and keep making the same mistakes, or 2) the Ukrainian military leadership doesn't give a shit how many conscripts die holding a piece of land for two more weeks.

Which is it, NAFOids?
>>

 No.464473

>>464456
I don't know about the Abrams tank specifically but gas turbine engines usually can burn just about everything flammable that has a viscosity that works with the fuel pump. Why would they limit the tank to jet fuel. It should be able to use every fuel.

The Shaker-fighting vehicle that's unfortunate tho, i thought the US combat vehicles were known for having nice suspension. The Russian BMP troop transport has standard torsion bar suspension, and they drive really fast, and it's much more cramped too. How are they dealing with bumpy ride fatigue ?

>Thanks to this proxy war I have a newfound appreciation for the incompetent scams that comprise US military hardware.

war is a racket
>>

 No.464475

>>464460
>Apparently the United States just declared the Wagner Group to be a "criminal" organization. In doing so, they and their allies can use this to justifying deny members basic rights of the Geneva conventions if captured in battle. A disturbing escalation in the continued destruction of Westphalian warfare.
Does it really matter what they declare ?
Can the Geneva conventions really be circumvented that way ?

Why are they doing this ?
Clearly nobody is going to accept a petty technicality as a loophole for war crimes. So they can't seriously hope to change legal conventions. Like the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials trying to excuse them selves saying they didn't commit a holocaust because the "Untermenshen" weren't real humans.

This could be pre-emtive stuff because war-crimes have been committed and they are trying to manufacture consent for not upholding the Geneva convention.

The other explanation is that this is psychological war-fare and they are trying to spook the Wagner Group.
>>

 No.464476

File: 1674571442071.jpg (152.12 KB, 834x1148, proxy war in ukraine.jpg)

>>464465
>Hey, maybe that's what we should call it: "The Ukranian War for Independence!"
Or you know realistically describe it for what it is

a proxy war between the US and Russia.
>>

 No.464477

>>464471
>Ukrainians are about to be encircled AGAIN!
Poe's Law in effect–I wasn't sure whether you were serious or mocking the ziggers screeching for a year about the pincer closing on Bahkmut any day now.
>>464473
The Abrams not only burns JP-8, its parts are also cleaned with JP-8. It quite literally bathes in it.
>>464476
But it's not a proxy war. The wannabe "superpower" itself is doing the fighting. It doesn't have a proxy.
>>

 No.464480

>>464477
>Russia doesn't have a proxy.
This war can be divided into 2 phases, the first period was from 2008 to 2022. That seems to me like a classic proxy war.
After feb 2022 the Russian military intervened directly and you could argue that they no longer used a proxy, especially because the former Ukrainian fighters from those 4 former Ukrainian Oblasts are now Russian as well, and can no longer be counted as proxy forces.

The US still uses a proxy. So it's a war and there's a proxy involved, so it's a proxy-war.

Do both sides really have to use proxies for it to count as a proxy war ? Do you want to make a special distinction and call it a semi proxy war ? We could go extra pedantic and consider the early phases of the war and call it three-quarter proxy war.
>>

 No.464481

>>464471
3) Civilian leadership doesn't give a shit how many conscripts die ordering the military leadership to send them into a meat grinder as long as they win a PR victory.
>>

 No.464482

>>464473
>It should be able to use every fuel.
It can't use diesel, one of the main reasons commanders consider other tanks more versatile. It's the main reason the Russians designed the T-90 as an internal combustion engine after the previous T-80 itself used a gas turbine engine.
>>

 No.464483

>>464482
>It can't use diesel
>It's the main reason the Russians designed the T-90 as an internal combustion
I have tried to understand why, but i can't find this out.
The gas turbine engines used in electricity power-generation those can be run on diesel just fine.
You could even run some passenger jet-engines with diesel although the performance was really shit on those.
>>

 No.464484

>>464482
>>464483
Actually it seems the issue is not necessarily what type of fuel can be used but the fact that gas turbine engines have bad fuel efficiency compared to dedicated diesel engines. The T-80 and the Abrams both have crap range and need to be refueled constantly.
>>

 No.464485

>>464480
>This war can be divided into 2 phases
What a shit excuse. Fuck you.
>>

 No.464486

>>464485
Seethe and cope.
>>

 No.464487

>>464486
No u. It's the Russo-Ukraine War, it began when Russia actually initiated military action, and Russian hardware has failed spectacularly.
>>

 No.464489

File: 1674641252947.png (182.79 KB, 449x478, ukraine pawn.png)

>>464487
Lol, historical amnesia anon is back

The US-Russia proxy war began in 2008 when the US regime-changed the Ukrainian government with the help of fascistic Bandera goons and turned Ukraine into a sacrificial pawn for geopolitical checkers.
>>

 No.464490

File: 1674645343443.mp4 (4.85 MB, 406x720, 5vthbwlct2ea1.mp4)

new Ukrainian symbol dropped.
>>

 No.464492

>>464489
What a load of shit. Another country having a coup is not a war.

It's the Russo-Ukraine War, it began when Russia actually initiated military action, and Russian hardware has failed spectacularly.
>>

 No.464493

>>464490
Daily reminder that the Wagner Group was named after Adolf Hitler's favorite composer by its neo-nazi founder.
>>

 No.464494

>>464492
>Another country having a coup
Yeah if the US coups the government of a country right next to Russia undermining it's security, that is going to start a proxy war with Russia. You know when superpowers get to close to each other stuff like that is inevitable.

Imagine if the Russians cooped the government of Mexico and started militarizing Mexicans to serve as an anti American fighting force, the US would have turned Mexico into a radioactive wasteland. Russia's reaction was comparably mild.

So yeah it's definitely a US - Russia proxy war.
>>

 No.464495

So, this just happened. Obviously, the Abrams will not be usable for a few months because of the training and logisitics that are needed to opderate the things, but the Ukranians should be able to use the Leopards in just a few weeks. Now, what will they use them for? Rolling over trenches along with mechanized infantry American-style is what I assume, but American-style involves a lot of close air support that the Ukranians do not have available. Can Leopards and Abrams even be used Russian-style? I have my doubts. Even with all that heavy armor, Leopards and Abrams are still just tanks, and the old armored spearhead tactic is about eighty years out of date. Any Army guys out there have an idea?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230125151101/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/24/germany-clears-the-way-for-leopard-2-tank-deliveries-to-ukraine
>>

 No.464496

>>464494
>undermining it's security
Ukraine is not Russia's shield to wield.
>You know when superpowers get to close to each other stuff like that is inevitable.
You might wanna look north, then, because Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, and Finland are all NATO countries that border Russia. Where were the supposedly inevitable invasions when that all happened? The proximity argument is a shit excuse, especially since the United States itself is only three miles away.
>>

 No.464497

>>464495
>So yeah it's definitely a US - Russia proxy war.
You need a proxy to fight a proxy war. Russia doesn't have one. No proxy, no proxy war.
>>

 No.464498

>>

 No.464499

>>464495
Maybe they aren't planning to use the tanks for offense.
But you are right if they throw the tanks at Russians lines they'll get destroyed very quickly.
>>

 No.464500

>>464499
>Maybe they aren't planning to use the tanks for offense.
There isn't much other use for a tank, which is why the Russians are screaming at the Germans for providing them. They make for poor artillery (although the Abrams with its computerized targeting system might be an exception). They can't cover a withdrawl any better than infantry can. It's a huge waste to have them just sitting at a line and waiting. Tanks are only really useful while going forward–creating havok behind enemy lines, rolling over trenches, supporting a mechanized infantry advance, and that sort of thing.
>>

 No.464501

>>464500
That makes me wonder something: the Russians have tanks and mechanized infantry in abundance. Why has that not produced any breakthroughs? Are they just misusing them? I know that they tried that stupid armored spearhead tactic earlier, but surely they have since adapted.
>>

 No.464502

>>464496
Ukraine is in a strategical location that is geopolitically very relevant to Russia, not just because of the proximity.
Of course the US is undermining Russian security by cooping the government of Ukraine and turning it into a hostile vassal. They intentionally did this because they knew Russia had to counter them, they wanted to create a war, because it creates profits for the military industrial complex, and they want great power competition because they seek to balkanize the Russian federation into smaller ethno-nationalist states that the US empire can subjugate. The NATO organizations wanted an enemy to justify their existence. And of course the US gas exporters wanted to eliminate Russia as a competing supplier on the European gas markets. Geopolitically the US also had the goal of weakening Germany, and create a rift between the EU and Russia because they see EU-Russian economic cooperation as creating economic power that could potentially rival the US's

Ukraine isn't the US's sword to wield.

>>464497
>>464498
this has already been answered by >>464480
>>

 No.464503

>>464500
>>464501
Maybe there is no grant plan for these tanks and they are just throwing stuff at the Russians to see if something works.
>>

 No.464504

>>464502
>Ukraine is in a strategical location that is geopolitically very relevant to Russia, not just because of the proximity.
Explain.
>They intentionally did this because they knew Russia had to counter them
They could have thwarted such an absurd plan by simply not invading.
>Ukraine isn't the US's sword to wield.
A sword would be used to attack. The Ukraine could not have been used to attack.
>this has already been answered by >>464480
No it didn't; it asked the question: "Do both sides really have to use proxies for it to count as a proxy war ?"
The answer to that question is quite obviously, "Yes. Yes they do."
>>

 No.464505

>>464503
Hey maybe. I mean, we already know that tanks are completely useless from how ineffective Russian tanks have been, so why would Ukraine ask for them? Or maybe it's just Russian-made tanks that are useless, which is why they wanted German tanks.
>>

 No.464506

>>464505
Well, Ukrainians were operating the same kinds of models. The problem ultimately is in their Russian crews, which are the actual useless part of the Russian tank.
>>

 No.464507

>>464425
>ask for evidence of thing
>supplied evidence of thing
>disbelieve evidence of thing
Every time.
>>

 No.464508

>>464489
First of all, the government was not changed in 2008. It was changed in 2014. Second of all, it was changed after the current president ran away and abandoned his post, after which he was voted incapable of fulfilling his duties, an interim government was formed, and elections were held. Categorizing it as a coup is vatnik faggotry, and nothing you say is going to change that.
>>

 No.464509

>>464507
>Why won't you accept this McDonell-Douglas propaganda as evidence of American foreign relations planning?
>>

 No.464510

>>464501
Because trying to do combined arms requires actual coordination and trained soldiers. Russia has already wasted most of those and lost a few thousand vehicles including tanks and IFVs. They no longer have the capacity to carry out full-spectrum operations, which is why you're seeing them bogged down. Ukraine is in the same boat, as they never had those resources to begin with, but now with western aid, that might actually change. Russia is going to lose this war, and it's going to lose badly. The rest of the world isn't going to allow norms like territorial integrity and the nuclear blackmail taboo to simply go away because Russia has decided to throw a tantrum. This is about global stability, and Russia has to pay for it.
>>

 No.464511

>>464509
I'm sorry that you can't read, but you were clearly provided with examples in which RAND contradicted the people commissioning the study. RAND also predicted much worse outcomes for real-life events than actually occurred, namely the Gulf War. Again, I'm sorry you're too stupid for basic reasoning.
>>

 No.464512

>>464506
Yes, the Ukranians were using the same models, but they didn't get much use out of them either. Either those tank models are useless (my god, historically the T-72 and the T-80 really do not have the best military track records, just one disaster after another), or, as I honestly think, they are being used is a way that does not work on the modern battlefield. The problem, I think, is a questionof doctrine. That bodes ill for the Leopards that the Ukranians are about to receive.
>>

 No.464513

>>464510
>Russia is going to lose this war, and it's going to lose badly.
I don't know about that. Russia has been stalemated, and its industrial production cannot keep up with demand, but the Ukraine does not have any means available to it to push ahead. The planned Russian Spring offensive will determine who is going to get Crimea. Because, really that's all this war is about.
>you were clearly provided with examples in which RAND contradicted the people commissioning the study.
Yeah, but not contradicting McDonnel-Douglas interests.
<No, your nuclear arsenal is not sufficient for your defense. You need a bigger conventional force with plenty of McDonnel-Douglas aircraft!
<The War in Iraq is going to take time. Better stock up on McDonnel-Douglas munitions just in case.
You are a total sucker for believing what amounts to a military contractor's ad campaign.
>>

 No.464514

>>464513
> and its industrial production cannot keep up with demand, but the Ukraine does not have any means available to it to push ahead. The planned Russian Spring offensive will determine who is going to get Crimea. Because, really that's all this war is about.
Ukraine (not "the Ukraine), is going to be receiving more heavy equipment throughout the year. Its stocks have actually grown, not diminished, so I don't see where that matters. Secondly, I don't think Russia has it in her to make a push. They just don't have the men or resources. For a few months now, they have been signaling willingness to enter a cease-fire agreement (on their own terms, of course), but that's not coming, so I do not expect to see anything big come from Russian forces.
>You are a total sucker for believing what amounts to a military contractor's ad campaign.
You asked "When has RAND ever opposed war?" You were given evidence of instances of such a thing, and now you're moving the goalposts to cry about how it was for some manufacturers, when RAND has consistently put out good studies.
>>

 No.464515

>>464513
>Russia has been stalemated, and its industrial production cannot keep up with demand
Utterly delusional detachment from reality at this point. Russia is having no trouble keeping up with demand and they are slowly demolishing the Ukrainian military in methodical artillery traps.
>>

 No.464516

File: 1674668077703.jpg (46.38 KB, 604x377, lel.jpg)

>>464515
>Russia is having no trouble keeping up with demand and they are slowly demolishing the Ukrainian military in methodical artillery traps.
Utterly delusional detachment from reality at this point.
>>

 No.464517

File: 1674668192121.webm (490.28 KB, 1280x720, Baerbok-ww3.webm)

>>464504
>Explain.
Ukraine is a mostly flat country with few geographic barriers that would act as a very wide gateway where the majority of NATO forces would pass through to attack Russia. Russia has by taking a part of eastern Ukraine significantly reduced the attack surface compared to the previous Ukraine-Russia boarder. They have already dug in along positions that are somewhat better to defend, like large rivers.

If I had to speculate about Russian thinking, they are probably concerned with positioning them self in a strong enough position that can deter the hardliners in the West that are salivating to start ww3. (vid related)

<rest of your post

The US conducted the attack when they regime changed the Ukrainian government.
When the CIA armed funded and trained the Bandera fascists to fight against the pro-Russian Ukrainians in Donbass the US deepened it's attack.
When the Ukrainians moved their military into position to clean out the pro-Russian regions that had declared them self as independent from Ukraine, that's when the Russian military intervened to protect it's allies on the Ukrainian side and of course to reinforce it's security. The unofficial US involvement in the Ukrainian military is to some degree comparable to NATO expansion, and the Russian military is seeking to destroy the quasi-Nato aligned Ukrainian military, because it's in such a critical position.

The US is using Ukraine as a sword against Russia alright, the US neo-cons manufactured this war because they sought to use it as a way to weaken Russia. It ended up being a pretty blunt sword that did not do all that much damage to Russia, but still a instrument of attack none the less.

If you don't want to class it a proxy war because there aren't enough proxies, then it would be just a regular war between Russia and the US. To be honest given the level of economic warfare, it's perhaps not entirely wrong.
What speaks against that is that US forces aren't directly against Russian forces, so there is a proxy between the main two warring factions, so i would consider it still more correct to call it a proxy war. But if you insist we could make up a new word and say it's a
US Russia buffer-war
or
indirect US Russia war
>>

 No.464518

>>464517
>Ukraine is a mostly flat country with few geographic barriers that would act as a very wide gateway where the majority of NATO forces would pass through to attack Russia. Russia has by taking a part of eastern Ukraine significantly reduced the attack surface compared to the previous Ukraine-Russia boarder. They have already dug in along positions that are somewhat better to defend, like large rivers.
This ignores the fact that there is now going to be a NATO member much closer to Russia than before in Finland, and that NATO lake is now a thing. This ignores that NATO had no plans to invade Russia, so this theoretical threat is meaningless, and ignores the fact that it's clear that no matter the geographical barrier, Russian forces are vastly inferior to those of NATO.
>The US conducted the attack when they regime changed the Ukrainian government.
This is simply a lie. You'll keep repeating it because you want it to be true, but it's simply not. Sorry your puppet ran away. Anyway, good luck into your one year anniversary of the the 3-day special military operation.
>>

 No.464519

>>464514
>Ukraine (not "the Ukraine), is going to be receiving more heavy equipment throughout the year. Its stocks have actually grown, not diminished, so I don't see where that matters.
Being able to advance is not about how many bullets and shells you have. The Ukranians did just fine driving the Russians out of the north with less than they have now. The thing is, the Russian expeditionary force was spread out and small relative to what it is now. Also, the battlefield has changed. It's full of entrenched positions with "offensives" coming in the form of waves of infantry rushing weak points in the line like it's 1916. To take ground in that kind of war requires a lot of soldiers. It's why WWI stalemated until the American millions arrived.
>You asked "When has RAND ever opposed war?"
LOL, you are shilling for RAND? Goddamn, you really are a liberal. To the point, saying that a nuclear deterrant is insufficient and saying that the Iraq War will be costly are not being against wars. It's just saying, "buy more weapons!"
>You were given evidence of instances of such a thing, and now you're moving the goalposts to cry about how it was for some manufacturers, when RAND has consistently put out good studies.
Good studies, my ass. They're death merchants selling a product.
>>

 No.464520

>>464516
You see, comrade, Putin purposefully entered into a war of attrition for some reason, definitely not because Russians fail at maneuver warfare. No, in fact, Russia wants to have 188k casualties and counting, because this will somehow destroy the Ukrainian military, which is recruiting and training more soldiers and winning at force generation. It will make sure they run out of manpower first, even as Russian casualties mount on at least a 2:1 ratio versus Ukrainians. All Russian forces have to do is keep doing frontal assaults for minimal gains and Ukraine will naturally surrender and everything will be fine. Russian hardware is so good, that they have decided to use the old stuff, because the new stuff might get scuffed up. It's definitely not because they've run out of the new models and can't produce more. Russia will definitely win against the forces of HATO combined and the people will see the mighty Russian bear finally defeat HATO and Amerikkka.
>>

 No.464521

>>464519
>Being able to advance is not about how many bullets and shells you have.
You're right. It's about combined arms and coordination, which the Russians lack. However, you do need materiel for it. It's a necessary but not sufficient part of the formula.
>The Ukranians did just fine driving the Russians out of the north with less than they have now.
It was more than the Russians had there at the time. Remember their units where at Kherson.
>The thing is, the Russian expeditionary force was spread out and small relative to what it is now. Also, the battlefield has changed. It's full of entrenched positions with "offensives" coming in the form of waves of infantry rushing weak points in the line like it's 1916.
Yes, from the Russians. You wouldn't expect this from a properly mechanized and armored force.
>LOL, you are shilling for RAND?
I'm recognizing RAND as a tool that is used well. People don't pay rand for studies that remain private for decades only for those studies to be worthless. They are quite often right.
>Goddamn, you really are a liberal. To the point, saying that a nuclear deterrant is insufficient and saying that the Iraq War will be costly are not being against wars. It's just saying, "buy more weapons!"
You asked for an instance of something, and you were provided said instance. I'm sorry you're too stupid to grasp this concept.
>Good studies, my ass. They're death merchants selling a product.
RAND doesn't sell products. It's a service they provide to their clients. You can stop crying now. Everyone knows you're a dumbfuck. No need to provide more evidence.
>>

 No.464522

>>464518
>there is now going to be a NATO member much closer to Russia than before in Finland
Finland isn't really all that important strategically, it's not usable as a staging ground for a larger NATO force. And the Finish military has had ties with the US military for a very long time, so while there was much political commotion, material reality hasn't changed.

There is no doubt that the US did a regime change in Ukraine during Euromaidan, we even have a recorded telephone conversation of US ambassadors arguing about who they want as a puppet had of state. There were social media post of Banderits posing with CIA agents for photos with captures saying "the US is training us to NATO standards". There are US imperial think tank papers who brag about having successfully done a color revolution praising CIA covert warfare. Tthe list goes on.
It's really incomprehensible how you could still be denying this.
>>

 No.464523

>>464516
Previous Ukraine artillery rate: 5000-6000 per day
Current Ukraine artillery rate: 1000 per day

Previous Russian artillery rate: 20,000 per day
Current Russian artillery rate: 20,000 per day

Keep up the projection tactics, the writing is on the wall at this point.
>>

 No.464524

>>464520
You are right that the Russians are not very good at complex infantry maneuver warfare. But their methods are effective. Using artillery to shell the crap out of Ukrainian positions before their forces mop up the rest works. Ukrainian losses are horrendous while Russian casualty rates are very low. The Russians are winning a war of attrition against a Ukrainian military that is focusing on holding territory against military logic because of political imperatives.
>>

 No.464525

>>464523
Actually, the peak for Russia was about 60k per day, and they are down to around 5k, most of which are not guided and quite less accurate than their NATO-supplied counterparts.
>>

 No.464526

Even Western powers at telling Ukraine to retreat from Bakhmut now. Will the Nazi-infested regime listen or will it continue to send young and old (even 40-50 year-olds are being conscripted now) into a meat grinder?
>>

 No.464527

>>464525
I'd ask for your source, but considering NATO-aligned rags have been screaming about Russian running out of ammunition for 9 months straight now and it has never once proven true, I think it's safe to say it's wrong this time too.
>>

 No.464528

>>464524
>You are right that the Russians are not very good at complex infantry maneuver warfare. But their methods are effective. Using artillery to shell the crap out of Ukrainian positions before their forces mop up the rest works.
Correction: worked. Standoff weapons like HIMARS and other counterbattery assets like modern artillery radars ensures that their supplies are kept far from the front and less grouped together, making logistics much harder and making Russian artillery less of a factor. Add in the fact that Russian artillery pieces are all mostly beyond their service dates, and you get a recipe for continued degradation of these forces. It is also a very costly thing to do even if their artillery was up to spec.
> Ukrainian losses are horrendous while Russian casualty rates are very low.
It's the other way around based on every single analysis done for this war. The only ones saying the opposite are Russia's MoD, which also claimed that the Moskva had sailed to port under her own power.
>The Russians are winning a war of attrition against a Ukrainian military that is focusing on holding territory against military logic because of political imperatives.
Yes, says the man supporting the side that has still not taken Bakhmut after 6 months of fighting. As we all know from basic military science, the side in deeply entrenched defensive positions is t he one to always take more casualties against unsupported infantry attacks.
>>

 No.464529

>>464527
>hasn't even seen source but has already decided he's going to reject it
Nice job, Vanya. Very astute pidorashka. When your next retreat inevitably comes, will you also say it's a lie because western outlets reported on it?
>>

 No.464530

>>464517
>Ukraine is a mostly flat country with few geographic barriers that would act as a very wide gateway where the majority of NATO forces would pass through to attack Russia.
That makes the Ukraine difficult to defend. It does not make it a good staging point for an invasion. If anything, in the age of air power, that quality makes it worse as a staging point.
>Russia has by taking a part of eastern Ukraine significantly reduced the attack surface compared to the previous Ukraine-Russia boarder. They have already dug in along positions that are somewhat better to defend, like large rivers.
…like it's the fucking 1920s.
>If I had to speculate about Russian thinking, they are probably concerned with positioning them self in a strong enough position that can deter the hardliners in the West that are salivating to start ww3.
Ukraine offers no deterant whatsoever. At least not to any country with an effective air force.
>The US conducted the attack when they regime changed the Ukrainian government.
No, a coup in Ukraine (not that that is an entirely accurate description of what happened) is not an attack on Russia.
>If you don't want to class it a proxy war because there aren't enough proxies
Rather one side doesn't have any proxies at all.
>indirect US Russia war
More like a Russia/NATO war, since Ukraine is joining NATO the second the war is over. So much for your "buffer."
>>464518
>Russian forces are vastly inferior to those of NATO.
We had no idea just how inferior they were until this war started.
>Anyway, good luck into your one year anniversary of the the 3-day special military operation.
Top lel. Oh, that year mark is going to be a riot.
>>

 No.464531

File: 1674671253356.jpg (164.14 KB, 660x468, comrade-lukashenko.jpg)

>Ukraine secretly asks Belorus for a non-aggression pact
>Lukashenko laughs and publishes the request instead
Is there a bigger chad in Europe?
>>

 No.464532

Another well-source Mercouris update today. Dispels a lot of the NATO propaganda posted in here again.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=kAd5EphIZ1E
>>

 No.464533

>>464531
>Lukashenko said they totally offered him a non-aggression pact without evidence
>Vatnik claims he published said non-existent agreement.
>>

 No.464534

File: 1674671703305.jpg (2.41 MB, 1287x10000, 1673095859864197.jpg)

>>464532
>still predicting the fall of Bakhmut after more than 6 months of fighting
>still seen as a credible source by FAS-addled vatnik brains
>>

 No.464535

>>464528
>Standoff weapons like HIMARS
It's a pretty decent rocket launcher system.
However the Russians have equivalent weapons system to counter it, and they have much greater numbers of both launchers and rocket ammunition
>like it's the fucking 1920s.
meh, we still need bridges or boats to move stuff over the water, so not much has changed in that regard. Using the territory to your advantage is not an outdated strategy.

>More like a Russia/NATO war,

It's not wrong, but since the US started it may be they should be in the title of the war.
>since Ukraine is joining NATO the second the war is over.
There could be a Ukrainian rump-state at the end of this, but the way things are going at the moment, that one likely won't be able to have a proper military much less join any military alliances.
>>

 No.464536

>>464532
Based Mercouris poster
>>

 No.464537

File: 1674672818992.mp4 (6.94 MB, 1280x720, Bullshit!.mp4)

>>464520
Lel, that is the entirety of the ziggers' position in a nutshell.
>>464521
>I'm recognizing RAND as a tool that is used well.
Yeah, a tool of their board of trustees who made their careers out of getting government contracts for weapons.
>You asked for an instance of something, and you were provided said instance.
No I wasn't. Once again, saying that a nuclear deterrant is insufficient and saying that the Iraq War will be costly are not being against wars. It's just saying, "buy more weapons!"
>RAND doesn't sell products.
Oh, the innocent mind of the liberal.
>>464522
>Finland isn't really all that important strategically, it's not usable as a staging ground for a larger NATO force.
LOL, bullshit! It's right on the Baltic Sea, which means naval support. It has all the airfields that an invader would ever need. It's within spitting distance of St. Petersburg. It's even closer to Moscow than Ukraine is, and there are roads and bridges and rail lines everywhere. It would quickly be able to link with the other NATO Baltic States. It would be able to bypass Belarus entirely. A theoretical supply line through Sweden would be uncontested. In the silly fantasy that is the idea of a NATO invasion of Russia, the Baltic is unquestionably the easiest place to come from.
>>464523
Source: your ass (inb4 Mercouris)
>>464524
>But their methods are effective.
Clearly not. It's a fucking year later.
>Using artillery to shell the crap out of Ukrainian positions before their forces mop up the rest works.
It didn't work in 1916, and it doesn't work now.
>>464526
>Even Western powers at telling Ukraine to retreat from Bakhmut now.
Every single day since March of last year…
>Ukrainian losses are horrendous while Russian casualty rates are very low.
Lol, vid related.
>>

 No.464538

>>464532
LOL, inafterMercouris. Predicatble faggot.
>>

 No.464539

File: 1674673406239.jpg (103.49 KB, 413x395, FunnyEnoughToDrinkTo.jpg)

>>

 No.464542

>>464537
>Finland has all an invader would ever need
No Finland can be finished off with 50 nukes if they try to mount an attack on Russia.
It's a different story with Ukraine, even if nuked to ash,it would still function as a NATO forces highway.

>>464537
>Clearly not. It's a fucking year later.
Russian methods are effective but slow.
effective doesn't automatically mean fast.
>>

 No.464543

File: 1674674633086.jpg (72.46 KB, 716x716, they live glases biden fal….jpg)

can't have nice things as long as neocons are running amok
>>

 No.464544

>>464534
You seem somewhat… desperate.
>>

 No.464545

>>464535
>However the Russians have equivalent weapons system to counter it, and they have much greater numbers of both launchers and rocket ammunition
Sure, so where are they?
You're responding to two different posters, btw. I'll let the other anon respond to the rest of your post.
>>

 No.464546

>>464542
>No Finland can be finished off with 50 nukes if they try to mount an attack on Russia.
Lel, so now we're talking about nukes and the end of the world.
>It's a different story with Ukraine, even if nuked to ash,it would still function as a NATO forces highway.
That doesn't make any sense, but then neither does the whole premise.
>Russian methods are effective but slow.
There are glaciers that are outpacing the Russians.
>effective doesn't automatically mean fast.
When it comes to war, yes it does.
>>

 No.464547

>>464537
>Yeah, a tool of their board of trustees who made their careers out of getting government contracts for weapons.
RAND doesn't sell weapons. It sells consultation and studies. You realize they do more than military work, right?
>No I wasn't.
Maybe not you, but the original post was.
> Once again, saying that a nuclear deterrant is insufficient and saying that the Iraq War will be costly are not being against wars. It's just saying, "buy more weapons!"
To be fair, the nuclear deterrent is insufficient if you want to be a superpower like the US, and RAND correctly told the US that it needed different weapons and command structure to do what it wanted in Iraq. If you come to me as a consultant asking me how to build a pool in your tiny home, I'm going to tell you how to do it, even if it does mean buying more shit. You can't exactly accuse RAND of being propaganda when its clients are asking it for advice in COA they intent to pursue.
>Oh, the innocent mind of the liberal.
You haven't shown this to be the case.
>>

 No.464548

>>464544
>pointing out how retarded my source is
>Y-You must b-b-be d-d-d-desper-r-rate.
Sure thing, dipshit.
>>

 No.464549

>>464547
>RAND doesn't sell weapons. It sells consultation and studies.
…that encourage governemnts to buy weapons.
>You can't exactly accuse RAND of being propaganda when its clients are asking it for advice in COA they intent to pursue.
When the alternative prescription would have been, "your nukes are enough to ensure that you will never be invaded, so you can decrease military spending if you have something else that you really need to spend the money on" I absolutely can.
>You haven't shown this to be the case.
No, but you have quite nicely.
>>

 No.464550

>>464544
I wonder how desperate Mercouris is getting since none of his predictions have come to pass after a full year.
>>

 No.464551

>>464549
>…that encourage governemnts to buy weapons.
Yes, but also which types of weapons and how to employ them, as well as predictions on which way to do so is best. If Palau asked about it security, it would likely be told that it needs to convince other countries to fight global warming instead, since nobody is going to attack Palau.
>When the alternative prescription would have been, "your nukes are enough to ensure that you will never be invaded, so you can decrease military spending if you have something else that you really need to spend the money on" I absolutely can.
But you realize this isn't the question that the US asked RAND, correct? During the 50s the US was convinced that nukes were enough, so they downsized ground forces and prepared for a future nuclear war. When they realized they were going to be fighting small wars against non-nuclear nations, they realized this wasn't the way to go. RAND is asked about how to conduct these kinds of conflicts because the US intends to pursue them. Again to the pool analogy. If you asked me how to build a pool, I would like to tell you not to do so, but if you intend to build a pool anyway, I'm going to tell you how to do it. This is what the US is asking. It's not asking whether it should go to war. It's asking what it needs should it decide to do so.
>No, but you have quite nicely.
I have not, but you can be free to disagree with that.
>>

 No.464552

>>464551
And let me add to this. I'm in no way saying RAND is a force for good or anything. I'm just saying they aren't some propaganda wing of the state. Their analysis is spot on, but nobody asks the questions people here want asked.
>>

 No.464554

>>464551
>Yes, but also which types of weapons and how to employ them, as well as predictions on which way to do so is best.
<Worried about Iranian Migs flying over your oil tankers? It sounds like what you need is some F-16s, and don't forget to stock up on AMRAAMs!
>During the 50s the US was convinced that nukes were enough, so they downsized ground forces and prepared for a future nuclear war.
That is exactly the question that would receive those answers, Alex Trebeck.
>>464552
>I'm just saying they aren't some propaganda wing of the state.
No, they are the propaganda wing for defense contractors.
>>

 No.464555

>>464554
>No, they are the propaganda wing for defense contractors.
Doesn't mean their analysis is wrong. This is the argument used by tankies ad nauseam "It's a western source so it wrong" knowing full well a Russian source is never going to be critical of Russia. You tankies are pathetic, you'd deny that the sky was blue if you heard it come from a Western institution.
>>

 No.464558

>>464555
>Doesn't mean their analysis is wrong.
What it means is that absolutely everything that they have to say on any topic that involves flying metal is said with the purpose of allowing their trustees to sell more of said flying metal. I can't believe that I actually have to explain why you shouldn't take advice on whether or not you need something from people who sell that very thing. Then again, I am in a thread where idiots like to declare that a covicted fraud and proven liar like Alexander Mercouris is a reliable source of information.
>>

 No.464560

>>464555
>a Russian source is never going to be critical of Russia
You are truly living in a world of delusional self-imposed ignorance if you think there aren't any Russian sources critical of Russia, just as there are Western sources critical of the West.
>>

 No.464564

>>464560
The ones that are are generally in Russian and not prominent. Regardless my point is that often tankies only rebuttal to negative information about Russia's invasion is that it's lies simply because it's western. It's such an obvious cope because the sources they use get more and more unhinged from reality.
>>

 No.464567

>>464564
That is clearly not what was happening. What was happening was that some guys said that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was not a reaction to any threat posed by NATO. You said that it was, and here's the proof–a study by the RAND Corporation. Then I scoffed and said that the RAND Corporation was just a propaganda factory owned by weapons manufacturers and functions only to encourage and justify the sale of weapons. You then proceded to argue that RAND is a totally reliable source of useful policy recommendations. I said, "LOL, no," and then you went off on some non sequitor about tankies.
>>

 No.464568

>>464554
>>464558
It's like you forgot how to read. US is not asking RAND how to avoid being invaded. USA has never asked that. They asked how to conduct effective war. RAND told them and assessed their plans for the future. We know their analysis was right, because unlike Russia, the US can actually take down a modern military in a matter of weeks.
>>

 No.464569

File: 1674691288789.jpg (25.69 KB, 252x346, chortling hi res lad.jpg)

>>464568
>the US can actually take down a modern military in a matter of weeks
And you base this on what exactly?
>>

 No.464570

>>464569
The fact that it has done so twice in the past 30 years.
>>

 No.464571

>>464570
Really, where?
>>

 No.464572

>>464571
Gulf War 1 and 2.
>>

 No.464573

>>464572
The first one anyway. People forget that Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world in 1991. They were no scrubs, and they were most certainly in a higher tier than pitiful Ukraine was in 2022. Hell, Iraq was probably tougher than Russia is now. Hmmm… their militaries are about the same size. Their equipment was Cold War-era, but we have already seen how well Soviet stuff works against modern Russian stuff. Also, the '91 Iraqis had professional, veteran soldiers, not convicts and conscripts. I'd give the edge to the '91 Iraqis.
>>

 No.464574

>>464568
>US is not asking RAND how to avoid being invaded. USA has never asked that. They asked how to conduct effective war.
Post the fucking study already. For fuck's sake, this is ridiculous.
>>

 No.464577

>>464574
I'm not the one originally claiming that a RAND study proved X or Y. I'm only saying RAND isn't some propaganda outlet or simply relying on selling weapons. I just hate conspiracism, and that's why I wanted to clarify.
>>

 No.464578

>>464577
>I'm not the one originally claiming
Oh, fuck off, you intellectually dishonest sophist. You cite it, you provide it.
>>

 No.464579

>>464578
I didn't cite anything. You're arguing with two different people.
>>

 No.464580

>>464572
>>464573
Iraqis were using tanks from the '70s and their tank crews were so inexperienced they had never even fired their cannons with live ammunition. Sorry, not a modern army.
>>

 No.464581

>>464580
Ukrainians are also using tanks from the 70s and most of their tank crews did not have combat experience before Russia invaded. If Iraq was not a modern military, then neither is Ukraine, which means that Russia can't beat the equivalent of the Iraqi military in the year 2022. I would argue that the Iraqi military in 1991 was far superior in comparison (having a modern air force and air defenses), but you can keep coping until you're blue in the face. The fact is that the US and NATO militaries are competent and Russia is not.
>>

 No.464582

File: 1674704302724.mp4 (7.45 MB, 1280x720, Suka Sukhoi's Scams.mp4)

New meme just dropped.
>>

 No.464587

>>464581
But Russia actually is winning. Why do you think Ukraine is begging for more tanks in the first place? Because they've lost all the ones they had.
>>

 No.464588

File: 1674707313214.mp4 (38.43 MB, 1280x720, Winning Tactics.mp4)

>>464587
>But Russia actually is winning
Yes, comrade, when forced into WW1 style trench warfare for no gains and constant retreats. This is what it means to win.
>Why do you think Ukraine is begging for more tanks in the first place? Because they've lost all the ones they had.
Yes, just like when Soviet Union received more and more things from west in WW2, which USSR lost (which is why not around today). Now HATO NAZI JEWKRAINIAN DOGS will pay for this by having thousands of Mobik ruin soil quality in Ukraine (high BAC). Is simple. Very winning. Behold our tactics of victory.
>>

 No.464589

File: 1674708380867.jpg (53.32 KB, 1164x498, Shovel beats tank.jpg)

Stupid HATO dogs think their fancy tanks make a difference. Here is news, pigdog Ukronazis: Shovel is cheaper than Tank.
>>

 No.464592

>>464588
>no gains
Is that what you call hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers and so much obliterated hardware and used up ammunition that they're begging the West for more missiles and tanks? "no gains"?
>>

 No.464593

>>464592
Da, comrade, our forces have even destroyed their Bradley IFV toys before even being delivered. Why, we have destroyed 3000 Ukronazi pig tanks and 2 million Jewkronazi soldiers. Problem is they keep fighting, but that is nothing for you to be concerned about. However, this ability to self-recover, allowing the deceased Ukronazis and their vehicles to keep on resurecting. I'm (HIV) positives, these guys have acquired abilities of the Dark Abrams…WITH THE HELP OF BIDEN!!!
>>

 No.464594

>>464580
>Iraqis were using tanks from the '70s
The fucking Leopards and Abrams are from the 70s. Also, in 1991, the 70s were only twelve years ago.
>their tank crews were so inexperienced they had never even fired their cannons with live ammunition.
Bullshit. Their tank crews were veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, not that it mattered. When you have air supremacy, tanks are just big dumb targets.
>>

 No.464595

>>464582
Brutal.
>>

 No.464596

File: 1674716078441.jpg (109.28 KB, 552x516, help im winning.jpg)

>>464587
>But Russia actually is winning. Why do you think Ukraine is begging for more tanks in the first place? Because they've lost all the ones they had.
Yeah that makes it pretty obvious, but reality doesn't phase these people.
>>

 No.464597

File: 1674723345113.mp4 (2.24 MB, 720x1280, 1674701290702.mp4)

TO THE FRONT, GRAMPS!

Any Ukrainian that doesn't go skipping to the front with a smile on his or her face, whistling a tune, should be executed for treason.
>>

 No.464598

File: 1674724470743.jpg (132.04 KB, 720x1276, Screenshot_20230126_101202.jpg)

>>464520
>Russia wants to have 188k casualties and counting,
188k?! HAHAHAHAHA nice ruZZian propaganda vatnik, take Putin's cock out of your mouth.

According to official, Ukrainian sources, Russian casualties are over 493.000. At this point, Russians are literally taking people off the street, putting a rifle in their hands and sending them to the front, to rush some Ukrainian position. Putin should have watched Enemy at the Gates, then he'd know not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors.
>>

 No.464599

>>464598
>According to official, Ukrainian sources
lol
According to realistic estimations, Russian losses are between 12k and 19k
>>

 No.464602

File: 1674729433133.png (138.14 KB, 336x326, epic_lulz.png)

>>464598
>According to official, Ukrainian sources
>>

 No.464605

>>464598
That's not an official source, but you know this. Nobody quotes them. Nice try, though.
>>

 No.464606

>>464597
Really weird that those Ukrainians aren't wearing the Ukrainian-issue boots, have no patches and are grabbing people when we know they put a pause to the yearly conscription due to the inability to process them. It's almost, like this is more vatnik bullshit.
>>

 No.464607

File: 1674739205368.mp4 (8.3 MB, 1280x720, Big Suka Sukhoi's Scams II.mp4)

>>464595
Part Two.
>>

 No.464608

>>

 No.464610

>>464582
>>464607
This is the kind of cringe I expect from a spook two decades late to the internet.
>>

 No.464611

>>464610
It's funny, and you're mad.
>>

 No.464612

>>464611
Okay Boomer.
>>

 No.464613

>>464612
I notice that you guys never know how memes work. Why is this?
>>

 No.464614

>>464605
>That's not an official source,
<The Special Operations Forces (Ukrainian: Си́ли спеціа́льних опера́цій Збро́йних сил Украї́ни, abbreviated ССО, SSO) are the special forces of Ukraine and one of the five branches of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with headquarters in Kyiv.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Ukraine)

Cope, vatnik.
>>

 No.464615

>>464614
That site is not from Ukrainian SOF. It does not run through a government server and is way off from Ukrainian MOD Russian casualty estimates. If you believe it, you're stupid, or are trying to push the narrative that this is somehow the source of Ukrainian numbers because you're a falseflagging dipshit.
>>

 No.464617

File: 1674794586992.jpg (202.08 KB, 1125x1125, DarkBRANDON-10lqlgk.jpg)

>>

 No.464618

>>464617
Mercouris thinks that western politicians are sending tanks because of political considerations, not because they think this will win the war. When the Ukrainians loose the war they don't want to be criticized about not having send enough military aid.

The Abrams tank might take months or years according to US officials to arrive, when the war might already be over. The reason might be because the US doesn't want to risk it's tech secrets leaking and it takes a while to organize stripped down versions. Or they are just playing for time to string the Germans along, because US-tanks was a conditions for the Leopard2 deliveries.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=13QexAn9v30
>>

 No.464619

>>464618
>Mercouris thinks
Well that's a goddamn lie from the beginning.
>>

 No.464620

In 2005 Robert Kaplan published in
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fight-china/303959/

<NATO is ours to lead unlike the increasingly powerful European Union, whose own defense force, should it become a reality, would inevitably emerge as a competing regional power, one that might align itself with China in order to balance against us. Let me be even clearer about something that policymakers and experts often don't want to be clear about. nato and an autonomous European defense force cannot both prosper. Only one can—and we should want it to be the former, so that Europe is a military asset for us, not a liability, as we confront China.


Was it a part of US strategical planning to ferment the Ukraine war, to among other objectives, weaken the EU's potential to become a rival block that could field a powerful military of it's own and become independent from the US, and balance US power with China.
We have seen the US sabotage the economics of the EU's energy supply, by political means like the sanctions war and material means like the pipelines destroyed at the behest of US empire. The high energy prices in Europe make it hard to build a big EU military. All the weapons that are being send into Ukraine to be scrapped by Russian forces are also slowly emptying EU weapons stocks, which is further complicating a military build up.
>>

 No.464621

>>464620
Yeah, no. Russia started this war when it invaded Ukraine. No amount of conspiratard bullshit is going to change that.
>>

 No.464622

>>464621
Not that anon, but, no the US started the conflict by fucking encapsulating ex soviet client states in an alliance hostile to russia.
>>

 No.464623

>>464618
>The Abrams tank might take months or years according to US officials to arrive,
Lol no
>>

 No.464624

>>464621
The Ukraine war began in 2008 when the CIA used the Euromaidan protest as cover to stage a color revolution.
So what you are trying to tell me is that Russia is being blamed in order to conceal the US's machinations of reasserting power over Europe.
Is that it ?
>>

 No.464625

File: 1674822030008.webm (2.94 MB, 800x480, 1674814567044869.webm)

Aftermath of Russian naval infantry attack.
>>

 No.464626

>>464622
Nations are allowed to make their own security arrangements. The only one invading its neighbors is Russia.

>>464624
The fact that you think Euromaidan was in 2008 and not 2014 is a sure sign that you don't actually know anything, but would like to spread pidorashka propaganda. Sorry your puppet ran away, faggot.
>>

 No.464627

File: 1674822631161.png (218 KB, 400x347, 7561ced1730bcf45c98bd3e498….png)

>>464626
Idealistic retard that you are: The US does not want to bring these countries into NATO because they want to deliver them muh freedums. We heard that same fucking narrative in Iraq and Afghanistan and look at the middle east now. They want to encapsulate these client states in order to balkanize the Russian Federation. Russia isn't doing this cause they are just some horrible evil country. Though Putin is quite a massive faggot and a huge puppet to the Russian Oligarchy. Turn coat that he is, none the less. Russia is trying to defend its own interest.

You are an idealist and fraud.
The world is not some individualist moral bubble. History is always moving forward and always changing and you cannot discount it from your analysis. Just saying "Russia bad US good" is a fucking huge vaushian brainlet take.

I don't even take a side in this fucking terrible conflict. I take Eugene Debs stance on war. But you are outright denying history.
>>

 No.464628

>>464626
You are correct about the date it was indeed in 2014 when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government
The implication that one of the goals for the US empire was using the Ukraine war to throttle the EU, is still in the air.
>>

 No.464629

>>464627
>The US does not want to bring these countries into NATO
The only correct part of your post. These countries apply for membership. Russia could just not invade its neighbors. It's really that easy.
>>

 No.464630

>>464628
>the US overthrew the Ukrainian government
It did not. Yanukovich ran away and was voted unfit for office by the Ukrainian Parliament. The interim government declared new elections and they have had two such elections since. I'm sorry that you're too stupid for basic history.
>>

 No.464631

>>464630
>It did not.
You can't deny this, there is even a recorded telephone conversation of an US ambassador discussing about what puppet to install in Kiev/kyiv that happened before the regime change operation was completed.
There is no doubt about a US empire overthrowing the Ukrainian government in 2014.
>>

 No.464632

>>464629
You cannot fix stupid.
>>

 No.464633

>>464631
>>464631
>You can't deny this
You can't prove it. A phonecall expressing preference of interim government does not make ot a coup. It makes it less of a coup when you consider the party forming the majority of the interim government lost the election.
>>

 No.464634

File: 1674834027680-0.jpg (588.84 KB, 1105x1097, paf3k6kujlea1.jpg)

File: 1674834027680-1.png (507.22 KB, 1070x601, lKR2ncSAQAAAAASUVORK5CYII=.png)

>Bakhmut getting encircled
>Siversk getting encircled
THEY CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>

 No.464635

File: 1674834302075.jpg (81.96 KB, 840x471, nato azov-wolfsangle swast….jpg)

>>464633
Give up
Obama went on CNN and admitted that he had "brokered a deal to power in Ukraine"
Nuland was in intense contact with Svoboda party running up to the Maidan events

Everybody who payed even a little bit of attention could see this was a regime change op, you're basically a lawyer looking for a technicality.

Lets face it Yanukovich was trying to find the middle road between the west and Russia, and he did ask the EU for investments before he went to Moscow.
Only when he was told he had to do the full IMF restructuring blood-leading against his population and completely sell out the country did he turn to Russia for investments. Russia offered him a investment deal that would allow him political survival.

The west could have just outbid Russia with a sweeter investment deal, but no instead they chose to oust Yanukovich and kick off this war.
They could have acted rationally and accepted a slightly lower return on investment because they didn't get the full Neo-liberal plundering deal. There would have at least been a return on investment, now there's just a huge loss that will never be recuperated.
>>

 No.464636

File: 1674835078275.jpg (95.71 KB, 1080x1094, france gives the middle fi….jpg)

>>464517
Baerbock btfo-ed by the frogs
>>

 No.464637

based maupin bring light to geopolitical maneuvers

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=XL_exJCrVpI
>>

 No.464638

>>464634
>So desperate for a win they are still trying to make Bakhmut into Stalingrad
Well, it has lasted longer, do you do have that.
>>

 No.464639

>>464635
>Obama went on CNN and admitted that he had "brokered a deal to power in Ukraine"
If you were right, you wouldn't have to lie. Obama was talking about negotiating with all parties in Ukraine, including Russia. Why do you lying pidorashka always lie thinking nobody can look things up? Are you that stupid?
>>

 No.464640

Here is Victoria Nuland gloating that they blew up Europe's affordable energy pipeline.
>>

 No.464641

File: 1674838471829.mp4 (720.71 KB, 1280x718, Nuland spills the beans ab….mp4)

>>464640
>Here is Victoria Nuland gloating that they blew up Europe's affordable energy pipeline.
trying to poste the correct video this time
>>

 No.464642

>>464641
You are lying again. She said that on March 8, 2022. Again, if you were right, you would not need to lie.
>>

 No.464643

>>464642
why does it matter when she said this ?
>>

 No.464644

>>464643
Because people were talking about turning it into useless crap because it wouldn't carry gas, not because they were openly plotting to blow it up. You're a conspiratard.
>>

 No.464645

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/01/27/robert-parry-ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass/
>On the 5th anniversary of his death, we republish one of Parry’s many prescient articles on Ukraine, this one on the risks of ignoring the 2014 coup, the neo-Nazis’s role and the war against coup resisters in the east.
>>

 No.464653

>>464635
So what? The invasion happened eight years later. If you want to use 2014 as a justification for the Russian invasion, why did it take the Russians eight years and a couple elections for them to decide to do so?
>>

 No.464657

>>464653
Because immediately after the coup Kiev's rulers unleashed Nazi forces to attack Russian speakers in the Donbass region. Russia brokered two separate peace accords and was strung along by Ukraine and Western European countries on a pile of lies whose actual function was to allow for a massive Ukrainian military buildup, which was set to invade the Donbass on the eve of the Russian invasion. Not to mention Ukraine made threats about abandoning the Budapest Memorandum and pursuing nuclear weapons at the Munich Security Conference. Would you like to keep playing dumb and pretending that nothing happened over those eight years?
>>

 No.464659

>>464657
>Because immediately after the coup Kiev's rulers unleashed Nazi forces to attack Russian speakers in the Donbass region.
So, nazis punching people delayed the invasion.
> Russia brokered two separate peace accords and was strung along by Ukraine and Western European countries on a pile of lies whose actual function was to allow for a massive Ukrainian military buildup
LOL, "massive buildup?" They're still using the same equipment that the old SSR had.
>which was set to invade the Donbass on the eve of the Russian invasion.
Top-motherfucking-lel!
>Not to mention Ukraine made threats about abandoning the Budapest Memorandum and pursuing nuclear weapons at the Munich Security Conference.
They said mean words, which delayed the invasion even more!

What a fucking joke. I don't know if you are just the most gullible sucker on the planet, or you are a paid shill, but your shit is an absolute riot.
>>

 No.464666

>>464569
>you are a paid shill
Finally you've noticed it. Now stop giving this waste of life even more silver pieces since they get paid for every reply to their crap.
>>

 No.464671

>>464666
Why would anyone pay for that? It's not like they are winning anyone over by posting flagrently dishonest bullshit. None the less, it must be the case, because not even a raging autist would believe that idiocy. Okay, I will reply to no more posts ITT.
>>

 No.464676

>>464671
>Why would anyone pay for that?
Presumably it forces the Lakhta bots to write much more provocative and reaction-inducing messages, so they won't just throw an avalaunch of bullshit into a comment section and run away like the 50-cent army does it (or did, anyway).

At 2ch.so they were even found to include a function into their posts which uses a precise time in seconds so their masters' bueraucracy can keep a check on them. Holy fuck, just imagine being such a disgusting fascistic whore, crying and woeing for le poor poor roozgie peepull and then immediately post THIS:
>https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=20284

thank god r*ssian isn't my first language so i can forget it
>>

 No.464677

File: 1674892494886.png (434.09 KB, 1200x630, ClipboardImage.png)

>>464666
>>464676
Nice to see somebody else recognize obvious Russian bot farms operating. Anyways, have you heard of PancakeSwap? Your pancake CouncilComm flair both makes me hungry for pancakes tomorrow morning and reminds me that maybe I should do research into PancakeSwap on Binance Smart Chain. Apparently on PancakeSwap you can make good passive income by staking cryptos and earning interest on them paid out in rewards tokens
>>

 No.464678

>>464645
interesting article

>>464653
It's more like the Russians tried for 8 years to find a diplomatic way to end the war. And that undeniably was war from 2014 onward, there was big numbers of dead people and lots of destroyed buildings in the Donbass.

Diplomacy did have real potential to solve the conflict by the way, but the warmonger blob in the west eventually managed to torpedo diplomacy which inevitably lead to the escalation of the war.
The fascists on the Ukrainian side and the CIA handlers considered the 8 years of diplomacy as nothing but a pause to build up arms and dig in entrenchments. The former German Chancellor also said something like all the 8 years of peace talks were only intended as a delay tactic.

Keeping that context in mind, Victoria Nuland made a new diplomatic offer with a bunch of sensible concessions (like a No-Nato clause) to the Russians, but it also stipulated that Ukraine be allowed to build up a big military. Which must have looked to the Russians as somebody asking for diplomacy when they were really just looking to pause the war to replenish a depleted military.
>>

 No.464679

File: 1674893544987.png (37.06 KB, 300x376, glowie desk.png)

>>464676
>>464677
>If you disagree with the ruling narrative, you're a Rushun bot
Natiod glow doing a McCarthyism.
>>

 No.464681

>>464671
>Okay, I will reply to no more posts ITT.
Are you going to keep your word, anon?
>>

 No.464688

File: 1674916079337.mp4 (78.79 MB, 1280x720, u0vanmq5drea1 (2).mp4)

holy mother of god, look at this thing. they even named it TERMINATOR! does their monstrous ingenuity know no bounds?!

that thing rains death and destruction, ffs. it's purpose is to deal sorrow and sow pain.

Americans need to send those F-16 or were done for, fellas!
>>

 No.464693

>>464688
I agree. Terminator is too powerful. We need to send F-16s, Abrams, Bradleys, and long range missiles.
>>

 No.464694

>>464688
>>464693
That Twin 30 mil auto-canon spewing furious hot metal is terrifying indeed, but that's no reason to condemn F16s to commit suicide by S400.
>>

 No.464697

>>464694
You're right. They don't just need F-16s. They need plenty of HARM.
>>

 No.464698

File: 1674924683255.webm (2.2 MB, 464x848, 1674910958407017.webm)

More from Vuhledar.
>>

 No.464704

>>464697
>HARM.
That seems like a very sophisticated piece of kit, how long will it take to train pilots to use it effectively ?
I don't know how long the Ukraine war will go on but won't it take years to learn a jet fighter and it's various attachments ?
>>

 No.464709

>>

 No.464728

File: 1674988555770.mp4 (16.01 MB, 1280x720, 9dz52bervvea1.mp4)

no no no no

Fucking evil orc engineers have developed an autonomous killer robot that shoots drones out of the sky and hunts Abrams and Leopard tanks.

IS THERE NO END TO THE HORRORS IN THIS NIGHTMARE?!
>>

 No.464746

>>464728
HATO Nazis now know the gloves are coming off. We will raise eyebrows to new levels.
>>

 No.464747

>>464728
I always wondered how the counter to small drones would look like.
>>

 No.464758

More combat footage from Ukraine.
>>

 No.464762

Looks like Bakhmut is going to fall soon. Expect Kiev's propagandists to profess to us endlessly soon how Bakhmut is of absolutely not strategic importance.
>>

 No.464765

>>464762
Just two more weeks cumrade.
>>

 No.464768

>>464762
Isn't bakhmut a total death trap for whoever goes in?
>>

 No.464772

>>464762
>Looks like Bakhmut is going to fall soon.
Yeah it looks like its finally chewed up.
> Expect Kiev's propagandists to profess to us endlessly soon how Bakhmut is of absolutely not strategic importance.
They have been doing that for about the last month

>>464768
>Isn't bakhmut a total death trap for whoever goes in?
It's been an extremely bloody meat-grinder for the Ukrainians for sure, so much so that even the Americans have tried to get them to do a tactical retreat and preserve their troops. The Russians don't appear to have that many losses, although Bakhmut probably has been worse for them than other places.
>>

 No.464773

>>464728
That's not autonomous. There's a small midget inside who drives it.
>>

 No.464774

>>464773
Cool story, but why would they bother.
The most impressive part is the ridiculously accurate turret that can actually hit a tiny drone with some kind of machine-gun. People aiming a rifle manually struggle to do that at that distance.
>>

 No.464777

File: 1675083804228.jpg (133.47 KB, 971x900, no latem boombooms.jpg)

Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia managed to stay out of the Ukraine war, how did they manage that ? while the Euros got their arm twisted to send weapons.

source
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/29/latin-america-ukraine-weapons-brazil-colombia-argentina/
>>

 No.464778

>>464777
>Irrelevant world players stayed irrelevant
Okay.
>>

 No.464779

>>464774
>Cool story, but why would they bother.

Because midgets have heightened reflexes and superior driving capacities.
>>

 No.464802

File: 1675156317530.png (369.58 KB, 1223x1019, randcorp poking the bear d….png)

Even the Rand corporation thinktank is now advising to back out of the Ukraine war.
>>

 No.464803

>>464802
Yes, if you only care about the US. Fortunately this isn't the point of the war. The US can lose a little bit of power if it means keeping international norms intact. So much for RAND being pro-war, though.
>>

 No.464804

File: 1675164429473.jpg (145.08 KB, 897x1280, Kadyrovites.jpg)

In other news, Kadyrovites rape a Russian propagandist. Showing, once again, that Russian forces are composed of criminals.
>>

 No.464805

>>464802
Just read this paper. It's literally muh nooks make it not worth it. Since most doubt Russia will actually start a nuclear war, I think we can safely dismiss this assessment.
>>

 No.464816

>>464803
>Fortunately this isn't the point of the war.
The Part of the US ruling class that wanted this war, thought it would knock the Russians on their back. They wanted the Russian federation to break apart like the USSR was broken apart, because that allowed the big bourgeoisie to go in and loot wealth from resource extraction and expand into new markets.

>The US can lose a little bit of power if it means keeping international norms intact.

Lol at that "muh international norms" comment. The international norm for the last decades has been the US invading other countries with impunity. Russia would have to do at least a 100 ""humanitarian pro-democracy military freedom interventions"" until they are caught up to the norm.

>So much for RAND being pro-war, though

Randcorp still argues for war, they just say that the US needs to conserve means of war to direct against China.
>>

 No.464817

>>464805
>Lets play Russian roulette with nukes.
My ears are closed if you speak cold-war-talk.
Unless you speak detente-talk i can't hear you.
>>

 No.464819

File: 1675188313990.png (303.77 KB, 743x674, 1675177757560992.png)

Ohnonono
VDV zisters….
>>

 No.464820

>>464819
>VDV
I had to look that up.
Those are apparently airborne assault forces, so like para-shoot troopers.
50% K.i.A. is believable, since that's got to be one of the most dangerous jobs in a military.
But I also need a better source than a twitter-screen-cap to believe it, because anti Russian disinformation is rampant.
>>

 No.464823

>>464820
It's the Rybar guy. It was on Russian TV. And VDV are the ones that helped take Soledar. No, 50% casualties are not normal, even for paratroopers. Imagine the 82nd going like this in Iraq.
>>

 No.464826

>>464823
>It's the Rybar guy. It was on Russian TV.
I don't get Russian TV, all i see is a screenshot. Can you at least link the source for that ?

>And VDV are the ones that helped take Soledar.

So it's about that city the Ukrainians lost and then pretended that they didn't for the last 2 weeks.
Yeah I'm now more skeptical, they might be attempting to exaggerate Russian losses as cope for loosing a city.

>50% casualties are not normal, even for paratroopers.

Won't the soldiers on the ground shoot at the guys slowly gliding down from the sky ?

>Imagine the 82nd going like this in Iraq.

You mean the US in the Gulf wars and the 2003 Iraq invasion ?
Yeah but that was a different situation Iraq didn't have something like NATO resupplying them with weapons and feeding them battlefield-Intel about the locations of para-drops. The US could destroy Iraq's ability to know where soldiers got dropped. While the Ukrainians will get information about Russian drops from the US military, even after the Russians destroyed Ukrainian radars.
>>

 No.464828

>>464826
>Won't the soldiers on the ground shoot at the guys slowly gliding down from the sky ?
You realize that being airborne doesn't mean they do combat drops at every opportunity, right? Are you fucking retarded?
>>

 No.464834

>>464828
>being airborne doesn't mean they do combat drops at every opportunity
High Losses are more likely during dangerous combat drops, then during normal soldiering.
Since the context was about speculation about high losses, this seems like a reasonable assumption.
>>

 No.464840

>>464834
You do realize the VDV didn't do large scale combat drops during this conflict, don't you? You do realize that most losses took place during conventional ground combat, right? I'm going to ask again. Are you fucking retarded?
>>

 No.464841

File: 1675207629090-0.webm (21.21 MB, 640x360, Ukr_demographics_2023_Jan….webm)

File: 1675207629090-1.webm (7.73 MB, 640x360, germany_oof.webm)

ogre
>>

 No.464842

File: 1675211470847.png (1.4 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/how-get-breakthrough-ukraine
How to Get a Breakthrough in Ukraine
<The Case Against Incrementalism
>Putin still believes that time is on his side.
>The dangers of incrementalism grow over time.
>>

 No.464850

>>464841
>400k casualties
>More than 50% of Ukr military is now combat ineffective
>Russia still can't make a major advance
Obviously Russian command must be full of idiots and their soldiers must be cowards, then. Either that or your commentator is full of shit.
>>

 No.464853

>>464850
It seems that time is on Russia's side tho, economically Russia is doing relatively well considering the circumstances. The IMF predictions see the Russians doing better than the UK or even Russia's own predictions.

One might be tempted to consider that this war is part of the US empire lashing out during it's decline. It almost feels like Russia and China are sharing the burden. Like Russia absorbing some of it now and later it will be China's turn.

Another way of looking at it, the US ruling class is split, the one faction wants to warmonger against Russia, and the other wants to warmonger against China. Each faction will take turns depleting some of the US's remaining imperial strength, on late stage empire misadventures.
>>

 No.464854

File: 1675251578773.png (258.07 KB, 512x497, yourmeds.png)

>>464850
>Russia still can't make a major advance
The absolute desperation, you just can't give up this canard. Even when it's apparent that their slow-and-steady strategy of grinding down the Nazi regime's military has been fantastically effective. Massive casualties and materiel loss for the Nazi regime; minimal casualties and losses for the Russian military. But no surely this anon has better military acumen than this colonel with considerable combat experience.
>>

 No.464861

>>464854
Hey, dipshit. Nobody enters a war of attrition willingly. It's the result of being unable to make breakthroughs. Imagine being able to take the capital and knock down GLOCS and deciding to stay in a ditch. This is how retarded you sound.
>>

 No.464863

>>464861
>Russia is going to win, but not in a way I deem proper, therefore Russia loses
the cope is getting deliciously desperate

tell us how insignificant Bakhmut is and how thousands of Ukrainians died there for nothing
>>

 No.464864

>>464861
>Nobody enters a war of attrition willingly.
How come there are wars of attrition at all, if nobody fights them willingly.
not intended as a gotcha question, i'm genuinely interested in a response.
>>

 No.464865

>>464864
>How come there are wars of attrition at all, if nobody fights them willingly.
Most wars are a combination of phases of attrition and breakthrough. Wars of attrition happen when both opponents are unable to dislodge the other. So the conclusion from that 400k casualties statement is that even then, Russians are unable to end the war against an opponent that is combat ineffective. For reference, the Iraqi military collapsed far before reaching that mark during the 1991 gulf war.
>>

 No.464866

>>464863
No. Russia has currently failed to achieved even one day 1 strategic goal after more than 11 months into the three-day special military operation. Nobody is projecting Russian victory. How did you read that I think Russia is going to win?
>>

 No.464869

>>464865
I don't know what to say, when the Russians brought in General what's-his-name last year he announced that they would do a slowly grinding advance, aimed at destroying the combat ability of the Ukrainians, and that's what they have been doing ever since. If the Ukrainian military is becoming combat ineffective, that means the strategy is working.
>>

 No.464870

>>464869
Do you call a headlong retreat from Kherson an advance?
>>

 No.464871

>>464866
>Nobody is projecting Russian victory.
Almost everybody's projection forecasts a Russian victory, but nobody can admit it.
>>

 No.464872

>>464871
Can you post some of those projections? Because they're mostly people like Scott Ritter, and other non-credible sources. Even the RAND report posted here does not project a Russian victory, even in the worst case of US and NATO allies abandoning the effort.
>>

 No.464873

File: 1675272514777.jpg (84.08 KB, 1119x714, truss im crippling.jpg)

didn't work out
>>

 No.464882

>>464866
> Russia has currently failed to achieved even one day 1 strategic goal
<Liberation of Luhansk [100% complete]
<Liberation of Donetsk [65% complete]
<Returning water from Dniepr to Crimea [completed]
<Demilitarisation of Ukraine [in progress]
Bonus goals:
<Liberation of Kherson [80% complete]
<Liberation of Zaporizhe [85% complete]
<Status of NAFOids and libs [100% seething]
But they're not doing it fast enough, right? Therefore they are failing. US was in Afghanistan for 20 years, didn't achieve shit, armed the Taliban, and Americans still say the US won the war in Afghanistan. lol
>>

 No.464883

>>464870
They still hold most of Kherson, everything south of the Dniepr. Kherson city is shelled to pieces and civilians are leaving, it's going to be a ghost town.
>>

 No.464884

>>464872
>Still, U.S. Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged caution.

>"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory - defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea - the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily," Milley told a news conference at the Pentagon.


>"Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw. That's possible," he added, saying Russia "right now is on its back."


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-general-plays-down-odds-near-term-military-victory-ukraine-2022-11-16/

>inb4 Ukraine losing doesn't mean Russia winning
>>

 No.464887

>>464884
>Quoting Milley literally saying that Russia is losing
But it's okay. Let's see the seething next time Russia fucks up again. Remember when Kherson was always going to be Russian? How'd that work out?
>>

 No.464888

>>464887
>Remember when Kherson was always going to be Russian?
Only in your headcanon.
>>

 No.464889

The house of Zelensky's original billionaire puppeteer Kolomoisky was just raided recently (he fled the country already). It seems there might be purges of other Zelensky allies going on, paving the way for another coup. The question is will it be a coup controlled by the US or will it be a coup asserting Ukrainian independence?
>>

 No.464894

File: 1675296995026.png (2.47 MB, 1600x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/how-russians-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-war
How Russians Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the War
<The Pliant Majority Sustaining Putin’s Rule
>The previous empire launched Sputnik. Putin launches deadly missiles.
>Russians’ acceptance of collective responsibility will have to come later.
>>

 No.464895

>>464888
Russians literally posted signs about it and formally annexed it. Did you forget that?
>>

 No.464897

>>464889
Calling him a Zelenskyy ally is a plain lie at this point.
>As had Rabinovich as co-founder of the Opposition Platform,[139] Kolomoyskyi had begun to call for a new partnership between Ukraine and Russia. When that happened, he proposed that NATO would be "soiling its pants and buying Pampers."[134] Meanwhile, striking "a more assertive tone", Zelenskyy was pushing for membership of the European Union and the NATO alliance".[140] In response to the announced of US sanctions against Kolomoyskyi in April 2021, the Office of Ukrainian President released a statement declaring “Ukraine must overcome a system dominated by oligarchs” and acknowledging that “Ukraine is grateful to each partner for its support along the way”.[141]
The invasion proved very bad for Ukrainian oligarchs because the current government is desperate to seem like they are purging corruption. Invasion tends to simplify things. The Russians should know something about that, having been invaded by a similar power themselves.
>>

 No.464898

>>464897
>The Russians should know something about that, having been invaded by a similar power themselves.
at least you admit Ukraine is similar to Nazi Germany
>>

 No.464899

File: 1675314105499.png (19.23 KB, 580x172, 1675303493368-0.png)

oh nononononono

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>

 No.464900

>>464899
Yup, turns out Mozart are a bunch of rapists and con artists. The founder of the group and others are being charged with sexual misconduct, rape, fraud, theft… Every Westerner that goes to fight in Ukraine is running from charges (often sexual ones) at home: the Canadian general, the British merc, the Korean merc, list is pretty long.
>>

 No.464913

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=9XJ_1hTNPhs

Brian Berletic thinks that the recent weapons packages are intended as a bluff to convince the Russians that the west is dedicated to the Ukraine war in the long run, when in reality they want to get out and redirect their efforts against China.

any opinions ?
>>

 No.464914

>>464898
I'm comparing the Russians to Nazis, you illiterate dumbfuck.
>>

 No.464915

>>464900
They literally just changed the name and legal structure. Why fo you feel the need to lie all the time?
>>

 No.464916

>>464913
Odd conclusion, considering the US response isn't to budget, but to spend more. Plus, Ukraine is probing to be very cheap and effective if what you care about is weakening Russia.
>>

 No.464926

NATO is falling apart. They've resorted to infighting and accusations, calling one another imposters and trying to oust one another from the group.
https://youtu.be/dukmvEmCfIk
>>

 No.464941

File: 1675414720083.png (237.9 KB, 411x444, clicktroll.png)

>>464926
links to a NATO propaganda video
>>

 No.464943

>>464916
>Odd conclusion
If you watch his video he points out that Western government officials have said "the weapons-packages are a show of commitment"
his interpretation just drops the last word as in "the weapons-packages are a show"
>considering the US response isn't to budget, but to spend more.
Well there seem to be 2 factions in the US power-structure, the first one wants to throw down with the Russians, their goal is more escalation, because they hope to get US soldiers and NATO into the fight. The other faction wants to conserve US military resources for a confrontation with China.
>Ukraine is probing to be very cheap and effective if what you care about is weakening Russia.
The IMF forcasts 0.3% economic growth for Russia, it's quite surprising that a country at war can still have net positive economic growth. Contrast that with the EU-zone that already is in a recession and the US is not far behind.
There also are no indications that the Russians are depleting any military stocks they can't replace.
As far as i can tell the Russians are only loosing a small number of Soldiers. They are paying in blood for this, but it's not a lot.
The sanctions war against Russia also has damaged the trust in the US dominated financial system like SWIFT. The Dollar's status as a reserve currency has been slowly fading for a while, but it took an additional hit, because new competing international financial systems got a big boost from all of this.

I don't think that this was worth it for the west, it's shaping up to become an expensive debacle.
>>

 No.464946

>>464943
>I don't think that this was worth it for the west, it's shaping up to become an expensive debacle.
oh man, but posting cartoon dogs on twitter sure felt good. Worth it.
>>

 No.464947

File: 1675427369315.jpg (140.97 KB, 991x1081, nafo-dogs.jpg)

>>464946
>but posting cartoon dogs on twitter sure felt good. Worth it.
kek i had to look up that reference to get what that means.

Yeah i wonder if there's going to be veterans in the future that reminisce about the great meme war of 23.
>>

 No.464951

>>464943
>If you watch his video he points out that Western government officials have said "the weapons-packages are a show of commitment"
Western officials say a lot of things. But you don't begin writing blank checks and delivering large weapons systems if you aren't prepared to fight it out. Either that or they think this will end the war.
>The other faction wants to conserve US military resources for a confrontation with China.
You don't understand the US military. It's literally designed to fight two separate wars at opposite sides of the globe.
>The IMF forcasts 0.3% economic growth for Russia, it's quite surprising that a country at war can still have net positive economic growth.
Well, it can, if it borrows massive amounts of money. How do you think we got economic growth during the pandemic?
>Contrast that with the EU-zone that already is in a recession and the US is not far behind.
This is a lie. The only country expected to see negative growth is the UK, and that has more to do with pandemic mismanagement and Brexit than anything going on in Ukraine.
>There also are no indications that the Russians are depleting any military stocks they can't replace.
Other than the fact that they are increasingly using older tanks, outfitting new equipment with old upgrades, and how their missile spam has gone from over 100/day to around 50 every few weeks, with components being made closer and closer to their use date.
>The sanctions war against Russia also has damaged the trust in the US dominated financial system like SWIFT. The Dollar's status as a reserve currency has been slowly fading for a while, but it took an additional hit, because new competing international financial systems got a big boost from all of this.
The only people who do not like this system are actors like Russia. Nobody from France to Germany, or other wealthy nations thinks this is a bad thing. Only irrelevant 3rd world dictators have a problem with this.
>As far as i can tell the Russians are only loosing a small number of Soldiers. They are paying in blood for this, but it's not a lot.
Around 180k is not a small number.
>>

 No.464955

>>464951
Lol yes western officials do indeed say a lot of things, but realistically they are not arming Ukraine to win, at best they are resuscitating the corps of an Ukrainian military over and over because they want to keep the war going.

I too have read the US military startegic papers about fighting 2 countries at the same time, but you are utterly delusional if you think the US can fight China and Russia at the same time. They meant 2 small-to-medium countries with a limited stock of imported weapons systems. Not techno industrial heavy weights that each can project and sustain massive industrial firepower.

I don't think you understand how economics works, you cannot borrow growth and by the way most economies contracted during covid. If Russia was cooking the books they wouldn't have admitted that it had a little bit of net growth.

The Russians have been fielding more T-90 tanks which are round-about the same generation of tank than western Abrams, Leopards and Challengers. The Russians are the only ones fielding a really brand-new tank (T-14) tho only in small numbers.
As far as their missile barrages go i can't find any data that corroborates your claims. So i'm treating this as a speculation. Hypothetically if they have indeed reduced their attack rates they may just be running out of targets to destroy, or they might be holding out for a large knock-out blow to support a bigger offensive. In any case the Russians have fired more missiles than the US has production capacity.

About 80% of the world did not participate in the Sanctions against Russia. The US had to bully Europe into this, and the European population is not onboard being subjected to energy poverty. The Sanctions war is the imperial bourgeoisie causing the west to become more internationally isolated.

Russian losses are estimate between 12.000 and 20.000
Ukrainian losses are estimate between 140.000 and 300.000.
>>

 No.464956

File: 1675441807061.png (297.57 KB, 1440x720, 1675336285227836.png)

>>464955
>Lol yes western officials do indeed say a lot of things, but realistically they are not arming Ukraine to win
Well, they're certainly not losing. The new hardware can only help.
>I too have read the US military startegic papers about fighting 2 countries at the same time, but you are utterly delusional if you think the US can fight China and Russia at the same time
I mean, the Ukrainians are fighting China with underequipped troops and no air cover. I think the US would stomp Russia in a month if it came to that.
>I don't think you understand how economics works, you cannot borrow growth
You're right, which is why after the pandemic and the tightening on lending, the US and other western economies went into slowed growth. This is the same thing that will happen to Russia. You're the one that doesn't understand this.
>If Russia was cooking the books they wouldn't have admitted that it had a little bit of net growth.
That's not cooking the books. You're stupid and don't know how things work.
>The Russians have been fielding more T-90 tanks
Yeah, where? Because all I see are upgraded T-62s and T-72Bs with B2 parts grafted on.
>The Russians are the only ones fielding a really brand-new tank (T-14) tho only in small numbers.
T-14 isn't in Ukraine, and the reason it's a small number is because they can't build more.
>As far as their missile barrages go i can't find any data that corroborates your claims.
You could just look at the fact that there hasn't been a big one in weeks. You could count them based on headlines, or you could even look at MoD numbers.
>Hypothetically if they have indeed reduced their attack rates they may just be running out of targets to destroy
Then, I guess they only have to march forward and take the rest of Ukraine, then. Or, they might not do that, since you're full of shit.
>or they might be holding out for a large knock-out blow to support a bigger offensive.
There won't be an offensive. Russia is spent with most of her trained soldiers lying in a ditch somewhere in the Ukraine.
>In any case the Russians have fired more missiles than the US has production capacity.
And yet when the US invaded somewhere like Iraq, the missiles actually hit their targets. It's almost like Russian stuff is junk.
>About 80% of the world did not participate in the Sanctions against Russia.
No, just the richest, most influential countries did. You know, the ones that matter and might actually damage Russia's economy.
>The Sanctions war is the imperial bourgeoisie causing the west to become more internationally isolated.
Hey dipshit, here's a hint: Russia is not the Soviet Union. They are also ruled by national bourgeoisie and are engaging in imperialism. You're simping for rich authoritarians.
>Russian losses are estimate between 12.000 and 20.000
Hey, if we're just making shit up, just say nobody has died so far and that the Moscva returned to port under her own power. In fact, just declare victory.
>Ukrainian losses are estimate between 140.000 and 300.000.
>nearly 50% losses
Again, the Russian troops have only to march forward now, if up to 300k are combat ineffective. That's a destroyed military right there.
>>

 No.464965

>>464956
Ukraine is loosing a war of attrition, against Russia (they aren't fighting China wtf)

I'm beginning to suspect that the real reason why the Russians are conserving their troops with a slow, incremental and methodical grind that is slowly eroding Ukraine, is because the Hardliners in the west operate this thing like a rigged boxing match. They basically pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians to weaken them before they throw NATO in the Ring against Russia.

As long as Russia maintains it's high combat power, NATO won't attack them, but if their combat power gets diminished to the point NATO would get a chance at an easy win they will be attacked.

It's somewhat ironic that the Russians are now able to destroy a bunch of NATO military gear, which is weakening the military posture in the west to some degree.

I have noticed that you invested a lot of effort into spinning a narrative of Russian weakness, by lying about their losses, or by belittling their weapons, is that supposed to convince people that NATO should attack them ? Following the logic of attacking weak prey ?

You are correct that Russia is a capitalist state, but this war contains an anti-imperialist struggle of Russia against the US attempting to bring them under imperial subjugation. This can't be denied. Russia is not in the imperial stage of capitalism, they are commodity exporters, they don't have an imperial bourgeoisie making imperial super-profits off capital exports.
>>

 No.464967

>>464965
>Ukraine is loosing a war of attrition, against Russia (they aren't fighting China wtf)
Brain fart, and every analyst of not says otherwise. No, I do not trust the same MoD that said that the Moscva had returned to port under its own power.
>I'm beginning to suspect that the real reason why the Russians are conserving their troops with a slow, incremental and methodical grind that is slowly eroding Ukraine, is because the Hardliners in the west operate this thing like a rigged boxing match. They basically pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians to weaken them before they throw NATO in the Ring against Russia.
You're forgetting that Russia started this war. Nobody threw anything at the Russians to fight. They could have just stayed in Russia.
>As long as Russia maintains it's high combat power, NATO won't attack them, but if their combat power gets diminished to the point NATO would get a chance at an easy win they will be attacked.
Russia would lose against a NATO military last year with all its best units. It's simply not a competent military.
>It's somewhat ironic that the Russians are now able to destroy a bunch of NATO military gear, which is weakening the military posture in the west to some degree.
Care to name what this gear is?
>I have noticed that you invested a lot of effort into spinning a narrative of Russian weakness, by lying about their losses, or by belittling their weapons, is that supposed to convince people that NATO should attack them ? Following the logic of attacking weak prey ?
I'm analyzing reality. You're the one that insists on making shit up and dreaming up strategies that not even the most incompetent Russian officers would come up with as a way to cope. How will you cope when Russia fucks up again?
>You are correct that Russia is a capitalist state, but this war contains an anti-imperialist struggle of Russia against the US
No. It's a land grab by a kleptocratic state wanting to return to is past supposed glory. There's nothing anti-imperialist about murdering Ukrainians in their own country and raping toddlers. Russians seem to be really into that brand of "anti-imperialism."
> Russia is not in the imperial stage of capitalism,
Land grabs are the simplest form of imperialism. They're an imperialist country, albeit an incompetent one.
>they don't have an imperial bourgeoisie making imperial super-profits off capital exports.
Funny, Moscow being the single largest collection of billionaires might have something to say to that.

Unique IPs: 125

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]