Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

[Kendall Motor Oil]

View attachment 3064995
I doubt Zelensky would concede even if all the Ukrainian cities were leveled. But maybe he has a threshold and this plan may work.

How are reddit and twitter(aka the only people who matter in society) coping?

I mean, Schwabb literally wrote this book if you do want spoilers. Not sure if it covers it all, but you get the gist

Amazon.com: COVID-19: The Great Reset (9782940631124): Schwab, Klaus, Malleret, Thierry: Books

Amazon.com: COVID-19: The Great Reset (9782940631124): Schwab, Klaus, Malleret, Thierry: Books

www.amazon.com

But wikipedia tells me this is a baseless conspiracy theory.

 

[Hell on Earth]

I think media has hyped up Russia as this hyper-efficient and brutal war machine for so long that people just figured Russia would conduct a live demonstration of Cold War fears where a line of tanks just rolls right over the enemy in record time.
That didn't happen and it was always Cold War hysteria anyway. Combined with most people only seeing pro-Ukrainian propaganda of Russians constantly getting stomped on, people have a skewed view of reality.

That said, I personally think the US alone could ultimately defeat Russia's military but the public may not accept the costs.

Maybe if you had the guys that made the military plans for the Iraq war but i'm not confident that your current commanders are as good as Subutai or Ghengis Khan to pull off a successful invasion of Russia..

 

[Jump]

If Google went full fascist in 2003

View attachment 3064942

View attachment 3064949

That nigger got some yellow cake?

 

[Smity Werbenjagermanjensen]

View attachment 3064995
I doubt Zelensky would concede even if all the Ukrainian cities were leveled. But maybe he has a threshold and this plan may work.

Zelensky, and Ukraine for that matter, will most likely never conced to terms that leave them as a 'neutral' country without a security guarantee from the West. Most likely this will involve a 'No NATO, but EU is fine' clause.

I still think Putin's actual goals involve taking Novorossiya to form a border that links up with Transnistria, as well as potentially taking everything east of the Dniper, which may or may not include Kyiv.

 

[Mussi]

I don't know why everyone here is acting as if a NATO invasion of Russia (no nukes involved) would be like a walk in park based on how the Russians have performed so far in this war.

Most invasions of Russia have started with the invaders having total confidence that Russia will be anihilated after seeing the Russian army being humiliated (battle of Friedland with Napoleon, Battle of Narva with Charles Xll of Sweden, The winter war and now this) but somehow the Russians manage to get on top in the end.

Maybe it's Generals winter and mud, the morale boost of fighting for the homeland, the vastness of Russia, I don't know.

Maybe Russia has lost that magic and maybe NATO would end up being as successful as the Mongols and will just vassalize Russia for hundreds of years.

The big thing is, Russia's strongest asset is the fact that it has around 45% of the world's functional nuclear weapons. If you take those into account, then any invasion of Russia would be doomed to fail as they have the option to flip over the table at any moment. If you don't, then Russia would be beyond screwed due to the way that modern warfare works. The Russian Air Force would be blasted to pieces the moment it touched the sky and then drones could grind down Russia's excellent AA systems. From that point, the Russian army would be torn apart by NATO airpower no matter how far they retreated as they wouldn't be able to mount an organized defense. In the long run, it would of course be a technical loss for NATO as they get worn down in an endless guerrilla war, but they would win the conventional phase of the war if they used even a small percentage of their assets.

 

[DumbDude42]

The big thing is, Russia's strongest asset is the fact that it has around 45% of the world's functional nuclear weapons. If you take those into account, then any invasion of Russia would be doomed to fail as they have the option to flip over the table at any moment. If you don't, then Russia would be beyond screwed due to the way that modern warfare works. The Russian Air Force would be blasted to pieces the moment it touched the sky and then drones could grind down Russia's excellent AA systems. From that point, the Russian army would be torn apart by NATO airpower no matter how far they retreated as they wouldn't be able to mount an organized defense. In the long run, it would of course be a technical loss for NATO as they get worn down in an endless guerrilla war, but they would win the conventional phase of the war if they used even a small percentage of their assets.

yeah russia is badly outgunned by america when it comes to conventional forces. burgers could annihilate the russian military and encircle moscow with relative ease. russians are fully aware of this, which contributes to their paranoia about having nato at their doorstep.

 

[Mussi]

Zelensky, and Ukraine for that matter, will most likely never conced to terms that leave them as a 'neutral' country without a security guarantee from the West. Most likely this will involve a 'No NATO, but EU is fine' clause.

I still think Putin's actual goals involve taking Novorossiya to form a border that links up with Transnistria, as well as potentially taking everything east of the Dniper, which may or may not include Kyiv.

I, can't wait for West Kyiv and East Kiev to exist. I was getting bored of Nicosia being the only split capital.

 

[Aidan]

Maybe if you had the guys that made the military plans for the Iraq war but i'm not confident that your current commanders are as good as Subutai or Ghengis Khan to pull off a successful invasion of Russia..

I think that mostly due to US logistics being absurdly good compared to everyone else, which negates one of Russia's greatest historical strengths. Americans can forget their winter coats and have them delivered to the troops the day after the first cold snap.
The leadership rot is real but doctrine is so codified it'll take more than a decade to completely ruin it.

 

[Disheveled Human]

Future Tech has not even been dragged out by either side. Starting a global conflict is a huge gamble for everyone involved. I hope that they can come to some sort of agreement on Ukraine but it seems like this is a fight that is gonna be escalated. Nobody is backing down. Finding out the Germans perfected the Die Glocke or the Russians shooting lasers from space is always some shit that could be on the table when we have been at a standstill for 40 years. Obviously im being hyperbolic but you get the idea.

 

[Aidan]

Future Tech has not even been dragged out by either side. Starting a global conflict is a huge gamble for everyone involved. I hope that they can come to some sort of agreement on Ukraine but it seems like this is a fight that is gonna be escalated. Nobody is backing down.

I think NATO has effectively conceded as is.

 

[Screamer]

The constantly increasing big tech censorship around the allowed narratives is worrying.

There is pretty much no mainstream questioning of Ukrainian propaganda at this stage. No discussion of anything outside of the narrative that Ukraine was the most peaceful place on earth, full of good white Christians until Thanos attacked. Everyone seems to be in agreement and acknowledge it's propaganda and is fine with that.

Yet they are cracking down harder on censorship.

What is the reason? Are there still too many independent thoughts?

Or is this in advance of wanting to protect narratives that haven't started yet?

Such as if the Ukrainians stage a WMD attack? Is it about pre-emptive cover to give them that option. The whole biolab discussion has frankly been odd.

One thing we've seen out of this, is even without the censorship the Russia propaganda machine is garbage. Yet censorship isn't targeting it. It's targeting basic context and facts about the conflict. It is targeting questioning Ukrainian propoganda.

Is it preparation for setting the stage for a much larger conflict?

How long until those in the independent media reporting on the propaganda, questioning the narratives are taken down? We can't be far from that.

 

[NyQuilninja]

The constantly increasing big tech censorship around the allowed narratives is worrying.

There is pretty much no mainstream questioning of Ukrainian propaganda at this stage. No discussion of anything outside of the narrative that Ukraine was the most peaceful place on earth, full of good white Christians until Thanos attacked. Everyone seems to be in agreement and acknowledge it's propaganda and is fine with that.

Yet they are cracking down harder on censorship.

What is the reason? Are there still too many independent thoughts?

Or is this in advance of wanting to protect narratives that haven't started yet?

Such as if the Ukrainians stage a WMD attack? Is it about pre-emptive cover to give them that option. The whole biolab discussion has frankly been odd.

One thing we've seen out of this, is even without the censorship the Russia propaganda machine is garbage. Yet censorship isn't targeting it. It's targeting basic context and facts about the conflict. It is targeting questioning Ukrainian propoganda.

Is it preparation for setting the stage for a much larger conflict?

How long until those in the independent media reporting on the propaganda, questioning the narratives are taken down? We can't be far from that.

Us elections are on there way dats why

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

The constantly increasing big tech censorship around the allowed narratives is worrying.

There is pretty much no mainstream questioning of Ukrainian propaganda at this stage. No discussion of anything outside of the narrative that Ukraine was the most peaceful place on earth, full of good white Christians until Thanos attacked. Everyone seems to be in agreement and acknowledge it's propaganda and is fine with that.

Yet they are cracking down harder on censorship.

What is the reason? Are there still too many independent thoughts?

Or is this in advance of wanting to protect narratives that haven't started yet?

Such as if the Ukrainians stage a WMD attack? Is it about pre-emptive cover to give them that option. The whole biolab discussion has frankly been odd.

One thing we've seen out of this, is even without the censorship the Russia propaganda machine is garbage. Yet censorship isn't targeting it. It's targeting basic context and facts about the conflict. It is targeting questioning Ukrainian propoganda.

Is it preparation for setting the stage for a much larger conflict?

How long until those in the independent media reporting on the propaganda, questioning the narratives are taken down? We can't be far from that.

Try telling people this and they will find a way to dismiss it. The very people who supported the iraq war to only turn around and claim there were no WMDs and they were always against it will do the same here in a decade.

 

[B_mizz]

I think media has hyped up Russia as this hyper-efficient and brutal war machine for so long that people just figured Russia would conduct a live demonstration of Cold War fears where a line of tanks just rolls right over the enemy in record time.
That didn't happen and it was always Cold War hysteria anyway. Combined with most people only seeing pro-Ukrainian propaganda of Russians constantly getting stomped on, people have a skewed view of reality.

That said, I personally think the US alone could ultimately defeat Russia's military but the public may not accept the costs.


>new #Putin strategy
Same as the oRussians.

That's what I'm pushing now with NPCs in real life. They ask me about it and I'm like "yeah looks like Ukraine is winning, they don't need us clearly..."

 

[AssManWaitingInTheSkies]

The constantly increasing big tech censorship around the allowed narratives is worrying.

There is pretty much no mainstream questioning of Ukrainian propaganda at this stage. No discussion of anything outside of the narrative that Ukraine was the most peaceful place on earth, full of good white Christians until Thanos attacked. Everyone seems to be in agreement and acknowledge it's propaganda and is fine with that.

Yet they are cracking down harder on censorship.

What is the reason? Are there still too many independent thoughts?

Or is this in advance of wanting to protect narratives that haven't started yet?

Such as if the Ukrainians stage a WMD attack? Is it about pre-emptive cover to give them that option. The whole biolab discussion has frankly been odd.

One thing we've seen out of this, is even without the censorship the Russia propaganda machine is garbage. Yet censorship isn't targeting it. It's targeting basic context and facts about the conflict. It is targeting questioning Ukrainian propoganda.

Is it preparation for setting the stage for a much larger conflict?

How long until those in the independent media reporting on the propaganda, questioning the narratives are taken down? We can't be far from that.

One thing for sure - hohols are free to feed the west with any kind of made-up stories and faulty reports. And nobody seems to mind that stuff.

 

[glib]

I hate the antichrist

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Neocons worship Wilson for creating the American empire and his apologists defend him by mentioning the conquest of Cuba or the Philipines and citing the interventions in central America and manifest destiny.

Not Wilson...

 

[Disheveled Human]

That's what I'm pushing now with NPCs in real life. They ask me about it and I'm like "yeah looks like Ukraine is winning, they don't need us clearly..."

The only reason why Ukraine is still Ukraine is because the west is propping it up so hard. If the west stopped support and intel as soon as the invasion began the situation would be looking super one sided.

 

[Narcotics]

The constantly increasing big tech censorship around the allowed narratives is worrying.
There is pretty much no mainstream questioning of Ukrainian propaganda at this stage. No discussion of anything outside of the narrative that Ukraine was the most peaceful place on earth, full of good white Christians until Thanos attacked. Everyone seems to be in agreement and acknowledge it's propaganda and is fine with that.
Yet they are cracking down harder on censorship.
What is the reason? Are there still too many independent thoughts?
Or is this in advance of wanting to protect narratives that haven't started yet?
Such as if the Ukrainians stage a WMD attack? Is it about pre-emptive cover to give them that option. The whole biolab discussion has frankly been odd.
One thing we've seen out of this, is even without the censorship the Russia propaganda machine is garbage. Yet censorship isn't targeting it. It's targeting basic context and facts about the conflict. It is targeting questioning Ukrainian propoganda.
Is it preparation for setting the stage for a much larger conflict?
How long until those in the independent media reporting on the propaganda, questioning the narratives are taken down? We can't be far from that.

I believe this is something akin to BLM criticism and trump's ban but multiplied by 1000x, they do it simply to push the message™, it's the next narrative they want to push, they do it just to look nice and fit in with the "yeeees kween zelenskyy slaay salvador craine" that the government, megacorps, celebrities and a big chunk of people have been cooking years ago. They just opened the gates and said "fuck it".
Besides, russia would have blocked access to twitter/meta shit sooner or later, they just did russia a favor and pulled the plug themselves.

 

[Jump]

Us elections are on there way dats why

Things are getting a little to messy at home. Between inflation, crime, gas prices, and now talk of BIOLABS after COVID.
The Dems just want this shit to go away. NATO will set up a DMZ on their lines and Ukraine will be sacrificed to the corn so that we may have a good election. There is zero chance they want to start a hot war now.
Putin makes a good boogie man so who cares if he gets Ukraine or not as long as he stays in power.