Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

How well is the war this going for Russia?

  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Blyatskrieg

    Votes: 249 10.6%
  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐ I ain't afraid of no Ghost of Kiev

    Votes: 278 11.8%
  • ⭐⭐⭐ Competent attack with some upsets

    Votes: 796 33.7%
  • ⭐⭐ Stalemate

    Votes: 659 27.9%
  • ⭐ Ukraine takes back Crimea 2022

    Votes: 378 16.0%

  • Total voters
    2,360
Status
Not open for further replies.
Describe in detail how it's a useless argument before hand-waving it.
Because the overuse of comparison between an X country and the US requires you, as someone who posited the argument, to elaborate on your position beyond "BUT WHAT ABOUT".

If we're talking geopolitics then one must be very nuanced. Just because you might be a literati, doesn't mean you don't have to go into your position in detail, instead of going with the shortcut "BBBUT KISSINGER BBBUT REALPOLITIK"
 
Last edited:
Look out, we got a real Russian Military Expert here! He's going to BTFO everyone here, like he did to me, lmao

Protip: Other countries don't have FIOA and even the DoD hasn't a firm grasp on what Russia has. In other words, you don't know shit.
You are right. Russia is probably in kahoots with the aliens, how could I have been so blind? That's why every single piece of equipment that was close to modern for its time has time and time again been shown to be much more effective than anything the west could ever create!

All jokes aside. The big problem with Russia is their intel leaks all the fucking time, within the first week of the war a picture of a new prototype version of the T-90 was leaked onto the internet. And with how much Russian equipment, especially new stuff, comes to the US and other countries it's safe to say it is hard for their military to hide their stuff.
@Kenya Jones

What's the problem? Also, I can't quote you properly.
Ruh roh

Anyways I'm gonna leave the thread for now, I think I have drawn the ire of the jannies so have a wonderful time and be courteous!
 
You are right. Russia is probably in kahoots with the aliens, how could I have been so blind? That's why every single piece of equipment that was close to modern for its time has time and time again been shown to be much more effective than anything the west could ever create!

All jokes aside. The big problem with Russia is their intel leaks all the fucking time, within the first week of the war a picture of a new prototype version of the T-90 was leaked onto the internet. And with how much Russian equipment, especially new stuff, comes to the US and other countries it's safe to say it is hard for their military to hide their stuff.

Ruh roh

Anyways I'm gonna leave the thread for now, I think I have drawn the ire of the jannies so have a wonderful time and be courteous!
So many experts of Kiwi Farms, I'm so lucky to be here.
 
Gundam taught me that all comm channels need to be accessible for everybody so you can have philosophy debates during combat
also online Ukraine bro is still not dead :)

Yes, all wartime comms must be done on Baofeng tier unencrypted comms so we can overhear epic shouting matches

Who is online Ukraine bro and where is he located? Coordinates specifically would be appreciated
 
I don't think he will, for various reasons. You could ask him yourself if you were so inclined but I somehow doubt the man will nuke this section of the site because newcomers to it are put off by the vitriol and heated discussions.

After all it's what's made this part of the site unique. Kind of like how BP doesn't allow simps/thirst or how WW has managed to exist for as long as it has... to say nothing of the crazy gay-ops that take place in the IF and Ethan Ralph sections of the forum.

I do too, but what makes this section of the site interesting for me is the unloading folks do to flesh out their sides of their views. I unironically like when HHH comes in with a take (but not when he's summoned by retards) because he goes so hard in the paint on his beliefs. You really don't get that kind of shit anywhere else and it's fantastic.

Gorillas don't fling shit, and most great apes don't either. Our closest cousins are ironically shit at throwing, including feces.

To be fair and to actually contribute to the milspec discussion regarding the war, what bugs me is the idea that all of their equipment is somehow so covered in dust that it doesn't matter anymore. To a country like Ukraine I can't think that they have even one experienced airman capable of piloting advanced aircraft. Sending a group a shitload of materiel that they're not even capable of using seems like a bad idea to me, and while russians haven't exactly been more involved than the U.S. I can't imagine there's a lot of actual combat experience from armed forces members of the nation of Ukraine. Especially not with the equipment they're allegedly being sent, even if it is old-ass MIGs.

Describe in detail how it's a useless argument before hand-waving it.

I think the back and forth on this board is rather tame, compared to some other boards.
 
Because the overuse of comparison between an X country and the US requires you, as someone who posited the argument, to elaborate on your position beyond "BUT WHAT ABOUT".

If we're talking geopolitics then one must be very nuanced. Just because you might be a literati, doesn't mean you don't have to go into your position in detail, instead of going with the shortcut "BBBUT KISSINGER BBBUT REALPOLITIK"
See, this is my key issue with this kind of argumentation. Nobody has to elaborate on the nature of hypocrisy in the face of an argument which assumes a moral high-ground.

"Whataboutism" and it's derivative argumentation are purely about removing hypocrisy from argumentation stemming from a supposed moral authority. If a serial killer is lecturing a rapist on morality, no sane person would cry "well that's whataboutism!" if the said rapist were to bring up the past of his lecturer.
 
People way over sell how long Slavic identities have been in Europe, mostly because slavs themselves have an interest in artificially extending that time frame. I don't mean just slavs as an ethnicity, those have been bumming around europe for awhile, i mean the actual national identity of a given slav nation. Be it Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Poland and so on and so forth. Realistically most of these identities were formed somewhere in the early to late middle ages and most of the time formed by third parties either for administrative purposes or as puppet states (which i find amusing since that's basically the role they fill now as well). These were people with no culture and no history until other people gave it to them.

One of the reason Peter the Great is considered...well great, is because he said "Fuck this gopnik shit" and started mimicking western european cultures and adopted illuminist thought (which were primarily French and German thinkers at the time). The only reason slavs aren't basically just slightly fairer gypsies now a days is because they adopted Orthodoxy and accepted everything that came with it without condition. Their entire writing system, Cyrillic, is just a slightly more refined version of a writing system created specifically so Orthodox priests could teach them Orthodoxy because guess what, they didn't have a unified language or a well defined language before that.

That's why your average european looks down upon the slavic nations, that's why your average european doesn't give a fuck about slavs killing each other, because only Americans think 200 years is a long time. There are plenty of peoples that have existed before them, still exist with them and will continue to exist after them. People like to make fun of Hoteps about "We wuz kangz" but the entirety of modern slavic history is a fucking LARP of that, that despite not having a proper language, or religion or culture, or hell even know what a chair or a spoon was that they somehow were the most powerful *insert administrative unit* of the region in *insert earliest plausible century they can give*.

Autistic rant aside small clarification on Orthodoxy.

Sects of Orthodoxy are autonomous, meaning they are completely independent from other sects and they can change as many things as they like as much as they like. Meaning a Greek orthodox is separate from a Russian orthodox, is separate from a Polish Orthodox etc etc. There is technically a orthodox Pope figure that resides in Istanbul, no one actually gives a shit, and while it helps to be recognized by him as a separate sect, it doesn't really matter.

So they aren't as unified from a religious aspect as people like to say.
 
See, this is my key issue with this kind of argumentation. Nobody has to elaborate on the nature of hypocrisy in the face of an argument which assumes a moral high-ground.

"Whataboutism" and it's derivative argumentation are purely about removing hypocrisy from argumentation stemming from a supposed moral authority. If a serial killer is lecturing a rapist on morality, no sane person would cry "well that's whataboutism!" if the said rapist were to bring up the past of his lecturer.
What kind of argumentation is that? Sane people decry whataboutism because it serves as a convenient valve for people or entities in the wrong to extricate themselves from the full guilt of their actions, just because someone else did it as well. It's literal coping.

Integrating a very emotionally charged metaphor doesn't help your case either, because there are different levels of action in here. You cannot compare a large-scale military operation and its' validity with a question of morals.
 
Look out, we got a real Russian Military Expert here! He's going to BTFO everyone here, like he did to me, lmao

Protip: Other countries don't have FIOA and even the DoD hasn't a firm grasp on what Russia has. In other words, you don't know shit.
Can't reply to him for some reason but
>shit since the 70s
That's why all those new Russian tanks and jets caused NATO repeat panic attacks, right? Tanks being the main reason we (US) made the Abrams? And it's why the CIA was paying people to try to steal Spetsnaz gear in Afghanistan and bring it to them, right? I'm not trying to sound like a total Russophile, but they got good shit, and I'll never get why it's a funny internet meme to act like Russia has a third-world ass-backward army with shittier gear and training than Somalian pirates. Joke's one thing, but there are people who legit believe that, and I just don't get it.
 
What kind of argumentation is that? Sane people decry whataboutism because it serves as a convenient valve for people or entities in the wrong to extricate themselves from the full guilt of their actions, just because someone else did it as well. It's literal coping.
It really isn't. Whataboutism is used as a way to shut-down engagement with hypocritical actions. Explain to me how you're not right now arguing that somehow past actions don't relate to current dialogue.
Integrating a very emotionally charged metaphor doesn't help your case either, because there are different levels of action in here. You cannot compare a large-scale military operation and its' validity with a question of morals.
You absolutely can. Governments, while not necessary in the sense of being held to the same accountability of their populace, cannot be in good faith defended on moral grounds if they themselves have committed such actions. We're not talking about two individuals and what they have done wrong here, but what actions large entities with military force, covert or otherwise, have undertaken. It should be considered in any such conversation as their actions carry much more weight and longevity to them.

For instance, explain to me how it was okay for the CIA to plan a false-flag operation to have a reason to invade Cuba for incredibly similar reasons to the Russians invading Ukraine, but the reverse isn't applicable. Or how it's alright for the U.S. media to be freaking out about Russia allegedly helping Cuba to improve it's military infrastructure in the wake of this war.
 
Can't reply to him for some reason but
>shit since the 70s
That's why all those new Russian tanks and jets caused NATO repeat panic attacks, right? Tanks being the main reason we (US) made the Abrams? And it's why the CIA was paying people to try to steal Spetsnaz gear in Afghanistan and bring it to them, right? I'm not trying to sound like a total Russophile, but they got good shit, and I'll never get why it's a funny internet meme to act like Russia has a third-world ass-backward army with shittier gear and training than Somalian pirates. Joke's one thing, but there are people who legit believe that, and I just don't get it.
Clearly you haven't seen the spergouts on the internet (and even on KF) about tanks flying the Victory Banner, because they have no idea what it means, and that's allowed.
 
Explain to me how you're not right now arguing that somehow past actions don't relate to current dialogue.
Every action has to be judged on its' merit.

Invoking a different country doing similar shit also enables the party that does it to change the argument field and change the rules to win the argument. If you initiate a conversation about Cuba and whether it's right or wrong what the CIA did, then it opens up an angle of attack, because you might have more knowledge on the subject.

Are we looking to have a proper discussion or are we looking for a fight to determine which side has superior arguments? If the former, then whataboutism doesn't have any place in the discussion, if the latter, I have the full right to use the "BBUT WHATABOUT" as a proper argument because I wish for the conversation to remain within the boundaries of the situation.

If you can bring up extended and elaborated parallels between the current situation and Cuba shenanigans - it is your responsibility to elaborate on them and make a connection that doesn't sound like "BBBUT WHAT ABOUT?"
 
What kind of argumentation is that? Sane people decry whataboutism because it serves as a convenient valve for people or entities in the wrong to extricate themselves from the full guilt of their actions, just because someone else did it as well. It's literal coping.

Integrating a very emotionally charged metaphor doesn't help your case either, because there are different levels of action in here. You cannot compare a large-scale military operation and its' validity with a question of morals.
not really related to what you're saying but my thoughts are:
if one country does evil shit which with it gains more power another country must also do evil shit to survive and counter their tactics.
If you're not willing to rape the town rapist he will rape your daughter when your not looking. but if you have a mutually assured anus rape treaty he might pick the neighbor next door.
I think in that sense whataboutisms is not something to look negative upon.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: LurkTrawl
Every action has to be judged on its' merit.

Invoking a different country doing similar shit also enables the party that does it to change the argument field and change the rules to win the argument. If I initiate a conversation about Cuba and whether it's right or wrong what the CIA did, then it opens a field of attack, because you might have more knowledge on the subject.

Are we looking to have a proper discussion or are we looking for a fight to determine which side has superior arguments? If the former, then whataboutism doesn't have any place in the discussion, if the latter, I have the full right to use the "BBUT WHATABOUT" as a proper argument because I wish for the conversation to remain within the boundaries of the situation.

If you can bring up extended and elaborated parallels between the current situation and Cuba shenanigans - it is your responsibility to elaborate on them and make a connection that doesn't sound like "BBBUT WHAT ABOUT?"
Random aside but how many Ukrainians know English as well as you do or know it at all?
 
Every action has to be judged on its' merit.

Involving a different country doing similar shit also enables the party that does it to change the argument field and change the rules to win the argument. If I initiate a conversation about Cuba and whether it's right or wrong what the CIA did, then it opens a field of attack, because you might have more knowledge on the subject.
I could ask in what further context does it make one okay and not the other. Or I could be a dick and point out that you're proving my point in this section of your post, precisely, that it's about shutting down avenues of discussion that are uncomfortable or inconvenient to the narrative that you ascribe to.
Are we looking to have a proper discussion or are we looking for a fight to determine which side has superior arguments? If the former, then whataboutism doesn't have any place in the discussion, if the latter, I have the full right to use the "BBUT WHATABOUT" as a proper argument because I wish for the conversation to remain within the boundaries of the situation.
The conversation is still within the boundaries of the situation as we're talking about the history behind it. History, world events, and specifically geopolitics do not exist within a vacuum. History, and the actions of rulers/nations/governments are written in stone, not sand. To dismiss them is to effectively dismiss any productive discussion of any current dialogue revolving around such topics.
If you can bring up extended and elaborated parallels between the current situation and Cuba shenanigans - it is your responsibility to elaborate on them and make a connection that doesn't sound like "BBBUT WHAT ABOUT?"
It's really not. If you don't know enough to understand what hypocrisy is being talked about, perhaps you shouldn't act like you have an informed take on the situation? Or more importantly, "but what about" isn't an invalid question when those being the loudest in the conversation want to hand-wave hypocrisy for political convenience. It's intellectual cowardice of a pretty high order to do as such.

I also asked what the differences are between this, the bay of pigs incident, and the media freaking out over Russian reinforcement of Cuba because it'd elaborate on the idea. If you don't want to discuss that, or go into that, that's fine. But I wonder if it's out of ignorance or out of a lack of willingness to engage with the subject due to how damaging it is to whatever narrative you'd rather have in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back