Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)

[potato fan]

There’s been a lot of increasing radio silence from the Russian SIMPs compared to several months back.

that vid of two rus soldiers getting drone bombed while fagging it out buck broke them

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

Too optimistic, you won't find many wars that end well with maximalist aims on both sides. Especially when it's literally illegal to negotiate with your enemy. (and your allies will shut down any negotiations) Even then, there's no guarantee that Putin's successor could be better than him or that Russia could surrender so it's at best a shot in the dark.

I have been called too optimistic about this conflict from day one, and the Ukrainians have surpassed even my expectations - I was expecting a grinding push forward not these sorts of Russian collapses.

Also I disagree, the problem with lots of wars is that the political aims and the military aims do not match. This means that achieving one and not the other becomes impossible, think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. They become grinding forever wars.

When objectives dovetail this is not an issue, do you think the Falklands war ended badly once the British threw the Argentinians off of the islands? It doesn't matter what negotiations happened after that, their objectives were completed and they could go home regardless.

Likewise, if Ukraine defeats the Russian military and kicks them outside of their borders then what are they going to negotiate about? Ukraine will want reparations, maybe a guarantee, but those will not come so just call it a day once the Russians have went with their tail tucked and we are good!

 

[Not At All A Lizard]

Footage of Russian armor surrendering to Ukrainian troops. Something notable about the footage is just how well equipped the Ukies are now. I know its fun to pick on the Germans for only sending helmets but I imagine there are a great many Mobiks who would kill for a helmet

I would not doubt that this kinda thing has happened regularly this war, and even more so with recent Ukie advances.

However, I always find vids like this kinda hard to judge. To me it always looks a bit performative and could just as easily have been a couple of Ukies told to pretend to surrender (unless I'm missing some details). Including making sure they look as poor and ragged as possible in a shitty tank while the Ukes look sparkly clean and kitted out like cream of the crop US troops.

 

[Ghostse]

that vid of two rus soldiers getting drone bombed while fagging it out buck broke them

That video is going to get Ukraine charges with war crimes. Didn't let the guy nut before nading them.

 

[The Foldless Brain]

Mea culpa, I was wrong and the hoholophiles and Americaposters were right and Russia can't win in the SMO 200k format. Failing to bomb infrastructure when they had the chance, insufficient manpower and delaying for months on end on mobilizing when that came through were mistakes. Would it have been different if they had done this and if the Ukraine hadn't gotten 90 billion in tech, and all but open Western intel and on the ground support? Sure, but that's cope. It was the job of the Russky intelligence services to take it into account, they didn't, and whining about how you could've done it if the enemy wasn't themselves but someone else is retarded.

That said, I am completely convinced that the Ukraine can't win a long-term war and that the only way the Russians lose is if they're demoralized enough into quitting soon. The 1 million man hohol recruitment drive, posting demoralized complaining recruits and the always delayed Kherson Counteroffensive were jokes all the way up until they weren't. Ukraine was able to do this despite losing 7 million people as refugees and a completely collapsing economy and are currently reaping the dividends of it. The Russians on the other hand have their Telegram people hanging themselves over 'overwhelming forces' of 100 armored vehicles and 6k dudes on one front. Russia has 5 times the manpower to draw from and the worth of a conscript army is pretty undeniable at this point. By contrast, Western media is already complaining about how they're running out of shit to send. The manpower and long-term materiel advantage is too large to overcome provided they don't quit.

I will take my stickers and deserved laughing now and confirm I stand by this point until I'm either proven right or Putler cope-itulates at which point I will devote my time on this site towards shilling for the Kike of Kiev and Biden:

 

[Not At All A Lizard]

Mea culpa, I was wrong and the hoholophiles and Americaposters were right and Russia can't win in the SMO 200k format. Failing to bomb infrastructure when they had the chance, insufficient manpower and delaying for months on end on mobilizing when that came through were mistakes. Would it have been different if they had done this and if the Ukraine hadn't gotten 90 billion in tech, and all but open Western intel and on the ground support? Sure, but that's cope. It was the job of the Russky intelligence services to take it into account, they didn't, and whining about how you could've done it if the enemy wasn't themselves but someone else is retarded.

....

I will always applaud not sitting on the fence, even if suckling Putler's bald balls. This defeat will only make you stronger, Russophile brother.

 

[Male Idiot]

If US ground troops are indeed in the Ukraine, they got a fighting chance.

But I also recall a man greater than Biden, who had his troops at Stalingrad. He still lost, and he went farther and was a righteous hero.

And that man was Adolf Hitler. And Stalin didn't have nukes yet.

 

[Kenya Jones]

I know this is probably against thread rules but I think everyone who is posting or lurking should have a little breather and read something funny I just saw on /pol/.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

That said, I am completely convinced that the Ukraine can't win a long-term war and that the only way the Russians lose is if they're demoralized enough into quitting soon. The 1 million man hohol recruitment drive, posting demoralized complaining recruits and the always delayed Kherson Counteroffensive were jokes all the way up until they weren't. Ukraine was able to do this despite losing 7 million people as refugees and a completely collapsing economy and are currently reaping the dividends of it. The Russians on the other hand have their Telegram people hanging themselves over 'overwhelming forces' of 100 armored vehicles and 6k dudes on one front. Russia has 5 times the manpower to draw from and the worth of a conscript army is pretty undeniable at this point. By contrast, Western media is already complaining about how they're running out of shit to send. The manpower and long-term materiel advantage is too large to overcome provided they don't quit.

Ukraine had in place the means of mobilising it's nation, has assistance from outside - they had been planning for this very eventuality - and their initial mobilisation was still a shit show because it is a gargantuan task and a bureaucratic nightmare at the best of times, never mind during a full scale invasion. Yet, prior planning, a motivated populace and outside assistance and time made it work.

Russia since Putin came in has moved away from the Soviet idea of an army that fights with mobilisation, but not entirely. It's like a halfway house between a volunteer force and the old Soviet mass mobilisation system. While they still have conscripts, their infrastructure and training establishments aren't set up for training this many people this quickly. Most training is done in unit, units which have deployed to Ukraine. Many of the training cadre has also been deployed to Ukraine. Not to mention the infrastructure available for them is in a shocking state, because it's not been used for thirty fucking years, and they don't have enough equipment.

So numbers on a sheet of how many Russians exist visa vi Ukraine are just numbers. Russian fighting age males are fleeing, they don't want this, they don't want to fight.

The materiel side is also misleading.

First, Russia has vast stocks - but how much is useable? Even if it has been stored appropriately (most hasn't) has it been checked, has it been picked over by thieves and scavengers? That which is useable, or can be quickly repaired - is it actually worthwhile, is bringing a tank from the early 60s really going to do anything useful with ATGMs everywhere?

In terms of Russian production, it's on its arse. Even parts for civilians automobiles are scarce to the point of causing that industry to collapse. RUSI examined modern Russian kit and almost all is reliant on imports and the majority of that is from the West. While they sanctioned busted since 2014 this is far more difficult today, so can Russia even really replenish this kit in the long term without Western help? Maybe China can aid them, they don't sound like they will.

Western stocks are low, but that doesn't mean they can't make new weapons for Ukraine. It also ignores the fact that the UK amongst others are actively buying new 152mm stuff from places like Pakistan and flying it into Poland. So this idea that there's nothing left to support Ukraine with is untrue, as more can be made and Russia couldn't even hope to keep up with Western industrial capacity even if it wasn't crushed by sanctions. Which it is.

TL;DR Long Term favours Ukraine. Fair play for admitting you were wrong, but maybe listen to the people who've called this right from the start instead of just assuming big country holds the cards. It doesn't, Russia is fucked.

 

[introvertedobserver]

With the caveat that the means used by those intervening do not extend beyond that of the invader, then that is a fair statement of my point. It's not an escalation, because the situation was already escalated by the aggressor to it's current state.

I didn't say it was an escalation to the situation - that's verbal nonsense and meaningless terminology that only serves to fit your extremely narrow definition of escalation. I said it's an escalation by "The West" on Russia specifically because "The West" went from "uninvolved" to "involved".

It's funny that you're saying it's not how international politics works, because it absolutely is - nations have a right to self defense, collective defense and the right to defend other nations from aggression in accordance with the UN Charter. The fact Ukraine isn't NATO isn't actually relevant.

You're conflating "justification" with "escalation". Again.

 

[The Foldless Brain]

....

TL;DR Long Term favours Ukraine. Fair play for admitting you were wrong, but maybe listen to the people who've called this right from the start instead of just assuming big country holds the cards. It doesn't, Russia is fucked.

The point about fighting age males and demographics are a joke in light of the state of Ukrainian demographics. Ukraine has an on paper population of 44mil, but between the 6 odd million in the parts of the liberal oblasts and the 7 million refugees by the UN we're talking about somewhere close to 30mil. The age pyramids of Russia and Ukraine are identical and the TFR of both are <1.5 with Ukraine's even being lower. Taking the absolute highest statistic thus far given, which is 260k, pretending for a moment that all are of military men and increasing it ten fold to 2.6mil would still leave a possible recruitable population of 20~ million in the ranges of 18 to 39.

Ukraine's mobilization was a shitshow, but it also had 8 years of actual direct military experience to smooth out the process while the Russian system is anything but, as it hasn't dusted this off. This is a structural problem, not one of capacity. Russia can fix it, but not in any particularly fast pace, which makes not just the above absolute numbers but the 2mil reservist numbers functionally dubious in the short to medium term. Manpower is manpower though and at present Russia has used a fraction of it. 'nam saw a total of 2.5mil American soldiers pass through before they called it quits, with a top of 400-500k at one time, without factoring in the South Vietnamese. An overall Russian defeat because ground is lost with 150k contract soldiers is an indictment of the contract soldiers against a numerically superior foe with a much larger temporary warchest, it says nothing about the overall supply of the state.

The materiel point is even more dubious. Europe has been stripped down to the bone in terms of available stocks and even the US will take 2 odd years to produce those 18 extra HiMars it promised. But where Russia can buy the materials it doesn't already have from China to produce, Ukraine has no native production to speak of, Europe is beat to a pulp economically and while the US can ramp up production even the most charitable time gives it 2 years before it can do so. It also preassumes a lasting political will to go on what is effectively war footing production-wise in order to support a proxy war. Even assuming Russia doesn't extend its cooperation in the waging of the war past just Iranian drones to buying weaponry from China et al, who've a vested interest in seeing it win so the US's next focus isn't on them, what we have on Russia's stocks in a larger war scenario is speculation, whereas with Europe and Ukraine we've much clearer estimates.

The point I'm conceding is the general assessment of the SMO being bound for failure in its until recent format given the degree of Ukrainian support and mobilization, not a concession to their points at large. Hohol triumphalists have gone on about everything from Mariupol to Lysychansk to their past months of throwing people over at a single spot in Kherson to be shot as being successes in the making. When you're wrong nine times out of ten, but hit it big the tenth time, you were still wrong before. The people running this proxy war ran away from Afghanistan after 20 years, lost in their Syria coup attempt and are en route to turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite while driving their own economies into the ground. They didn't become political or military genuises overnight because their gambit paid off at present and shouldn't be extended the benefit of the doubt over basic heuristics of population size, army stocks and production.

 

[DumbDude43]

They did a damn fine job during WWII, though.

no thy didn't, they were badly led and equipped, the japanese had them outclassed to an extreme degree in both technology and military organisation.
the chinese were lucky that the burgers dismantled japans empire and forced the japanese to give up their entire presence on mainland asia, otherwise there would probably still be a manchukuo and a japanese korea today.
but simultaneously the chinese were also extremely unlucky when the soviet union decided at the last minute to enter the war in the east, because that eventually led to the victory of maos commies over chiangs nationalists, which in the long term turned out to be almost as bad for china as the very brutal japanese occupation had been.

 

[Delicious Diversity]

I understand you are very low iq turkroach scum, you can't help being all fucking retarded. The US lost, and lost big. All they "won" was killing the shit out of tons of brown people. If that was your goal, great job. Well over a trillion dollars to kill a few hundred thousand sand niggers. Not like there are billions more.
View attachment 3718932

Why do you guys cry about the US killing brown people in durka durka countries, but applaud Russia killing white people in Europe? I agree the wars in the middle east were stupid and achieved nothing, but tbh I don't give a shit about the middle east. I wish we could build a wall around them and let them fight each other.

Also I'm sick of people saying the US fucked up in Iraq/Afghanistan, therefore Russia is justified in bombing Ukrainians. It's fucked up what they are doing right now.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

The point about fighting age males and demographics are a joke in light of the state of Ukrainian demographics. Ukraine has an on paper population of 44mil, but between the 6 odd million in the parts of the liberal oblasts and the 7 million refugees by the UN we're talking about somewhere close to 30mil. The age pyramids of Russia and Ukraine are identical and the TFR of both are <1.5 with Ukraine's even being lower. Taking the absolute highest statistic thus far given, which is 260k, pretending for a moment that all are of military men and increasing it ten fold to 2.6mil would still leave a possible recruitable population of 20~ million in the ranges of 18 to 39.

Ukraine's mobilization was a shitshow, but it also had 8 years of actual direct military experience to smooth out the process while the Russian system is anything but, as it hasn't dusted this off. This is a structural problem, not one of capacity. Russia can fix it, but not in any particularly fast pace, which makes not just the above absolute numbers but the 2mil reservist numbers functionally dubious in the short to medium term. Manpower is manpower though and at present Russia has used a fraction of it. 'nam saw a total of 2.5mil American soldiers pass through before they called it quits, with a top of 400-500k at one time, without factoring in the South Vietnamese. An overall Russian defeat because ground is lost with 150k contract soldiers is an indictment of the contract soldiers against a numerically superior foe with a much larger temporary warchest, it says nothing about the overall supply of the state.

Accepting the statistics, I think the conclusion you've drawn is wrong. Ukraine has mobilised about 1 million in six months, it has the infrastructure and the willpower. Russia has neither, it has more people sure but civilians with weapons aren't much use unless they're fighting locally and using guerilla tactics. Putting them in the line, or for anything but menial duties is going to achieve zilch. It's not that Russia can't turn it around, but this would take years and they don't have years. So realising their potential is outside the scope of the conflict.

They lack a centralised training organisation, so think about what this requires:

They need to create a joint syllabus that is relevant to what they are doing.
They need training areas, class rooms.
Most importantly, they need people to teach them - yet they have sent almost all their soldiers and training officers to Ukraine. These people will not be in any state to teach anyone anything for a while, given the fact they have not seen any rotation.
Then they need basic equipment, yet as I have pointed out rusted equipment from long term storage that hasn't been looked after will not suffice.
We have already seen AKs rusted to the point where they are unable to fucking cycle have been handed out. Now maybe someone very good at cleaning weapons can get them functioning again - but christ alive would I trust that thing not to blow my hand off after a conscript tried to clean it? NO!

The materiel point is even more dubious. Europe has been stripped down to the bone in terms of available stocks and even the US will take 2 odd years to produce those 18 extra HiMars it promised. But where Russia can buy the materials it doesn't already have from China to produce, Ukraine has no native production to speak of, Europe is beat to a pulp economically and while the US can ramp up production even the most charitable time gives it 2 years before it can do so. It also preassumes a lasting political will to go on what is effectively war footing production-wise in order to support a proxy war. Even assuming Russia doesn't extend its cooperation in the waging of the war past just Iranian drones to buying weaponry from China et al, who've a vested interest in seeing it win so the US's next focus isn't on them, what we have on Russia's stocks in a larger war scenario is speculation, whereas with Europe and Ukraine we've much clearer estimates.

Chinese exports to Russia have fallen. They are not able to buy the parts they need from China. Given prior sanctions, if their needs could be covered by China which didn't sanction Russia they already would of went there. They didn't because the supply doesn't exist. Europe is suffering sure, but muh high ruble covers the fact that Russia is unable to get basic inputs for many of its industrial sectors, especially high end ones. So no, Russia production which is already on its arse will remain there. We have already seen parts of Lada trucks replaced with things being bolted into blocks of fucking wood. Wow, clearly the Russian economy is holding up better than Europes... We're talking a collapse in May to 3.3% in their automotive industry to just 3.3% of what they produced the prior year because they could not get hold of the parts from other nations. It's hard to see how this is replicated across other industries because the Kremlin isn't showing people the statistics - but the Yale study looking at alternative sources shows an economy well and truly on the ropes.

Part of the issue is, back when dual use imports were banned Russia could still deal with companies and use shell companies to mask the eventual destination of these parts - but not almost entire sectors are cut off from Russia doing this is much harder. These parts are not readily available, and even civilian only parts are excluded. The idea that Europe is hurting more than Russia is just a misunderstanding of the situation Russia is in. It's fucked. How are they going to produce and maintain cruise missiles, or high precision munitions or their air force? The chip sets primarily come from the West, with some coming from China which has massively reduced trade as their companies are also worried about secondary sanctions from the West. This is because why risk the trade you have with a huge market, i.e. Europe and the US for a shitty poor backwater like Russia? You wouldn't it's like 3% of the market or 70%. China making up the difference is a fantasy.

As for the West, yeah sure it's not going to be possible to keep up with the expenditure of things in a high intensity conflict - but they don't need to. They just need to supply Ukraine better than Russia can supply itself, and all the evidence suggests it is doing this and continuing to do it. For basic things like artillery shells production can be spun up, or can be sourced from elsewhere like as I said - Pakistan. So relative to the Russians Ukraine will continue to be better equipped and it is showing. If I am wrong where are the massive stocks of new or functioning Russian equipment to equip their soldiers? They don't have enough first field dressings, fucking bandages. That's insane, yet I am meant to think the economic might of Russia (LOL) can sustain this better than the combined West? That's delusional. Truly delusional.

The point I'm conceding is the general assessment of the SMO being bound for failure in its until recent format given the degree of Ukrainian support and mobilization, not a concession to their points at large. Hohol triumphalists have gone on about everything from Mariupol to Lysychansk to their past months of throwing people over at a single spot in Kherson to be shot as being successes in the making. When you're wrong nine times out of ten, but hit it big the tenth time, you were still wrong before. The people running this proxy war ran away from Afghanistan after 20 years, lost in their Syria coup attempt and are en route to turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite while driving their own economies into the ground. They didn't become political or military genuises overnight because their gambit paid off at present and shouldn't be extended the benefit of the doubt over basic heuristics of population size, army stocks and production.

The only times I was wrong was overestimating the Russians. The point I made was consistently that Russia couldn't maintain what it was doing, was taking unsustainable losses and that it was overstretched. As a result, Ukrainian combat power was increasing relative to Russia. This is what has happened, and continues to, and when I continue to be right and Russia is soundly defeat you'll come back and tell me I was wrong about everything that didn't matter - but I was right about the one thing that did. Which is Russia is losing, and will continue to lose. I look forward to your second Mae culpa.

Heuristics are what you employ when you don't have time to think about the situation, is this an intentional admission that all you've done is look at the strength of Russia on paper and then said "yep they'll win"? Because you've just mentioned situations where heuristics would suggest a different outcome. How could the US lose in Afghanistan, it has the people, the production capacity and the technology... Perhaps the heuristics you are relying on are wrong, and the fact you cannot even consider that after having to admit you got it completely wrong is just showing you can't think.

 

[Pomegrenade]

This thread is lost. I was hoping after the Keffal shit come to pass there would be quite a reading backlog I need to do on the Ukraine vs Russian war, but nope. I just spent an hour of my life clicking through Next Highlight button, skim the posts, and rinse repeat. From page 46 to this post, there was barely any information or post about the war itself. The Highlights are 90% autistic slap fight that has nothing to do with the thread, 9% genuinely informative or thought provoking post, and 1% "How come this thread became this shit."

I barely see any old faces in the thread anymore, and the average post quality has been reduced to /pol/ and Reddit tier. Last thread you could find information or video post every couple pages or highlights while some discussion and sperging were done in-between. There were posters that earned their reputation within the thread for being as neutral as they could be and contribute to the discussion by providing their (presumably) educated/professional analysis and assessment of what's going on in general. I understand that there will be some downtime where nothing is happening, but now it's beyond reasonable. This thread became an all-out war of "MUH UKRAINE" and "MUH RUSSIA" that devolves further into a wall of text of "YOU ARE RETARDED" and "NO YOU ARE RETARDER"

I know this post is in the 1% and this solves nothing, but God I hope we get back on track eventually. This tribalism is embarrassing and frustrating to us lurkers that just want to get our daily update on the conflict itself.

 

[The Foldless Brain]

For whatever reason I can't reply, so @Mr E. Grifter.

Accepting the statistics, I think the conclusion you've drawn is wrong. Ukraine has mobilised about 1 million in six months, it has the infrastructure and the willpower. Russia has neither, it has more people sure but civilians with weapons aren't much use unless they're fighting locally and using guerilla tactics. Putting them in the line, or for anything but menial duties is going to achieve zilch. It's not that Russia can't turn it around, but this would take years and they don't have years. So realising their potential is outside the scope of the conflict.

The point about willpower is relative - a sixth of Ukraine's population has fled. It's logistical infrastructure that Ukraine has on account of 8 years of preparing for war footing and a state of mobilization from the very start of the war. Russia doesn't, but there's no meaningful difference in the quality of the manpower brought out and even a comparative outflow of human capital to what Ukraine already went through would leave it with far more to work with. Time is the object, much like just how poor the current mobilization system is. Because it has far more people, Russia doesn't need parity efficiency-wise in mobilizing and arming them, it only needs to be better. The morale question is less about not having people and far more about public and leadership willingness to take on the costs of a protracted war on the scale required in the faces of the losses to come.

Regarding materiel, China's imports haven't reduced, they've increased relative to last year for the same period by 30%. The braindead policy of the US in saying it'll dismantle Russia in order to use the remaining satrapies as outposts to then go after China gives it every reason to prop up Russia, likewise others like Iran. This also isn't in any state of war footing or rush in production. The same stakes mean that unless Russia quits soon it's better positioned to last long term than nations to whom stepping back imposes a much lower cost, i.e the West.

The only times I was wrong was overestimating the Russians. The point I made was consistently that Russia couldn't maintain what it was doing, was taking unsustainable losses and that it was overstretched. As a result, Ukrainian combat power was increasing relative to Russia. This is what has happened, and continues to, and when I continue to be right and Russia is soundly defeat you'll come back and tell me I was wrong about everything that didn't matter - but I was right about the one thing that did. Which is Russia is losing, and will continue to lose. I look forward to your second Mae culpa.

Russia's losses are unsustainable in a limited scenario of 200k~ troops opposite 3-4 times more troops, with no war footing to speak of. Commentators, from tard appreciation forum spergs like me down to the CIA claiming Kiev would fall in 3 days and most importantly the Russians themselves overestimated the extent to which there was an armament or doctrine advantage on the Russian end that'd compensate for the massive difference in numbers, and the Russians then doubled by only attacking vital infrastructure half-heartedly 8 months in. Math won out. That same math points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction if Russia mobilizes to a similar extent to Ukraine. The question is only if the Russians are willing to do it and if the intangibles like morale and a Ukrainian doctrinal edge will trump math where it didn't for Russia. I see zero reason why it would and remain bullish on an eventual Russian victory, and will either smugpost or own up accordingly when we cross that bridge.

 

[Male Idiot]

Why do you guys cry about the US killing brown people in durka durka countries, but applaud Russia killing white people in Europe? I agree the wars in the middle east were stupid and achieved nothing, but tbh I don't give a shit about the middle east. I wish we could build a wall around them and let them fight each other.

Also I'm sick of people saying the US fucked up in Iraq/Afghanistan, therefore Russia is justified in bombing Ukrainians. It's fucked up what they are doing right now.

Ukranians aren't white. They are (((white))), and thus if they are to dissapear, well... no big loss.

The US can bomb Africa as much as they want but they have to admit doing it.

Call the mutt a commie, a profiteer and parasite. But call it a lying cillain and you'll see how much it glows as it recoils.

USS Liberty was just a taste of their own medicine. They have to remember who is the real boss, hail Israel!

 

[AgendaPoster]

If US ground troops are indeed in the Ukraine, they got a fighting chance.

But I also recall a man greater than Biden, who had his troops at Stalingrad. He still lost, and he went farther and was a righteous hero.

And that man was Adolf Hitler. And Stalin didn't have nukes yet.

They fought like mad because they were invaded by an enemy that wanted to create lebensraum out of their Motherland and genocide the Slavs, you numb nut.
Getting invaded and genocided is obviously not the same thing as cynically invading others for gibs.

Ukranians aren't white. They are (((white))), and thus if they are to dissapear, well... no big loss.

Neither are the lolis you jerk off to

 

[Male Idiot]

They fought like mad because they were invaded by an enemy that wanted to create lebensraum out of their Motherland and genocide the Slavs, you numb nut.
Getting invaded and genocided is obviously not the same thing as cynically invading others for gibs.

Neither are the lolis you jerk off to

As a lover of oppai, I find lolis worthless you uncultured mutt. Get it right!

 

[AgendaPoster]

As a lover of oppai, I find lolis worthless you uncultured mutt. Get it right!

I don't even know wtf that is, you weeb.
PS: don't troon out, the pipeline is real and dangerous