TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)
- Thread starter L50LasPak
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
I am not an armchair general, but I play one on television, and in the industry, it’s usually easier to invade a country with most of its troops abroad.
TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
You just discovered that your opinions about Russia were wrong. And then crawled right back into your comfy bag of lies.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
Remember that retarded russian whore?She ended up being a literall whore.
Why russian women are such whores?
potato fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
what? also my bag of lies is not very comfy, fyi
e:
and once again a rushill turns out to be a fucking whore. Why does this keep happening?
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2016
False flag/honeypot to get any dissenters to speak up, so Putin can find them and express-lane them to the frontlines?
TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
I appreciate whores.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
“Russia is a third world shithole” is fact, not opinion.
TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
I can only speak on behalf of the first world, but I’m sure the second world also holds the same opinion about Russia.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
Yes. And stationing NATO troops on the borders with Ukraine, if they could, would add a second front approximately 700 miles wide. Significant. Russia's major population density and urban development that isn't Moscow or St. Petersburg is also not up near the Baltics but to the South and South West of Moscow. I.e. butting up against Ukraine. Not really surprising since much of Ukraine used to be Russian. So again it's not "merely" that NATO being able to station forces in Ukraine more than doubles the borders Russia would have with NATO but it is, as I originally claimed, strategically significant. And to continue that theme it would allow NATO forces to block Russia off from the Black Sea, effectively landlocking half of Russia for most of the year. Hugely significant. Russia had a treaty with the Ukraine for the lease of Sevastopol port and agreements on transiting the Sea of Azov. That was unilaterally cancelled by the Western-backed govt. that overthrew Yanukovic. Anyway, that's a small digression the point is that once again the military significance of NATO having control of the Ukraine is once again demonstrated.
So really I'm not sure what link in the chain of logic you are attempting to attack here. Is it that NATO forces in Ukraine wouldn't be a major military advantage in NATO's favour? Because it's obvious that it is in all the above. Is it a belief that if Russia wholly withdrew from Ukraine to the degree Zelensky says is required before he's willing to start talks (i.e. everything incl. the Crimea) that we wouldn't see NATO forces in Ukraine immediately thereafter? Because if that's your belief I'm going to have to go to the LGBTQ types and ask for a major loan of
's because I wont have enough.Or is it that you think NATO is in no way aggressive and so NATO advancement right up to Russia's borders is immaterial, in which case the Libyans no longer have a bridge to sell you (or indeed much of any infrastructure anymore). The USA's approach to countries it considers a threat to its hegemony is to excite or seed ethnic, economic, religious or any other form of division in countries to the point of open strife and then begin supplying and supporting and training their favoured side. The Biden administration and US leaders have spoken both on and off the record of a desire to bring down the current Russian govt. and the desirability of fragmenting Russia.
The poster I replied to said that "Russia could have peace in a day by pulling out all its forces from the Ukraine" (by which they also presumably included Crimea). I pointed out that doing so would lead to handing a major military advantage to NATO immediately thereafter. Nothing false in what I said. And it's exactly why Russia couldn't take the action the poster suggested unless it is willing to bare its throat to the West. Figuratively speaking.
I think my point is fully made. But to anticipate one possible reply along the lines of "Russia doesn't have to ever fear invasion because it has nuclear weapons", I'm pretty sure Russia wants an option other than 'don't respond at all' and 'end the world'. I.e. they wish to maintain conventional warfare capability. I mean, the USA does. The West does. China and India do. Allowing Ukraine to become a staging ground for NATO is a major step away from conventional warfare parity however you may try to spin it... so don't. If your only option is nuclear then you're open to Salami tactics as that old show Yes, Prime Minister once eloquently explained.
Only what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Salami can be cut both ways. If NATO has conventional capability and nuclear, and Russia has only nuclear, then Russia's only ever position is yield or die. In any case, this is a silly discussion just exploring the naive idea some people have that conventional capability doesn't matter. It does and Ukraine hosting NATO troops is a big deal to that. You say it will be years before Ukraine is allowed to join NATO? I'd dispute that - it's clear the current US administration would likely do whatever they could to fast track it but in any case, it wasn't the case I made - I said NATO forces in Ukraine and that would be day 2 after Russian withdrawal. The US administration is currently paying the salaries of the Ukranian goverment - quite literally. If NATO wants in (and what the US wants, NATO largely wants) then it goes in.
This is how Russia sees things.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Yet again a lack of happenings results in vast amounts of sperging out and it's not even the funneh kind of tism
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2022
LtSosnooley
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2021
More islamic wedding advanced air defense footage.
TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
I wonder how many old folks are gonna freeze to death this winter in europe. It's a bit cool here today, dipping into the upper 40s F, and I have been pondering starting the first fire of the season, and I started thinking about these poor fucks half a world away. It's easy for me to keep warm out in flyover country, I have a nice big stove and plenty of wood to last me for even the harshest winter. It's gonna be a long cold winter for those eu countries.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
What can nobody buy blankets?
Smity Werbenjagermanjensen
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2018
Gas prices are declining and Europes gas storage is above 90%.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't going to be an easy winter for industry and other such things. But thanks to Russia launching this in February, the West has had a year to prepare.
We're not going to see what happened with Texas a year or two back where people freeze to death in their homes.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
Yes. And stationing NATO troops on the borders with Ukraine, if they could, would add a second front approximately 700 miles wide. Significant. Russia's major population density and urban development that isn't Moscow or St. Petersburg is also not up near the Baltics but to the South and South West of Moscow. I.e. butting up against Ukraine. Not really surprising since much of Ukraine used to be Russian. So again it's not "merely" that NATO being able to station forces in Ukraine more than doubles the borders Russia would have with NATO but it is, as I originally claimed, strategically significant. And to continue that theme it would allow NATO forces to block Russia off from the Black Sea, effectively landlocking half of Russia for most of the year. Hugely significant. Russia had a treaty with the Ukraine for the lease of Sevastopol port and agreements on transiting the Sea of Azov. That was unilaterally cancelled by the Western-backed govt. that overthrew Yanukovic. Anyway, that's a small digression the point is that once again the military significance of NATO having control of the Ukraine is once again demonstrated.
So really I'm not sure what link in the chain of logic you are attempting to attack here. Is it that NATO forces in Ukraine wouldn't be a major military advantage in NATO's favour? Because it's obvious that it is in all the above. Is it a belief that if Russia wholly withdrew from Ukraine to the degree Zelensky says is required before he's willing to start talks (i.e. everything incl. the Crimea) that we wouldn't see NATO forces in Ukraine immediately thereafter? Because if that's your belief I'm going to have to go to the LGBTQ types and ask for a major loan of
Or is it that you think NATO is in no way aggressive and so NATO advancement right up to Russia's borders is immaterial, in which case the Libyans no longer have a bridge to sell you (or indeed much of any infrastructure anymore). The USA's approach to countries it considers a threat to its hegemony is to excite or seed ethnic, economic, religious or any other form of division in countries to the point of open strife and then begin supplying and supporting and training their favoured side. The Biden administration and US leaders have spoken both on and off the record of a desire to bring down the current Russian govt. and the desirability of fragmenting Russia.
The poster I replied to said that "Russia could have peace in a day by pulling out all its forces from the Ukraine" (by which they also presumably included Crimea). I pointed out that doing so would lead to handing a major military advantage to NATO immediately thereafter. Nothing false in what I said. And it's exactly why Russia couldn't take the action the poster suggested unless it is willing to bare its throat to the West. Figuratively speaking.
I think my point is fully made. But to anticipate one possible reply along the lines of "Russia doesn't have to ever fear invasion because it has nuclear weapons", I'm pretty sure Russia wants an option other than 'don't respond at all' and 'end the world'. I.e. they wish to maintain conventional warfare capability. I mean, the USA does. The West does. China and India do. Allowing Ukraine to become a staging ground for NATO is a major step away from conventional warfare parity however you may try to spin it... so don't. If your only option is nuclear then you're open to Salami tactics as that old show Yes, Prime Minister once eloquently explained.
Only what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Salami can be cut both ways. If NATO has conventional capability and nuclear, and Russia has only nuclear, then Russia's only ever position is yield or die. In any case, this is a silly discussion just exploring the naive idea some people have that conventional capability doesn't matter. It does and Ukraine hosting NATO troops is a big deal to that. You say it will be years before Ukraine is allowed to join NATO? I'd dispute that - it's clear the current US administration would likely do whatever they could to fast track it but in any case, it wasn't the case I made - I said NATO forces in Ukraine and that would be day 2 after Russian withdrawal. The US administration is currently paying the salaries of the Ukranian goverment - quite literally. If NATO wants in (and what the US wants, NATO largely wants) then it goes in.
This is how Russia sees things.
If Moscow wasn’t asking for it, then it should stop being such a cock tease.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
Yeah, they are well prepared, it's not even a bump in the road. Everything is fine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/business/europe-energy-crisis-factories.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/business/liz-truss-energy-price-cap-europe
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1276754.shtml
- Status