Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

I read an article about people in the unit who prepare soldiers who died in combat for shipment to families, including soldiers where there isn't anything recognizable to bury so its an empty uniform (doing such things as finding out the soldier's measurements and having a fresh uniform tailored to what they would have worn). It talked about the extreme burn out rate, but also how everyone on the job has it drilled into them how important the work they do is, and how vital it was to treat to the dead with respect and basically no gallows humor allowed on the clock - it is 100% serious and solemn. There was the one picture in the early part of GWOT of some 'warehoused' coffins on a transport flight that weren't covered with flags or spaced out, and heads rolled in the aftermath - very nearly literally.

Compare that to the Moblik cubes about to be shifted to vans by airport workers.
I think this was an interview is listening to with my father before NPR with s*** about this woman who did Undertaker Trey work for the US Army and the woman sounded like she had the soul sucked out of her it was f****** creepy how dead this woman was inside I can't imagine doing that job
 
[A]
Looks like the closest Romanian port will open up space for ships that had to go to Reni.
Obviously Russia couldn't care less about those "Global South" allies, in fact I am willing to bet they want a global famine, cause we all know where the migrants will run to, and which countries they will destabilize.
Same with Belarus/Polish border. Same with Turkey/Greece.
All these countries are smelling blood in the water, Western weakness, European indecision and struggle to maintain the image of "liberal values".
Screenshot 2023-07-24 183157.png
 
Last edited:
So, rusniggers fired at the centre of Odessa. I wonder if Null has any thoughts about it, seeing how he lived there for a while.
Lets ask him.
Hey @Null, now that based Putler is fighting globohomo by firing rockets into the middle of the Odessa city centre, (destroying churches and apartment buildings in a city that welcomed you with open arms), we want to know if you are still a fence-sitting cuckold.
 
They gave up the Sinai after getting BTFO pretty hard at the start of Yum Kippur. Sure the jews were dunking on the arabs pretty hard by the end (cause Arabs) but losses taken before then were not sustainable. Not quite pyrrhic victory bad but it wasn't too far off. So the Jews took advantage of a US-arranged peace deal with a weak Egyptian (and Jordanian) government who were wanting to focus on internal issues instead of "Pan-Arabism" (because that meant dealing with the other, bad Arabs). Its not they gave up the Sinai and more decided it wasn't worth the blood required to hold it, especially when giving it up it gave them the chance to do the favorite Jew tactic of divide and conquer.
Egypt had the initial advantage only because they attacked Israel off guard (which is why they attacked on Yom Kippur to begin with). That was a once in a lifetime deal as Israel would never be caught that flatfooted again. After their initial successes, the Egyptian army had been completely routed and Israel was actually in position to take Cairo, and the only reason they didn't do so was because they U.S. went out of their way stop them. The Sinai actually did what it was supposed to do; it acted as a military buffer that allowed Israel to absorb the initial invasion and turn it back, while Israel proper was left mostly intact. The Egyptian government wanted the Sinai back more than they wanted a world without Israel, and in a world where there is peace between Israel and Egypt, there was no strategic need for Israel to keep the Sinai. So the Sinai was returned. Conversely, the Golan Heights were never returned because a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria, and the Golan Heights are too strategic to leave in enemy hands.

Israel hasn't really surrendered any claims to territory and only a general low population + limited international support for expanding borders is keeping them from fishing for lebensraum.
The only territory Israel wants is the territory they already have, which is the territory promised to them in the San Remo Conference and the initial Balfour Declaration. They don't want anymore territory other than Israel (including Judea/Samaria). Israel never launched wars for annexation, and only took land that they already considered part of their initial territory, or was needed as a buffer with enemy states.
 
The Egyptian government wanted the Sinai back more than they wanted a world without Israel, and in a world where there is peace between Israel and Egypt, there was no strategic need for Israel to keep the Sinai
This is why Sadat was assassinated, iirc. All the anti-Israel propaganda and stop to the war inflamed islamists.
It makes me wonder how many Russian military hardcore believe the Russian propaganda and would kill more realistic Russian leaders.
 
I think my favorite zigger cope i've seen for a long time is "WHY CAN NATO BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST BUT RUSSIA CAN'T WITH UKRAINE."
Simple, fuck brownoids and sand niggers, wish NATO killed 60 gorllion more of those shitskins during the 2000s. but it shows to you the mindset of the modern day "white nationalist/alt right". White countries can't kill arabs that we think ruin the west and we'll bitch on /pol/ that they're raping europe, but a majority atheist country like russia can bomb and genocide a majority christian white nation like Ukraine
Russia's been bombing the Middle East too. Everybody Bombs the Middle East. Even the Middle East.
 
Well, we got the bedrock of western civilization, one of the greatest empires in history, out of it so, I think everybody came out ahead on that one.
We've also had, for the last 1500 years or so, every tin-pot this side of the Urals claiming to be the true inheritors of Rome and trying to carve out a new empire.
 
Foreign policy never changes. At least not much. This is something the left learned when Obama was president. He didn't end the wars as he promised, and he didn't close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Obama took a more indirect approach to fighting the war on terror. He used drone strikes. So much so that he became known as the drone strike in chief. I hope all these people who say they don't want to give Ukraine weapons don't suddenly change their stance when Trump wins in 2024 and possibly keeps the weapons flowing to Ukraine. It's going to look really hypocritical. Like I said foreign policy doesn't change. They should keep that mind. Though it could. But given the chance that Trump could keep giving Ukraine weapons they should prepare for it and not become hypocrites. At this point in time, it's a 50/50 chance that nothing will change. If you think it's the wrong thing to do under Biden, then it wouldn't become a good thing because Trump is now president. I think quite a few people will be hypocrites though. The vatniggers will always be vatniggers. But to the normies who aren't pro Russia or Ukraine but don't want the US government dumping money and weapons into Ukraine. I think some of them will either change their stance or try justifying it with a Trump presidency.

It will be an interesting thing to see, I think.
Did the Russians destroy the drones or did the Russian ship get destroyed? lol
 
Back