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

So what's the QRD on the Vance/Zelensky talks?
LOL IDK
(that's it, that's the run down, no one who isn't Trump knows shit)

Vance also used his speech to support pro-Russian European parties that want to dismantle NATO and the EU. This should be used to contextualize the Trump admin's claims that they don't have a deranged hatred of all things European and do actually care about deterrence or whatever.
Vance was referring to Germans trying to ban the AfD, and Romania deciding "no we didn't like that result" with their presidential. Both of which are pretty fucked up even if I'm not digging the people who are negatively affected by these things. But there's also a lot more going on with both cases than just the headlines.

It seems Vance was spouting off about another country's politics without a solid understanding of the full situation or the full scope of the internal situation.
Can you imagine it? Spouting off about another country's politics without a full understanding, and just picking your side and smearing the otherside? Can you actually picture someone doing that?

I quote politicians and refer to specific actions they take, and incorporate as much as I can into a coherent picture of their properties.
I dislike them because the things they do are socially harmful and they're degenerate assholes.
This is very literally every politician. You cherry pick the ones you get your panties in a knot about. I'm still waiting for that seething about Scholz, or are you afraid talking shit about the german government will get you locked up like that 80 year old woman?
 
Last edited:
And this is why I'm telling people to stop treating speculation and early reports as facts, and wait until at least the first draft of the proposal leaks before going off.
Christ, you have no idea what I have to deal with. If you people on this thread think that folks started to doompost, I have to deal with an american friend (registered democrat, pro-Israel) that regularly shares articles, blogs and posts with me, about how Trump is going to leave and destroy NATO and that the only way for Europe to survive against inevitable Russian onslaught is for it to federalize and emulate autocratic realpolitik of Russia and China. I like to think that I am a rational individual and that this stuff doesn't get to me, but I can't help but feel perturbed by this stuff, even if in hindsight it ends up being illogical. Paranoia is infectious I suppose.

I agree with some of the stuff he says, like how Europe needs to wake up and realize that it needs to properly arm itself and have much more comprehensive foreign policy, but like... he is a polar opposite of "nothing happens" chud, more than once he exclaimed how Iran and Israel are de facto at war because some shitty drone got shot down and that they will nuke each other soon, only for nothing to happen.

I think even the most liberal anti-zigger people on this thread are level headed by contrast, even if visibly concerned or confused by America's foreign policy flip flopping enough times to reactivate the Chernobyl nuclear reactor core. But it does make me wonder how the general online spaces will get effected by the upcoming peace treaty/ceasefire, when liberal spaces are doomeristic as it is. It seems like many people are still holding unto that total victory for Ukraine is the only acceptable outcome in resolving the war, when that's highly unlikely at the moment, I'm presuming that there will be no Assad-tier reconquest by Ukrainian resistance during the last week of the war (although that would be very funny). So, if Ukraine war fails to meet the unrealistic expectations by certain parts of the internet, I can't imagine what kind of doomer crap will get mass shared for like a whole week.
 
Vance was referring to Germans trying to ban the AfD, and Romania deciding "no we didn't like that result" with their presidential. Both of which are pretty fucked up even if I'm not digging the people who are negatively affected by these things. But there's also a lot more going on with both cases than just the headlines.

It seems Vance was spouting off about another country's politics without a solid understanding of the full situation or the full scope of the internal situation.
Can you imagine it? Spouting off about another country's politics without a full understanding, and just picking your side and smearing the otherside? Can you actually picture someone doing that?
Vance was justified saying what he did at Munich because both those situations are Soviet tier bullshit. You don't ban the opposition and you CERTAINLY DO NOT invalidate the will of the people. From the American perspective that is inconsolable. I don't care about the justification. You don't do that. Ever. You aren't a free people if you do these things.
 
That's what we call asymmetric warfare, Vance. Russia lacks the power projection of the US so it will place its money on populists who curiously have pro-Russian positions.
The shit Germany is pulling with the AfD is pretty fucked up, even if I don't like the AfD's stance on Ukraine. I haven't followed the Romania situation too closely but it is some shit you can get a judge to just say "fuck the vote"; though because they do run-offs its not as clear cut as it would be in the US as I understand.

Vance was justified saying what he did at Munich because both those situations are Soviet tier bullshit. You don't ban the opposition and you CERTAINLY DO NOT invalidate the will of the people. From the American perspective that is inconsolable. I don't care about the justification. You don't do that. Ever. You aren't a free people if you do these things.
Yeah, that. And Trump et al has strong opinions about the ruling party trying to invalidate their opposition in the courts instead of at the ballot box. But its also Europroles, they aren't free.

Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme - The New York Times:
That's what we call asymmetric warfare, Vance. Russia lacks the power projection of the US so it will place its money on populists who curiously have pro-Russian positions.
Paywall, it'd be nice if you'd archive C&P in to private tags.
Especially when its the Jew York Times of "We need to stop being impartial and let our biases determine the news" fame so I'm sure there's lot of stuff out out context. Like making sure we know that the parties are just super extremist.

Believe it or not I can see Trump convincing Zelensky to hand over Crimea if it gets him the Donbass back. With the dam gone its water supply situation is dubious and having Crimea as a buffer region around Sevastopol is pointless on account of Ukraine driving the entire Black Sea Fleet from it without a single Ukrainian soldier ever stepping into Crimea. It is essentially worthless to Putin as any sort of strategic buffer zone, but there's no fucking way Russian pride would let him trade it to Ukraine, even in demilitarized form, for more valuable concessions elsewhere.
I can see that and I'm 98% sure any deal involved Russia staying in control of Crimea, and Trump justifying it as part of the great peace plan just a really great peace plan, probably the best since I can remember, I came up with it, Rubio said they wouldn't take, but told him that they would because because its a great deal. Because america is the greatest country and I had to get us the greatest deal is the Crimea was invaded and occupied before the 2022 invasion so the spin will be "we made Russia return all the territory they seized in their war".

Don't forget that unless the treaty with Russia explicitly states Ukraine can't sign something with us, what are the chances Trump and Zelensky leave an opportunity like that on the table to sign all sorts of agreements.

"Security guarantees? Massive foreign investment? Joint military R&D that Raytheon's shareholders and Congressmen are going to love? Oh, I'm sorry Putin, I guess I should have said that when I said the USA had no desires or interests in doing any of that at the current moment and that we could defer discussions on that until a later date I meant said later date was the second your troops left Ukraine."
I'm fairly sure Putin will avoid falling into that trap, but we'll just have to see what the deal looks like.

Don't most people do that here with Democrats? Neither is better, similar to Tories and Labour (in the UK). It seems people here are very much willing to give people they traditionally agree with (Trump/MAGA mostly) the benefit of the doubt, which is not objective thinking because it's inherently biased.
The Biden seethe was pretty mild here. Most of the retarded Dem statements were addressed in the Israel/Palestine thread(s). In general though they held the party line on Ukraine so other than Biden fuck-fuck games chicken on the budget there wasn't a lot to go over, other than blaming Joe's slow and weak response.

Its entirely possible we'll start getting some Democratic shit takes now that they aren't the ones in charge. But maybe it'll be over before they have the chance.

Probably mentioned already how Russia attacked the Chornobyl sarcophagus with a suicide drone. Putin is morally depraved. He cares little about the deaths and disablement of close to one million Russians and even less about the death and destruction he has visited on Ukraine. Given the existing environmental destruction from blowing a dam in Kherson, unleashing Chornobyl would be something he'd be happy to do. Given the turd worldist outlook of the UN and its Vienna based IAEA, they would probably echo Russia and try blame Ukraine and call it a false flag.
Somedays I really wish Regan had actually signed that legislation
 
Vance was justified saying what he did at Munich because both those situations are Soviet tier bullshit. You don't ban the opposition and you CERTAINLY DO NOT invalidate the will of the people. From the American perspective that is inconsolable. I don't care about the justification. You don't do that. Ever. You aren't a free people if you do these things.
Actually you do, because democracy is fucking bullshit. That cocksucker faggot Georgescu only got as far as he did because people have long lost faith in the concept of democracy and most don't even bother to vote. He was getting good results because certain individuals from the old school political parties used their influence to allow him to rise up, under the idea that they'd appear as the saviors of the country during the second tour of the election and defeat him, except people voted with Lasconi instead of the old party apparatuses, so the old parties invalidated the elections and are now bringing in political refuse from ten years ago to run for president.
Georgescu being a faggot Putin dicklicker had nothing to do with why he was thrown out, it had everything to do with the old camarilla not getting the outcome they set up and deciding to go against it.
Russia is universally hated here for the attempted genocides they've enacted in the last 200 years on Transnistria, Besserabia, Northern Bukovina and Ismail and for fucking being nigger thieves, because when we lost WW1 we sent our gold treasures to the Russians for safekeeping, and to this day they haven't been fully returned.
 
Can someone tell me which of the euro populist parties are ACTUALLY ziggers? I have heard and read this multiple times, including in this thread, but in my personal experience our populist guy just floated the idea of our troops on the ground in Ukraine and the was Farage as well calling for a proper peace deal as well. Are those the exceptions or is AfD the exception
It's been proven for a fact that Dutch populist party FvD has several members that were receiving payments from the Kremlin. Makes swnse though, the party was founded on the idea of holding a referendum to block Ukraine receiving Western backing/aid and block talks avout getting into NATO back in 2014 when Russian soldiers totally real, true & honest seperatists shot down an airliner(Flight MH17), killing 298 civilians & crew, including 193 Dutchmen & women, leaving no survivors. 80 of the 298 were under 18.
Also Russian soldiers totally real, true & honest seperatists released videos after rummaging through the wreckage gleefully. That shit still makes my blood boil when I see it.

They gained a bit of popularity during early covid because they were anti-lockdowns and stuff, until their leader went schizo mode about the WEF & shit like this. (No, he isn't "le based", he wouldn't ever name *them* because he's been spotted wearing a funny little hat several times).

Then with the full scale invasion started and Ukraine proved to hold their own, they openly talked that Ukraine should just give up & surrender. Meanwhile I'd say relatively common consensus (at least in my area) was "Good, let them kill russians, 10000 russians could maybe make up for one of the people on that plane.".
As you can imagine, openly supporting a regime that absolutely shocked this country backfired massively & they lost pretty much all support except le zased third worlders & schizos.
 
Nah, Lindsey is a faggot and should never be trusted. That said I take Trump at his word. The US is getting mining rights. That is happening period. That is perfectly clear and VERY fair for the equipment and money that has been expended.
If Trump wants that much material, he needs to hand over more than the pittance of HIMARS and 30 Abrams tanks. I could only see it being a good trade if we start sending over modern F-16s like the Block 50/52, UH-60s and additional Bradleys. Right now this mineral deal seems like an attempt to renege on the conditions for the previous aid packages provided.
 
Im sure there are plenty of my American countrymen so I do apologize. But Trump is going to broker a peace treaty. Russia will gain the Donbass and Donetsk, Ukraine will keep most of its current territory, Is this ideal for anyone? Was it worth 200,000 Ruskies sent to their death like this was Stalingrad? No, I dont think so. Itll give Russia a win since the Afghanistan debacle, they get some of their former Soviet territory, Yipeee USA troop reserves are untouched, as are virtually all of our EU Vassals, minus some munitions and supplies. How any Russian views this as a win is beyond me. More men lost than all of our colonial adventures from Vietnam to Afghanistan, Just makes me sad Bratan
 
and that the only way for Europe to survive against inevitable Russian onslaught is for it to federalize and emulate autocratic realpolitik of Russia and China.
That's what they want to do. A long term goal of the project is erasure of the member states as political entities and their replacement with arbitrary federal territories, whose borders are entirely divorced from national identity and instead based on economic connections, like the backstory of some second rate YA novel.
 
I know this is a decisive issue amongst you fellas but just wanted to clarify. Im not very fond of Trump. He isnt the devil, he isnt the savior, I personally think hes just a big bully out of his depth when it comes to Real Politik. I would pray for the wisdom of a second ringer like George Bush Sr or I would elate an actual strategic mind like Richard Fucking Nixon right now. Alas I think these figures have left us.
 
It's not a massive win for Russia, considering the cost of the war, however, they will finally be able to connect the Russian mainland to Crimea and have more of a dominant presence in that region, so it is somewhat of a win for them. I am failing to see any positives for Ukraine-we knew (I think) it would never retrieve its 2014 borders back, especially after the 2023 summer offensive by Ukraine could not push them back enough.

Ukraine needs proper security guarantees, not a piece of paper, not some temporary, half-arsed DMZ. It won't be allowed in NATO and I doubt it will gain EU membership, which is the fault of Europe mostly because we still seem to keep sitting on our fucking hands with a cock in our mouths. As others have mentioned, we won't know what deal will eventually be agreed upon, but it certainly must have Ukraine at the negotiating table and not just Russia.

It's hard to imagine a Harris convoy doing any better, but so far-I'm not impressed or optimistic of what I'm seeing now.
 
It's not a massive win for Russia, considering the cost of the war, however, they will finally be able to connect the Russian mainland to Crimea and have more of a dominant presence in that region, so it is somewhat of a win for them. I am failing to see any positives for Ukraine-we knew (I think) it would never retrieve its 2014 borders back, especially after the 2023 summer offensive by Ukraine could not push them back enough.

Ukraine needs proper security guarantees, not a piece of paper, not some temporary, half-arsed DMZ. It won't be allowed in NATO and I doubt it will gain EU membership, which is the fault of Europe mostly because we still seem to keep sitting on our fucking hands with a cock in our mouths. As others have mentioned, we won't know what deal will eventually be agreed upon, but it certainly must have Ukraine at the negotiating table and not just Russia.

It's hard to imagine a Harris convoy doing any better, but so far-I'm not impressed or optimistic of what I'm seeing now.
I think the positive for Ukraine here is Survival, which was up until recently on the table
 
Ukraine needs proper security guarantees, not a piece of paper, not some temporary, half-arsed DMZ.
Security guarantees functionally are [shit smeared toilet] pieces of paper that don't count for anything since 2014.
It won't be allowed in NATO and I doubt it will gain EU membership, which is the fault of Europe mostly because we still seem to keep sitting on our fucking hands with a cock in our mouths.
Thank the Germany and France for blocking Ukraine from joining NATO in 2009

As others have mentioned, we won't know what deal will eventually be agreed upon, but it certainly must have Ukraine at the negotiating table and not just Russia.
With an unknown number of anti-American, anti-Trump and pro-Putin traitors in D.C. eagerly awaiting to leak everything. OFC everyone at the negotiating table is going to be tight-lipped on the negotiations.
 
Christ, you have no idea what I have to deal with. If you people on this thread think that folks started to doompost, I have to deal with an american friend (registered democrat, pro-Israel) that regularly shares articles, blogs and posts with me, about how Trump is going to leave and destroy NATO and that the only way for Europe to survive against inevitable Russian onslaught is for it to federalize and emulate autocratic realpolitik of Russia and China. I like to think that I am a rational individual and that this stuff doesn't get to me, but I can't help but feel perturbed by this stuff, even if in hindsight it ends up being illogical. Paranoia is infectious I suppose.

I agree with some of the stuff he says, like how Europe needs to wake up and realize that it needs to properly arm itself and have much more comprehensive foreign policy, but like... he is a polar opposite of "nothing happens" chud, more than once he exclaimed how Iran and Israel are de facto at war because some shitty drone got shot down and that they will nuke each other soon, only for nothing to happen.

I think even the most liberal anti-zigger people on this thread are level headed by contrast, even if visibly concerned or confused by America's foreign policy flip flopping enough times to reactivate the Chernobyl nuclear reactor core. But it does make me wonder how the general online spaces will get effected by the upcoming peace treaty/ceasefire, when liberal spaces are doomeristic as it is. It seems like many people are still holding unto that total victory for Ukraine is the only acceptable outcome in resolving the war, when that's highly unlikely at the moment, I'm presuming that there will be no Assad-tier reconquest by Ukrainian resistance during the last week of the war (although that would be very funny). So, if Ukraine war fails to meet the unrealistic expectations by certain parts of the internet, I can't imagine what kind of doomer crap will get mass shared for like a whole week.
Europe has to build up a military. If each country would stop some of the socialism and spend money on their military, they could probably defeat Russia as a collective effort. Russia isn't in good shape and this war in Ukraine proves it. It wouldn't take much.
 
I know this is a decisive issue amongst you fellas but just wanted to clarify. Im not very fond of Trump. He isnt the devil, he isnt the savior, I personally think hes just a big bully out of his depth when it comes to Real Politik. I would pray for the wisdom of a second ringer like George Bush Sr or I would elate an actual strategic mind like Richard Fucking Nixon right now. Alas I think these figures have left us.
Would that be the same Nixon who gave Taiwan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Tibet to China because the USSR was a bigger threat?
 
Would that be the same Nixon who gave Taiwan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Tibet to China because the USSR was a bigger threat?
Tell me how any of those backwoods territories are important Friend, with the exception of Hong Kong with was British for another 30 years
Alright maybe Taiwan too but I find it odd you mentioned Hong Kong as it was a British possession for a long while after
 
With an unknown number of anti-American, anti-Trump and pro-Putin traitors in D.C. eagerly awaiting to leak everything
You just know that fuentes-style la creatura wignats are salivating at the thought. Contrarians egged on by resentful glowies, who will do anything they can to sabotage traitor trump for failing to enact total kike death with his first executive order.

Europe has to build up a military. If each country would stop some of the socialism and spend money on their military, they could probably defeat Russia as a collective effort.
The problem with statements like this is that it's not really that simple. Every nation in western Europe agrees, in principle, with the idea of having a military capable of responding to Russian aggression. Very few of them, even without their "socialism", would be able to afford it, even collectively.

The problem is that the threat of Russia has been perceived as minimal since the end of the cold war. Russia seemed more interested in consolidating control over central asia than posing any threat to Europe, and appeared to be willing to join the post-war consensus of mutual benefit through trade. This post-soviet era let Europe redefine the meaning of an "external threat" to be something far less expensive, while membership of the EU gave member states a way to defray costs by punting final responsibility for everything onto a nebulous collective effort. The EU has been content, for the last thirty years, to leave the US and Russia to stare at one another across the fulda gap and play superpower games, while it set about creating a unified European military capable of handling all the disparate requirements of the core member states. They ended up with the European Rapid Reaction Force, the structure of which was based on the belief that all future conflicts would be asymmetric sandpit wars, with the occasional dip into a poor European neighbour, and so it ended up as little more than a way for France to externalise the cost of its colonial policing force. The fact that it was also ideal for suppressing internal civil conflict was left unremarked in all the white papers.

You also have to account for bureaucratic incompetence. The UK, for instance, exceeds its NATO budget requirements and has for as long as it has been a member; with such a large economy, that turns out to be a fairly significant amount of money being thrown around. Yet, what is the end result of that? Two carriers that were compromised from conception by the need to be compatible with the ERRF and the Joint Strike Fighter (they were originally a joint project with France), a half dozen missile destroyers, a handful of frigates, less than 300 tanks (with half due to be mothballed while the other half are going to be upcycled and called "new"), and a generally poorly equipped military that has not met recruitment goals since before the turn of the century. The number of idiotic spending decisions made by the MoD and the Chiefs of Staff Committee has seen a significant component of that budget wasted time and time and time again, on useless radios that took twenty years to develop and were scrapped after mere months in the field, constant equipment churn, and endless "consultations" on why 80s-era landrovers should be kept for another five years instead of replaced with vehicles that actually protect the men inside. (They did eventually get rid of the snatch landrovers, but then after considering all the better options, replaced it with something equally bad).

There are some exceptions. Sweden still has a large military, despite cuts. It could certainly hold its own if the Russians ever managed to break through the defensive Finnfield. Overall though, the problem is that Europe, even collectively, doesn't have the resources to fund and field the kind of military people like Trump seem to envision when they say "spend more". And spending more doesn't necessarily get the results in any case.

Tell me how any of those backwoods territories are important Friend
Taiwan is where most of the important parts in your computer and phone are made. The others, meh.
 
Back