MOD map updates for the day. Reports of a Ukrainian counter offensive having success against Russian forces NE and West of Kyiv with a large number of Russian soldiers reportedly surrounded, these have yet to show up in most area of control maps. In the south Ukrainians have push Russians out of the immediate area Mykolaiv and pushing towards Kherson. Ukrainians also attacked and sunk a Russian Alligator class amphibious assault ship as others have posted earlier. https://twitter.com/user/status/1506977161026101252 https://twitter.com/user/status/1507113449494659080
Post earlier in the thread, but worth posting again:
In 2012, a member of the United Russia party (Putin's party) suggested that when Ukraine joined an economic union with Russia (it was assumed at the time that they would), that 7 million Ukrainians would be relocated to Siberia to create a demographic barrier against Chinese demographic encroachment, and that the population in Ukraine would be replaced with ethnic Russians to further Rusify the country.
Or he's someone who lives in a different country and has a different worldview than you do, who is being fed (and likely has for years) a steady diet of lies and propaganda by his government and society and is scared that his country just started a war that is pissing off pretty much everyone else on the planet and doesn't know what to think. I see him asking a lot of questions in this thread, which many of us are taking as contrarian because we're very emotional about this situation, but I do not see him supporting Putin or rushing to "rally around the cause" for his country - in fact most of his comments have indicated a clear lack of support for the actions of his government.
To be clear, my wife's whole family is Ukrainian and I am very firmly on team Ukraine here. What Russia is doing here is heartbreaking, disgusting, immoral, and in many cases straight-up evil. I will be the first one to take up the "#### Putin" chant, but I don't know if it's fair to jump on a guy who (I think) has been a pretty solid member of this community because he is offering different viewpoints. Admittedly a lot of it doesn't make sense to me either, but I'm not in his position. If I lived in a country where my President had just started an unjust and inhumane invasion and alienated the rest of the world, I might be a little worried about if & when the bombs were going to start falling on my head too.
Yeah. I know. Like the Americans who gobble up the right-wing spin.
The cause I see pointman rallying around right now is that of the USA and nato bogeyman somehow invading Russia. Like, that's not happening without some serious aggression toward a nato country. It's just unfounded and nothing points to that being a concern for Russia other than Russian propaganda.
If I lived there and my only media source was Russia I'd fall for it, too, I'm sure.
My point - poorly made - was how pointman (and Russians) are the same as the pro-war propaganda westerners who thought Iraq was somehow a threat to western civilization and needed to be obliterated. If you were in support of the Iraq war, but not in support of this invasion, idk, maybe reflect on that.
Right-wing people start wars. Why is that and why don't right-wing people identify what it is in their nature and belief system that leads them to always ####ing up the world and killing people? It's always the same type of guy anywhere in the world from what I can see. Do liberal countries attack other countries and murder civilians? I can't think of an example.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Or he's someone who lives in a different country and has a different worldview than you do, who is being fed (and likely has for years) a steady diet of lies and propaganda by his government and society and is scared that his country just started a war that is pissing off pretty much everyone else on the planet and doesn't know what to think. I see him asking a lot of questions in this thread, which many of us are taking as contrarian because we're very emotional about this situation, but I do not see him supporting Putin or rushing to "rally around the cause" for his country - in fact most of his comments have indicated a clear lack of support for the actions of his government.
To be clear, my wife's whole family is Ukrainian and I am very firmly on team Ukraine here. What Russia is doing here is heartbreaking, disgusting, immoral, and in many cases straight-up evil. I will be the first one to take up the "#### Putin" chant, but I don't know if it's fair to jump on a guy who (I think) has been a pretty solid member of this community because he is offering different viewpoints. Admittedly a lot of it doesn't make sense to me either, but I'm not in his position. If I lived in a country where my President had just started an unjust and inhumane invasion and alienated the rest of the world, I might be a little worried about if & when the bombs were going to start falling on my head too.
The problem is, he seems to think he has more insight into the motivations and goals of NATO and its member countries, than people who actually live in NATO member countries have.
The chances of a US attack on Moscow are ZERO. Get it? ZERO. As in not happening, period. They are not increasing. They are zero and always will be.
There is absolutely no scenario where Russia's nukes could be disabled. There are thousands of them all over the country, and probably thousands more in deep waters around the country. The US can't disable their nukes, it's not a thing and never will be.
What Biden and NATO want from this situation, listed in order of importance, are the following things:
1) avoid any situation which would directly lead to a hot war with a nuclear armed nation
2) humanitarian efforts to save as many innocent lives as possible
3) pressure Putin, via sanctions, to stop the war and withdraw all his troops from Ukraine
4) send materiel to Ukrainian forces who are defending their homeland against a hostile invading force
That's it. Nothing else. No motivation to attack Moscow. And there never will be.
__________________
Last edited by Mathgod; 03-24-2022 at 08:24 PM.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Yeah. I know. Like the Americans who gobble up the right-wing spin.
The cause I see pointman rallying around right now is that of the USA and nato bogeyman somehow invading Russia. Like, that's not happening without some serious aggression toward a nato country. It's just unfounded and nothing points to that being a concern for Russia other than Russian propaganda.
If I lived there and my only media source was Russia I'd fall for it, too, I'm sure.
My point - poorly made - was how pointman (and Russians) are the same as the pro-war propaganda westerners who thought Iraq was somehow a threat to western civilization and needed to be obliterated. If you were in support of the Iraq war, but not in support of this invasion, idk, maybe reflect on that.
Right-wing people start wars. Why is that and why don't right-wing people identify what it is in their nature and belief system that leads them to always ####ing up the world and killing people? It's always the same type of guy anywhere in the world from what I can see. Do liberal countries attack other countries and murder civilians? I can't think of an example.
As soon as you start seeing the world in terms of “right wing people” and “liberal countries” you have embraced the binary view of humanity that is at the root of most of the conflicts that seem to divide us.
Russians
Liberal countries
Right wing people
Maybe many of these people can’t be so easily collectivized and stereotyped.
Just my two cents.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
As soon as you start seeing the world in terms of “right wing people” and “liberal countries” you have embraced the binary view of humanity that is at the root of most of the conflicts that seem to divide us.
Russians
Liberal countries
Right wing people
Maybe many of these people can’t be so easily collectivized and stereotyped.
The problem is, he seems to think he has more insight into the motivations and goals of NATO and its member countries, than people who actually live in NATO member countries have.
The chances of a US attack on Moscow are ZERO. Get it? ZERO. As in not happening, period. They are not increasing. They are zero and always will be.
.
Insight? It's written on NATO's official site that NATO may bomb another country in the event of "sustained large-scale violation of human rights and killing of civilians" - rather than attack on NATO member. And this is certainly happening in Ukraine. Just replace Kosovo with Ukraine in the text below and you see a perfectly valid justification for bombing Russia.
Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.
Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.
Last edited by Pointman; 03-24-2022 at 10:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
Insight? It's written on NATO's official site that NATO may bomb another country in the event of "sustained large-scale violation of human rights and killing of civilians" - rather than attack on NATO member. And this is certainly happening in Ukraine. Just replace Kosovo with Ukraine in the text below and you see a perfectly valid justification for bombing Russia.
Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.
Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.
You're bringing up an event from 1999. It has no relevance to today's situation/circumstances. The human rights violations today are happening on Ukrainian soil, not on Russian soil.
As for motivation, the motivation in 1999 was clearly to put a stop to the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing being carried out there. The was no motivation to bomb. The bombing was done reluctantly and only as a last resort.
Such a thing would never happen under today's circumstances. Yugoslavia wasn't a nuclear armed nation, and its abuses were taking place on its own soil. Russia is a nuclear armed nation invading a neighboring sovereign nation and attempting to take control it. If your worry was about NATO bombing Russian military targets on Ukrainian soil, perhaps your worry would be somewhat understandable. Still somewhat ill-informed, but understandable.
But the idea of a possible US strike on Moscow, is completely absurd.
You're bringing up an event from 1999. It has no relevance to today's situation/circumstances. The human rights violations today are happening on Ukrainian soil, not on Russian soil.
As for motivation, the motivation in 1999 was clearly to put a stop to the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing being carried out there. The was no motivation to bomb. The bombing was done reluctantly and only as a last resort.
Such a thing would never happen under today's circumstances. Yugoslavia wasn't a nuclear armed nation, and its abuses were taking place on its own soil. Russia is a nuclear armed nation invading a neighboring sovereign nation and attempting to take control it. If your worry was about NATO bombing Russian military targets on Ukrainian soil, perhaps your worry would be somewhat understandable. Still somewhat ill-informed, but understandable.
But the idea of a possible US strike on Moscow, is completely absurd.
1999 is pretty recent as those types of events don't exactly happen every year. But here's 2011 for you:
It's the same: some bloody dictator is doing some large scale crimes and horrors. NATO steps in and bomb his CAPITAL. Not military targets on Ukranian/Kosovan soil. The capital. Belgrade/Tripoli. They even accidentally bombed Chinese embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...sy_in_Belgrade
You can say they bombed "reluctantly". I guess you are right. Unfortunately, the blast is the same.
Sure you can pinpoint some differences, but it's naive to expect to have a recent situation that is EXACTLY the same. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that Putin has nukes. He's essentially Milosevic/Gaddafi with nukes. If it wasn't for his nukes, NATO would be bombing Moscow - not Russian military in Ukraine - by now.
It's the same: some bloody dictator is doing some large scale crimes and horrors. NATO steps in and bomb his CAPITAL. Not military targets on Ukranian/Kosovan soil. The capital. Belgrade/Tripoli. They even accidentally bombed Chinese embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...sy_in_Belgrade
You can say they bombed "reluctantly". I guess you are right. Unfortunately, the blast is the same.
Sure you can pinpoint some differences, but it's naive to expect to have a recent situation that is EXACTLY the same. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that Putin has nukes. He's essentially Milosevic/Gaddafi with nukes. If it wasn't for his nukes, NATO would be bombing Moscow - not Russian military in Ukraine - by now.
Maybe you're right. But none of it would be happening if not for Putin, so I'm not sure what the point is. Your fear of the US is predicated on your own nation committing heinous war crimes and leaving NATO no choice but to respond. So... Don't do war crimes?
The blast you're talking about is happening right now every minute on innocent Ukrainians. In your name btw.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
How many of these examples you bring up involve the bloody dictator invading and attempting to seize control of another nation? None. That's the main difference here. The US/NATO priority is to save innocent lives in a contry being victimized by a barbaric, violent invasion. Putin keeps making it harder and harder for lives to be saved. Still, the idea of NATO getting directly involved in fighting Russian troops is a total non-starter. The chances of a US attack on Moscow is zero. Absolutely zero.
Again, if Putin was committing mass murder on Russian soil, then your comparisons would make more sense.
It's the same: some bloody dictator is doing some large scale crimes and horrors. NATO steps in and bomb his CAPITAL. Not military targets on Ukranian/Kosovan soil. The capital. Belgrade/Tripoli. They even accidentally bombed Chinese embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...sy_in_Belgrade
You can say they bombed "reluctantly". I guess you are right. Unfortunately, the blast is the same.
Sure you can pinpoint some differences, but it's naive to expect to have a recent situation that is EXACTLY the same. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that Putin has nukes. He's essentially Milosevic/Gaddafi with nukes. If it wasn't for his nukes, NATO would be bombing Moscow - not Russian military in Ukraine - by now.
I know I just defended you a few posts ago, but this really does sound like you’ve lost the plot a bit.
NATO has no desire to bomb Russia. NATO has no desire for war with Russia. I think it’s maybe accurate to say that if Russia wasn’t a nuclear power then we would probably be seeing conventional NATO forces on the ground in Ukraine, but even then I would think it would be extremely unlikely there would be any direct action against Russia itself.
Your government may be telling you all kinds of things about how the whole world hates Russia and would love to take it over, but the only reason the world is mad at Russia right now is because they won’t stop bombing Ukrainian cities and mass murdering innocent people. Nobody wants to invade Russia, and the animosity from the rest of the world would disappear a lot quicker if Russia got the hell out of Ukraine right now.
__________________ "There will be a short outage tonight sometime between 11:00PM and 1:00AM as network upgrades are performed. Please do not panic and overthrow society. Thank you."
The Following User Says Thank You to Redliner For This Useful Post:
It's the same: some bloody dictator is doing some large scale crimes and horrors. NATO steps in and bomb his CAPITAL. Not military targets on Ukranian/Kosovan soil. The capital. Belgrade/Tripoli. They even accidentally bombed Chinese embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...sy_in_Belgrade
You can say they bombed "reluctantly". I guess you are right. Unfortunately, the blast is the same.
Sure you can pinpoint some differences, but it's naive to expect to have a recent situation that is EXACTLY the same. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that Putin has nukes. He's essentially Milosevic/Gaddafi with nukes. If it wasn't for his nukes, NATO would be bombing Moscow - not Russian military in Ukraine - by now.
I can agree with you. The NATO missions in Kosovo and Libya stretched purpose for a defense treaty. I believe both those situations posed legitimate security concerns to NATO members and reasons for the missions were just, but they probably shouldn't have been NATO initiatives, but a coalition outside of the NATO framework. You can draw similarities to what is happening in Ukraine now.
But the nuclear weapon thing is a huge difference making the situations not even in the same ballpark.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Your government may be telling you all kinds of things about how the whole world hates Russia and would love to take it over, but the only reason the world is mad at Russia right now is because they won’t stop bombing Ukrainian cities and mass murdering innocent people.
I don't see any contradiction. Putin is commiting horrible war crimes. I don't recall me saying any different. Because of those crimes, the whole world hates Russia right now. The world did not hate Russia two months ago. Because Russians are currently doing awful crimes, it's not a stretch at all to compare them to what Milosevic and Gaddafi did. This results in a pretty strong desire by NATO to step in and stop it. I share the same desire. If I could somehow stop it, I would. Now, what NATO does when it wants to stop large scale war crimes? History shows that they bomb the country that is doing those crimes. Whether it's "just" and "deserved" is beyond the point.
Maybe you're right. But none of it would be happening if not for Putin, so I'm not sure what the point is. Your fear of the US is predicated on your own nation committing heinous war crimes and leaving NATO no choice but to respond. So... Don't do war crimes?
The blast you're talking about is happening right now every minute on innocent Ukrainians. In your name btw.
The argument was about whether there's any chance of US/NATO strike on Moscow. Not about such strike being justified or whether NATO would be "forced" to do it. In fact the discussion started from my consideration of moving my family away from Moscow so they will not be hit by possible strike. I get that stopping doing war crimes and retreating from Ukraine would solve the problem, but I can't really help with it.
