qqqq
1yr ago
It has little to do with the topic of conversation.
Well, your view of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhaz-Georgian conflicts is slightly simplified. A country that bloodlessly gains independence from the USSR and a year later decides to use the army against the region that wanted independence from Georgia.
Basayev joined the conflict after the start of the war.
"Incite instability there" happened before him.
And it is rather difficult to call him and his forces supporting him Russian. (Although de jure they were.) But even then, Russia had little control over Chechnya.
qqqq
1yr ago
Basayev was supported by Russians back then
Was the dude who actively supported Dudayev's separatist government since 1991, hijacked a Russian plane with hostages in 1992, and actively participated in the struggle for the independence of Ichkeria, really a Russian proxy?
but Russian support to Abkhaz separatist
And also Russia evacuated Georgian military from Sukhumi and protect Shevardnadze in Poti. Perhaps the absence of a civil war in Georgia or refusal to use army against regions with separatist sentiments would help more than minor excesses and the supply of weapons in the interests of all parties to the conflict.
just like Donbass War
I understand that if in 2014 Ukrainian government had not used the army against Donbass, Ukraine would have peacefully lost all eastern territories. But I am not ready to justify desire of Ukrainian government to kill because they did not want to lose some of their power.
qqqq
1yr ago
The monument to Catherine was demolished because Catherine the Great is associated with Russia. One should not look for some philosophical or historical meaning here. It's just a symbolic gesture against a pile of copper.
qqqq
1yr ago
At one time, the Baltic countries joined the EU and became part of the "GAE". And they have deprived a third of their population of the right to vote on the basis of ethnicity. So I don't think that Ukraine will have problems with neo-Nazis.
Migrants go to Germany, France, Sweden - rich socialist states. Even Poland has a negative emigration balance in the EU. Probably Ukraine will never have to deal with mass migration from Africa.
From a demographic point of view, it is much more interesting how a country with one of the lowest fertility in the world and a population of less than 40 million people will exist after at least 10 million people left it. (Most of which are women and most of them will not return). This will probably be the biggest gender imbalance in history. Will Ukraine declare itself the first incel state? Will it provoke insanely high levels of crime and suicide? It will be interesting to watch.
qqqq
1yr ago
It was a decision clearly motivated by nationalism. If this did not embarrass the leaders of the EU, then the AZOV regiment will definitely not embarrass them.
qqqq
1yr ago
What is wypipoing? Wypipoing is calling oneself a “patriot” while waving a confederate flag. Wypipoing is whining about widespread voter fraud while rubber-stamping gerrymandering, voter suppression and felon disenfranchisement. Wypipoing is screaming about freedom of speech while outlawing critical race theory. And if you find the term “wypipoing” offensive…
Are you sure that the article is about the white race and not about Republicans / online chuds?
I doubt that you hold radically politically correct views. The claim to double standards also doesn't work perfectly, as the left sees no contradiction here, because they consider whites to be a large and powerful group that such generalizations do not pose a threat to anyone.
qqqq
1yr ago
What they mean is that whites are secure enough to know that such generalizations are only directed against political opponents, not against their race.
Simply put, there is no negative generalization when the group is not outnumbered or threatened.
In any case, it is important here what the author of the article meant, and not how you can interpret his words if you wish.
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
I confused your comment with MelodicBerries deleted comment.
qqqq
1yr ago
I'm trying and I can't understand what you're all arguing about? There are three actors in this game. It is true that Poland joined NATO, as the prospect of access to the closed EU market and subsidies from Germany, France and the UK is very tasty. It is true that the US is interested in expanding its sphere of influence. And it is true that for Russia, the expansion of NATO and the EU is a loss of market access and unacceptable security threats.
That is, Poland has reasons to join NATO/EU, the US has reasons to increase its influence, Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression.
All of these things can be true at the same time. Right?
qqqq
1yr ago
There seems to be discussed the expansion of NATO in general. In the case of Ukraine, I would replace Poland with Ukraine and not much would change. (Although the armed coup and the right of the population to self-determination make this case more difficult).
And the threat to Russia is not Ukraine, it is the United States and NATO, of course.
qqqq
1yr ago
I reject this part.
First, the presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security in the medium term. Especially when your opponent has much more financial and human resources. Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars. Starting from attempts to arm the non-systemic opposition, ending with the Ichkerian separatists.
Isn't that enough reason?
qqqq
1yr ago
How do you have such confidence, and how do you have confidence that at some time the US will not invade North Korea?
qqqq
1yr ago
I wrote about it in the thread above.
An invasion either requires an improved missile defense system to reliably intercept intercontinental missiles, or can be carried out using a proxy.
qqqq
1yr ago
I don't think it's intellectually fair to use the word "genocide" (which most people associate with the physical extermination of people) in relation to a situation where children from an orphanage in Mariupol are sent to an orphanage in Russia.
Do you consider restrictions on the study of the Russian language in eastern Ukraine a genocide?
The Russians will be brutal regardless, and will continue to be brutal over any Ukrainian territory they control both now and potentially in the future.
Probably the exact opposite is true. Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.
qqqq
1yr ago
If you don't think it's fair to apply the Convention on the Prevention and
Get rid of bureaucratic nonsense. I think that this word in everyday use has a completely different meaning.
can be found from Bucha to Kherson.
Both Russians and Ukrainians constantly claim that they find torture chambers in the occupied territories, this is probably just information garbage.
If we talk about Bucha, then we are talking about the alleged incident with the execution of men mistaken for artillery spotters, a guy on a bicycle who unsuccessfully rode onto a convoy preparing for battle and many civilians killed by Ukrainian artillery.
qqqq
1yr ago
clear that they do not consider themselves Russians, in fact they are willing to kill and die over this very point.
Well, this is definitely not true for Donbass or Melitopol.
Where we see both people who are ready to kill in order to NOT be Ukrainians and people who are generally loyal to the Russian government.
rom the various peoples who have come into conflict with them.
I would be interested to know which countries improved their opinion of each other after the war.
qqqq
1yr ago
I left Lugansk in 2014. It is strange how someone does not understand that all the people there sincerely hate Ukrainians. And yes, the East of Ukraine has always been pro-Russian. Lviv raguli - of course not.
qqqq
1yr ago
Soldiers who shoot at any moving target during battle - yes. The massacre of combatants, whom the soldiers consider to be combatants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre) - yes.
But when a party that clearly has a conflict of interest and uses the statements of the Ukrainian government, which is quite often lying, starts telling stories that are clearly designed for an emotional reaction and are implausible from the point of view of hypothetical actors - I show a lot of skepticism.
qqqq
1yr ago
Don't know. For the last 6 years, I have interacted with Ukrainians only on 2ch, and even then rarely.
But I think that having the opportunity to choose and not being afraid of reprisals from the SBU, the majority in the east would prefer Russia. Russia is corny richer, less crime, better infrastructure and government, and no one would have to change either their culture or their language.
qqqq
1yr ago
Did they benefit from the war started by Ukraine? Of course not.
But I see a lot of irony in the fact that in 2022 Ukrainians stopped thinking that cutting off gas, water and electricity is very funny.
qqqq
1yr ago
"Хохлосрач, хохлосрач никогда не меняется."- Фаллаут, наверное.
This dispute has been going on for decades and never leads to anything. And in any case, instantly turn into throwing shit at the monitor.
I'm talking about the shelling of thermal power plants and local gas pipelines. And jokes about it in ukrnet. And funny meme about "conditioners" of course.
It's not at all obvious. One of my cousins volunteered for the war in April and immediately found himself in a training center and then at the front. My own brother was mobilized in October and he still comes home for the weekend. The capacity of the training and supply centers cannot cope with 300,000 mobilized. Probably, Russia can train about 80,000 people per month, maybe 100,000.
And the meaning of the war of approximately equal in quality armies lies in quantity. Ukraine successfully advanced near Kharkov, not because Himars and not because Javelin. But because they were able to bring their army to almost a million people (And NATO provided them with equipment, equipment and artillery) against 300 thousand Russians.
The reduction in the numerical advantage of Ukraine after mobilization led to the stabilization of the front line and a small advance of the Russian army. But if Western countries are able to ensure the mobilization of Ukraine about 150-200 thousand soldiers per month, then at some point they will achieve a numerical superiority sufficient for a new successful offensive. And it does not look impossible for NATO countries.
They will have to give a significant percentage of the current stocks and equipment in service with NATO countries, but this is not impossible.
As for what? Well, because since 2014 a lot has been invested in Ukraine. Authority, money, prestige. All this is worth something. It does not matter for what reason politicians have committed themselves to support Ukraine. What matters is that they took it. Secondly, after the end of the war, Russia will obviously take vengeance. If there's a guy in Iraq who wants to shoot Americans, he'll get whatever weapon he wants. ATGM, MANPADS, explosives. And if he is competent enough, then the Kinzhal missile to fight aircraft carriers.
Wagner, significantly reinforced, will continue to attack European colonies in Africa and this will require a large number of resources to counter. For NATO countries, it is much more profitable to continue the conflict in Ukraine, so as not to get a conflict with Russia around the world. It's just that NATO only spends money in Ukraine. In other hypothetical conflicts, NATO will waste money and the lives of their soldiers. This is a significant difference.
And most likely politicians in NATO understand this. And I would expect a really huge supply of the Ukrainian army in the coming months. It is strange that Germany does not want to supply its tanks now, but I would bet that the US will be able to convince them in time.
qqqq
1yr ago
Lol. With a population of 70 million, Germany mobilized about 18 million people during the Second World War. And Germany needed industry and economy to support the front. Someone had to make tigers, panthers, fokewulfs, shells and wheat. Ukraine does not need any industry or economy. Hence they can mobilize a larger percentage of people. They certainly have more old people, but they have fewer children. So with a population of 36 million (optimistically) people, they could well mobilize more than 9 million. They have many refugees, but almost all of the refugees are women, so migration has little effect on mobilization potential.
Really?
Firstly, nuclear weapons are protection for today. Will it still be relevant in 20 or 30 years? Or will the development of missile defense systems make strategic missiles irrelevant? But the multiple numerical superiority of NATO and the territories of Ukraine convenient for the offensive will remain relevant much longer.
Second, proxy wars. Georgia is a perfect example. The creation of a supply and training base for Chechen fighters through the Caucasus mountains is a catastrophic threat that almost nothing can counter (the camps themselves are located on NATO territory, and it is almost impossible to effectively cut off supplies through the Caucasus mountains). The borders with Ukraine are not so obviously dangerous, but they can also be used to support the armed opposition (which still needs to be created, which is not easy, but makes sense with such a potential for supply through Ukraine). And the large length of these borders makes the supply cut much more difficult than for the borders with the Baltics or Finland.
And the restriction of access to markets and the loss of a sphere of influence are negative events in themselves, although not a military threat.
More options
Context Copy link