Controlled Opposition (11-21-2022)
With respect, you seem to base an AWFUL lot of your beliefs on this on the MSM and opinions of various 'experts'.
For the record - I PUT NO STOCK WHATSOEVER IN ANYTHING THE MSM SAYS.
They have shown time and again that, if they ever were about reporting news, that premise is LONG gone.
They clearly are now entertainment companies in the form of news sources.
They simply pander to whatever their viewers want to read/here.
ALL of them.
They proved it once and for all during the lockdowns. When they completely abandoned reporting 'both sides' and simply towed the government line.
Plus, their ratings went sky high during the lockdowns...so their reasons for supporting these un-Constitutional 'things' is obvious.
https://www.newsweek.com/ratings-sky...verage-1493836
Though the newspapers are still better than the electronic mass media - but not by much.
I no longer believe a THING, ANY of them say without providing unbiased, factual proof to back it up.
And opinions mean NOTHING almost nothing to me.
I strongly advise you to trust nothing that comes from anyone until they can back it up with facts/data from unbiased sources.
I have made my position clear as to what I think could and should be done to end this quickly and with the least amount of additional destruction and loss of life.
And you seem to have far more faith in Russia's, conventional military capabilities than I (or, I must say, the facts) suggest.
So be it.
It has been unusually (for around here) pleasant to debate with you.
You seem to keep your cool far better than most.
Refreshing.
Good day.
Controlled Opposition (11-21-2022)
1) you have NO WAY of knowing what ALL the 'experts' feel in this regard.
So you have NO WAY of knowing if their is 'no question' of this or not.
You believe it - as do many others.
And many others do not.
That is the extent of it.
I am no expert.
But imo?
I haven't a clue what Putin was trying to do.
Whatever it was - it was moronic.
2) Total war?
Russia is holding back many of their top aircraft and tanks (many T-90's and the T-14).
Their Arena active protection system (APS) for their MBT's - has not (to my knowledge) been even seen on one, Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine.
Yet, this was designed to stop weapons like Javelin.
And it appears to work, very well at doing this.
So why not use it in Ukraine and save their tanks if this was TOTAL WAR?
Nor are they sending in their top units (from what I can see).
This is far from 'TOTAL WAR" for Russia.
I would call it similar to America's commitment to Vietnam/Afghanistan.
Throw a TON of stuff at it.
But NOT the absolute, top-of-the-line stuff.
Which you would do in a Total War.
Last edited by McRocket; 11-21-2022 at 02:49 AM.
Phoenyx (11-21-2022)
When it comes to the way this war has unfolded, my judgement and track record has been substantially better than MAGA's...
My judgement :
.
Putin's and MAGA's judgement:
Putin Boasts of Being Able to Take Kiev in Two Weeks
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast...eeks/?amp=true
Once vibrant Ukrainian cities are reduced to smouldering piles of ruble.2) Total war?
Russia is holding back many of their top aircraft and tanks (many T-90's and the T-14).
Their Arena active protection system (APS) for their MBT's - has not (to my knowledge) been even seen on one, Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine.
Yet, this was designed to stop weapons like Javelin.
And it appears to work very well at doing this.
So why not use it in Ukraine and save their tanks if this was TOTAL WAR?
Nor are they sending in their top units (from what I can see).
This is far from 'TOTAL WAR" for Russia.
I would call it similar to America's commitment to Vietnam/Afghanistan.
Throw a TON of stuff at it.
But NOT the absolute, top-of-the-line stuff.
Which you would do in a Total War.
At least 100k to 200k people have died in less than a year.
Russia is systematically destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
Russia isn't even bothering to avoid collateral damage, and has been systematically targeting civilian populations. The United States at least attempted to avoid collateral damage in Afghanistan, and the United States did not reduce a single Afghan city to a smoking pile of rubble.
Ukraine is mobilized on a total war footing.
The Russian army as a whole is committed to Ukraine and Putin ordered the nation's first military mobilization in 80 years.
If you want to say it is not the same scale at World War Two, that is correct. But this is the largest and most intense war in the world in 50 years, and the largest and most violent in Europe in 80 years
More than once, Zelensky has considered going the route of peace. The first such time was immediately after his election in 2019. At the time, the U.S. brass supported the warmongers in Ukraine and the opportunity to bring an end to Ukraine's war (back when it was officially just a 'civil' war) was missed. I think you've seen the article that brings this up, but for anyone here who hasn't, it's here:
Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost
About a month into Russia's military operation, it appeared that Zelensky was once again considering a peaceful solution. This time, the UK, via Boris Johnson, chimed in with the U.S. that the best option was war, not peace. I know you've seen the article I'm referring to here. For those in the audience, it's here:
We Urgently Need to Give Ukraine Peace Talks a Chance | Scheerpost
All of this is to say that Zelensky's war cheerleading persona these days is very much the product of American and, to a lesser extent, British foreign policy, not the other way around.
Perhaps the best way to characterize him would be him telling the U.S. and the U.K., "You told me to fight, now give me the weapons to keep on doing that".
McRocket (11-21-2022)
On the contrary, I generally don't even read much from the MSM. However, I think that most people here tend to trust MSM over alternative sources, so if I find MSM articles that back what I believe, I tend to point them out.
I'd say that for the most part, it's actually even worse than that- I believe they pander to the the globalist elites most of all. A lot of them are owned by said elites after all. However, as mentioned previously, there are some exceptions. I've found that the New York Post seems to have some good articles these days, whether it's regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story or tacit acknowledgement that Ukraine may lose the war.
As I imagine you saw, I'm completely against the mainstream covid narrative, which I think is made clear in the thread I started here on the subject:
Challenging the official Covid narrative | justplainpolitics.com
Well the good news is that I doubt either of us has placed any investment on Ukraine or Russia 'winning' the war. Ultimately, we'll both find out who 'wins' the war (even if technically, both sides lose a lot).
Thanks, I try :-)
I imagine your source for that is the mainstream media, which has been parroting that line for some time now. Every once in a while, however, even the mainstream media acknowledges the fact that this is a lie. Newsweek did it back near the end of March:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek
Now, I certainly acknowledge that things changed to some extent after Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, with Putin allies urging him to respond in kind:
Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx
Putin decided to do just that:
Vladimir Putin says missile strikes across Ukraine are in retaliation for Crimea bridge 'terrorist' blast | Sky News
Russia sent more missiles towards Kyiv after a drone attack on their black sea fleet at the end of October as well:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says attacks on Ukraine infrastructure 'not all we could have done' | abc.net.au
Note Putin's line that they could have done more damage. Even now, I'd say Russia is still holding back to some extent, but they have certainly tried Russia's patience.
Phoenyx (11-21-2022)
The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:
The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News
The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research
The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:
Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
You questioned my judgement, and then get upset when I show you proof my judgement about the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war has been reasonably good?
Yep Ukraine is mobilized for total war, and Russia is nearly so. The last time Russia ordered a military mobilization was 80 years ago. I know men who have fled Russia to avoid conscription.
We don't have to say it has to be exactly like World War Two to be a form of total war.
I have seen the video from Marupiel, Kharkiv, and dozens of smaller Ukrainian cities.
Nobody has seen destruction of cities in Europe like that since World War Two.
The notion that Putin is being restrained and holding back because he is a humanitarian does not pass the laugh test.
I'm guessing you meant to say Mariupol, not Marupiel. I know what that the mainstream western media's version of what happened during the battle for Mariupol paints Russia's military in a bad light and Ukraine's military in a good one. I've taken a look at Russia's version, as well as most reporters I've heard covering things from areas that Russia controls, and they paint a fairly different picture. RT did a documentary on Mariupol that I think it well worth watching:
Mariupol: A Homecoming | RT
I suspect the baltic war in former Yugoslavia might be comparable. Incidentally, NATO has shown its clear hypocracy in supporting the breakup of Yugoslavia, and yet being adamant that Ukraine should remain a single country. Serbia's certainly pointed this out:
Serbia Calls Out NATO’s Double Standard | voxday.net
Also NATO's general warmongering ways:
Decades of NATO Hypocrisy Exposed By Serbian Soccer Fans’ Giant Banners: ‘Give Peace a Chance?’ | newspunch.com
While I can certainly agree that U.S. power brokers in Ukraine and NATO made many mistakes prior to February 24, simply calling them mistakes would be misleading and let these groups off far too easily.
As to Russia's conduct in the war, even some mainstream media outlets have occassionally admitted that Russia was going pretty easy on Ukraine during the first stages of the war. I think this Newsweek article from late March is a good example:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek
Things definitely changed after Kyiv carried out an attack on the Crimean bridge. I think it's important to note that Putin was encouraged by close allies to retaliate, with the idea that if he didn't, Ukraine would go even further. An article on this:
Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | businessinsider.mx
Furthermore, there's a huge difference between what mainstream media reports on Russian and Ukraine military actions and what is actually happening on the ground. I believe that Eva Bartlett, a Canadian American journalist, has done some great work in this regard. Here's an article she did on the battle in Mariupol:
Eva Bartlett Reports from Mariupol: “Ukraine Forces Used Scorched Earth Tactics” | Internationalist 360
Bookmarks