Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Sarni said:
What the hell is this nonsense? They are really getting to ridiculous levels in their propaganda, I don't like it at all.
Click to expand...

It's stupid to begin with but even more so now. People are literally treating this like a game and these are characters and upgrades
 
Sarni said:
What the hell is this nonsense? They are really getting to ridiculous levels in their propaganda, I don't like it at all.
Click to expand...

That has been posted all over for the last two weeks. I've seen it a few times on various tweets. It's probably rubbish.
 
Carolina Red said:
Who says he doesn’t have PTSD?

The reason Chris Kyle kept going back on more tours in Iraq was because of the difficulties in rejoining society, and that’s from a guy whose book opens with a story that includes the line “I can stand before God with a clear conscience about doing my job”.
Click to expand...

Snipers in general suffer more than most from it because of the way they fight. I think they must all get it to some degree.
 
Last edited:
MadMike said:
I know this is something that has been happening for humanity’s entire written history and more but… I still fail to comprehend how someone can be personally killing 7-10 people a day during a war and then at the end of it simply letting it slide off him and integrating back into society. I just can’t.

I think if I killed 1 person I’d have PTSD. Killing 10 sounds crazy, it’d be life altering. I can’t even imagine killing 10 a day and then being able to sleep again.

PS. It’s easier for a leader to give a command and feel disconnected from the result if he’s not doing it himself or observing the result with his eyes. Gunning someone down yourself feels very personal.
Click to expand...

Killing 7-10 a day on a regular basis from miles away might be much easier to endure than killing 1 or 2 when you're close.
Besides, he might very well suffer from traumatic mental illnesses - most soldiers who have experienced combat seem to show signs of such mental issues, even if combat only lasted for a relatively short time. I doubt people's mind would ever forget these situations truely, even if the worst can be cured to a certain degree.
 
Surely this "neutral status" ruse is a formal get off designed to allow the Russians out of a quagmire and the Ukranians to have the killing stop. In spirit and attitude, Ukraine will be filled with hate toward Russia for many generations to come, and the country festooned with statues to the heroes of the resistance and museums telling the truth. In practice, they'll be as neutral as that ref was last night.
 
I used to work with an old Vietnam vet whose job was as a sniper, protecting LZs. He would literally lie in undergrowth for days staring into a jungle. I couldn’t imagine what type of focus you’d need, it would surely send you crazy
 
2cents said:
I understand that. At the same time, the referendum made reference to the Declaration of Independence issued in August which explicitly stated that “The territory of Ukraine is indivisible and inviolable.” Clearly there were some misgivings about this prospect in the eastern oblasts and especially Crimea, given the relatively lower turnout and percentages returned in favor compared with the rest of the country (though not enough to come anywhere near to actually swaying the result). So would it not be fair to explain the relatively greater hesitancy expressed in these regions as a consequence of greater pro-Russian sentiment (whatever that means)?

I guess I’m looking for two things:

1. Reliable data on the actual extent of explicitly separatist sentiment in the eastern regions throughout the last thirty years. Perhaps such data doesn’t exist, so we’re left with the maps above as our only vague guide to the question.

2. A greater interrogation of what exactly it means or has meant to be “pro-Russian” in this context. It seems to me that “pro-Russian” can potentially mean quite different things to different people at various times over the last thirty years.

That’s an interesting line of thought, and I can think of similar cases among minorities elsewhere who have found themselves somewhat ‘stranded’ in post-colonial nationalist states continuing to harbor positive sentiment for the old metropole.
Click to expand...
Found it. This was a good primer on the history of Donbas that was written back in 2015 by Hiroaki Kuromiya, who is one of the leading academics on the region even prior to the wars in the last ten years: https://www.historians.in.ua/index....-donbas-how-to-understand-its-past-and-future
 
Is it fair to say that at this point it’s highly unlikely that Russia manages to occupy whole of Ukraine (e.g., west of Kyiv)?
 
UweBein said:
If that is a real offer, Ukraine shall take it.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear to me that Ukraine don't want Neutrality as that simply makes them weak and exposed to Russia invading them again in the future when they yet again break their 'promises' and make up a reason to invade again.

Yes, it would stop the war right now, but it just opens then up to further conflict. It's a difficult situation for Ukraine ultimately because Russias word means jack fecking shit.
 
Rajma said:
Is it fair to say that at this point it’s highly unlikely that Russia manages to occupy whole of Ukraine (e.g., west of Kyiv)?
Click to expand...
Yes. There advances stalled as soon as they reached the limit of their logistics lines (about 140km) and they haven't had any significant gains after that. At the current rate they might even struggle to keep their positions.
 
UweBein said:
If that is a real offer, Ukraine shall take it.
Click to expand...

1.Every Russian attempt at appearing amenable to negotiate is almost certainly misdirection to create the illusion of pragmatism.

2. Putin’s idea of neutrality is little more than Ukrainians not seeking collective security so he is then free to foment trouble and subvert Ukrainian society from within. The entire idea behind Ukraine joining NATO is because he has been mercilessly bullying them for most of the past 20 years.
 
RedSky said:
I think it's pretty clear to me that Ukraine don't want Neutrality as that simply makes them weak and exposed to Russia invading them again in the future when they yet again break their 'promises' and make up a reason to invade again.

Yes, it would stop the war right now, but it just opens then up to further conflict. It's a difficult situation for Ukraine ultimately because Russias word means jack fecking shit.
Click to expand...

I think they should take it too. End the war, let things settle down then join Nato anyway. It's not as if Russia has ever kept any of its promises. Once they withdraw it will be quite some time before Russia can rebuild it's forces to the required standard for another invasion attempt.

If not Nato then the EU which will soon be a formidable alliance of its own thanks to Russia.
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

This sounds made up. Sweden & Finland are not neutral. Both have very close relationships with NATO and are fully committed to the EU's defense pact. And we've both been sending weapons to Ukraine. Actually, if the Putin regime survives this, I'd expect both countries to join NATO soon.

Austria and Ireland are pretending to be neutral. But still, as members of EU they are somewhat bound by the defense clause(they don't have any opt-out of the common policies). And by extension, they are NATO- partners, given the very close EU-NATO cooperation. The only neutral state in Europe is Switzerland. And it probably isn't a viable situation for Ukraine (or Moldova) to be that kind of neutral if the Putin regime keeps its power.
 
RedSky said:
I think it's pretty clear to me that Ukraine don't want Neutrality as that simply makes them weak and exposed to Russia invading them again in the future when they yet again break their 'promises' and make up a reason to invade again.

Yes, it would stop the war right now, but it just opens then up to further conflict. It's a difficult situation for Ukraine ultimately because Russias word means jack fecking shit.
Click to expand...

That might depend on what Russia means by "neutrality". If they mean no membership of NATO, Ukraine might accept that. If they mean not joining the EU, then I highly doubt Ukraine would accept that.

And if Ukraine joins the EU, then they would be free invite into their country any number of EU member-country troops and allow the establishment of permanent EU military bases inside Ukraine. That would be sufficient guarantee for Ukraine of no later repeat of a Russian invasion.

But if Russia says you can join the EU, but no EU troops allowed, then again that would likely be a non-starter for Ukraine - they are certainly not going to rely any Russian promises ever again.
 
11101 said:
Snipers in general suffer more than most from it because of the way they fight. I think they must all get it to some degree.
Click to expand...
Yes. I've personally known 2 of them. One who fought in Vietnam and another who fought in the War on Terror. The one who fought in Vietnam has a few chapters about him in the book 13 Cent Killers and worked with my mom at the post office (of all places). The other's son wrestles for me. I've had the opportunity to talk to both of them about their time as a sniper and the one thing they both really emphasize is that as a sniper, you can see the face of the person you're about to kill... and that takes a toll on you. Unless you're in hand to hand combat, most of the time you'll never see the face of the guy you're killing. It takes some serious internal fortitude to do that job.
TMDaines said:
I guess if you are a sniper, you are quite far removed from those you are killing.
Click to expand...
It's actually the opposite. The scope makes a big difference (see above).
 
stefan92 said:
Yes. There advances stalled as soon as they reached the limit of their logistics lines (about 140km) and they haven't had any significant gains after that. At the current rate they might even struggle to keep their positions.
Click to expand...

It looks like they've given up on occupying the "useless" big cities or overthrowing Zelensky's government. It is all about taking the black sea coast and securing a victory in the Donbas region, maybe the Russian-speaking cities near the Donbas. But the resistance is much stronger than what they expected. Not only the military resistance. The civilian disobedience in Kherson is impressive. And it is very likely to spread to any cities they might manage to control (Kharkiv, Mariupol..)
 
Pintu said:
This sounds made up. Sweden & Finland are not neutral. Both have very close relationships with NATO and are fully committed to the EU's defense pact. And we've both been sending weapons to Ukraine. Actually, if the Putin regime survives this, I'd expect both countries to join NATO soon.

Austria and Ireland are pretending to be neutral. But still, as members of EU they are somewhat bound by the defense clause(they don't have any opt-out of the common policies). And by extension, they are NATO- partners, given the very close EU-NATO cooperation. The only neutral state in Europe is Switzerland. And it probably isn't a viable situation for Ukraine (or Moldova) to be that kind of neutral if the Putin regime keeps its power.
Click to expand...
The mutual defence clause itself basically has an opt out:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Click to expand...
So if Austria for instance wanted to stay neutral in a conflict that would trigger the clause, they can.
 
GlastonSpur said:
That might depend on what Russia means by "neutrality". If they mean no membership of NATO, Ukraine might accept that. If they mean not joining the EU, then I highly doubt Ukraine would accept that.

And if Ukraine joins the EU, then they would be free invite into their country any number of EU member-country troops and allow the establishment of permanent EU military bases inside Ukraine. That would be sufficient guarantee for Ukraine of no later repeat of a Russian invasion.

But if Russia says you can join the EU, but no EU troops allowed, then again that would likely be a non-starter for Ukraine - they are certainly not going to rely any Russian promises ever again.
Click to expand...

Actually, the EU has a mechanism for opt-outs from the common policies. Some countries opted out of the common currency, migration, security. The UK was never fully in the Schengen area or the currency. Denmark is still out of the defense policy (will change probably in June with a referendum). Poland is currently fighting EU on its "rule of law" prerogatives... The EU doesn't encourage these opt-outs, EU wants the Union to be as comprehensive and profound as possible.

But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
Yes. I've personally known 2 of them. One who fought in Vietnam and another who fought in the War on Terror. The one who fought in Vietnam has a few chapters about him in the book 13 Cent Killers and worked with my mom at the post office (of all places). The other's son wrestles for me. I've had the opportunity to talk to both of them about their time as a sniper and the one thing they both really emphasize is that as a sniper, you can see the face of the person you're about to kill... and that takes a toll on you. Unless you're in hand to hand combat, most of the time you'll never see the face of the guy you're killing. It takes some serious internal fortitude to do that job.

It's actually the opposite. The scope makes a big difference (see above).
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Pintu said:
It looks like they've given up on occupying the "useless" big cities or overthrowing Zelensky's government. It is all about taking the black sea coast and securing a victory in the Donbas region, maybe the Russian-speaking cities near the Donbas. But the resistance is much stronger than what they expected. Not only the military resistance. The civilian disobedience in Kherson is impressive. And it is very likely to spread to any cities they might manage to control (Kharkiv, Mariupol..)
Click to expand...
This military reality seems to be reflected in the demands Russia is making during the peace talks. We haven't heard anything about replacing the government lately, though it was obviously a point at the beginning.
 
fergieisold said:
Nonsense? It's simply a report of this guy going over there and his kill rate? How's that propaganda?
Click to expand...
Is anyone really supposed to believe a guy is killing 40 people a day? It’s literally like they took a character out of a comics book. It’s war, it isn’t fun, the amount of people who think they can go there and help with no experience, trying to be heroes is concerning enough when you have professional soldiers running back to their countries after they’ve experienced first days there. We don’t need those COD stories to make everyone feel that maybe, just maybe, being good at Counter Strike could mean you can save Ukraine. The difference is you don’t get another game even if you go 40-1.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
"I have a dream, that one day a NATO NFZ will cause nuclear escalation."
Click to expand...

Did you really just appropriate MLK to joke about nuclear war? You really should stick to your "I am not going to post in this thread" promise, although based on actions your promises are about as trustworthy as Putin's.
 
stefan92 said:
This military reality seems to be reflected in the demands Russia is making during the peace talks. We haven't heard anything about replacing the government lately, though it was obviously a point at the beginning.
Click to expand...
That's our understanding, but Putin has been telling everybody that it was never the case. One important goal seems to be "demilitarisation". They've intensified attacks on weapon industrial sites and the likes.

 
There is no way that Ukraine can demilitarise significantly with Russia as a next door neighbour. Not joining NATO is probably as far as it can go.

They need increased military vigilance for the next ten years at least.
 
WI_Red said:
Did you really just appropriate MLK to joke about nuclear war? You really should stick to your "I am not going to post in this thread" promise, although based on actions your promises are about as trustworthy as Putin's.
Click to expand...
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
 
Pintu said:
But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
Click to expand...
That's not really the case, because almost all new NATO membership countries predate the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007/2009 through which the mutual defence clause entered EU law. Before that there wasn't any such provision, apart from a similar clause in the Western European Union, which itself predates the European Union.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
Click to expand...

Having a NATO NFZ does not really mean a nuclear war, it just means an NFZ. It's only a nuclear war if Russia escalates it in that direction, and if that happens it's not really Zelenskyy's fault. It just means that Putin is certified mad, if he isn't already.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
Click to expand...

Quoting huh? If he said those exact words I will delete my account. If he did not use those words you delete yours. After all, you put it in quotes and just doubled down so you must be telling the truth, right?
 
spiriticon said:
Having a NATO NFZ does not really mean a nuclear war, it just means an NFZ. It's only a nuclear war if Russia escalates it in that direction, and if that happens it's not really Zelenskyy's fault. It just means that Putin is certified mad, if he isn't already.
Click to expand...
A NATO NFZ absolutely means nuclear war. The White House knows this and most people who support Ukraine do, too. It's a declaration of war on Russia by the US (as a retired General just announced on NBC).
 
WI_Red said:
Quoting huh? If he said those exact words I will delete my account. If he did not use those words you delete yours. After all, you put it in quotes and just doubled down so you must be telling the truth, right?
Click to expand...
He invoked MLK and then asked for a NFZ within that context, switching "dream" for "need". A highly accurate paraphrase.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
A NATO NFZ absolutely means nuclear war. The White House knows this and most people who support Ukraine do, too. It's a declaration of war on Russia by the US (as a retired General just announced on NBC).
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. There are no nuclear weapons needed to maintain a NFZ. It just involves planes and conventional weaponry shooting each other down.

It's only ever a nuclear war if Putin chooses to have one.
 
spiriticon said:
No it doesn't. There are no nuclear weapons needed involved to maintain a NFZ. It just involves planes and conventional weaponry shooting each other down.

It's only ever a nuclear war if Putin chooses to have one.
Click to expand...
It's a declaration of war by one nuclear superpower upon another. You can tell yourself otherwise, but every competent military commentator knows it to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.