Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Roger said:
Boy you love your logical fallacies don't you? I am critical of NATO therefore I must have fallen victim to Russian propaganda. I don't need the Russian state or anyone else for that matter to convince me that the mainstream media are full of shit. I came to that conclusion well over 40 years ago. I am perfectly capable of caring about what happens in the world without choosing who's propaganda to swallow. Why? because it directly affects me and those around me. This war the weapons and funding being invested by the west is crippling the western economies of Europe. Food and energy shortages. Heat or eat is going to be the choice for millions of people in the UK.

I must admit to being impressed by your ability to see inside the heads of the majority of Russian people. Does this work with all people or just Eastern Europeans.
Click to expand...

What is the alternative? Do nothing?
 
onemanarmy said:
I think it's Paxi's second account.
Click to expand...

I wonder which organisations count as independent, because it takes 1 minute to find detailed descriptions of war crimes in Ukraine.
 
Roger said:
Boy you love your logical fallacies don't you? I am critical of NATO therefore I must have fallen victim to Russian propaganda. I don't need the Russian state or anyone else for that matter to convince me that the mainstream media are full of shit. I came to that conclusion well over 40 years ago. I am perfectly capable of caring about what happens in the world without choosing who's propaganda to swallow. Why? because it directly affects me and those around me. This war the weapons and funding being invested by the west is crippling the western economies of Europe. Food and energy shortages. Heat or eat is going to be the choice for millions of people in the UK.

I must admit to being impressed by your ability to see inside the heads of the majority of Russian people. Does this work with all people or just Eastern Europeans.
Click to expand...

And the alternative? Let the Ukrainian genocide occur? Oh wait lemme guess you don't think it's genocide either.


The government have capacity to do more to support the people, though thats the tories for you. Instead of trying to support the people, they're busy being 'ANTI WOKE' for votes.
 
Roger said:
Where have I ever trivialised Russian war crimes. I haven't. But don't let that stop you misrepresenting my position. Not a single war crime has been independently verified and before you jump in. Im not suggesting there hasn't been any. The only one that has been verified is the invasion itself. Are you seriously suggesting the NATO invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ( a war crime in of itself) are the civilians killed any less dead than the civilian dead in Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. Around 200, 000 civilian deaths following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of cluster bombs in heavily built up civilian areas in Yugoslavia. Aren't you doing the same thing that you're accusing me of trivialising civilian deaths. Or are the lives of white Europeans more valuable than the lives of Middle Eastern civilians.

I don't agree with what NATO are doing, therefore I must be supporting Russia or being taken in by Russian propaganda. This is a classic use of a logical fallacy. You roll the same fallacy out with your conclusion, that any questioning of NATOs motives cannot be tenable are must be delusional.

Of course NATO would not invade Russia to suggest that I believe that is utterly ridiculous. It doesn't matter a jot what I think. What matters is what the Russians, a country with a long bitter history of invasion think.
Click to expand...

Because what the NATO has done in those countries isn't as bad as what Russia is currently doing in Ukraine, that's why. Unless you can point me towards NATO commiting crimes similar to Bucha or turning Mariupol into rubble. Most civilian deaths in these conflicts stem from collateral damage. As despicable and relentless as the US has been, they were never targeting civilians and they try to pursue war crimes instead of honoring the soldiers committing them. And that aside, the Russian motives for invading Ukraine are much more sinister than those NATO had for invading Iraq or Afghanistan, like it or not. Even worse, you're mindlessly repeating the stupid excuses Putin has made up for people like you to feel smarter and on higher morale high ground than they are.

So yes, you're absolutely triviliazing the Russian war crimes in Ukraine because you're so desperately trying to point out hyprocrisy that you yourself became a hypocrite.
 
Raoul said:
Don't feed the trolls
Click to expand...

It's sage advice, I think the problem is that posters, me included, come into the conversation without realising all the previous trolling that has occured. It would be easy to give him a description thingy under his name though!
 
NicolaSacco said:
It's sage advice, I think the problem is that posters, me included, come into the conversation without realising all the previous trolling that has occured. It would be easy to give him a description thingy under his name though!
Click to expand...

Beyond that, all of his points are easily debunked and were done so earlier in the thread. Much better to discuss the day to day aspect of the war itself.
 
goalscholes said:
Bizarre how anyone thinks that Afghanistan wasn't a defensive operation.

NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.

The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.

If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.
Click to expand...
OK, Rumsfeld.
 
goalscholes said:
Bizarre how anyone thinks that Afghanistan wasn't a defensive operation.

NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.

The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.

If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.
Click to expand...

Its also odd to call it a NATO operation given that it was the US that invaded and deposed the Taliban. NATO came in afterwards because article 5 had been triggered following 9/11.
 
calodo2003 said:
They appear to be legit…

Click to expand...

To continue this little exposé on Ponomarev, here's Bellingcat's investigation from 2018 about a fake American expert (that had never existed), Ponomarev was one of those who vouched for him.
Ilya Ponomarev was one of several major boosters of Jewberg’s credibility. For example, in August 2016, he thanked Jewberg (archive) in a Facebook post for likening him (Ponomarev) to Pericles of Athens, in January 2017 tagged him in a Facebook post on NATO military capability.

Jewberg used Ponomarev’s endorsement to the fullest by reposting it and adding a lengthy story where he claims that he had met Ponomarev in person while working at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. This claim was endorsed by Ponomarev, who thanked Jewberg for the Facebook post.
Click to expand...
 
calodo2003 said:
So, in your opinion, is the NRA an actual entity?

e - completely missed your earlier reply to me!
Click to expand...
I'm not going to confidently state that they don't exist but going by the information that we have so far (and also judging by the reaction that Ponomarev's words met with experts that I trust), I'd be inclined not to trust him. At least until any further evidence comes up.
 
I believe that kind of action against the Dugins would not have been possible without the involvement of disgruntled people in high places, very probably in the FSB. That bears the trademark of other assassination attempts made by secret services in the past.
 
Jeez, just reading through the first 10 or so pages of this thread, from January. So many arguments and predictions made, with such authoritative certainty - almost all of which have been completely wrong. There's definitely a lesson in there about people overstating their own understanding of a complex situation. I haven't seen any of my posts so far, but i'd bet that when i do I'll also be in that group!
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
All the direct military comparisons look grim for the ability of the Ukrainians to hold out against a major Russian attack.

On the other side though the last attack came at a moment of real political weakness and turmoil inside Ukraine which had zero preparation for defence and while the west was distracted and caught of guard.

This attack would be met on very different terms and will take no one by surprise. Ukrainians have prepared and will fight asymmetrically where they can not hope to match the Russians directly.
I think they could look to strike at soft targets inside Russia or at Russian interest abroad to bring the war into Russian homes too.

The main problem for Ukrainian defence forces is the range and weight of Russian artillery and air support. There could be very large casualties on the Ukrainian side very early in the invasion which will test the moral of their army.

Russia holds all the strategic and tactical cards but wars are won by logistics and the current Russian army isn't the red army and will struggle to support large numbers of troops for long periods of time through a hostile country.

The west will/is supplying Ukraine faster and with better weapons earlier this time and it will give better intelligence information and support. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they hold out, bog the Russians down and win a longer war by attrition. This is what Putin should be very afraid of. I don't think he survives a bad war with tens of thousands of Russian casualties.
Click to expand...


I'm a good 250 posts into this thread and this is by FAR the most accurate prediction, well played sir!
 
Interview with a Russian soldier who fled. Pretty harrowing how they lived.

 
Is the war still currently happening? Or has it settled down a little bit. Not heard to much on this recently to be honest.
 
DJ_21 said:
Is the war still currently happening? Or has it settled down a little bit. Not heard to much on this recently to be honest.
Click to expand...
It's still happening but the front lines move slow and it has turned into an attrition war. Question is how long both countries can keep this going as it's draining on their resources. But we know from history that these kind of wars can go on for a long time.
 
VorZakone said:
I'm still somewhat surprised that a hit was made on the Dugins. According to most experts his influence on Putin was limited so he wasn't that important from a policy sense. So why was he a target? He just feels so random.

And a car bomb is quite the heavy method too.
Click to expand...

Classic FSB. Never afraid to sacrifice people for the greater good.
 
Wonder how Russia will use energy in their advantage...

 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
Wonder how Russia will use energy in their advantage...

Click to expand...

I’ve been saying it all long but large western countries continue to mess this up in the most dumbest way. Just go all in with the military support for Ukraine and end this quickly, instead they’re hoping the problems will solve themselves without any hard decisions.
 
Last edited:
Rajma said:
I’ve been saying it all long but large western countries continue to mess this up in the most dumbest way. Just go all in with the military support for Ukraine and end this quickly, instead they’re hoping the problems will solve themselves without any hard decisions.
Click to expand...

I don't think there can be a quick end unless Putin is overthrown. If NATO were to provide more destructive weapons, Putin, who will at all costs not want to be seen as on the cusp a humiliating loss, will be incentivized to use thermobaric weapons or WMDs. The NATO approach of slowly eroding Russia from within seems to be the most effective and least violent way to deal with this. Both NATO and the Ukrainians know this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.