Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Dans said:
So, called out - fair enough and apologies to all.

The translation of the passage about contradictory to NATO assessment is this:

"The report also contradicts some of the statements made by NATO: According to a report by Business Insider magazine, the military alliance had stated that a technical error had prevented the S-300 rocket from self-destructing. That is why the rocket hit Polish terrain unchecked. However , Gazeta Wyborcza reported that the rocket exploded in mid-air after missing the target. The debris then hit just behind the Polish-Ukrainian border in the village of Przewodow."

I am guilty of not reading the article fully (as incredibly long as it was) and jumping to a conclusion based on the mini headline "Brisante Details widersprechen NATO".

I also am guilty of jumping to a conclusion based on the fact that Zelensky was so very adamant that it was a Russian rocket whereas all other parties refuted that and not being wholly unconvinced that it might not indeed be a false flag.
Click to expand...
Respect.
 
Dans said:
So, called out - fair enough and apologies to all.

The translation of the passage about contradictory to NATO assessment is this:

"The report also contradicts some of the statements made by NATO: According to a report by Business Insider magazine, the military alliance had stated that a technical error had prevented the S-300 rocket from self-destructing. That is why the rocket hit Polish terrain unchecked. However , Gazeta Wyborcza reported that the rocket exploded in mid-air after missing the target. The debris then hit just behind the Polish-Ukrainian border in the village of Przewodow."

I am guilty of not reading the article fully (as incredibly long as it was) and jumping to a conclusion based on the mini headline "Brisante Details widersprechen NATO".

I also am guilty of jumping to a conclusion based on the fact that Zelensky was so very adamant that it was a Russian rocket whereas all other parties refuted that and not being wholly unconvinced that it might not indeed be a false flag.
Click to expand...

You could have just ignored your mistake and moved on, but you owned up to it instead. So that's cool.
 
the hea said:
Click to expand...


This guy and his team are quite rigorous with their verifications, its all there on the website. His numbers are only those with published visual confirmations, so 2k+ actual lost tanks is a safe bet, within 9 months. Absolutely bonkers.
 
Simbo said:
This guy and his team are quite rigorous with their verifications, its all there on the website. His numbers are only those with published visual confirmations, so 2k+ actual lost tanks is a safe bet, within 9 months. Absolutely bonkers.
Click to expand...
I still can't wrap my head around this. It would probably take longer to scrap this amount of iron :lol:
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Adam Kinzinger rightfully called that cnut out for that tweet.

Click to expand...


People often forget that her idiotic tweets and media interviews are a fundraising grift. The more outragious the comment the more it animates the nutjobs who contribute money to donate.
 
The least he could've done prior to traveling was gotten some casual dress tips from Macron.

 
Raoul said:
The least he could've done prior to traveling was gotten some casual dress tips from Macron.

Click to expand...


Yep Britain knows lots about fighting for freedom. But most of their experience with it is from people fighting against them for their freedom though.
 
"the realists" fail to realise that people like putin don't think like "realists"
 
Beans said:
Strikes me as a traitor. His answers are garbage.

"The realist political scientist explains why Russia’s move to annex four Ukrainian provinces isn’t imperialism."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-putins-ambitions-after-nine-months-of-war
Click to expand...

I read a bit and he's blatantly lying in parts. 'Russia never intended to conquor all of Ukraine and that's why they aren't now'. Except they tried to capture Kiev failed and got pushed back. It obviously had nothing to do with intent. The interviewer is garbage for giving no push back.
 
M16Red said:
Is it? Why?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a serious question, but if it is. There's a thread on here dedicated to the British Empire. I don't want to be the cause of an off topic discussion in this thread. So let's stay on topic.
 
stevoc said:
Not sure if this is a serious question, but if it is. There's a thread on here dedicated to the British Empire. I don't want to be the cause of an off topic discussion in this thread. So let's stay on topic.
Click to expand...
Yet you were the one who posted the comment about the empire in this very thread :lol:
 
stevoc said:
Not sure if this is a serious question, but if it is. There's a thread on here dedicated to the British Empire. I don't want to be the cause of an off topic discussion in this thread. So let's stay on topic.
Click to expand...

It was a serious question, because didn't agree and wanted to understand your view.

But you are right, isn't the place
 
NotThatSoph said:
It was pretty accepted at the start of this war that Russia's goal was to storm Kyiv, depose the current government and install a puppet regime, no?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing he would say installing a puppet is different from conquering the land. But he's clearly being deceptive to me.
 
There’s no evidence that he was interested in conquering those four oblasts. The war started on February 24th. On February 21st, he gave a famous speech—this is three days before the war started—where he recognized the two oblasts in the Donbas. This is Donetsk and Lugansk. He recognized them as independent republics. So he was not interested in conquering that territory.
Click to expand...

This seems extremely weak.

Well, first of all, there’s no evidence that he had imperial ambitions before the war. He would have had to say that it was desirable. There would have to be evidence that he had said that it was desirable to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia. There would have to be evidence that he had said it was feasible. And there would have to be evidence that he had said that that was what he was doing. And there is no evidence to support any of those.
Click to expand...

Also this.

Yes. It may be that thirty years from now we unlock the archives and discover that there is massive evidence that he was an imperialist at heart. That is possible, but we do not have any evidence of that sort at this point in time. We have a huge amount of evidence that it was NATO expansion and the more general policy of making Ukraine a western bulwark on Russia’s border that motivated him to attack on February 24th.
Click to expand...

And this.

The end is hilarious. The interviewer is trying to get him to talk about his meeting with Orban, and he clearly doesn't want to. Obviously he knows it looks bad for him that Orban is tweeting about meeting him (how the #liberals are wrong).

He's not to be taken seriously any more, that's clear.
 
nimic said:
This seems extremely weak.



Also this.



And this.

The end is hilarious. The interviewer is trying to get him to talk about his meeting with Orban, and he clearly doesn't want to. Obviously he knows it looks bad for him that Orban is tweeting about meeting him (how the #liberals are wrong).

He's not to be taken seriously any more, that's clear.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to compare with what Putin said before the 08 invasion of Georgia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are recognised by Russia as independent states, but at least with South Ossetia the goal is to integrate it into Russia, so there's no necessary contradiction between recognising independence and having territorial ambitions. I have no idea what the pre-war rhetoric was like, though.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
I read a bit and he's blatantly lying in parts. 'Russia never intended to conquor all of Ukraine and that's why they aren't now'. Except they tried to capture Kiev failed and got pushed back. It obviously had nothing to do with intent. The interviewer is garbage for giving no push back.
Click to expand...

Yeah, was pretty obvious from the amount of troops and going for Kyiv that Russia initially wanted to occupy the whole country. Whether it would annex it or install a pro Russian government I don’t know. Then there was clearly a shift, can’t remember how long into the war, when the Russians changed strategy and spoke about just ‘liberating’ a few areas.
 
nimic said:
This seems extremely weak.



Also this.



And this.

The end is hilarious. The interviewer is trying to get him to talk about his meeting with Orban, and he clearly doesn't want to. Obviously he knows it looks bad for him that Orban is tweeting about meeting him (how the #liberals are wrong).

He's not to be taken seriously any more, that's clear.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He does have a point that Russia may not originally have wanted to conquer Ukraine, but just wanted to be able to control/predict it better by replacing the government by one that favours Russia (as @NotThatSoph said). But beyond that, his answers are generally weak logically, and he becomes evasive as soon as he gets a decent counterargument from the interviewer (who I think does a pretty good job). His comments about nuclear weapons in particular are very poor.

And yes, the ending is hilarious, clearly there's a skeleton in Mearsheimer's Hungary closet that he'd like to stay hidden.
 
AlPistacho said:
Yeah, was pretty obvious from the amount of troops and going for Kyiv that Russia initially wanted to occupy the whole country. Whether it would annex it or install a pro Russian government I don’t know. Then there was clearly a shift, can’t remember how long into the war, when the Russians changed strategy and spoke about just ‘liberating’ a few areas.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree here. 200,000 soldiers is not an occupation force for a country the size of Ukraine, it is an expedition force to achieve clearly defined limited goals (which most likely were ensuring a regime change happens that allows to integrate Ukraine much closer to Russia). The change you mention however has happened and since then Russia is trying to hold by force strategically valuable areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.