Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Do you think Stalin was also very guilty? Because he didn't surrender in 1941/1942?

Zelensky's position is actually analogous to HItler's, not Stalin's.  In that lIke Hitler, Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, never had a chance of winning the war, and so by 1942 really had an obligation to make peace on whatever terms could be made.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

OK, so you are now on my official list of crazy people. Back in the sin bin you go.

 

 

 

[seahawk]

39 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I agree that this is a pretty cheap war and the West definitely needs to take the long view to eventually defeat Russia, where I differ is in the Ukrainians fleeing in droves, we are past that stage, and they keep on fighting, so there's really no drivers that can make them collapse short of a battlefield disaster.

Personally I think moral would crumble when Western support is withdrawn. Because without it, the outlook is bleak. Where would they get weapons. what would the future be? A complete victory of Russia is mostly out of the question, but giving up the areas claimed by Russia would become increasingly attractive, especially with no chance at liberating those areas. But as I said, no western leader cares about Ukrainians, otherwise the war and the support would be very different.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

@glenn239 "LilPanda" and @Strannik (Russian in India) who claim they are for what they are and who.

I'm Canadian, lived in Ontario all my life.  I import products from overseas and sell them retail in the Ontario market.

[Strannik]

38 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Let me defend Zelensky here: with all negative aspects of his personality, he can't be accused of taking wrong decisions, since he is not decision maker. Even Putin with his "two step forward-one step backward" and lack of any proper timely decision making is tough leader when compared to Zelensky.

     War and peace decisions were taken not by Zelensky, and he was not in position to decide to "agreeing to be a neutral country". Interesting to note he promised to "sent Western partnhers to ass" in his TV series that made him President - but newer delivered in real life

 

There is an opinion that Zelensky from the Bakhmut time constantly meddles into military decisions for the political / PR purposes.  And lately is running a parallel GenShtab with Syrsky.  So not a pansy puppet, just an narcissistic actor who went too far and now can't stop.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Strannik

[glenn239]

33 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Not from you, who would have surrendered to anyone, of course. That's the gist of being a coward, it's always the fault of the victim, never the aggressor.

 I'm all for wars and violence when those wars make sense and are not stupid.  Problem is that Ukraine fails on both criteria.  It did not make sense.  It was stupid.  It should not have been fought.   I think from the way that Stuart, Sardaukar, Stefan, and yourself are lashing out, that the four of you are finally yourself starting to clue in on this fact, a shooting of the messenger type thing.   Can't help you with that one.

I see you do want to apologize for Zelensky.   Fuck that.  Zelensky is a big boy and he put on his big boy pants and made his big boy choices.  I think he's a stubborn idiot, a typical modern spoiled brat who would rather burn everything down around him than make distasteful compromises.,  He has gotten hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in what was a dangerous situation, but also an avoidable war. 

After it's done, I wonder if he will have the moral conviction to go down fighting?   I suspect he does not, that he'll do the Kabul Boogie and live out his life in luxury writing books, while those hundreds of thousands of kids he press ganged into the front line without training or equipment will still be dead. 

But we'll see.  Maybe he'll surprise me on that one.

[RETAC21]

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

 I'm all for wars and violence when those wars make sense and are not stupid.  Problem is that Ukraine fails on both criteria.  It did not make sense.  It was stupid.  It should not have been fought.   I think from the way that Stuart, Sardaukar, Stefan, and yourself are lashing out, that the four of you are finally yourself starting to clue in on this fact, a shooting of the messenger type thing.   Can't help you with that one.

I see you do want to apologize for Zelensky.   Fuck that.  Zelensky is a big boy and he put on his big boy pants and made his big boy choices.  I think he's a stubborn idiot, a typical modern spoiled brat who would rather burn everything down around him than make distasteful compromises.,  He has gotten hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in what was a dangerous situation, but also an avoidable war. 

After it's done, I wonder if he will have the moral conviction to go down fighting?   I suspect he does not, that he'll do the Kabul Boogie and live out his life in luxury writing books, while those hundreds of thousands of kids he press ganged into the front line without training or equipment will still be dead. 

But we'll see.  Maybe he'll surprise me on that one.

Kind of funny that someone that never had the balls to put his life on the line has such strong opinions about one that could have run away to that life of luxury, but instead remained at his post and puts his life at risk daily.

Underlines that freedom is a privilege for which few pay but plenty waste, I guess.

Not a word about Putin, which pretty much show where your morals lie, always with the aggresor, never with the weak.

[glenn239]

20 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Kind of funny that someone that never had the balls to put his life on the line has such strong opinions about one that could have run away to that life of luxury, but instead remained at his post and puts his life at risk daily.

Life of luxury, never been in battle, very strong opinions, remains at his post far from danger.  All sounds like Zelensky to me.

Quote

Not a word about Putin, which pretty much show where your morals lie, always with the aggressor, never with the weak.

I don't care about Putin either.   I do wonder on him if he'd do the Kabul Boogie to Beijing.  Probably. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by glenn239

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

No, it's really ultra-cheap. You see, that "cheap" energy put Germany in Putin's pocket, which is why there was so much hesitance about supporting Ukraine initially, but the "Appeasement of the West party" couldn't pull back after messing the initial invasion and it forced Germany to switch away from Russian energy, at which point, and after a short period of adjustment, it's business as usual again, except, no Russian influence (which extends to cybersecurity, weapons trade and other areas).

I'm sorry to note there are conflicting messages in your post: you start with ""cheap energy put Germany in Putin's pocket" (simple form of saying "ability of German economy to complete on global market was strongly related with steady supply of cheap energy") and then say that without this energy "after a short period of adjustment, it's business as usual again". This statements can't be both true at the same time: if "it's business as usual again" - then the meaning is generations of German political and business leaders were so stupid they were not able to understand they actually do not need Russian energy, and all the troubles of establishing access to this energy (going back to 1970th deals with USSR, actually) were all in vain. And if ""cheap energy put Germany in Putin's pocket" message is true, it can't be "business as usual agai after short period of adjustment". So you have to choose one of this messages to be true, not both of them.

I am not a economic expert, not even living in Germany, so not in a position to judge. Here is one of alternative opinions from alternative media

 

four month later seems like making the way to MSM

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[Perun]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

With all my respect to your valuable input,  what made you think i should care what you are waiting for? Please let me advise you to focus on your MSM, they will provide you with steady inflow of victory news and tales of "minorities and convicts". No need for troubling reading of opinions that are not in line with this idilic picture.....

Whay are you responding to his message, he is drunk again

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

As for the "alliance" with China, well, as Sardaukar sez, it's like the Russians are now Chinese serfs because China will do fine without Russia but Russia cannot go on without Chinese markets and industry. Total success!

  First: Could you please remind me how many Chineese football clubs were bought by Russians, using money stiolen from Russia? How many cruiser-size yachts constructed for Russian oligarchs by Chineese? How many superexpencive palaces bought in Beijing or Shanghai? How many kids of Russian officials indoctrinated in Chineese schools? How many Russian criminals finding safe haven in China? How often are Russian "opposition leaders" meeting Ambassador of China? How many NGOs sponsored by China?

Second: You are trying to say cooperation with China is bad for Russia. Let's assume for a moment it is true and now "Russians are now Chinese serfs". Could you please explain me in what way it is making situation better for West? You said China now got extra 150 mln of people ans natural resources of 1/6th of land surface. Is it exactly the result West could be happy about in their attempts to "contain China"?

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Just stop and think about what you have wrote. "Rebels" (who are de-facto Russians who happened to live on wrong side of administrative border when their country was divided by Communist Party elites along artificial administrative borders, and wanted basic rights in what became Ukraine - but were clamped down by post-Maidan Kiev Gov with regular Army) were only "supported" by Russia  - while in fact Russian leadership was obligated to step in to support them with armed force. This "heavy support" was too little to late (as it is common practice of "collective Putin")  and was mostly demoinstration to calm down public anger in Russia. No surprise in it, as this "rebels" for obvious reasons were not happy about comprador pro-Western elite of Russia, so it was logical for Russian leadership to strangle support for this people who are their political opponents to say mildly. This choking off almost succeeded - bringing "rebels" (who are Russians who wanted to become part of Russia again)  "on the cusp of losing" (meaning: thousands of Russians were killed, Russian cities reoccupied by Kiev forces). Quite logicaly public anger inside Russia was growing, and at certain point comprador Gov of Russia decided that something have to be done to calm down this moods - so they have finally stepped in with token force to prevent final collapse of resistance. But since ultimate goal of Russian Gov was to return to their colonial administration status for West - they have agreed to Minsk plan that was, in short "push the regions back to Ukraine - but slowly and in a way Russian public would not notice". But even this slow return was not enough for West - as they were in need of military defeat of Russia to remove pro-Western Gov of Russia (to replace it with Gov directly subordinated to West). And Western leaders were allready planning this big war when signing Minsk. No majic, everything is simple.

It was an internal Ukraine problem that Russia directly involved its military in, and still an invasion any way you cut it. Minsk was a treaty forced on Ukraine in response to that Russian invasion.

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, Perun said:

Whay are you responding to his message, he is drunk again

There is a saying in Russian "Что у трезвого на уме - то у пьяного на языке"  ("Drunk person is saying what he is thining when sober"). So actually it is not so unreasonable to talk to drunk  - it helps to understand his deep motives and thought process.

[Roman Alymov]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

It was an internal Ukraine problem that Russia directly involved its military in, and still an invasion any way you cut it. Minsk was a treaty forced on Ukraine in response to that Russian invasion.

At what point mass killing of Russians is not Russia's problem? 

P.S. Let me quote from Col Kvachkov (famous for his attempt to assacinate Chubais, the most hated man of Russia - and long-time ally of Putin):

"Citizen Putin!
On March 15, 2015, exactly one year after the long-awaited reunification of Crimea with Russia, you stated the following, quote:

"We acted in the interests of the Russian people and the whole country. To change it for money, to change people for some benefits, for the possibility of some contracts, bank transfers - this is absolutely unacceptable. If we allow ourselves to act in such a logic, we will lose everything, we will lose the whole country," you said then, and it is difficult to disagree with this.

In 2014, not only Crimea, but also the whole of Novorossiya rebelled against the coup in Kiev as part of the Russian Spring, and this, in addition to Crimea, is another 8 regions of the former Ukraine. However, you took advantage of the decision of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation to send troops only to Crimea, and you did not send troops to the rest of the regions of Novorossiya, and, in fact, threw the inhabitants of these 8 regions into the hands of armed and, most importantly, organized Bandera punishers.

What guided you when you decided to save only the Russians of Crimea, and not the whole of Novorossiya? Is it obvious to you now that in 2014 you exchanged the Russians of Novorossiya for benefits, some contracts and bank transfers? And what did Swiss President Burghalter tell you on May 7, 2014, after which you asked the residents of Donbass not to hold a referendum and negotiate with the junta in Kiev?" ( https://t.me/donbass_skripnik/11912 )

Edited December 14, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[RETAC21]

12 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm sorry to note there are conflicting messages in your post: you start with ""cheap energy put Germany in Putin's pocket" (simple form of saying "ability of German economy to complete on global market was strongly related with steady supply of cheap energy") and then say that without this energy "after a short period of adjustment, it's business as usual again". This statements can't be both true at the same time: if "it's business as usual again" - then the meaning is generations of German political and business leaders were so stupid they were not able to understand they actually do not need Russian energy, and all the troubles of establishing access to this energy (going back to 1970th deals with USSR, actually) were all in vain. And if ""cheap energy put Germany in Putin's pocket" message is true, it can't be "business as usual agai after short period of adjustment". So you have to choose one of this messages to be true, not both of them.

I am not a economic expert, not even living in Germany, so not in a position to judge. Here is one of alternative opinions from alternative media

Not contradictory at all, there are multiple factors that play into how competitive a economy is, and energy is just one of them, so an increase in the price of energy will impact the ability to sell German products in principle, but then you must take into account these increase is across the board, so not only Germany is impacted, but the whole global economy (remember India was/is buying cheap Russian oil and then selling it at market prices, pocketing the difference).

Putin certainly played the fears of Germans being cut off from Russian energy ("in their pocket") but when those fears didn't materialise ("Germany didn't freeze over"), the economy took a small hit and then went back to normal ("business as usual"), your youtubers are confusing (or you are interpreting) a minor slow down (-0.3% growth in 2023, set to go back to growth next year) as the apocalypse, but if Russia didn't collapse under sanctions, much less Germany.

[Roman Alymov]

Video of low-flying Su-25 luckily avoiding Grad MLRS salvo https://t.me/fighter_bomber/15033

[RETAC21]

12 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

  First: Could you please remind me how many Chineese football clubs were bought by Russians, using money stiolen from Russia? How many cruiser-size yachts constructed for Russian oligarchs by Chineese? How many superexpencive palaces bought in Beijing or Shanghai? How many kids of Russian officials indoctrinated in Chineese schools? How many Russian criminals finding safe haven in China? How often are Russian "opposition leaders" meeting Ambassador of China? How many NGOs sponsored by China?

Second: You are trying to say cooperation with China is bad for Russia. Let's assume for a moment it is true and now "Russians are now Chinese serfs". Could you please explain me in what way it is making situation better for West? You said China now got extra 150 mln of people ans natural resources of 1/6th of land surface. Is it exactly the result West could be happy about in their attempts to "contain China"?

Fight the war without selling any resources to China or buying any electronics from them and tell me how it goes. 

[RETAC21]

8 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

At what point mass killing of Russians is not Russia's problem? 

For starters, they weren't Russians, but Ukrainians. Different nationality, not Russia's problem.

[Roman Alymov]

2 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

For starters, they weren't Russians, but Ukrainians. Different nationality, not Russia's problem.

That is exactly what Russian liberals are saying (by pure coincidence, significant part of this liberals are ethnic Jews). Pro-Russian responce usually is "There are no second-sort Russians". By the way why Tatars or Chechens or Buryats are Russians, while "Ukrainias" are not?

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Zelensky's position is actually analogous to HItler's,

Because Zelensky gave the Ukrainian army the order to invade Russia to conquer Russia?

[RETAC21]

1 minute ago, Roman Alymov said:

That is exactly what Russian liberals are saying (by pure coincidence, significant part of this liberals are ethnic Jews). Pro-Russian responce usually is "There are no second-sort Russians". By the way why Tatars or Chechens or Buryats are Russians, while "Ukrainias" are not?

Why Tatars or Chechen cannot be Russians? well, that's the reason why Ukrainians are not Russians, they don't want to and Russia agreed they weren't.

[Roman Alymov]

7 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Fight the war without selling any resources to China or buying any electronics from them and tell me how it goes. 

Could you please point out ANY country on this planet that could totally avoid having business with China (not even at war)? Are you sure the device you are writing this message from is free of Made in China components? Is your local Internet connection and  electric grid free or them? And so on...  

[Strannik]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

It was an internal Ukraine problem that Russia directly involved its military in, and still an invasion any way you cut it. Minsk was a treaty forced on Ukraine in response to that Russian invasion.

So what. Serbia/Kosovo was internal.

Libya was internal and not even in Europe.

I guess it's too much to expect your side to be consistent.  Must be how that rules based order works. 

Sorry, used to work.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

I import products from overseas

Probably from Russia. Because of old relationships?

[Roman Alymov]

Just now, RETAC21 said:

Why Tatars or Chechen cannot be Russians? well, that's the reason why Ukrainians are not Russians, they don't want to and Russia agreed they weren't.

US South did not wanted to be US anymore - still, now they are. Re "and Russia agreed they weren't" - not Russia but comprador post-Soviet elite did.