Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Gary]

I never recall this pace of advance in Urban areas by Russia.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820769802954166744

 

[Gary]

There's no escaping from Zelensky's war

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820756242496725329

 

[Gary]

If this is true, then the depopulation of Ukraine is working.

If I'm Putin, I only want their land, not their people. It's best for this practice to continue.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820622733148901388

 

[contricusc]

In just 2 years the Russian military are able to deep strike Ukrainian planes in their bases, even though the UkrAF has implemented ACE (Agile Combat Employment) tactics, while its UMPK bombs wreck havoc on Ukrainian lines, even though just 2 years ago, this kind of capability was basically non-existent

I agree that Russia improved its capabilities during the war, as combat experience always plays a role. They are now using drones quite successfully and have improved their targeting capabilities.

But the same things are true for the Ukrainians as well. They also have new capabilities, and are now constantly striking inside Russia proper with their domestic produced drones, which didn’t happen in the first year of the war.

For Russia, I see it as a big humiliation that they are in the position where a former colony is able to constantly strike targets on their own territory.

No great power has faced such humiliation after WW2.

There's no denying that Desert Storm will go into the annals of military history in glory. But that thing is 30+ years ago. There's no guarantee that the Americans could somewhat repeat that kind of overwhelming success, especially in the age of great power competition.

Of course there is no guarantee that they would be able to pull such a success again, but there is also no reason to believe otherwise. So far, the US has been able to strike any target it wanted, whenever it wanted. Their strike capabilities are unmatched.

As for Ukraine, it is the most important Russian land, outside of Russia itself. So if NATO would try to portray this as a loss, it's of no use, because it's worth it to have those 2 enter NATO while liberating Ukraine.

I would consider it dumb, if Putin didn't go with military operation. Because the longer it takes, the more ready Ukraine is and the higher chance that they will integrate more into the West.

The thing is, Ukraine was 100% under Putin’s thumb when Putin took office in Russia. But during his reign he managed to somehow lose this “most important Russian land outside Russia itself” in the favor of the West.

His grand strategy and geopolitical craft was proven disastrous in the face of the European Union, which peacefully expanded to the East, taking countries that used to be under the Soviet Union’s influence in the past.

Putin didn’t take power two years ago. He didn’t start with a rebelious Ukraine. He lost Ukraine during his leadership, because he was a bad leader. He lost the peace, and thought that he could win the war, but in the end this war will be his downfall and will transform Russia into a thrid grade power, isolated from the global economy and with a pariah status like Iran.

The longer the war drags, the weaker Russia becomes. And don’t forget that Russia could see a similar scenario happening in Belarus as well, since people have seen how Russia treats its “friends”. The average Belarusians would surely prefer to enjoy the freedoms and economic prosperity of the EU, like their Polish neighbors do. It is just a question of time before they find the courage to topple their dictator in another Maidan moment.

 

[Soldier30]

The strikes of kamikaze drones "Lancet" in Ukraine are shown quite often. The operators use the Russian kamikaze drone "Lancet-52", officially called "Product 52", this is the first, junior version of the drone that appeared in the Russian troops. Now kamikaze drones "Lancet-52" are able to independently target the target at the final stage of the flight, at the moment the drones "Lancet" are invulnerable to electronic warfare, there are no cases of their interception. Details of the use of drones "Lancet" in Ukraine in the video.

 

[blackjack]

>sent jets
>no pilots
>recruit pilots
>old retired F-16 pilots don't sign up (hypothetically)
>recruits an autist with 1000+ hours in DCS F-16 instead
Wonder how that's going to work out.

If they are getting supplied with AIM-120Bs, they shouldn't send the F-16s at all. AIM-9X does not help either https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/08...-air-missiles-for-ukraines-new-f-16-fighters/

The Aim-120B is like rated at 20+ miles. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/The-Book/Enlisted-Ranks/igphoto/2000424178/ or other sources suggest 50kms, The Aim-9X range is lower and in 2017 I heard the missile couldn't hit a Syrian Su-22 that they just switched to targeting the aircraft with AMRAAMs missile instead so I am assuming the issue is resolved? I heard over 5000 of these missiles were produced so I guess it would make sense to stockpile the Ukrainians with them.
Using these aircrafts in Ukraine to combat Russian aircraft would be the equivalent of sending a conscript with a pistol in the open field to shoot a sniper rifleman or a drone operator.

Hard to compare air to air missile technology, but I think I found a perfect example.

RVV-MD2

AIM-9X Block 2.

AIM-9X Block 3

Summary
R-73 30kms, R-37M 40kms, RVV-MD2 50kms, AIM-9X ball parked at 20 miles, and Block 3 if it wasn't cancelled would have a 60% increase range which would put it at 32 miles or 51.5 kilometers. But the RVV-MD designations are for export and considering that was a brochure from an export their domestic version K-74M2 might have better sensors and maybe range than the RVV-MD2. The biggest ooohhh and ahhhhh was that these missiles have 360 degree target engagement meaning if an enemy aircraft was flying behind an F-35 or Su-57 that if both aircraft see that enemy aircraft from behind the missile would get fired and do a 180 degree spin to go hit the enemy aircraft. The Block 2 was capable of doing this and production for that hit in 2015, the Russians only attained this sensor ability in 2023 was when the production for the RVV-MD2 and K-74M2 began. However the K-74M2 is more than worthy because of its range with better sensor capabilities that basically put as a Block 3 AIM-9X because of its range and the block 3 got cancelled for the US. Recent sales of block 2 AIM-9X were sold to Japan and South Korea which suggests the US has better variations of F-16s and block 2s to offer to Ukraine but I guess that wont happen while it is very possible that the K-74M2 alone out ranges the AIM-120B and definitely the AIM-9X.

R-37 would be overkill, K-37M would be overkill, R-77 and R-77-1 would be overkill, K-77M with 193km range and the ramjet version which would have a longer range that got test fired awhile back with the Su-57 in October 2020 would be overkill. https://lenta.ru/news/2023/08/30/su57/?ysclid=lua6b6swlp738132269 The citing of a 110km range used for Su-57 suggests R-77-1 110km range and since 300km missiles like the R-37 existed in the 1990s where the mig-31 scored a near 300km kill shot against an aerial target suggests it could be the R-77 ramjet version which would be considered overkill. Any number of mig-31s, su-27s, su-30s, su-35s, su-57s(20 something aircraft) would be overkill using these missiles.
Russians have loved boasting about their R-37 fucking up Ukrainian aircraft on online Russian news sources and with recent news of F-18s being used to fire SM-6 missiles suggest the US might not have a solution for Ukraine to deal with these missiles yet in aerial engagement. US has decent amount of air to air missile projects but not even supplying Ukraine with AIM-120C/Ds suggest they are dong it just for a goodwill gesture for the public despite most of the public not knowing how shit the B version is.

 

[Gary]

I agree that Russia improved its capabilities during the war, as combat experience always plays a role. They are now using drones quite successfully and have improved their targeting capabilities.

But the same things are true for the Ukrainians as well. They also have new capabilities, and are now constantly striking inside Russia proper with their domestic produced drones, which didn’t happen in the first year of the war.

For Russia, I see it as a big humiliation that they are in the position where a former colony is able to constantly strike targets on their own territory.

No great power has faced such humiliation after WW2.

1. I am Indonesian, if Russia is humiliated, that's their problem.
2. The Ukrainians sure does plenty access to the latest Western smart weaponry, but it seems their most important assets, their men, are getting dumber. They just launched an assault into Kursk while having manpower problem in Donbass. Even Tatarigami calls this a mental disability.
3. Which makes me think that the AFU is just another ANA

The thing is, Ukraine was 100% under Putin’s thumb when Putin took office in Russia. But during his reign he managed to somehow lose this “most important Russian land outside Russia itself” in the favor of the West.

His grand strategy and geopolitical craft was proven disastrous in the face of the European Union, which peacefully expanded to the East, taking countries that used to be under the Soviet Union’s influence in the past.

Putin didn’t take power two years ago. He didn’t start with a rebelious Ukraine. He lost Ukraine during his leadership, because he was a bad leader. He lost the peace, and thought that he could win the war, but in the end this war will be his downfall and will transform Russia into a thrid grade power, isolated from the global economy and with a pariah status like Iran.

The longer the war drags, the weaker Russia becomes. And don’t forget that Russia could see a similar scenario happening in Belarus as well, since people have seen how Russia treats its “friends”. The average Belarusians would surely prefer to enjoy the freedoms and economic prosperity of the EU, like their Polish neighbors do. It is just a question of time before they find the courage to topple their dictator in another Maidan moment.

Putin comes into power inheriting a broken and dysfunctional country and society. He spent his early years trying to make things up and patch holes as well as getting rid of potential domestic political foe, many of which has allegiance to outside power (The West).

During this time, the former Soviet colony of Poland, Czechia, Romania, Bulgaria, The Baltic Three and many more opted to join NATO. Georgia under Saakhasvilli were close into joining this club, but Putin stopped them at their tracks in 2008. Then in the 2010s, the Maidan erupted.

So its something like this

1999-2000s : Consolidating power, getting rid of oppositions and potential Western mole"
2008 : First blood, war in Georgia
2011 : Declare open support for faraway ally (Syria)
2013 : Maidan erupts, Russia lost it's man in Ukraine
2014 : Russia take over Crimea
2015 : Intervene in Syria
2020 : Prevent the toppling of Lukashenko by Western agitation
2022 : Launch the full scale security operation in Ukraine

As you can see, half of his time is busy dealing with internal opposition and saving his allies, he lose control of Ukraine while busying himself with the internal affairs of the state.

A good statesmen knows that they must go kinetic once certain red lines are crossed and when Kyiv, a long time subordinate of Russia, decided that they want to switch side with the enemy. Crimea is taken away from their hands as warnings.

But it seems that Kyiv didn't get the memo. In 2018, they made it LAW, to be part of NATO, the longtime bitter enemy of Moscow. And the next thing we know, Ukraine lose most of Donbass, while its population flee en masse.

This is not only a good statesmanship by Putin, I consider it excellent. If Yeltsinn is still around, than Ukraine would've join NATO and the EU long time ago, no problem. Now Ukraine is losing, it will be another test of Putin statesmanship to navigate Russia through Western hostility in Ukraine until victory is achieved. Right now, it's bleak for Ukraine, let's see what Putin has in store for the next round.

 

[Gary]

1999-2000s : Consolidating power, getting rid of oppositions and potential Western mole"
2008 : First blood, war in Georgia
2011 : Declare open support for faraway ally (Syria)
2013 : Maidan erupts, Russia lost it's man in Ukraine
2014 : Russia take over Crimea
2015 : Intervene in Syria
2020 : Prevent the toppling of Lukashenko by Western agitation
2022 : Launch the full scale security operation in Ukraine

By far, IMO, the greatest statesmen in Eastern Europe for quite some time.

 

[UkroTurk]

On August 3, 2024, Ukrainian attack on Crimea highly likely resulted in the sinking of russian Rostov-na-Donu Kilo-class submarine. Whilst the attack came in conjunction with a series of drone strikes, the attack in Sevastopol highly likely used the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), according to the UK Defense Intelligence.

The UK Defense Intelligence Analyzes the Attack on Sevastopol, the Rostov-na-Donu Submarine Sinking Won’t Make any Difference | Defense Express

The strike does highlight the increasing risks to russian forces in Crimea

en.defence-ua.com

 

[UkroTurk]

The Australian Army has written off the last American M1A1 Abrams tanks in service, which in theory could be transferred to Ukraine, writes Defense Express.

“In this case, we are talking about the decommissioning of precisely those vehicles for which Ukraine previously voiced a public request to Australia about possible transfer to the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” the publication says.

Австралія списує свої останні M1A1 Abrams, які раніше вже просила Україна | Defense Express

Схоже, що в "Зеленого континенту" вивільнюється певна кількість танків, які в теорії можуть бути передані Україні

defence-ua.com

 

[MaciekRS]

I wonder if Ukrainians will be able to capture and stay in Sudzha.
Looks like a solid attack with few brigades

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821172585163374976

 

[contricusc]

This is not only a good statesmanship by Putin, I consider it excellent. If Yeltsinn is still around, than Ukraine would've join NATO and the EU long time ago, no problem. Now Ukraine is losing, it will be another test of Putin statesmanship to navigate Russia through Western hostility in Ukraine until victory is achieved. Right now, it's bleak for Ukraine, let's see what Putin has in store for the next round.

You have no idea what good statesmanship is if you admire Putin. He is an utter failure.

A country with the resources of Russia should have had the standard of living of Canada or Norway, if it was led by a good leader for two decades. Instead, Russia is becoming poorer, it is engaged in a useless war with a former friend and it is becoming an international pariah state. These are the achievements of the most incompetent type of leaders, like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. If Russia didn’t have nukes, Putin would have ended in the same way like the two, this is how stupid and incompetent he is.

As the leader of the country with the “second most powerful” military in the world, he managed to have a border town invaded by the Ukrainians yesterday. This is a post WW2 record, when the territory of a great power is under assault from the military of a smaller country. It gets more humiliating for Putin with every month of the war.

 

[contricusc]

I wonder if Ukrainians will be able to capture and stay in Sudzha.
Looks like a solid attack with few brigades

That would be amazing if they manage to hold it.

Even he attempt itself is a world record, in the sense that never since WW2 a country considered “great power” has had their border breached by the military of a much smaller and weaker country.

Ukraine keeps humiliating Russia, and capturing a Russian settlement would be the icing on the cake.

 

[Gary]

You have no idea what good statesmanship is if you admire Putin. He is an utter failure.

A country with the resources of Russia should have had the standard of living of Canada or Norway, if it was led by a good leader for two decades. Instead, Russia is becoming poorer, it is engaged in a useless war with a former friend and it is becoming an international pariah state. These are the achievements of the most incompetent type of leaders, like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. If Russia didn’t have nukes, Putin would have ended in the same way like the two, this is how stupid and incompetent he is.

The average Westerners (and you ARE average btw) mind couldn't fathom that outside of the Western Hemisphere, life of a statesmen is a constant battle between:

1. Running a state
2. Stay independent

There are many case of 'Wealthy' countries in the world that built their wealth by being subordinate of the West. Take the UAE for example.

If Wealth is the ultimate goal, than be like the average Gulf Arabs : Host US bases which ultimate goal is fighting fellow Arabs (and defend Israel) and live a life of Irony where one Arabs lives like an emperor (Saudis), while fellow Arabs in neighboring countries lived hardships after hardships (Palestinians, Syrians). It's actually very easy to be part of this club, you don't have to be special, nor you must have Bismarck like cunningness.

The likes of Gaddafi actually (he's a Secularist so I naturally hate him, but I'll give credit where it is due) Is a successful leader, because he manages to lift Libyans out of Poverty (they're actually having a very high standard of life before 2011) while maintaining independence from the West. And not many people are successful in that endeavor.

Soekarno of Indonesia for example while maintaining Independence outside the West, were doing that at the detriment of Indonesians quality of life.

I mean it's not like becoming 'poor' is somewhat Putin's own doing, The Russian empire in its various iterations has always been associated with "The empire of poor people"

For Putin, everything is thrown against him, he have to :

1. Survive Russia's lawless domestic politics and power struggle
2. Manage friends and enemies close
3. Run a state
4. Go bring this state and face off against the might of the West in Ukraine

And from the look of it he's winning. Kudos to him I guess?

As the leader of the country with the “second most powerful” military in the world, he managed to have a border town invaded by the Ukrainians yesterday. This is a post WW2 record, when the territory of a great power is under assault from the military of a smaller country. It gets more humiliating for Putin with every month of the war.

Ukraine send a brigade size unit there, and guess what Tatarigami (an active officer in the AFU) said about that ? : Borders mental instability

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820827921755333092

and this what BILD editor says about that

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820845246948766089

 

[contricusc]

There are many case of 'Wealthy' countries in the world that built their wealth by being subordinate of the West. Take the UAE for example.

Actually there are not that many countries that achieved this, but there are some, and the UAE is the best example. I consider the UAE leaders to be some of the best statesman of the post WW2 world.

The UAE and Singapore are the examples I always use when it comes to good leadership, when small countries can hit far above their weight because of intelligent and visionary leaders.

Countries outside the West are free to become wealthy if they want to, but they have to be led by intelligent people.

If Wealth is the ultimate goal, than be like the average Gulf Arabs : Host US bases which ultimate goal is fighting fellow Arabs (and defend Israel) and live a life of Irony where one Arabs lives like an emperor (Saudis), while fellow Arabs in neighboring countries lived hardships after hardships (Palestinians, Syrians). It's actually very easy to be part of this club, you don't have to be special, nor you must have Bismarck like cunningness.

The average Gulf Arabs live a good life, because they had better leadership than their neighbors. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia are examples of successful countries because they had intelligent leaders.

But it is not their fault that their neighbors were led by stupid Putin-like leaders who caused war and poverty. The fact that Syria, Iraq, Iran or Yemen are in the current deplorable state is not the fault of the Gulf countries. It is their own fault. They could have hosted US military bases and be US allies too, and develop their countries using their oil exports, but instead they chose to just kill each other.

The likes of Gaddafi actually (he's a Secularist so I naturally hate him, but I'll give credit where it is due) Is a successful leader, because he manages to lift Libyans out of Poverty (they're actually having a very high standard of life before 2011) while maintaining independence from the West. And not many people are successful in that endeavor.

Gaddafi is the definition of a failed leader. He ended up murdered by his own people, leaving the country in civil war and destroyed at the end of his reign.

We have a very different perception of what great leadership means. I think a historical example of great leader is Octavian Augustus, while you think a great leader is Adolf Hitler. Both have left a big legacy behind them. One a legacy of development and success, while the other a legacy of destruction and ruin.

Soekarno of Indonesia for example while maintaining Independence outside the West, were doing that at the detriment of Indonesians quality of life.

You just gave another example of a bad leader. Why is it so important to mantain ”independence outside the West”, if the price for this is reduced development and quality of life?

Good leaders have integrated their countries in the Western world order and their countries have prospered from it. Bad leaders have opposed this order and have brought ruin and misery to their people.

You are a big admirer of all those bad leaders that have ruined their countries and kept their people in poverty (while they enjoyed Western luxuries), because you think that opposing the West for the sake of it is somehow noble. It is not. It is just stupid.

 

[Relic]

View attachment 69970
>sent jets
>no pilots
>recruit pilots
>old retired F-16 pilots don't sign up (hypothetically)
>recruits an autist with 1000+ hours in DCS F-16 instead
Wonder how that's going to work out.

If they are getting supplied with AIM-120Bs, they shouldn't send the F-16s at all. AIM-9X does not help either https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/08...-air-missiles-for-ukraines-new-f-16-fighters/
View attachment 69971
View attachment 69972
The Aim-120B is like rated at 20+ miles. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/The-Book/Enlisted-Ranks/igphoto/2000424178/ or other sources suggest 50kms, The Aim-9X range is lower and in 2017 I heard the missile couldn't hit a Syrian Su-22 that they just switched to targeting the aircraft with AMRAAMs missile instead so I am assuming the issue is resolved? I heard over 5000 of these missiles were produced so I guess it would make sense to stockpile the Ukrainians with them.
Using these aircrafts in Ukraine to combat Russian aircraft would be the equivalent of sending a conscript with a pistol in the open field to shoot a sniper rifleman or a drone operator.

Hard to compare air to air missile technology, but I think I found a perfect example.

RVV-MD2

View attachment 69973

AIM-9X Block 2.

AIM-9X Block 3
View attachment 69974
Summary
R-73 30kms, R-37M 40kms, RVV-MD2 50kms, AIM-9X ball parked at 20 miles, and Block 3 if it wasn't cancelled would have a 60% increase range which would put it at 32 miles or 51.5 kilometers. But the RVV-MD designations are for export and considering that was a brochure from an export their domestic version K-74M2 might have better sensors and maybe range than the RVV-MD2. The biggest ooohhh and ahhhhh was that these missiles have 360 degree target engagement meaning if an enemy aircraft was flying behind an F-35 or Su-57 that if both aircraft see that enemy aircraft from behind the missile would get fired and do a 180 degree spin to go hit the enemy aircraft. The Block 2 was capable of doing this and production for that hit in 2015, the Russians only attained this sensor ability in 2023 was when the production for the RVV-MD2 and K-74M2 began. However the K-74M2 is more than worthy because of its range with better sensor capabilities that basically put as a Block 3 AIM-9X because of its range and the block 3 got cancelled for the US. Recent sales of block 2 AIM-9X were sold to Japan and South Korea which suggests the US has better variations of F-16s and block 2s to offer to Ukraine but I guess that wont happen while it is very possible that the K-74M2 alone out ranges the AIM-120B and definitely the AIM-9X.

R-37 would be overkill, K-37M would be overkill, R-77 and R-77-1 would be overkill, K-77M with 193km range and the ramjet version which would have a longer range that got test fired awhile back with the Su-57 in October 2020 would be overkill. https://lenta.ru/news/2023/08/30/su57/?ysclid=lua6b6swlp738132269 The citing of a 110km range used for Su-57 suggests R-77-1 110km range and since 300km missiles like the R-37 existed in the 1990s where the mig-31 scored a near 300km kill shot against an aerial target suggests it could be the R-77 ramjet version which would be considered overkill. Any number of mig-31s, su-27s, su-30s, su-35s, su-57s(20 something aircraft) would be overkill using these missiles.
Russians have loved boasting about their R-37 fucking up Ukrainian aircraft on online Russian news sources and with recent news of F-18s being used to fire SM-6 missiles suggest the US might not have a solution for Ukraine to deal with these missiles yet in aerial engagement. US has decent amount of air to air missile projects but not even supplying Ukraine with AIM-120C/Ds suggest they are dong it just for a goodwill gesture for the public despite most of the public not knowing how shit the B version is.

Lol I've been saying this very thread for months. Ukraine would be using their F-16s to fly top cover over their cities, tasked with intercepting Russian drones and cruise missiles. AIM-120B/C and AIM-9M are more than capable of completing said task, as has been proven by firing the same missiles from Ukraine's NASAMs systems.

Gradually, as an influx of pilots and airframes are introduced to the theater, the role of the F-16 will expand. They will be used to fire HARM anti-radiation missiles to their fullest capability in a "wild weasel" capacity. Later still, they'll be used to launch JDAMS against Russian "hard" targets. The intent was never to have F-16 engaging SU-35s in air-to-air dog fights. They can, however, stay in Ukraine's SAM net and act as a significant deterent to Russian CAS aircraft such as SU-25s and KA-52s. AIM-120Cs are MORE THAN CAPABLE of scoring kills on those airframes, while primarily fulfilling airborne air defense duties.

The West is well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the F-16 models that Ukraine has received with the MLU upgrade. These aircraft were never meant to get into standoff engagements with SU-34s and SU-35s. In a conflict between USA and Russia, the Americans would use low vis F-35s and F-22s to take advantage of Russia's awful airborne radars. Their R-37s would be virtually useless because the launch platforms from which they would normally be fired would be destroyed by modern AMRAAMs supported by far superior Western aircraft, with superior radars, that would allow the Americans to engage the SU model aircraft from ranges that far exceeded those of the Russians.

 

[Gary]

Actually there are not that many countries that achieved this, but there are some, and the UAE is the best example. I consider the UAE leaders to be some of the best statesman of the post WW2 world.

If playing it easy mode is the high standard of statesmanship then I'll give you this one time.

The UAE and Singapore are the examples I always use when it comes to good leadership, when small countries can hit far above their weight because of intelligent and visionary leaders.

Countries outside the West are free to become wealthy if they want to, but they have to be led by intelligent people.

Technically their model is only sustainable with the Americans preventing any major power surrounding them to impose their will. There's nothing very special from these two.

Once the American lose its ability to police the world, the very existence of these countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain icluded) is under a big question mark.

Russia meanwhile didn't need that kind of American assurance, nor do they actively finds ways to have one. There's simply no comparison between the brilliance of Putin and the circumstances he faced, with those country you mentioned.

The average Gulf Arabs live a good life, because they had better leadership than their neighbors. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia are examples of successful countries because they had intelligent leaders.

But it is not their fault that their neighbors were led by stupid Putin-like leaders who caused war and poverty. The fact that Syria, Iraq, Iran or Yemen are in the current deplorable state is not the fault of the Gulf countries. It is their own fault. They could have hosted US military bases and be US allies too, and develop their countries using their oil exports, but instead they chose to just kill each other.

The average Gulf Arabs have a good life, due to the fact that they are oil rich, and America didn't mess them up.

This is not the same with the likes of Iraq, Iran or Yemen who faces sanctions. Like I said, if wealth is the ultimate goal, then Putin whould've copied the Arab monarchs. But then again statesmanship is not always about Wealth and standard of life, sometimes it has something to do with showing grit and political superiority (like imposing your will on neighboring countries).

Gaddafi is the definition of a failed leader. He ended up murdered by his own people, leaving the country in civil war and destroyed at the end of his reign.

The Civil War is made possible by the West who actively assisted the rebels with air power. Now those rebels are fighting each other one by one and the country is destroyed.

Don't get me wrong am not a Gaddafi admirer, he is a Secularists while I am a Theocrat. But let's be honest here at least, it's the West who destroyed Libya.

We have a very different perception of what great leadership means. I think a historical example of great leader is Octavian Augustus, while you think a great leader is Adolf Hitler. Both have left a big legacy behind them. One a legacy of development and success, while the other a legacy of destruction and ruin.

I DO REALLY LIKE Octavian Augustus, but Putin isn't fighting his political wars while being the world's hegemon. He started from a low position, climb his way up, wrestle control from cities, to oblasts and finally make himself (although democratically elected) the supreme ruler of Russia. And now he's wrestling back Ukraine, the most important Russian land outside of Russia, and he is winning.

As much as you admire Augustus, you really have to give credit to Putin.

You just gave another example of a bad leader. Why is it so important to mantain ”independence outside the West”, if the price for this is reduced development and quality of life?

He is sort of a 'bad leader' ngl, am no fans of Soekarno. I merely put him as an example of how hard is it to achieve the two main problem of a statesmen outside of the West, namely :

1. Political Independence
2. Running the State

Some leaders are good at running No.2 but not No.1, others are good in running No.1 but not No.2.

Gaddafi, seems to be able to run 1 and 2 just fine until his downfall. Putin as well, even though not perfect.

Good leaders have integrated their countries in the Western world order and their countries have prospered from it. Bad leaders have opposed this order and have brought ruin and misery to their people.

You are a big admirer of all those bad leaders that have ruined their countries and kept their people in poverty (while they enjoyed Western luxuries), because you think that opposing the West for the sake of it is somehow noble. It is not. It is just stupid.

Do you know the Arab Kingdom, Palmyra ? It used to be a Roman Colony, but prosperous.

Now ask the Arab, do they identify with Palmyra or with the likes of Umayyads and Abbasids ?

Most of them will pride themselves as being descendant of those 2 and not Palmyra.

Does the Abbasids and Umayyads comes into fruition by Arabs becoming subservient to Rome ? The answer is NO. Those 2 are put into existence by the early Muslims (many of whom are hungry and poor) who subjugated Rome through wars.

If you want to be #1, be sure to be independent. Japan thinks that by befriending the West they could be #1. What they get is the lost decade. The West will give some wealth and prosperity, but they hold the leash.

The only way to defeat them is to collapse the order that they set, through political and military warfare. And Russia is doing its share right now in Ukraine.

 

[MaciekRS]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821202403120525403

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821195680049930297

And captured ruzzian soldiers

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821206519439909041

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821205314286330272

 

[Soldier30]

Footage of a strike by a Russian Iskander 9M723-K5 missile with a cluster warhead on a Ukrainian Buk-M1 air defense system in the Sumy region of Ukraine. The Buk-M1 air defense system was covering the entry of a Ukrainian armored group into the territory of the Kursk region of Russia. The first strike by an Iskander missile did not destroy the Buk-M1 air defense system, but the missiles launched spontaneously in the system. After the abnormal launch of the missiles, the crew of the Buk-M1 air defense system decided to hide in the forest. The start of the Buk-M1 air defense system movement can be seen after the spontaneous launch of the second missile. The movement of the air defense system was tracked by a Russian drone, after which a second strike was carried out at the location of the Ukrainian Buk-M1 air defense system, but with an Iskander missile with a conventional warhead. As a result of the strike by the Iskander missile, the Buk-M1 air defense system was destroyed.

 

[contricusc]

If playing it easy mode is the high standard of statesmanship then I'll give you this one time.

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.

Technically their model is only sustainable with the Americans preventing any major power surrounding them to impose their will. There's nothing very special from these two.

Once the American lose its ability to police the world, the very existence of these countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain icluded) is under a big question mark.

When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Russia meanwhile didn't need that kind of American assurance, nor do they actively finds ways to have one. There's simply no comparison between the brilliance of Putin and the circumstances he faced, with those country you mentioned.

Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.

The average Gulf Arabs have a good life, due to the fact that they are oil rich, and America didn't mess them up.

This is not the same with the likes of Iraq, Iran or Yemen who faces sanctions. Like I said, if wealth is the ultimate goal, then Putin whould've copied the Arab monarchs. But then again statesmanship is not always about Wealth and standard of life, sometimes it has something to do with showing grit and political superiority (like imposing your will on neighboring countries).

Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.

The Civil War is made possible by the West who actively assisted the rebels with air power. Now those rebels are fighting each other one by one and the country is destroyed.

Don't get me wrong am not a Gaddafi admirer, he is a Secularists while I am a Theocrat. But let's be honest here at least, it's the West who destroyed Libya.

It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.

He is sort of a 'bad leader' ngl, am no fans of Soekarno. I merely put him as an example of how hard is it to achieve the two main problem of a statesmen outside of the West, namely :

1. Political Independence
2. Running the State

Some leaders are good at running No.2 but not No.1, others are good in running No.1 but not No.2.

Gaddafi, seems to be able to run 1 and 2 just fine until his downfall. Putin as well, even though not perfect.

The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.

Do you know the Arab Kingdom, Palmyra ? It used to be a Roman Colony, but prosperous.

Now ask the Arab, do they identify with Palmyra or with the likes of Umayyads and Abbasids ?

Most of them will pride themselves as being descendant of those 2 and not Palmyra.

But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.

If you want to be #1, be sure to be independent. Japan thinks that by befriending the West they could be #1. What they get is the lost decade. The West will give some wealth and prosperity, but they hold the leash.

But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.

The only way to defeat them is to collapse the order that they set, through political and military warfare. And Russia is doing its share right now in Ukraine.

But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Russia will not be the new hegemon by doing what it is doing now. Even if it somehow manages to collapse the current world order, it will find itself in a much more difficult situation as the servant of China, which has a direct border with Russia and even teritorial claims.

For Russia, it would have been much smarter to play by the rules and become a wealthy developed Western country. But Putin chose to keep his country an “independent” sh!thole.