Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[GoatsMilk]

There is no way for anyone to make Russia Completely irrelevant. The idea is to ruin the standard of living enough for their people for them to consider political change, and force them to spend far more money than they want to on defense, with NATO along the entirety of their border.

Russia has a declining population and this war is causing a brain drain of some its most capable people, who are fleeing the country to live somewhere with more freedoms and a better standard of living. Russia will naturally decline on its own and it will increasingly become a petro slave to India and China as they emerge. The West's land armies were largely created to blunt the Soviet / Russian threat. Right now we're getting the cheapest possible price to neuter Russia's ability to project power in Europe. We don't need Russia eliminated, we simply need them to be far inferior to NATO. This war is forcing them to burn through the arsenal that the Soviets and the Russians spent 40 years stockpiling. By the conclusion of the war their ability to invade any capable military power will be blunted for a generation. That's a win for NATO.

Remember, Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada. It's a huge country with 140,000+ million people (and declining) but it's seeing virtually no growth. It was counting on growing it's natural gas / oil relationships with the rest of Europe to help fund its growth. That's no more. Now it will increasingly rely on China and India to replace those exports and both of those countries will shrewedly exploit Russia, who needs them as buyers. Over the next decade, we're going to see Russia struggle, not thrive.

We're even starting to see the Russian pundits realize that this war is going horribly for them.

When it comes to Russian TV sometimes i wonder if what were seeing is Russian social engineering. We know these people are hand picked and the state has the final say on the message and ive seen too many videos now where one panellist basically points out the obvious reality, only to be shut down by the irrationality of the majority. Is this no more then state training, to condition the russian people to see the obvious reality and reason of their fellow russians as false and wrong? Basically conditioning the Russian people to see white as black and black as white? And also to portray the reality opinion as a fringe minority opinion?

The guy points out that at the peak of soviet power, it couldn't compete economically with the west. Today economically Russia is nothing compared to the west so its impossible to out compete them in terms of pouring material into Ukraine. I can't believe that all the other panellists around him are that dumb not see what he's saying. I mean when the host says Russia is more flexible today as if to suggest its better economically and industrially today then it was at the peak of soviet power, is outlandish. These are grown men, surely this has to be an act?

Then the thing about giving a town back, the guy says so your saying we lost thousands of soldiers to what give the town back? Basically pointing out how outlandish the statement is.

But i would hate to be a russian today who sees the reality, he must imagine his entire country has gone mad.

 

[Relic]

When it comes to Russian TV sometimes i wonder if what were seeing is Russian social engineering. We know these people are hand picked and the state has the final say on the message and ive seen too many videos now where one panellist basically points out the obvious reality, only to be shut down by the irrationality of the majority. Is this no more then state training, to condition the russian people to see the obvious reality and reason of their fellow russians as false and wrong? Basically conditioning the Russian people to see white as black and black as white? And also to portray the reality opinion as a fringe minority opinion?

The guy points out that at the peak of soviet power, it couldn't compete economically with the west. Today economically Russia is nothing compared to the west so its impossible to out compete them in terms of pouring material into Ukraine. I can't believe that all the other panellists around him are that dumb not see what he's saying. I mean when the host says Russia is more flexible today as if to suggest its better economically and industrially today then it was at the peak of soviet power, is outlandish. These are grown men, surely this has to be an act?

Then the thing about giving a town back, the guy says so your saying we lost thousands of soldiers to what give the town back? Basically pointing out how outlandish the statement is.

But i would hate to be a russian today who sees the reality, he must imagine his entire country has gone mad.

There is no doubt that that these segments are engineered by the the Russian State, but what's important to focus on is how the narrative evolves over time. As the Russian struggles in this conflict mount, the narrative shifts from confidence, to more of a conversation of "we can't actually compete". They're essentially planting the seeds of defeat in the minds of the population, preparing them for an eventual resolution to this conflict that isn't favorable to Russia. The narrative changes subtly, over time, so as not to be too obvious.

 

[Gary]

Why don't you broker that deal by giving up roughly 15-17% of Indonesia to Ukraine to compensate them for their lost territory, shipping ports, coast line, natural resources, etc. That would be an example of fanatstic deal brokering.

Yeah I must admit, his statement are not well thought for diplomatic missions.

While there are different standards of what “civilizied” means, there are some common concepts that are universal.

Living in peace, not stealing, murdering, raping, etc is the basis of being civilized. You ca’t call yourself civilized if you engage in such actions. These things are universal.

In the last few decades, Europeans started to live in a civilized way, in the sense that we no longer wage war against each other, try to steal territories or murder our neighbors.

Free travel is a sign of confidence in your neighbor. It means you trust him enough to be worthy of entering your country without additional checks.

Eureope has made huge progress when it comes to inter-country relations, and the Russian invasion is an insult to every sane European. This is why we will support Ukraine until it liberates its country and wins the war.

Waging war has nothing to do with being civilized. Being Civilized means being at an advanced stage of socio-cultural development, but nothing to do with waging violence, stealing (which is a vague term to begin with).

If 'not stealing' is your standard of what being civilized is, then please understand that the civilized world today's economy is based on the stealing of wealth by the rich from the poor (interests), yet the economy based of usury and interest is the adopted standard of economy of the 21st century 'civilized' men. Clearly your definition of stealing, killing etc is not a standard of a civilized nature.

War is just politics by other means ( Von Clausewitz) and unless the world stop doing politics altogether, then war is just as ethical as politicking. Mao Zedong summarize it clearly...

In fact there's no guarantee that the Russo-Ukraine war will be the last war on Earth and there's no guarantee that Romania for example, will not wage war somewhere in the future.

A state adapts to the strategic situation it finds itself in, and the course of action has multiple variables that leads into one. What Russia finds itself into is just a shit ton of variable combined with the failed calculation of Putin against the strength of his enemy vice versa his own, and his complete ignorance of what the combined strength of his enemy is capable of.

Nothing to do with being civilized. Waging war itself is part of an advanced stage of civilization. Because no country wage war unless it has at least a developed, military,economic and technological sector. And its even more true in the 20th and 21st century.

The more correct terms for your excuse is not being uncivilized, but being inhumane. Learn the difference.

 

[Gary]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664985138940329993

 

[Ryder]

Russians have themselves to blame they could have taken numerous steps to at least build a East Slavic world but instead botched it up with their usual bs of about how Ukrainians dont exist.

Then again Russians would not bother building or developing or using any kind of soft power.

 

[Gary]

Then again Russians would not bother building or developing or using any kind of soft power.

They don't have the necessary tools for soft power either. They don't produce smart phones, they don't produce gadgets that young people's around the world crave nor cars with brand power that executives ride and associated with, no pop culture that is exportable etc etc. What they have is a large stock of gas and that works with select countries like Germany to support the industry.

The lack of soft power and the ability to produce anything of importance after the collapse of the S.U is the prequisite of the Maidan which is basically a protest against the government cancelling economic opportunities with EU which was then traded with Russian gas....the rest is history.

A smart statesmen would have realized that after the collapse of the S.U, Russia is nowhere near competitive enough to restore back its influence safe for Central Asia. Its natural then from then on, going forward, Belarus, Baltics and Ukraine will slowly detach itself to follow the money (the West). It would need generations of rebuilding the country. Overhaul the political, judicial, economic, industrial base to better compete as a 21st century country. Instead what Putin did is consolidate power at all cost, sometimes sacrificing efficiency by placing Putin's own henchmen in strategic positions such as banks, oil industry etc. You can watch how Putin's 'friends' destroy and milk the country remaining strategic sector and only enrich themselves in the process here.

I think Putin, lacks what Deng XiaoPing of China had back when he assumed control and premiership of China after the cultural revolution, a long term multi generational overhaul and modernization of the country to better face off the rest of the world once 'the time comes'. If he's into restoring the Russian empire to its former greatness he should've had a clear strategic roadmap on what and when the country must do. Like at what GDP level it should launch a reconquest of its former zone of influence, at what stage of advancement is its microchip industry to better withstand sanctions and keep up with miniaturization and just overall at what level of readiness is the military and its MIC ready just in case the collective West pour all its support behind a potential foe. Many of this would off course be achieved without the destructive interference of the Siloviki on Russia's economic and industrial base.

As one member puts it clearly, Russia's GDP is only a bit more than Italy and below Canada with a population only a fraction of Russia, I recall reading NY Post comparing Russia to a big gas station in Europe which is kinda true.

In fact when it comes to influence and soft power, Iran's influence would make Russian soft power effort looks like kindergarten. Iran products like food, clothing, and other kind of staples products flood countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (and possibly Afghanistan next). Yet Iran has the strategic patience Russians lacked and they yet to 'invade' any country in its surroundings.

I would rate Putin 3/10 in terms of statemanship.

 

[Gary]

As for Prabowo, he should stop acting like Indonesia has any influence outside ASEAN or even has any means to enforce anything as far as Europe. A conflict in Europe is a European problem, the best course of action is to shut up and let the Europeans do their things and depending on the outcome (Russia W or L) Indonesia must at best issue statements which neither offend both sides nor appease both sides. Stick with the "We hope both parties commits restraints and select peace instead of war blah blah blah".

 

[contricusc]

Nothing to do with being civilized. Waging war itself is part of an advanced stage of civilization. Because no country wage war unless it has at least a developed, military,economic and technological sector. And its even more true in the 20th and 21st century.

The more correct terms for your excuse is not being uncivilized, but being inhumane. Learn the difference.

What you consider “civilized” is more accurately referred to as “developed” or “advanced”.

The term “civilized” implies some moral standards and manners.

One of the definitions of the word “civilized” is “polite and well-mannered”.

You can’t be polite and well-mannered while waging war, pillaging or when stealing.

You confuse the idea of an advanced country from an organizational and technological point of view with a civilized country, which also implies a moral code.

Nazi Germany was not what we call “civilized”, but it was extremely developed and well organized for its time.

A country like Bhutan is much more civilized than Nazi Germany, despite not being a big power or a technological powerhouse.

 

[Soldier30]

Video created by the engineering troops of Ukraine, a powerful underground fortified structure, created in the form of a square. In the drone video, you can see the many entrances to the underground structure, connected by an extensive network of underground tunnels.

Published footage of the evacuation of a damaged Russian tank by two Russian engineering vehicles, under the blows of Ukrainian artillery. The video was filmed in the Uludar direction and shortened, showing the brightest moments.

 

[Gary]

What you consider “civilized” is more accurately referred to as “developed” or “advanced”.

The term “civilized” implies some moral standards and manners.

Moral standards and manners differed from country to country people to people, and there's no real 'universal' accaptance of what is listed as civilized, but what is clear is that civilized people are developed enough which characterized their advance taste, manner, and overall well organized.

Stealing is uncivilized if done by personal means, but stealing on a grand scale clearly is civilized. In fact modern economy is based on stealing. The interests based economy is in fact a mass state sanctioned and organzied stealing from the poor by the rich.

So does killing and invading, if done on a personal level, its uncivilized, but move the scale into nation sized attempt, that's totally normal. Because everyone is doing it.

If killing and invading someone else equals to uncivilized, then the Roman Empire, The Arab and Turkish Caliphate, The British empire, The Americans etc, none of those would be considered 'civilized'.

One of the definitions of the word “civilized” is “polite and well-mannered”.

Yes just one.

You can’t be polite and well-mannered while waging war, pillaging or when stealing.

Yes you can, the Brits are polite and well mannered as well, in fact the 19th century portrayal of a British Gentlemen is summarized as this

Doesn't stop them from tying humans in front of a cannon and torn their bodies in the process.

Not to metion stealing people's land

And this is at the peak of Britain's and European 'enlightment'

You confuse the idea of an advanced country from an organizational and technological point of view with a civilized country, which also implies a moral code.

look at the example above. I've never heard Britain called as uncivilized, why should Russia be called uncivilized now for practicing realpolitik on the battlefield ?

Nazi Germany was not what we call “civilized”, but it was extremely developed and well organized for its time.

A country like Bhutan is much more civilized than Nazi Germany, despite not being a big power or a technological powerhouse.

Nazi Germany while having comitted crime, their crime is not that extraordinary to begin with. Yeah I know they unjustly killed some people, but so does everyone else including members of the allies.

The very reasons why the Nazi crimes are magnified is because their victim is now powerful enough to control the narratives, I don't see what so strange with Nazi brutality compared to maybe Belgian brutality in Africa, France's brutality in Mali against blacks.

In fact Nazi's are pretty much civilized. as does every other country, they dress, they know hygiene, etiquette etc.

In fact I see some hidden racism when it comes to the portrayal of Russians an 'mongols', because Europeans looked down at those people as uncivilized, without proof that they're any better

 

[Ryder]

Moral standards and manners differed from country to country people to people, and there's no real 'universal' accaptance of what is listed as civilized, but what is clear is that civilized people are developed enough which characterized their advance taste, manner, and overall well organized.

Stealing is uncivilized if done by personal means, but stealing on a grand scale clearly is civilized. In fact modern economy is based on stealing. The interests based economy is in fact a mass state sanctioned and organzied stealing from the poor by the rich.

So does killing and invading, if done on a personal level, its uncivilized, but move the scale into nation sized attempt, that's totally normal. Because everyone is doing it.

If killing and invading someone else equals to uncivilized, then the Roman Empire, The Arab and Turkish Caliphate, The British empire, The Americans etc, none of those would be considered 'civilized'.


Yes just one.



Yes you can, the Brits are polite and well mannered as well, in fact the 19th century portrayal of a British Gentlemen is summarized as this

Doesn't stop them from tying humans in front of a cannon and torn their bodies in the process.

Not to metion stealing people's land

And this is at the peak of Britain's and European 'enlightment'

look at the example above. I've never heard Britain called as uncivilized, why should Russia be called uncivilized now for practicing realpolitik on the battlefield ?



Nazi Germany while having comitted crime, their crime is not that extraordinary to begin with. Yeah I know they unjustly killed some people, but so does everyone else including members of the allies.

The very reasons why the Nazi crimes are magnified is because their victim is now powerful enough to control the narratives, I don't see what so strange with Nazi brutality compared to maybe Belgian brutality in Africa, France's brutality in Mali against blacks.

In fact Nazi's are pretty much civilized. as does every other country, they dress, they know hygiene, etiquette etc.

In fact I see some hidden racism when it comes to the portrayal of Russians an 'mongols', because Europeans looked down at those people as uncivilized, without proof that they're any better

Not to mention how the Orcs are based on the Turks, Mongols and the Huns.

 

[contricusc]

Stealing is uncivilized if done by personal means, but stealing on a grand scale clearly is civilized. In fact modern economy is based on stealing. The interests based economy is in fact a mass state sanctioned and organzied stealing from the poor by the rich.

This is simply wrong. One thing cannot be black on a personal level and white on a grand scale. Stealing on a grand scale is not civilized. In most capitalist economies, there is nothing such as ”stealing from the poor by the rich”. Generally, it is the rich who pay the most taxes, and the poor who benefit most from the welfare programs, so it is the other way around.

So does killing and invading, if done on a personal level, its uncivilized, but move the scale into nation sized attempt, that's totally normal. Because everyone is doing it.

Again, this is not true.

First of all, not everyone is doing it. There are many countries that don’t have a history of killing and invading their neighbors. I could name a few if you want: Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino (in Europe), then we can move to the Caribbean nations like Bahamas, Barbados, St.Vincent and the Grenadines, etc, which all of them have no history of conquest and killing, and there are many more such countries around the world.

Also, many countries that did it in the past no longer do it, as they are more civilized now. If most countries do something bad, that does not make it acceptable, and it does not make those countries civilized.

If killing and invading someone else equals to uncivilized, then the Roman Empire, The Arab and Turkish Caliphate, The British empire, The Americans etc, none of those would be considered 'civilized'.

By today’s standards, they were all quite barbaric. They were considered civilized by the standards of their times, which were much more brutal than today. If a country today acts in the same way the Romans did, they would be considered a terrorist state.

Yes you can, the Brits are polite and well mannered as well, in fact the 19th century portrayal of a British Gentlemen is summarized as this

Doesn't stop them from tying humans in front of a cannon and torn their bodies in the process.

They were definitely not civilized by modern standards. They just lived in a world where pretty much everyone was a murderous psychopath, so their crimes were ignored.

look at the example above. I've never heard Britain called as uncivilized, why should Russia be called uncivilized now for practicing realpolitik on the battlefield ?

It’s about the century when things happen. Russia is acting like it is still in the 19th century, which by today’s standards is barbaric. You are not civilized if you act like everyone did 200 years ago, especially since the worldwide level of civilization has increased exponentially in the last century.

The very reasons why the Nazi crimes are magnified is because their victim is now powerful enough to control the narratives, I don't see what so strange with Nazi brutality compared to maybe Belgian brutality in Africa, France's brutality in Mali against blacks.

Belgian brutality in Congo is very similar to what the Nazis did. I agree that they are not the only regime doing atrocities, but the fact that it happened in central Europe and not so far in the past magnifies their crimes (from a mediatic perspective). Their crimes are more famous than the crimes of other regimes.

In fact I see some hidden racism when it comes to the portrayal of Russians an 'mongols', because Europeans looked down at those people as uncivilized, without proof that they're any better

The Mongols have been excessively brutal in their conquest even for their times. This is why they earned a very bad reputation of being uncivilized. They were also not very well dressed, clean or well mannered, and combined with their brutality they reminded Europeans of the barbaric tribes of the Roman times. Don’t forget that the first people to be called “barbaric” were the Germanic, Gaelic and Celtic tribes, which are very much European. It’s not a racist thing. The first “barbars” were todays’s Germans, French and British. Maybe this explains why they were so brutal in the times of their colonial empires.

 

[Ecderha]

putin army is using Incendiary shells on its own town of Shebekino, inside russia!
It mean "russia destroying russia to fight russians fighting russians in russia."

It is what it is.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665231163386998784

I will add this To understand What is happening, if you do not get it from above
It is not meme. It describing the Reality

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665323788454559744

 

[Barry]

Definitely not the act of terrorists to drop incendiary munitions on their people and territory.

 

[Gary]

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665471791060381696

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665507123013484544

 

[Gary]

Prigozhin needs to be put in his place really.

 

[Gary]

PAC-2 Launcher

 

[Dmitry]

The counteroffensive has begun.

 

[Afif]

It seems Ukrainians are denying it!