Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Iskander]

Kaya is right. The breaking up of Russia into smaller states would be the best possible outcome of this war. Just like the Soviet Union has been broken into several states and some of them have become democratic and prosperous, Russia should end up broken into smaller pieces, since this is the natural end of an empire.

Everyone would be safer and better off in the long term if this empire is finished once and for all. Look how better and moree peaceful Europe is since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire into smaller states. They no longer pose a threat to their neighbors and themselves. They are too small to have imperialistic ambitions again, so they have to live in peace.

The collapse of Russia?
Probably all neighboring peoples dream of this wonderful dream. Because they all suffered from Russian great-power chauvinism. Even China. Moreover, it is believed that China suffered the most from Russia in terms of territorial losses. In the 19th century, Russia occupied 1,000,000 square kilometers of territory from China, and the Chinese certainly have not forgotten this. If Russia collapses, can you imagine what will happen?
This is what scares the West most – the strengthening of China at the expense of Russia.
If the West wanted the collapse of Russia, why did it save it from the Germans 80 years ago?
In fact, the West is responsible for the rise of Russia in the last 30 years. More precisely, in the first place - this is Germany.
Read what Admiral Rob Bauer, Senior Adviser to the NATO Secretary General, said: "We have long believed that if nations have mutual economic relations, there will never be a war between them. We had a contract with Gazprom, we thought we were buying oil and gas from the company, but when Putin ordered them to close the valve, it wasn't in the contract.
Can you imagine? “This was not in the contract”(!!!) In the contract with...Gazprom(!)!!! war was not envisaged.
This man is the chief adviser to NATO!!!
You see, they have an agreement with Gazprom!!! What the hell is this war!? After all, there is a contract!!!... Apparently, NATO considered the contract with the gas production company as a non-aggression pact!...
Next, listen to what this...genius says: - We were extremely naive, accepting the world as it was for the last thirty years. Military personnel and especially spies were perceived by everyone as people always looking for trouble. But I think we underestimated important signs: Russia in Georgia in 2008, in Crimea in 2014, in Ukraine in 2022. We saw that the Russians behaved differently, but they still said: “No, we need them economically.” And suddenly they were not as friendly as we wanted..
Suddenly, economic weapons were used against us, and everyone was surprised, although this should not have been done.”

It turns out that all this happened suddenly. For 20 years (!!!)

Over these 20 years, I have read thousands of analytical articles by Western experts. And I was always surprised and asked - in what world do these people live!?

A journalist asked one of these experts (a German): “Why did you never object in a discussion with a Russian expert? Don't you have any arguments? To which the German expert replied: “What arguments?! He's Russian! He could have shot me in the knees!”

NATO's chief adviser admits his naivety! Obviously he's in the wrong place.
A German expert flirts with his Russian colleague. His place is somewhere on the street near the red light districts.

Didn’t NATO know the colossal power of the Soviet military-industrial complex? Most of it was concentrated not in the “union” republics, but in Russia.
After all, the question should have arisen: “What will Russia do with its colossal military equipment and thousands of nuclear warheads!?”
Even from Ukraine, the West took all its nuclear missiles and handed them over to Russia.

All these 20 years reeked of obvious incompetence. Today we already see how it all ended

 

[Gary]

All this just because Russian demands aren't met. I wish Ukrainian leadership understand better, Ukraine deserve better people.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793161326417866804

 

[Afif]

The collapse of Russia?
Probably all neighboring peoples dream of this wonderful dream. Because they all suffered from Russian great-power chauvinism. Even China. Moreover, it is believed that China suffered the most from Russia in terms of territorial losses. In the 19th century, Russia occupied 1,000,000 square kilometers of territory from China, and the Chinese certainly have not forgotten this. If Russia collapses, can you imagine what will happen?
This is what scares the West most – the strengthening of China at the expense of Russia.
If the West wanted the collapse of Russia, why did it save it from the Germans 80 years ago?
In fact, the West is responsible for the rise of Russia. More precisely, in the first place - this is Germany.
Read what Admiral Rob Bauer, Senior Adviser to the NATO Secretary General, said: "We have long believed that if nations have mutual economic relations, there will never be a war between them. We had a contract with Gazprom, we thought we were buying oil and gas from the company, but when Putin ordered them to close the valve, it wasn't in the contract.
Can you imagine? “This was not in the contract”(!!!) In the contract with...Gazprom(!)!!! war was not envisaged.
This man is the chief adviser to NATO!!!
You see, they have an agreement with Gazprom!!! What the hell is this war!? After all, there is a contract!!!... Apparently, NATO considered the contract with the gas production company as a non-aggression pact!...
Next, listen to what this...genius says: - We were extremely naive, accepting the world as it was for the last thirty years. Military personnel and especially spies were perceived by everyone as people always looking for trouble. But I think we underestimated important signs: Russia in Georgia in 2008, in Crimea in 2014, in Ukraine in 2022. We saw that the Russians behaved differently, but they still said: “No, we need them economically.” And suddenly they were not as friendly as we wanted..
Suddenly, economic weapons were used against us, and everyone was surprised, although this should not have been done.”

It turns out that all this happened suddenly. For 20 years (!!!)

Over these 20 years, I have read thousands of analytical articles by Western experts. And I was always surprised and asked - in what world do these people live!?

A journalist asked one of these experts (a German): “Why did you never object in a discussion with a Russian expert? Don't you have any arguments? To which the German expert replied: “What arguments?! He's Russian! He could have shot me in the knees!”

NATO's chief adviser admits his naivety! Obviously he's in the wrong place.
A German expert flirts with his Russian colleague. His place is somewhere on the street near the red light districts.

Didn’t NATO know the colossal power of the Soviet military-industrial complex? Most of it was concentrated not in the “union” republics, but in Russia.
After all, the question should have arisen: “What will Russia do with its colossal military equipment and thousands of nuclear warheads!?”
Even from Ukraine, the West took all its nuclear missiles and handed them over to Russia.

All these 20 years reeked of obvious incompetence. Today we already see how it all ended

Your reasoning is a bit off in the first part. The USA was 'saving' Russia because they were fighting a greater evil.

 

[Anastasius]

Putin won the election by an overwhelming 87% count. Think about it for a second. That's actual Russians voting in ballot boxes.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Zelensky in comparison, not only cancels the election but justifies war to ensure the continuity of ruling. disgusting




Look, the word 'invasion' carries a lot of negative baggage to begin with. To understand this you would want to argue from a position of good faith, without any strings attached.



Look in any free country, you can put forward your opinion and the state will not guarantee that your opinion will materialize to begin with. Russian politicians could threaten all they want and their opinion will have to get through multiple selection of mechanisms to actually move forward.

Did Russian politicians threaten to nuke NATO? Yes, do they actually nuke NATO? the answer is NO
Did Russian politicians threaten to invade Kazakhstan? Yes, do they actually invade Kazakhstan? the answer is NO
Did Russian politicians threaten to go all the way to the English channel? Yes, do they actually walk the talk? the answer is NO


Their threats are irrelevant.

1) Yes, he "won" an election which was already predetermined ahead of time. 87% or 79%, only thing I'll give Putin is that he at least tries not to make it too obvious, most of the time at least.

2) Carries baggage? My man, the word "invasion" has a very simple definition. Did Russia invade Ukraine, yes or no?

3) I don't really see Western politicians threatening to invade other countries or claiming that other nations are fake and made up like Russia does with Ukraine.

 

[Gary]

1) Yes, he "won" an election which was already predetermined ahead of time. 87% or 79%, only thing I'll give Putin is that he at least tries not to make it too obvious, most of the time at least.

Grow up. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

2) Carries baggage? My man, the word "invasion" has a very simple definition. Did Russia invade Ukraine, yes or no?

We need to talk about this in a more neutral fashion. We need to come up with agreed terms on what the Russian military operation in Ukraine is. And we need to put into account the complex historical, political, economic situation into the equation.

Anything less is just propaganda.

3) I don't really see Western politicians threatening to invade other countries or claiming that other nations are fake and made up like Russia does with Ukraine.

On no they don't, they simply invade. Or arm groups that topple the government.

 

[Iskander]

Your reasoning is a bit off in the first part. The USA was 'saving' Russia because they were fighting a greater evil.

What do you mean when you talk about American aid? After the collapse of the USSR, the United States did provide humanitarian assistance to Russia.
It is further known that Yeltsin had several American advisers. Did they control the Russian government? Absolutely not!
In 1999, Yeltsin appointed KGB colonel Putin as prime minister, assuring Washington that Putin was supposedly a democrat. This democrat, 3 days after taking the oath of office as the President of Russia, speaking on television, said: “Whoever offends Russia will not live even 3 days.” The reaction from the US is zero!
Today the whole world is afraid of a Russian nuclear strike on any NATO country. Everyone tends to believe that Putin began threatening nuclear weapons during the Ukrainian war.
Absolutely not!
Putin started making threats already on the third day of his presidency!!!
Let me remind you that then, in connection with the terrible war in Chechnya, the West started talking about deploying NATO peacekeeping forces in the North Caucasus. In the aforementioned speech, Putin reacted precisely to these statements.
Eight years later, Russia sent troops into Georgia. The Western reaction, or rather the lack thereof, led to Russia annexing Crimea in 2014. Next, Donbass. 8 years later, Putin attacked Ukraine with his visor open. That's where we are today.

«Whoever offends us will not live three days»

 

[Afif]

What do you mean when you talk about American aid? After the collapse of the USSR, the United States did provide humanitarian assistance to Russia.
It is further known that Yeltsin had several American advisers. Did they control the Russian government? Absolutely not!
In 1999, Yeltsin appointed KGB colonel Putin as prime minister, assuring Washington that Putin was supposedly a democrat. This democrat, 3 days after taking the oath of office as the President of Russia, speaking on television, said: “Whoever offends Russia will not live even 3 days.” The reaction from the US is zero!
Today the whole world is afraid of a Russian nuclear strike on any NATO country. Everyone tends to believe that Putin began threatening nuclear weapons during the Ukrainian war.
Absolutely not!
Putin started making threats already on the third day of his presidency!!!
Let me remind you that then, in connection with the terrible war in Chechnya, the West started talking about deploying NATO peacekeeping forces in the North Caucasus. In the aforementioned speech, Putin reacted precisely to these statements.
Eight years later, Russia sent troops into Georgia. The Western reaction, or rather the lack thereof, led to Russia annexing Crimea in 2014. Next, Donbass. 8 years later, Putin attacked Ukraine with his visor open. That's where we are today.

Bro, I am talking about ww2.

If the West wanted the collapse of Russia, why did it save it from the Germans 80 years ago?
In fact, the West is responsible for the rise of Russia.

They had more interests in defeating Nazi Germany.

 

[Gary]

Where men?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793187503458902524

 

[UkroTurk]

Sweden Plans $7 Billion in Military Aid to Ukraine for 2024-2026



The 75 billion crowns will be equally divided over the three years. Including the proposed addition, Sweden's total planned military and other support to Ukraine will amount to over 100 billion crowns.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-plans-7-bln-military-support-frame-ukraine-2024-2026-2024-05-22/

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Anastasius]

Grow up. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it's illegitimate.



We need to talk about this in a more neutral fashion. We need to come up with agreed terms on what the Russian military operation in Ukraine is. And we need to put into account the complex historical, political, economic situation into the equation.

Anything less is just propaganda.

On no they don't, they simply invade. Or arm groups that topple the government.

1) I actually think Putin is the least shit option compared to some of his rivals like Navalny (well, former rival anyway). Doesn't change the fact that Russian elections are a long-running sham and Russian citizens know this. If you know Russian you can check their media, forums, heck even their comedians make fun of the elections.

2) No, we don't need to talk about it in a more "neutral" fashion, we need to use the appropriate words. What you are doing now is the equivalent of Nazi Germany getting offended at people calling their invasion of Poland, well, an invasion. Heck, you're doing something that George Carlin was making fun of more than 30 years ago.

3) Nah, there was a ton of talk about invading Iraq before it happened. And Afghanistan. Though I don't recall the US ever claiming that either country was a fake, made-up thing that shouldn't exist.

 

[Gary]

1) I actually think Putin is the least shit option compared to some of his rivals like Navalny (well, former rival anyway). Doesn't change the fact that Russian elections are a long-running sham and Russian citizens know this. If you know Russian you can check their media, forums, heck even their comedians make fun of the elections.

This argument neither proves nor disproves the fact that Putin came out of the 2024 Russian election with such force that he won 87% of the vote. He is simply that popular, much to the detriment of his Western foes.

If India, the world's largest democracy (1.4B) congratulated him for his victory and Poland a small country of 40 million did not. The psychological analysis would've likely determined it due to jealousy of the later.

2) No, we don't need to talk about it in a more "neutral" fashion, we need to use the appropriate words. What you are doing now is the equivalent of Nazi Germany getting offended at people calling their invasion of Poland, well, an invasion. Heck, you're doing something that George Carlin was making fun of more than 30 years ago.

This is what is wrong with you Anastasius, you're what I would like to call, the ideologically motivated people, while me, I'm the academically motivated person. I based my arguments not on feelings and past sentiments, but on the very basics of how international politics works. I avoid judging countries with labels that carries political baggage and insist on the base problem to get my conclusion.

So unless we could come up with an agreed upon terms on how both of us would call the Russian military operation in Ukraine, I'm afraid we can't move forward. Because it would neither be factual nor will it be fair. By agreeing to your terms I basically agree to put whatever weight I have for the detriment of one country for the benefit of other.

By agreeing on your proposed terms, I'm basically building my argument(s) on what is at best, a flawed perception on one country and that perception is inherently bad to begin with. This is not how a good discussion must start to begin with. On the contrary, this kind of arguments creates chamber hole type discussion where everyone must conform to the other.

3) Nah, there was a ton of talk about invading Iraq before it happened. And Afghanistan. Though I don't recall the US ever claiming that either country was a fake, made-up thing that shouldn't exist.

Earlier in your post, you argue that Russia is bad because its politicians has the habit to threaten anyone that opposes them. My argument is that, in a free country you are allowed to speak, but your speech will have to pass selections of mechanisms to materialize.

While at that, you came up with the West (it's you, not me who brings 'ze West' to begin with) and Western politicians, claiming that Western politicians never threatened to invade other country.

This is of course factually wrong, because it was U.S politicians (backed by AIPAC) and not Russia's that pushed for the invasion of Iraq. And then there's even a new more extreme revelations lately, that U.S politicians actually makes it a LAW to INVADE the Hague as far back as 2002, if the Hague ever reward U.S's politicians with arrests warrants.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792967839109857491

 

[Relic]

Sweden has announced that they will provide Ukraine with $7 Billion usd worth of war funding between 2024-2026. That amounts to $2.33 billion usd in funding each year. Sweden has provided and will continue to provide important weapon systems to Ukraine including, but not limited to...

- CV9035/40 IFVs
- Leopard 2 MBTs
- Archer 155mm artillery
- RBS-70 air defense systems
- 155mm artillery shells
- Anti-armor weapons
- Air defense missiles
- River boats
- Small munitions

Note: As I see it, the biggest contribution Sweden could make moving forward would be additional CV90 IFVs, Archer 155mm artillery and 155mm artillery shells. Over the coming years, 200 additional CV90s, 50 additional Archers and 300,000+ artillery shells would go a long way to keeping up Ukrainian brigade strength as part of the larger Western coalition.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793221680392708466

 

[Gary]

First ever footage of Su-30SM with very long range R-37 missile

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793302612793598184

 

[contricusc]

We need to talk about this in a more neutral fashion. We need to come up with agreed terms on what the Russian military operation in Ukraine is. And we need to put into account the complex historical, political, economic situation into the equation.

You are the type of person that excuses rape and starts to ask questions like “how was the victim dessed?”, or “did she provoke the rapist?”.

In the world of sane people and decent human beings, there is no “neutral fashion” to talk about invasion and rape, and we don’t blame the victims or excuse the rapists.

 

[UkroTurk]

Russia unsettles Nato with plan to redraw Baltic Sea borders

Defence ministry’s proposal draws condemnation from Lithuania and Finland

www.ft.com

NATO reacted to Russia's intention to appropriate part of the Baltic Sea



Russia has not contacted NATO countries on this issue


The plan is Moscow's attempt to upset its neighbors after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.



Moscow has drawn condemnation from NATO members after proposing to redraw Russia's borders in the Baltic Sea.

"Another Russian hybrid operation is underway, this time attempting to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about its intentions in the Baltic Sea. This is a clear escalation against NATO and the EU and must be met with an appropriately forceful response," the Foreign Minister said on Wednesday Lithuania's Gabrielius Landsbergis, writes Financial Times.

ministry summoned a Russian diplomatic envoy for a detailed explanation and said Vilnius would coordinate its response with allies.

Putin has ‘both eyes’ on Gotland, warns Sweden’s army chief

The Swedish island is strategically located in the Baltic Sea.

www.politico.eu

Putin has ‘both eyes’ on Gotland, warns Sweden’s army chief
The Swedish island is strategically located in the Baltic Sea.


Gotland, Sweden's largest island and comparable in size to the smallest U.S. state of Rhode Island, is strategically located in the middle of the Baltic Sea — between Stockholm and Russia's Kaliningrad exclave.

The Russian defense ministry announced a plan Tuesday to expand the country's territorial waters in the Baltic Sea near its maritime border with Lithuania and Finland, sparking international concern





Russian shadow tankers have been a recent presence in Sweden’s exclusive economic zone off of Gotland’s eastern coast. The estimated 1,400-ship fleet operates outside the official maritime sector and isn’t officially part of any armed forces, so NATO has little power to act. Last month, Sweden said the European Commission would look into ways to deal with Russia’s shadow oil fleet in its next package of sanctions.

After being demilitarized in 2005, Sweden re-introduced permanent troops to Gotland in 2016, following Russia’s annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Sweden also became NATO’s newest member in March — meaning it is covered by the alliance's Article 5 guarantee that all other members come to each other's defense if they are attacked.

The since-deleted draft decree authored by Russia’s defense ministry appeared on the government’s legal portal on Tuesday, and argued that the existing maritime border needed revising because it was established in 1985 on the basis of nautical charts now out of use.

The current border “does not allow the establishing of the external boundary of Russia’s internal waters and does not take into account the practice of establishing direct baselines by other states,” the decree read.

 

[contricusc]

is what scares the West most – the strengthening of China at the expense of Russia.

This is because the West is US centric, and only the interests of the US are taken into consideration. Russia is a big threat to Europe, while China is not. But from a US perspective, both Russia and China are just rivals for world domination, and they should just be kept weak enough to be unable to challenge US dominance.

When the Soviet Union was more powerful, the US improved its relations with China and helped its economy so that the Soviets don’t grow too powerful. Now things are happening in reverse. The US tries to avoid a Russian collapse because they don’t want to strengthen China too much.

Of course, the interests of Europeans are not taken into account, because from an European perspective, China is not an enemy or a rival, because it is very far away and will never have imperialistic ambitions towards Europe, while Russia is an active and direct threat. But of course, the US doesn’t care at all about European interests.

If the West wanted the collapse of Russia, why did it save it from the Germans 80 years ago?

Back in the day, the US and the UK were more worried about Germany and a powerful continental Europe than they were about Russia.

The US and the UK have never seen continental Europe as their ally. They always treated Europe as a threat and a rival, just like Russia or China. They still treat the EU in the same way even today.

If one day the EU grows too strong and challenges US global dominance, the US will have no problem in allying itself with Russia against the EU.

In fact, the West is responsible for the rise of Russia in the last 30 years. More precisely, in the first place - this is Germany.

Germany has the excuse of not being a truly independent country since WW2. The Western part was a puppet state of the US, while the Eastern side was a puppet state of the Soviet Union.

Angela Merkel, the dominant political figure of the last decades was from East Germany, and most likely was a Russian agent, so her policies were aimed at benefiting Russia. Gerhard Schröder was also a Russian agent, and after he completed his mission he ended up in Rosneft’s board.

After reunification, Germany was politically dominated by Russia, and they acted like a Russian asset in the middle of the EU.

 

[Relic]

Sweden announced that arms manufacturer BAE will provide Ukraine with an undisclosed quantity of additional CV9035 MKIIIC Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

The vehicles are being funded via the money that Sweden announced today.

Ukraine Will Get Advanced MkIIIC Version of Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 | Defense Express

With one hand Sweden replenishes its own stocks of CV90s handed over to Ukraine, and with the other prepares an even better variant of it, the CV9035 MkIIIC, for transfer

en.defence-ua.com

 

[Gary]

You are the type of person that excuses rape and starts to ask questions like “how was the victim dessed?”, or “did she provoke the rapist?”.

In the world of sane people and decent human beings, there is no “neutral fashion” to talk about invasion and rape, and we don’t blame the victims or excuse the rapists.

Let's say a children was killed by gang member in the middle of the night in a dark alley. The first thing that comes to you is, you feel sad, and the next thing that comes up into you is : how the hell is this children finds itself in the middle on the night, in a desolate place, where is his parents? Etc.

After grief there will always be questions, and that apply to both invasion and rape.

In the case of rape, while no one will side with a rapist, at the very least there will be questions asked on how things led to a rape. Like, did the victims dressed so provocatively, did she finds herself with the wrong people in the wrong time etc. And that's a very normal question, because normal people would want to avoid finding themselves in a similar circumstances that led to a rape.

When it comes to invasion, you really need to differentiate judgements between that of a normal civilian and political enthusiasts. For a normal civilian, invading other countries sounds contra productive and a waste of time, but from a political analyst, depending on who and what they represent, answers may vary. Ask yourself, how many time Western think tanks condemn the invasion of Iraq? Not many, most of them simply said that it was a mistake, and that's it.

The Russian military op in Ukraine might not make sense for many people because they neither understand the complex background that led the Russian army to enter the country in the first place.

 

[Gary]

A group of natives got obliterated by Russian SACLOS missile

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793553925997838473

 

[Gary]

MiG-29 obliterated while vibing in tarmac

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793330594908188918