Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Elvis 2008]

A bit naive. Putin was always going to attack Ukraine, he was just manufacturing excuses to justify it. What the US should have done is fly in several squadrons of F15's and A10's on a friendship mission to Ukraine.

https://www.cc.com/video/8067fc/the-...ne-gideon-rose

[VinDici]

Angry Orc noises...

It is sad seeing you trying to string together an argument, the RuZZian brain drain is real.

[GDreams]

Exactly. I liken this to Biden challenging a known bully in the bar and the bully punching both him and his Ukrainian friend in the nose. I am going to be more mad at Biden because he is supposed to represent me. Of course, the bully is more morally repugnant, but he is not my guy. With my guy, I am going to ask, "Why did you provoke him? That was stupid. ".

The whole bad guy, good guy narrative that is being sold is a farce. If I am upset with what Biden, does that automatically make me a Putin lover? Hell no.

A bit naive. Putin was always going to attack Ukraine, he was just manufacturing excuses to justify it. What the US should have done is fly in several squadrons of F15's and A10's on a friendship mission to Ukraine.

[Questner]

Quote:

Having said "get three coffins ready" earlier.

Joe: My mistake. Four coffins. - A Fistful of Dollars (1964).

- a fake add by a funeral home in Kiev:

[Elvis 2008]

Detail is not the issue..

Of course, it is. What did Hersch say that was wrong?

The issue is the use of a single, unverified (and unverifiable) source.

When Hersh was asked if he had one source, he responded, "I do not give up my sources. " Got that? Pleural. So you take the accusation as fact because that is what you want to believe.

In truth, if you read Hersh's story, it is hard to fathom he had only one source.

While verifiable facts may not matter to you, they are the crux of the matter to me.

Absolutely not. You do not get to single handedly judge Hersch without looking at his facts. You did not read what he write nor dispute what he wrote. You just swallowed the fact checkers bullshit story whole.

And then you cite the AP code. LOL. You think after all the twitter files, Russiagate, Covid, the vaccines, and the latest Hunter Biden fiasco that the AP gets the facts right? Give me a fucking break.

Every single fact you cite fits your narrative. I do not dispute the fact that Russian ships were near the pipeline. What I dispute is how anyone with a brain could take that fact and compare it to Hersh's detailed writing and say, "The Russians may have done it" like you did. As far as you go, any theory is acceptable including the pipeline being blown up by space monkeys. Shit, Biden himself said he was going to take out the pipeline. You are like, "Well, gee, duh, just because Biden said he would take out the pipeline is not proof he did it. ".

Peter Zeihan has said ad nauseam that this war is "Russia's to lose" even when he has chronicled the victories Ukraine has enjoyed. What he has said jives totally with the documents Jack Teixeira leaked. It showed the Russians had a huge advantage in the war and were grossly incompetent with how they managed their resources. Zeihan said this is normal for the Russians. They are incompetent in the early phase of a war and get better and better.

What bugs me about you is you are so gung ho war the very notion that the Ukrainians could lose has not even entered your head, and it could easily have happened and probably should have happened.

You are saying "Well, no one knows what could happen", but the possibility Russia could take all of Ukraine does not seem to register with you. And when you say that anything could happen, you really are not considering nuclear war. Because if you and the people spinning the narrative you believe in really felt like those things were possible, this war would have been over with yesterday.

[WyattEarp]

My assessment of the facts of the situation, in either the battlefield or geopolitical arenas, is completely separate from my visceral reaction and condemnation of the horrors that Russia has perpetrated, and continues to perpetrate.

Regarding the "bigger picture," speculation (yours or mine) about possible outcomes is still nothing more than pure speculation. With respect to Crimea, my reason for posting was to debunk the demonstrably false "Crimea belongs to Russia" narrative. I laid out a set of facts and I'm happy to debate same with anyone.

On the moral plane, however, it's troubling to see some in this forum reacting as though this is some kind of video game, or some kind of abstract construct. Does the beheading of an unarmed prisoner, while they're still alive, need to happen in front of your nose for you to feel outrage? What about execution by sledgehammer? And does the ripping of children from their parents only bother you if it happens to your own family or friends?

I understand that war is brutal, and that some atrocities will inevitably happen, but Russia is waging the kind of primitive, scorched-earth, indiscriminate torture and killing campaign that harks back to the Middle Ages. These aren't individual, isolated instances, rather they're calculated and systematic. Russia isn't waging war because they have no choice, I would assert they're waging war because there's a societal acceptance and embrace of violence to get what they want.

I totally get that this is an anonymous fuckboard, but it's troubling to witness the degree of callousness that some exhibit. I would argue that moral outrage is not only warranted, but demanded. I would feel personal animosity toward any group of murderous, raping, kidnapping thugs, whether they were rampaging in my own neighborhood or not.

So, with respect to factual arguments and scenarios, I'm happy to discuss and debate with all comers, including you. But, with respect to your opinion about how I feel, or should feel, I'd invite you (and others) to take a long look in the moral mirror.

You explained the dilemma of Western foreign policy. How much power and force do we expend trying to combat immoral and corrupt regimes around the world?

I don't know what the end for the Ukrainian conflict looks like. I just don't know if it looks like the picture you have painted. We might have moved back into a strategy of containment in Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim. It's not inspiring. It's not brave. It's just realpolitik.

[Jmsuttr]

Disclaimer: This is reportedly a list of 39 questions posed to Russian authorities by Igor Girkin's (Russian ultra-nationalist) Angry Patriots Club. I'm posting it purely for the purpose of pulling back the curtain to look at what the ultra-nationalists are pissed about.

Again, this is not an endorsement, or any kind of agreement, or any kind of admission that any of the content is even true. This appears to be taken directly from that organization's Telegram channel and, if that's the case, it's like listening at the window while your neighbors are arguing amongst themselves.

https://telegra-ph.translate.goog/Vo..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Read and decide for yourselves. IMO, Girkin either has some powerful protectors or he'll end up in a gulag soon, or worse. This is clearly pro-Russia, which makes the criticisms even more damning.

P.S. I tested the link and it worked for me. Depending on the speed of your connection or device, it might take a minute before the English translation appears.

[Jmsuttr]

Exactly. I liken this to Biden challenging a known bully in the bar and the bully punching both him and his Ukrainian friend in the nose. I am going to be more mad at Biden because he is supposed to represent me. Of course, the bully is more morally repugnant, but he is not my guy. With my guy, I am going to ask, "Why did you provoke him? That was stupid. ".

The whole bad guy, good guy narrative that is being sold is a farce. If I am upset with what Biden, does that automatically make me a Putin lover? Hell no.

Putin threw the first punch, that makes him the aggressor. Prior to the invasion, Russia was a strong country (not so much now).

Ukraine could never, and would never, throw the first punch, because they would have been crushed (and no one would have helped them).

NATO could never, and would never, throw the first punch, for different reasons. NATO is a) a defensive alliance, and; b) consists of 30 (now 31) nations that would need to agree, and; c) had (and has) member countries that are on good terms with Russia and would veto any first punch.

Fuck Biden, Fuck Zelensky, and Fuck Putin. You don't have to love or hate any of them, on a personal basis, in order to call a spade a spade. Russia is indisputably the aggressor. They had many geopolitical cards they could have played in order to resolve any grievances, real or perceived. They chose to launch a military invasion. They can claim they were "provoked" as much as they want, but the facts don't support that narrative.

Try this analogy on for size: Ukraine is the ex-wife who, after getting a finalized divorce, just wants to be left alone. Russia is the bitter ex-husband who feels she still belongs to him and, if he can't have her, he's determined to fuck up her life and maybe even kill her.

Taking that analogy, anyone who talked to the bitter ex-husband would get an earful of alleged provocations. Doesn't make them true, does it?

[Jmsuttr]

They should have been negotiating, from a the beginning. This will end horribly for the Ukraine people and the longer this drags on the worse it will be for all parties, especially Ukraine, they are being destroyed.

Ukraine will most likely be the beneficiary of a post-war reconstruction program. And they will also likely become a full member of the EU. OTOH, Russia's future may well look something like North Korea's, an isolated pariah state. Or perhaps a Chinese vassal state.

BTW, how do you negotiate with an enemy who intends your complete extinction? Or with an enemy who violates "pieces of paper" whenever it suits them? Since Ukraine sincerely believes they're fighting, not just for territory, but for their very existence, who can blame them for committing to fight to the end? The war could end in a moment, Russia just needs to pack up and go home. If Ukraine stops fighting, they'll be extinguished as a country and as a people.

[Elvis 2008]

No offense, but you seem to take the Ukraine War a bit too personally. One doesn't necessarily have to be Ukrainian to hold a personal animosity towards Russia.

Exactly. I liken this to Biden challenging a known bully in the bar and the bully punching both him and his Ukrainian friend in the nose. I am going to be more mad at Biden because he is supposed to represent me. Of course, the bully is more morally repugnant, but he is not my guy. With my guy, I am going to ask, "Why did you provoke him? That was stupid. ".

The whole bad guy, good guy narrative that is being sold is a farce. If I am upset with what Biden, does that automatically make me a Putin lover? Hell no.

[Jmsuttr]

I think your missing the bigger picture in my post. It's very possible there will be a political settlement before there is a sweeping Ukrainian military victory. That's where my perspective on Crimea originates. As I have said before, the peace negotiations might not give the Ukraine everything they had hoped. A political settlement could have some messy elements including persistent tension.

No offense, but you seem to take the Ukraine War a bit too personally. One doesn't necessarily have to be Ukrainian to hold a personal animosity towards Russia.

My assessment of the facts of the situation, in either the battlefield or geopolitical arenas, is completely separate from my visceral reaction and condemnation of the horrors that Russia has perpetrated, and continues to perpetrate.

Regarding the "bigger picture," speculation (yours or mine) about possible outcomes is still nothing more than pure speculation. With respect to Crimea, my reason for posting was to debunk the demonstrably false "Crimea belongs to Russia" narrative. I laid out a set of facts and I'm happy to debate same with anyone.

On the moral plane, however, it's troubling to see some in this forum reacting as though this is some kind of video game, or some kind of abstract construct. Does the beheading of an unarmed prisoner, while they're still alive, need to happen in front of your nose for you to feel outrage? What about execution by sledgehammer? And does the ripping of children from their parents only bother you if it happens to your own family or friends?

I understand that war is brutal, and that some atrocities will inevitably happen, but Russia is waging the kind of primitive, scorched-earth, indiscriminate torture and killing campaign that harks back to the Middle Ages. These aren't individual, isolated instances, rather they're calculated and systematic. Russia isn't waging war because they have no choice, I would assert they're waging war because there's a societal acceptance and embrace of violence to get what they want.

I totally get that this is an anonymous fuckboard, but it's troubling to witness the degree of callousness that some exhibit. I would argue that moral outrage is not only warranted, but demanded. I would feel personal animosity toward any group of murderous, raping, kidnapping thugs, whether they were rampaging in my own neighborhood or not.

So, with respect to factual arguments and scenarios, I'm happy to discuss and debate with all comers, including you. But, with respect to your opinion about how I feel, or should feel, I'd invite you (and others) to take a long look in the moral mirror.

[DramaFree11]

I think your missing the bigger picture in my post. It's very possible there will be a political settlement before there is a sweeping Ukrainian military victory. That's where my perspective on Crimea originates. As I have said before, the peace negotiations might not give the Ukraine everything they had hoped. A political settlement could have some messy elements including persistent tension.

No offense, but you seem to take the Ukraine War a bit too personally. One doesn't necessarily have to be Ukrainian to hold a personal animosity towards Russia.

They should have been negotiating, from a the beginning. This will end horribly for the Ukraine people and the longer this drags on the worse it will be for all parties, especially Ukraine, they are being destroyed.

[Jmsuttr]

Just look around how many Russian and Chinese women are working as Prostitute (Masseuse) in Europe and American and eager to marry a white men, and how many Americans or G7's women are working in sex industry in Russian or China ((legally or illegally), almost zero. If you think you are superior, would you like others dig all your holes?

About China:

("China's superiority complex must be carefully managed," from the South China Morning Post).

https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F...efully-managed

"In modern China's security dealings, one notion is gradually coming to the fore: that the imperiousness that once dictated ancient China's policies seems to be manifesting itself once more in the present day.

For all but the most recent 200 of the last 2,000 years. Its "sick man of Asia" period. China has lived up its self-proclaimed "Middle Kingdom" title: a country that saw itself as the centre of the world by virtue of its superiority in economic production and a perceived divine entitlement to universal rule".

Divine entitlement to universal rule? That sounds rather superior to me. When China looks at you, it doesn't see an equal, it sees a (future) subject. And there are plenty of articles out there that detail the attitudes of the ruling Han elite with respect to other races, countries, and their own minorities. A simple web search will turn up pages of results for anyone who takes the time to look.

About Russia:

(Opinion piece by Russian author re Neo-Stalinism, aka Putinism).

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/w...t-be-defeated/

"It was Nazi Germany's claim of racial superiority and the Stalinist Soviet Union's claim of ideological superiority that underpinned their attacks on other nations. Poland, viewed as inferior by both, was invaded and carved up by the two powers during the Second World War in accordance with the infamous 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named for the Russian and German foreign ministers. The claim of superiority of values and of national heritage (the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union) is a key to understanding the war crimes and genocidal nature of Russia's war on Ukraine today. To Putin, all means are justified in dealing with inferior people, who should be either forced into submission or eliminated".

(Author's bio: "Andrei Kozyrev is an author and former politician who was the Russian Federation's first foreign minister. He was twice elected to the State Duma, where he served from 1994 to 2000. More recently, he was a distinguished fellow at the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute).

Similar to Chinese attitudes, Russia sees non-Russians as inferiors, not equals. And there are plenty of articles out there that detail the attitudes of the (Moscow-St. Petersburg based) Russian elite, with respect to other races, countries, and their own minorities. A simple web search will turn up pages of results for anyone who takes the time to look.

BTW, every society has those, like prostitutes, who inhabit the fringes of society. It's a rather bizarre metric to use those fringe segments to arrive at conclusions about the elites who control that society. For any of the examples you cited, if they had decent opportunities within their own country it's very likely they wouldn't be seeking outside prospects.

Have you ever had a serious (not mongering related) conversation with a Russian woman? I dated one (from Moscow) for several years. Not only did she feel that everything about Russia was superior to the US, she felt the same way about Moscow vs other parts of Russia. She had been married to a prominent Russian businessman but, after a nasty divorce, her prospects inside Russia evaporated.

That was just a personal anecdote, of course, but it's consistent with the other info I posted. Here's a thought: If you ever get the chance, ask a Russian woman about Pushkin, or some other cultural figure, and then sit back and prepare to be overwhelmed. Pro tip: Don't do this if you're paying by the hour.

Oh, and if either Russia or China ever take over the country in which you're living, you'll be digging the holes.

[Jmsuttr]

Seymour Hersh beaks the story on the Nordstream pipeline bombing. It goes into meticulous detail.

Detail is not the issue. The issue is the use of a single, unverified (and unverifiable) source. Others have certainly used anonymous sources, but that usually happens in the context of a media organization in which there are checks and balances. That usually means, at a minimum, that the source is disclosed internally (to editors, etc.) and other internal verification efforts take place.

Here's one example of guidelines re the responsible use of anonymous sources:

https://www.ap.org/about/news-values...nymous-sources

"Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the report.

2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.

Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted by a manager should editors and producers allow it to be used".

Q: Why would Hersh publish his NordStream piece on his personal substack, rather than in any number of publications with wide circulation that would certainly be willing to run (and pay handsomely for) the story?

A: It's certainly not inappropriate to point out that at least one possible reason (the one most relevant to me) is that it avoided any double-checking or verification requirements.

While verifiable facts may not matter to you, they are the crux of the matter to me. I've gone on record in this forum as saying that I'm reserving judgment until further VERIFIABLE facts come to light. Therefore, not just with respect to Hersh, ANY story, published by ANYONE, that consists entirely of unverifiable information isn't worth my time.

Also, with respect to Hersh's personal credibility, unless you're a completely gullible idiot the credibility of anyone claiming to have important information should always be checked. Those who piss and moan about challenges to Hersh's credibility are basically saying that unverified information should simply be taken at face value, especially if it fits into a popular (for some) narrative.

Because Hersh's story doesn't even meet minimum (fact-based) standards for my attention, I haven't spent much time on the issue of his credibility. I did see one observation that I thought was both relevant and amusing. The observation came from someone who read both the NordStream story and Hersh's previous story about the raid on Osama bin Laden. Here it is (everyone can read and decide for themselves):

"Something I didn't notice before but now seems glaring. When Hersh wildly mischaracterized the first JSOC raid after 9/11, he quoted a source calling it a "goat fuck".

What did he quote his source saying about purported Nord Stream attack planning? A "goat fuck".

"Seems a smidge too good to be true that, TWO DECADES APART, Hersh's sources would use this SAME VIVID PHRASE to describe these two operations (in both cases attributing it to people involved who the source heard it from). Unless they're, you know, the same person" (emphasis added).

https://twitter.com/wesleysmorgan/st...59040652484608

If that observation is incorrect, feel free to post a factual rebuttal. If, however, that observation is correct, it gives rise to serious credibility questions.

The next thing to do is the classic Democratic douche move and slam me as a Tucker Carlson listening, closed minded right winger.

I don't give a fuck who you listen to. If Carlson, or Hersh, or Bozo the Clown, present facts that can be verified, let them be put on the table for examination and challenge. If not, then they're spewing nothing more than narrative and white noise.

Jack Teixeira leaking documents about the Ukraine war.

More white noise, IMO. Color me unsurprised that the US has done questionable or bad shit to Russia. It's been that way since (at least) the Cold War. And Russia has done it's share of bad shit to the US. And color me unsurprised that the US spies on allies. Espionage ain't tiddly-winks, and all the players spy on all the other players.

But, even if every single word is true (as yet undetermined), it doesn't change the salient and determinative fact that Putin CHOSE to launch a war of aggression. As I've detailed in many prior posts, he was in a position of strength and neither Ukraine nor NATO posed a credible threat. He's attempting to conquer all, or parts, of Ukraine, which makes him the aggressor and Ukraine the victim. And that's the basis for my support for Ukraine. They have an absolute and unqualified moral right to defend their lives and their very existence as an independent nation.

When you call Russians orcs, JM, you are advertising your cognitive bias.

What I'm advertising is my contempt and pure hatred of anyone who would invade a sovereign nation and in the process commit unspeakable atrocities. And Russia has shown that depraved brutality is a systemic feature of their military, not simply "one off" individual events. Rape, torture chambers, mass civilian graves, kidnapping of children, and the list goes on. Any one of these is worthy of the Orc label.

Unlike you, I never allow my personal feelings to cloud my view, and evaluation, of the facts. Again, I challenge you rebut any of the facts I've set forth. Narratives are a dime a dozen, but only true facts can cut through the noise.

You swallowed whole that absolutely idiotic notion that because Russian ships were near Nordstream, the Russians blew up said pipeline.

Nope, haven't swallowed anything. Either you're reading-challenged, or else you've chosen to willfully ignore that I've clearly stated that I'm reserving judgment until more facts come to light. My purpose in posting about the Danish government having photos of Russian ships in the NordStream area was simply to point out that alternative theories exist. In fact, in that post I noted that there are at least 4-5 possible explanations.

Unlike you, I refuse to swallow anyone's unsupported narrative. Convince me with real and verifiable facts, full stop. Those who offer anything less can go fuck (or goat fuck) themselves.

[Xpartan]

A new study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC confirmed what independent analysts have been saying for months. Tanks and other modern armored vehicles need a lot of ball-bearings. And Russia doesn't have enough bearings to maintain steady production of new vehicles".

"The ball-bearing problem might be even harder for Moscow to solve. Even after trading Sosna-Us for 1 PN96 MT-02's, Uralvagonzavod and Omsktransmash still were at an impasse. Workers were building or restoring most of a tank, then running out of parts.

It's for that reason that Russia has struggled to make good the 2,000 or more tanks it has lost in 14 months of hard fighting in Ukraine. Russian forces need at least 150 new or restored tanks a month just to maintain their front-line strength".

"Careful analysis of activity at Uralvagonzavod and Omsktransmash strongly hints the factories every month are shipping out just a few dozen modern-ish tanks: either new-build T-72 BM3's or T-90 Ms or reconditioned T-72's, T-80's and T-90's that technicians have pulled out of long-term storage.

Which is why the Russians are traveling back in time, technologically speaking, and reactivating 1960's-vintage T-62's and 1950's-vintage T-55's that have been moldering in storage since the 1980's".

Next step is T34's from museums and memorial sites.