Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[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.

[Xpartan]

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?

You're barking up the wrong tree. Jmsuttr said they "view themselves as superior," not that they are. And that's true. They might think they're superior, but delusional is what they really are.

Just read carefully before picking up a fight.

[WyattEarp]

One of the points of my earlier post was to debunk the bogus narrative that Russia has a legal claim to Crimea. It's clear that they don't, full stop. When the USSR dissolved it split into (IIRC) 15 newly independent countries. That's a shitload of border issues that needed to be resolved and, in the case of Ukraine, those were clearly settled in 1991 and 1997, per the evidence I've already cited.

With respect to referendum insufficiency (or irregularity), I find that argument wholly unpersuasive. As I recall, there were international observers so, as long as standards for fair elections were met, the turnout was what it was and the results were what they were. It was a binary "stay or leave" choice and almost 55% (in Crimea) voted to leave. From 1991 to 1997, Russia had ample opportunity to raise this issue and, to my knowledge, they didn't. The 1997 treaty re the inviolability of the existing borders effectively puts that issue to rest. And it's also noteworthy that not even the Russians are advancing any kind of independence referendum-centric argument.

With respect to the historic connection argument, that's not only unpersuasive but it's flat-out hogwash. Did they fight in Crimea? Sure, so what? How many times has the Alsace-Lorraine region changed hands? How many pieces of European (and elsewhere) territory once belonged to other countries? Hell, by the connection-language-ethnicity argument, Switzerland should be carved up and divided between France, Germany, and Italy. And which parts of the former Austro-Hungarian empire need to be rejiggered? Lots of battles fought, and blood spilled, in those areas..

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.

[Paulie97]

From the Wapo comments section:

"BREAKING NEWS! On today's Fox News announcement, Vladimir Putin has ordered all Russian flags to be lowered at half mast. " logcabin 1836.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...aves-fox-news/

[Elvis 2008]

However, in stark contrast to many (including you), I have the ability to keep my personal opinions separate from my observations with respect to objective fact (s). So, when I post about a specific piece of evidence, or a specific set of facts, I do my best to stay within the parameters those facts delineate. Also, I am always happy and ready to engage in fact-based debates and discussions. And I've even challenged the narrative-mongers to such debates. The response has either been more narrative or, more often (wait for it), nothing but crickets.

I fully understand what confirmation bias is, and I studiously avoid it. I let the facts shape my view, whereas others (like you) see everything through the lens of their preferred narrative.

Another fine example of projection by you. Blinders much?

You are so clueless it hurts. Your ego is the size of a mountain as you pat yourself on the back for facts and then are clueless to as what they really are.

Seymour Hersh beaks the story on the Nordstream pipeline bombing. It goes into meticulous detail. If even one fact of the report is wrong, they can toss the whole thing, so is that what the government does? No, they do exactly what you would expect if all the facts are correct. They assert he has one source, they bring up times he was wrong in the past, and they make him and not the facts the issue upon which people judge.

And let's get real. You did not read Hersh's story. You just read the bullshit "fact checkers" story.

The next thing to do is the classic Democratic douche move and slam me as a Tucker Carlson listening, closed minded right winger. Only issue with that is Hersh is anything but a right winger. He is as liberal as they come. Still, anyone telling truth to the progressive narrative is a right winger these days.

Then there is this kid Jack Teixeira leaking documents about the Ukraine war. He is arrested and of course, those in the military industrial complex call the information he was releasing disinformation and misinformation but once again they do not give any specifics as to what he released was wrong. So if someone states facts harmful to the government narrative, and the government does not state they are untrue specifically, they probably are true.

Quite frankly, I found the whole story to be so outrageous that I believed it to be true. Dramfrree said this guy was a CIA plant, but I did not see any of the information Teixeira released to be helpful to the CIA. I put that at low odds around 10%.

Well, now it turns out Teixeira was leaking information about the war since it began, and his information was vey accurate. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...nvaded-ukraine.

When you call Russians orcs, JM, you are advertising your cognitive bias. You swallowed whole that absolutely idiotic notion that because Russian ships were near Nordstream, the Russians blew up said pipeline. I would say that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but that got topped.

"In what sounds like it might just be a comically absurd attempt to portray Teixeira as a Russian asset, prosecutors this filed new information with the court, noting that he once shot a vintage Soviet pistol. " At this point, I may as well be a Russian agent because I once had a shot of Stolichnaya vodka.

So now that we or rather I know that what Teixeira released was 99+% true it begs the question what is the USA doing in Ukraine. This fight for Democracy crap always was nonsense. The second part was to weaken Russia but for what? They do not seem all that strong to begin with. The DOD inflating Russian military strength to get money has been going for 50+ years.

Well, we already know that Biden has lined his family's pockets with American aid packages before, but this war is on a scale 100 X larger than Hunter and Burisma. It also shows me the dumb Dems still believe in Russiagate and think weakening Putin will help them in 2024.

[Paulie97]

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?

Based on your reasoning white supremacist idiots in the states would never be found living in run down trailer parks but they often are. False pride is often all someone has, and in that case they'll cling to it with a death grip. National, racial or ethnic pride can certainly co-exist with some individuals of the same seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere. Your whole angle is a laughable non-sequitur.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...s/Non-Sequitur

Monger forums truly win the day for the volume of stupid remarks found. Sports forums are a close second.

[HessenStud]

Both Russians and Chinese view themselves as superior to other races and ethnicities, so I'm guessing any pairing could be a real shit show!

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?

[Jmsuttr]

Pretty much OSINT: Only this year half a million contract soldiers are going to join Russian military. 1600 tanks, new and taken from conservation are going to be on a front line, 2 new repair tank plants built and mobile repair facilities expanded closer to to the lines of engagement. Only in and around Artyomovsk (Bakhmut) the daily losses for AFU for the last 3 months were appr. 16,000 dead per month plus injured. These are all horrific numbers. The team incentives for each modern Western tank with a private funds added in reach $200,000 and specially trained and equipped teams are standing by. This is highly non-symmetrical conflict: Ukraine would need a foreign army and there are no takers. Just call the guys below and see if they answer your call:

It's telling that the only links you post are to inane videos, or stupid cartoons. You rattle off BS and pretend there's some kind of factual basis or authoritative source behind it. It's my guess that everything you post comes straight from the Kremlin's preferred propaganda sources. I'm sure you regularly suck at the tit of RT, and similar Putin mouthpieces. And that's perfectly fine, as you're free to believe whatever deluded BS you want.

But throwing out supposed "data" and "information," while refusing to reveal your sources, is intellectually dishonest. Nobody is going to take your word for anything, eapecially since you've firmly cemented your reputation as a Putin butt-boy. So it's the height of hilarity to watch you try to pretend that you actually care about objective fact and truth.

Let's take your tank production "figures," as just one example. Here's a source that provides information that pretty much blows your narrative out of the water:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...st-in-ukraine/

The article starts by talking about the effect of sanctions on things like optical systems for tanks, then it moves on to the more mundane (yet essential) topic of ball bearings.

"But optics aren't the only thing in short supply in the Russian armored vehicle industry. The Russians also are desperately short of ball-bearings, which they used to get from the United States and Europe before the United States and Europe tightened their sanctions on Russian industry.

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".

So there you have it. A source that explains why the Russians have no balls (bearings, that is), and explains what it means for ACTUAL tank production, which is different from the propaganda coming out of the pro-Russia outlets.

So here's a direct challenge: Do you have the balls to post the actual sources of your alleged facts? Or are you as much of a eunuch as the Russian tank industry?

[GDreams]

You will have no military left in 10 months. You guys truly are delusional.

Aren't you the guy who repeatedly fell for Ukrainian scammers and couldn't get laid in pussy heaven?