Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Sirioja]

If only were it that easy.

What other president would jump into war with Iran in the election year? Or if such other president were an exceptionally gutsy leader, would they have allowed cretin Hegseth to cook a military campaign that didn't account for the PROBABILITY of Iran's closure of Hormuz? Of course, no one BUT Trump would've made the aforementioned cretin the head of Pentagon in the first place, but that's another story.

As a result, our brilliant aerial blitz quickly descended into a disastrous diplomatic defeat because no president of a country that still remains slightly democratic (for now) can ignore monetary pains of us the people, at the gas stations. Not in the election year. So here we go: Mr. TACO at his best.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...al/ar-AA25KPK3

Conclusion: Only Trump. Another president wouldn't start this war or would be smarter about it.

Your point works today, but would it have worked in Feb 2022? Put any other Ukrainian into the office today, and yeah, sure. With Ukraine making real gains on the battlefield and lighting up Russian infrastructure AT WILL, any president would keep fighting..

Yes, maybe corruption, but Zelensky has big balls like many Ukrainians, when Putin is just a crazy dangerous guy killing a lot of Russian meat. Ukrainians learned to become best experts for drones, for new way for war. Kind of smart David resisting to dumb Goliath. I wish best future to so courageous Ukrainians who give a lesson to our world, for Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela. Stop robbers.

[Xpartan]

I know everyone has an opinion about Trump, Netanyahu, Zelenskyy, and Putin. But, IMO, excessive focus on those individuals misses some crucial issues.

>>

With respect to Trump, the most important question is whether one thinks Iran has been trying to achieve a level of nuclear weapons technology that would make them pretty much untouchable, similar to North Korea? Biden and Obama arguably just looked the other way, or swept the issue under the rug. So, assuming one believes Iran has actual (and dangerous) nuclear ambitions, criticizing Trump misses the point. The more important question is what would another president do if they weren't willing to look the other way?

If only were it that easy.

What other president would jump into war with Iran in the election year? Or if such other president were an exceptionally gutsy leader, would they have allowed cretin Hegseth to cook a military campaign that didn't account for the PROBABILITY of Iran's closure of Hormuz? Of course, no one BUT Trump would've made the aforementioned cretin the head of Pentagon in the first place, but that's another story.

As a result, our brilliant aerial blitz quickly descended into a disastrous diplomatic defeat because no president of a country that still remains slightly democratic (for now) can ignore monetary pains of us the people, at the gas stations. Not in the election year. So here we go: Mr. TACO at his best.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...al/ar-AA25KPK3

Conclusion: Only Trump. Another president wouldn't start this war or would be smarter about it.

About Zelenskyy, if he dropped dead or resigned tomorrow, it's virtually certain that his replacement would be someone equally (or more) resistant to the Russian invasion. In fact, one of the leading candidates would probably be General Zaluzhnyi, former armed forces chief and current ambassador to the UK. The idea that Zelenskyy, as an individual, is the problem is missing the forest for the trees. Ukraine sees the conflict as an existential struggle and they don't believe Russia will be satisfied with just the Donbas. Viewing this as an existential threat (similar to how Israel views Iran), any Ukrainian leader would need to act accordingly.

Your point works today, but would it have worked in Feb 2022? Put any other Ukrainian into the office today, and yeah, sure. With Ukraine making real gains on the battlefield and lighting up Russian infrastructure AT WILL, any president would keep fighting.

But today is not Feb 2022. If it hadn't been for Zelensky, Ukraine would've been a different place. Most likely, any other president would've negotiated a humiliating peace with Putin. Massive swaths of Eastern and Central Ukraine would've been currently occupied. The Russians might have chosen not to occupy Kyiv, but its army would've stationed right across the river training their big guns on the capital. The UAF would've been reduced to the mostly decorative National Guards. I'm not saying Ukraine would've been decisively defeated. More likely a gorilla war would've been raging on against the occupiers, but Zelensky's staying in Kyiv in Feb 2022 made all the difference in the world. No one else would have.

Conclusion: Only Zelensky. No other president would've successfully keep at bay the monster, the size of Russia.

Finally, Putin is probably the best candidate for individual focus. That's because he personally ordered the invasion and he could personally order it to stop. But the bigger question is what happens after? It's certainly possible that Putin could be pushed out of office, especially if he's viewed as weak and a failure. If that happens, his replacement has two choices: First, blame Putin for everything and try to repair the damage. Second, double down on the war against Ukraine. That last choice would probably involve going into full Stalin mode.

What is full Stalin's mode? Let's not forget that Stalin failed to occupy tiny Finland. Twice, actually, during the Winter War and the Continuation War. Of course, Finland had to make big concessions, but it stayed free. Stalin, with all his monstrosity, was nothing but flexible.

Putin started this pointless war for 3 reasons. He hated Ukraine, he wanted to keep Ukraine as a client state, and he thought it would be easy. When he realized it wouldn't be easy, he kept digging down because he was and still is convinced that not achieving something that can be framed as a victory would spell the end for him. Not unreasonably, by the way. Now he's a hostage to this war. As long as the bullets are flying, he's alive and in power.

Conclusion: Only Putin. No one else would've started that war or kept at it for 4+ years knowing it can't be won.

[Sirioja]

Today, EU, UK and Canada still keep on supporting so courageous Ukrainians, welcoming Zelensky actions, versus war criminal dictator Putin, this in front of Trump who can't oppose, even he would prefer business with his friend Putin and rob Ukraine, like he also tries with Venezuela and Greenland. Russia is a wonderful country I love, but not under Putin, when nobosy never threatened Russia, despite Crimea robbery, even Trump condemned while his first election but forgot as senile. Same like Iran never threatened with nuclear, as reported by CIA, but Netanyahou needs wars business to avoid jail and lies rather than peace for Trump. Pity for Russia under Putin, when most beautiful women of the world and so good in bed, when many prefer than vodka drunk guys.

[Jmsuttr]

The main point of my previous post is that it's a mistake to put too much focus and attention on individual persons, rather than the underlying geopolitical issues and dynamics.

Taking Zelenskyy as the easiest example, it's irrelevant whether one likes him or hates him. The more relevant question is what, if anything, would substantially change if he was no longer on the chessboard? My argument is that the bigger underlying issue is that Ukraine sees itself in an existential struggle. Therefore, if Zelenskyy was not in the picture, the dynamics within Ukraine would mandate that any chosen leader reflect that same (existential struggle) view, and act accordingly. And that also means Ukraine would not tolerate anyone as leader who might lean toward accommodating or appeasing Russia. This means that those who love to criticize Zelenskyy are missing the point because, at this moment in time and under the current set of circumstances, any other leader would almost certainly take a similarly hard line.

I could go on to construct similar examples using other leaders, but I won't, because I want to keep this clarification as simple as possible. Again, for anyone who puts most or all of their focus on the personalities involved, you are looking at the individual trees and are very likely missing the (bigger picture) forest.

[Sirioja]

I know everyone has an opinion about Trump, Netanyahu, Zelenskyy, and Putin. But, IMO, excessive focus on those individuals misses some crucial issues.

Take Netanyahu, for example, no matter how one feels about him it's relevant to ask whether any Israeli leader would have acted in a significantly different way in the aftermath of the October 7th attack? From the Israeli point of view, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are all doing Iran's bidding. So, while Hamas (in isolation) is one level of problem, adding Iran (and others) to the mix makes it an existential threat. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter and whether you love or hate Netanyahu doesn't matter. That's how Israel views the situation and any Israeli leader would need to act accordingly.

With respect to Trump, the most important question is whether one thinks Iran has been trying to achieve a level of nuclear weapons technology that would make them pretty much untouchable, similar to North Korea? Biden and Obama arguably just looked the other way, or swept the issue under the rug. So, assuming one believes Iran has actual (and dangerous) nuclear ambitions, criticizing Trump misses the point. The more important question is what would another president do if they weren't willing to look the other way?

About Zelenskyy, if he dropped dead or resigned tomorrow, it's virtually certain that his replacement would be someone equally (or more) resistant to the Russian invasion. In fact, one of the leading candidates would probably be General Zaluzhnyi, former armed forces chief and current ambassador to the UK. The idea that Zelenskyy, as an individual, is the problem is missing the forest for the trees..

I don't agree: If Zelensky is not anymore, then Putin would try to fuck new elections in Ukraine, same like in Georgia, Armenia, Romania, Hungary. May have corruption, but Zelensky really fight for Ukraine, when Trump prefer to suck Putin. With his war business to avoid jail, not respecting peace agreements, war criminal Netanyahou makes almost everybody now hating Israel, not Israelians but Tsahal murderers, same like USA under Trump, not American citizens, but actions of USA led by crazy dangerous Trump. Netanyahou and Putin were judged as war criminals and Trump should be, after killing more than 150 Iranian girls at school, when he started this war, when CIA told 0 risk from Iran nuclear. But too old, schizophrene megaloman needs to feel he is the center of the world. Fortunately, many resist to his daily bullshits and lies.

[Bill]

[Deleted by Admin]

[Jmsuttr]

I know everyone has an opinion about Trump, Netanyahu, Zelenskyy, and Putin. But, IMO, excessive focus on those individuals misses some crucial issues.

Take Netanyahu, for example, no matter how one feels about him it's relevant to ask whether any Israeli leader would have acted in a significantly different way in the aftermath of the October 7th attack? From the Israeli point of view, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are all doing Iran's bidding. So, while Hamas (in isolation) is one level of problem, adding Iran (and others) to the mix makes it an existential threat. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter and whether you love or hate Netanyahu doesn't matter. That's how Israel views the situation and any Israeli leader would need to act accordingly.

With respect to Trump, the most important question is whether one thinks Iran has been trying to achieve a level of nuclear weapons technology that would make them pretty much untouchable, similar to North Korea? Biden and Obama arguably just looked the other way, or swept the issue under the rug. So, assuming one believes Iran has actual (and dangerous) nuclear ambitions, criticizing Trump misses the point. The more important question is what would another president do if they weren't willing to look the other way?

About Zelenskyy, if he dropped dead or resigned tomorrow, it's virtually certain that his replacement would be someone equally (or more) resistant to the Russian invasion. In fact, one of the leading candidates would probably be General Zaluzhnyi, former armed forces chief and current ambassador to the UK. The idea that Zelenskyy, as an individual, is the problem is missing the forest for the trees. Ukraine sees the conflict as an existential struggle and they don't believe Russia will be satisfied with just the Donbas. Viewing this as an existential threat (similar to how Israel views Iran), any Ukrainian leader would need to act accordingly.

Finally, Putin is probably the best candidate for individual focus. That's because he personally ordered the invasion and he could personally order it to stop. But the bigger question is what happens after? It's certainly possible that Putin could be pushed out of office, especially if he's viewed as weak and a failure. If that happens, his replacement has two choices: First, blame Putin for everything and try to repair the damage. Second, double down on the war against Ukraine. That last choice would probably involve going into full Stalin mode.

But my main point remains. Any focus on the above individuals needs to also consider them in comparison to other alternatives. And those alternative choices would be shaped by the reality of their situations, not by things as we might wish them to be.

[Sirioja]

When stupid Trump make big gift to his criminal friend Putin with petrol increasing rate, billions for his war, but Ukrainians are fucking Russian petrol production with their best drones. When David became more clever than Goliath. Well played Ukrainians, fuck Russian petrol, gaz and bridges, make Russians go home. Then, could may be the end of dictator Putin and a better life for Russians when thousands ran away.

[Sirioja]

Despite all his daily bullshits and when he thought could be good to fight China economics, but after spending 30 billions for 0 result, 1 mollah killed, 10 new who want to become martyr, and after failing for peace in Ukraine, Trump was told he lost war versus Iran, just killing Americans for nothing. Criminal Netanyahou is nothing without Trump, if no weapons and no support. Only way to stop Putin is to make Russia broke, what tried EU, but Trump made a big gift to Putin with petrol inflation, making more money for his war. When Americans are really not when electing again Trump, but poor Ukrainians are clever, learning a lot under war, adapting their army, becoming now the reference for drones, better than USA, Russia and China, when Russia and China support Iran versus Trump, when Trump suck Putin versus Ukraine. Cuckold Trump who is too old senile to understand reality of our world, but for sure not able for MAGA, but wars rather than peace and messe with inflation and lost jobs. Just a loser.

[Elvis 2008]

Will there be others? Hard to say and only time will tell. But what's clear is that Butsayev showed it's possible, and I have no doubt there are some in Russia who are working on their own "just in case" escape plan. And, speaking of the perception of strength, it can't be helpful for Putin that this year's Victory Day parade was a shadow of its former versions. It was quite literally the worst in Soviet and Russian history!

Bottom line: A system failure undeniably occurred, a crack in the system. Will it be repaired? Will others try to take advantage? Can the perception of strength be restored? Will there be lasting damage? All questions open to different opinions and worthy of debate (IMO).

The one thing you can always count on with a military is they are filled with experts who have fought the last war. Ukraine has better drones than Russia does, and Iran is making drones for Russia. That more than anything should tell you how badly Russia is failing.

Peter Zeihan said the Russians would fight like they always had, using their superior number of troops and sacrificing the lives of those men, and Zeihan said the war was Russia's to lose. Well, unmanned drone warfare has stopped the Russians in their tracks. All that is going on now is the two nations are blowing up each other's infrastructure. What is the point of the war now? Putin has lost his troops, his government officials, and his country, and this desertion is the first of many. At least the Ukrainians can say they are defending their home land though I imagine fighting a forever war has sapped their morale as well.

And Trump caught this war-is-easy bug too. The Iranians did more damage with drones and missiles than anyone thought they could. Israel is all focused on Iran not having nukes when Iran could have wiped Israel off the map by destroying its desalination plants, but Iran did not do so even when attacked.

So now we have Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin all in the same boat. The only question is which will be the first to get their head out of their ass and realize they are fighting unwinnable wars.

[Jmsuttr]

While he's one notch below the highest (ministerial) level of the Russian government, he couldn't have reached that post without the endorsement and backing of a strong patron. Putin runs Russia like a Mafia state, and one firm requirement for reaching the upper levels is absolute loyalty to the Don. Also, while principal Ministers can be figureheads, their deputies are often the ones actually running the department. That generally means they have some degree of competence and also knowledge about what goes on behind the scenes. Butsayev's prior government positions included significant leadership roles in both Belgorod and Moscow Oblasts, so he's been around a while and moved around within government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Butsayev

The main point is simply that he was a "made man," a trusted lieutenant, just below the top tier of the hierarchy. Such individuals are not afforded the luxury of leaving voluntarily as they know too much. The FSB, regardless of how effective or efficient one believes them to be, is tasked with maintaining the hierarchy, enforcing discipline, "disappearing" problems, etc. A quick web search reveals some of their (alleged) handiwork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspic...ths_since_2022

One of the biggest dangers to any Strong Man form of government is displaying weakness. That's true not only for the leader himself, but also for those parts of the government (like the FSB) used as the leader's enforcement arms. The fact the FSB failed in this instance puts a dent in the perception of strength and control. It's not so much about Butsayev, as an individual, as it is about the cracks in the system that allowed him to escape.

Will there be others? Hard to say and only time will tell. But what's clear is that Butsayev showed it's possible, and I have no doubt there are some in Russia who are working on their own "just in case" escape plan. And, speaking of the perception of strength, it can't be helpful for Putin that this year's Victory Day parade was a shadow of its former versions. It was quite literally the worst in Soviet and Russian history!

Bottom line: A system failure undeniably occurred, a crack in the system. Will it be repaired? Will others try to take advantage? Can the perception of strength be restored? Will there be lasting damage? All questions open to different opinions and worthy of debate (IMO).

[Sirioja]

Disasters provide opportunities.

Political discussions are actually unwanted on a monger forum!

But how about the pussies in Kiev? Are they hungry and easy to catch? Any monger to report?

Another thread: Kiev, for this, when under war of Putin for the fifth year. Wish will finish soon.

[Sirioja]

I'm so happy French associations help Ukraine to block Russian drones.

[Amadeuss]

Disasters provide opportunities.

Political discussions are actually unwanted on a monger forum!

But how about the pussies in Kiev? Are they hungry and easy to catch? Any monger to report?

[Xpartan]

Primary link:

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status...67063184724229

Alternate link:

https://xcancel.com/Gerashchenko_en/...67063184724229

No direct confirmation as of yet, but certainly interesting if true. Not sure how the FSB would be unaware since they almost certainly have a file on most (all?) government officials.

Still no direct comment from either government. Curiouser and curiouser!

You're thinking about FSB as an embodiment of ruthless efficiency. It isn't. It's a pale shadow of the KGB. The whole mother Russia is incompetent to the core, their economy is in the gutter, the war at the stalemate, 1.5 million are dead or crippled, and you're surprised the FSB let one guy off the hook?

I don't give two shits about Butsayev. So he stole a few shekels and lived to tell the story. Good. The Russian corruption is a great Ukrainian ally. Let them steal everything, they have my blessing.