Someone "escalated" his mother.






Definitely not considering that each single meal can be poisoned or that a slow poisonning is running against you, slowly killing you. Horrible, worse than window-flying trip:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vladimir-putin-critic-alexei-navalny-slow-poisoning-mystery-ailment-rcna79324

Fucking barbaric country.

If they really wanted to punish him they would send him to France

Doesn't this imply that Ukraine is not guaranteed to be "totally winning" with the amount of weapons and money we gave them so far?



Just like the pro-Western side had won the fair elections in 2004 - an election during which the FSB tried to assassinate the pro-Western candidate and left him scarred for life. So much for reductive viewpoints or the argument how "everything in Ukraine went to shit because of outside forces meddling with their elections".


Russia tried to capture Kyiv at the beginning of the war in an attempt to end the war quickly and force all of Ukraine to surrender. And they've continuously bombed the Western parts of Ukraine too. It's quite the stretch to allege that Russia doesn't stake a claim to western Ukraine. It's certainly not their priority, but they would imho definitely try to at least ""denazify"" Western Ukraine if they could.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 7 2023 01:36pm

Wat



The FSB tried to kill him? didn't think they solved that one, when did they determine this? Amazing how incompetent Russia is, access to the deadliest poisons on the planet and they chose one that just gives the dude greyscale instead of killing him.



Of course they tried to end it quickly, why would they want a drawn out conflict, once that failed they adjusted their strategy and it seems pretty plain they have no interest in capturing major portions of western Ukraine, if they even could. If a magic opportunity presented itself to topple what is left of Ukraine they probably would take it and then just install a puppet government.

Do you actually think the west gives a shit about Ukrainian sovereignty? They care about them even less than the Russians, at least the Russians have a vested interest in Ukraine not becoming a war torn shithole.

I have made a point of no longer responding to meanwhile, (racist, flames, etc), even if he provides informative information, which his post above does contain. I would comment on that image however.

I note the comments from TAS. On the basis that Russia means what it says, and does what it says, I tend to agree that we are now in a forever war between the west and Russia, which is likely to last decades. This view is on the basis that it is not Russia's intention to conquer all of Ukraine, which as a consequence means, that Ukraine will keep coming back for more until it accepts it cant get back what it has lost, and there is no expectation of a eureka moment any time soon. In the meantime the West will be forced to respond to Russia ramping up its military capabilities.

So forgetting about Ukraine for a moment, if Russia is saying it is going to rebuild its army, and nuclear deterrent, then that is what it will do. So basically, the US has weaponized Russia against the West. In layman's terms that people can understand ~

1. We have a war at present and in all likelihood a prolonged conflict for decades to come between the West and Russia. No treaty will change this fact noting the West has repeatedly demonstrated that it acts in bad faith (this is a fact, not conjecture) and as a consequence Russia, while reasonable, will have to change its policies. Note that this is not a anti-western standpoint, its a neutral position taken based on the facts presented.
2. The cost of food and goods around the world will increase and there is no expectation that this will reduce for decades. This is on the basis of globalization = international co-operation and cheaper goods and de globalization = more expensive goods.

This post was edited by ferdia on Aug 7 2023 03:16pm

They will have a cold peace and the world will turn into a pseudo cold war period. Which is the better outcome instead of an all out conflict.
Rather foolish really.

Should have " supported" Trump's overtures to Putin and Russia. A small lose for Ukraine and a big win for the West. And Ukraine still keep her territories intact losing only Crimea.

The end and possible result of making " peace " with Russia during Trump's presidency will mean a denial to the Chinese for their Belt and Road initiative via Central Asia.

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Aug 7 2023 03:31pm

One of the biggest issues that I think people don't fully understand is Ukraine's power structure has an incentive to keep fighting. They are receiving billions and are almost entirely dependent on the EU/US to keep the country afloat. As long as they keep fighting, money keeps flowing in, not only for military purposes by generally. As soon as this war is over, the aid is over. Even if they recapture everything from Russia they would be looking at massive loans that they can never pay back, infrastructure in shambles, young work force that's depleted, many dead, many having left for EU, etc. Who would want to go back? I go to a mid-size Slavic church sometimes in my city (idk maybe 400 ish people) and we've had, i kid you not at least 50 Ukrainians come since the start of the conflict. There's many more in the city that came but are not religious that anecdotally you wouldn't even know about. None of these people are ever going back. I talked to this guy that was actually deported to Ukraine years ago for getting arrested several times and he told me he basically made his way back into the US through Mexico like 2-3 months ago. This dude's like 35, prime fighting age, of course there are many like him, and honestly who can blame these people for not wanting to go get fragged for a town or city he's never been or cares very little about.

Lets say war is over today and aid slows to a trickle, you would see a huge dissatisfaction from the general population that's left. Even more people leaving. I seen something on twitter that talked about that even when the war ends, Ukraine may need to essentially close the border for an additional 2 years to prevent population outflows and to have enough people to rebuild. The people in power today are not going to last when they have to answer for the stagnation and depression that will follow after. So they keep on keeping on, collecting that paycheck, sending plebs to the front because the alternative is not attractive (lose power, be held accountable, lose steady flow of income).

Maybe I'm just cynical, but IMO today's reality and potential outcomes are magnitudes worse for most people there compared to just accepting some east-aligned puppet circa 2010. And I knew this shit outcome was probably going happen unless we had a very quick and decisive turn of events in the short term, we didn't and now have the worst possible outcome.

I think the general international consensus that even Russia didn't refute is that Ukraine did not have a stable, legitimate democracy prior to the 2010 elections, which both east and west considered legitimate. The 2004 elections were a real shitshow, with the west decrying the first round as rigged while Russia called it legitimate, followed by the orange revolution and rerun ballot, which at that point even Russia called for (but wanted to be a total redo instead of just a repeat round).

Its just a fact that the 2010 elections were recognized by east and west and considered legitimate, and reflected that the most populous oblasts leaned pro-Russian. And that a minority overthrew the government by force in 2014, backed by the west. Which was the end of legitimate democracy insofar as it holds any claim to jurisdiction over the separatist regions, or maybe in general if we actually cared about Ukrainian self-determination instead of them just being western pawns.



I mean besides Russia coming straight out and explicitly saying they don't have any goal of taking western Ukraine ('anymore'), it doesn't make sense for them at this point. They're just saying out loud what's obvious at the ground level, its an entrenched conflict and Russia could not take Kiev by any amount of force that would make it worth taking and holding. Likewise NATO has no means to actually seize Crimea without sparking WW3. But the difference is, Ukrainian propaganda continues to stake itself to the utter farce of demanding the regions that the coup regime has never set foot in. We just saw that charade in the Jeddah conference, Ukraine demands the DPR/LPR/Crimea, 38 other countries pretend to oblige them, and the US's mouth suspiciously never moves while Ukraine is talking.

It made sense for Russia to try to take the whole country with a minimal investment. If they could blitz it and seize it in one swoop like how Afghanistan fell, it would be a major boon. Forget the west's dead weight of humanitarian obligations and refugees and mouths to feed in the dirt poor backwater of the EU, Russia could simply neglect them. But now that Russia can't take them easily, why would they want them? They want the ethnic rus oblasts with strategic resources and ports, not the baggage.

Even if Russia had succeeded in taking Kyiv at the opening they still wouldn't have kept the entire country. Western Ukraine didn't want them there and Russia knew it. Russia would have installed a puppet government certainly but if they had any interest in Ukraine entire they wouldn't have stopped with Crimea in 2014 they'd have moved on Kyiv then when Ukraine was handing over territory without a shot fired because it had no direction or stability and it's military was leaderless untrained unequipped and useless.

Yesterday i said "Russia is barbaric" in a reaction regarding the fate of their political prisonners getting poisoned, assassinated, tortured... (weee)

Yet I would like to tune down this word with this explanation:

In 1857, out of more than 62.5 million inhabitants of the Russian Empire, 23.1 million had the status of serf.
Excerpts from the Russian Code
- Land serfs (State/private) are considered property accessories.
- Military serfs and private servants are assimilated to furniture.
- Rights and duties of the masters: The master, who can only be a noble Russian Orthodox Christian, can sell, rent, pledge or give in succession, and in general, take advantage of the work of his serfs, as he sees fit. seems, but as a good Christian (LOOOOL) and within the framework of the oukaze of April 5, 1797.
This represents the law at the time of emancipation. Previously, for several centuries, the "serfs" were subject to sale without land and were therefore rather slaves. This can be seen, for example, in "Dead Souls" by Nikolai Gogol, which deals with the trade in serfs.
This status was followed by Russian revolution, 100 years of crushing soviet union which frozen the culture, killing or banishing intellectuals.

Their own people, their own kind, and in such proportions... This is an exception in the recent history of humanity.
IMHO let's not underestimate the love and desire for sacrifice they have for their masters. Explains alot about the national sport: Shrugging shoulders. Honestly It's just depressing and wish they manage to liberate themselves at some point.

=> How shocking if many Ukrainians want to quit this... "Russian fatalism".