I was pointing out something similar a few pages ago. Besides the bias towards seeing more western content, especially if you're on western sites like Reddit or Facebook or Twitter, as opposed to Telegram / etc with more RU content- its also misleading in terms of the observer bias itself. Drones have cameras on them, they record themselves killing people, their operators just love to post it. Artillery and glide bombs don't have cameras, and the only footage we see is when spotter drones happened to be watching from a distance, and even when we do see it all we usually get to see is a building getting asploded with no idea if anyone was inside or how many. A glide bomb can take out an entire regiment in a single hit or it can blow up some empty rubble.

All the reasonable sources seem to agree that the most lethal weapon has been artillery / glide bombs, and Russia has an overwhelming advantage at it. In terms of drones, we've had sources from both sides of the conflict claim either their side has the advantage or that the other side does, and there's plenty of footage of both. We've seen lots of tech developments from both western and RU drones, like Russia upgrading to night vision models with large capacities of more accurate bombs, or maneuverable US suicide drones being able to hit specific armor weaknesses. And lots of sources claiming huge production of drones on both sides. I don't think we'll ever know the truth of the battle of the drones.

Is it really that difficult to understand? The Azov guys are not the Ukrainian government, their ideology doesn't guide the Ukrainian state or represent the thinking of the bulk of the Ukrainian people. I mean, the country's literal president is a Jew, lmao. So at the end of the day, the Azovites are a bunch of unsavory morons with fringe beliefs who volunteer to be sent to the front lines, at a time when Ukraine is fighting for its survival and desperately looking for more soldiers. Ukraine simply isn't in a position to be picky about which fighters they recruit; at this point, they can be glad about any volunteers.

Hence, the decision is made to arm the grunts, so that they can die in the trenches for their country/the cause we in the West support. Unlike the Taliban, Al Quaeda or ISIS, there is no risk of the Azovites ever ruling Ukraine - not if Ukraine prevails and retains its independence, and certainly not if Russia wins and conquers the country.

Yes, it's cynical and morally questionable. It's pragmatic. It's realpolitik.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 11 2024 08:39am

That would require the West to begin mobilizing its economy for war. They can't or won't, whereas Russia can and is. In any case, do we really think Russia would continue attacking into impregnable defenses? They'd wait for the support to run out and defend the territory they have. Without a negotiated settlement the war will not end.

Western arms production is ramping up though. Not to the same level as Russia's, but the West has a much larger economy and industrial capacity. The Western arms industry operating at 50% of its capacity would easily be enough to overwhelm Russia's production at 100% of their capacity. Now, will we ramp up high and quick enough? That's debatable, I have my doubts... but it's not like we're doing nothing while Russia is going all out.

Also, you're indirectly implying that the Russian people would comply with their country being on wartime footing for a long time without seeing any progress, just waiting for Western support to Ukraine to run out. I'm not sure if that's a realistic assumption. Imho, the longer the situation on the battlefield remains static, the higher the pressure for a settled peace enshrining the status quo.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 11 2024 08:46am

In all of this, you have to ask what is the actual benefit for the west to do so. I mean like tangible, economic value added benefit not nonsense of 'stopping Russia before or they will attack us next'.

A lot of these productions require up-front, long dated XXX billions commitments that may make sense if the objective is ultimately beat back Russia but from an actual personal benefit, it's quite the reach.

Russia IMO has a longer run-way because power is relatively concentrated vs the west's support which is fickle and can change on a dime with one good recession, where people will tell politicians to fuck off with sending billions abroad when the unemployment rate is 12%.

They are not fringe. They are a significant political force and vanguard of the military force. What was the first thing Zaluzhnyi did when he was at odds with Zelensky and his dismissal already in the cards? He immediately courted Azov at what can best be described as a shrine to Nazi-era Ukraine. Both Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi were in close contact with Prokopenko during the Azovstal siege and part of the prisoner swap (and perfidy) to return them to the front lines. They had elected members of parliament and power brokers meeting with Joe Biden.
The whole "but he's a Jew!" angle is kind of undermined by the last decade of liberals screaming 'Nazi' at Donald Trump and his Jewish family.

but I must also take specific issue with the idea that you think there's no risk the Banderites will ever take over Ukraine. If anything, I'd say political forces and historical trends say its likely Ukraine will eventually devolve into a Nazi-led state. It has been a predictable pattern. As long as America continues to prop up Zelensky's puppet regime in Kiev, it looks like the Azovites will never rule, right? But America will tire of this conflict, we will eventually stop our charade, the money funnel will run empty, and what happens then? Will this end with Russian winning and seizing all of western Ukraine? Unlikely, as I've said before even if they could, they might not want the pisspot poor half of the poorest country. Putin's dreams were of seizing everything east of the Dnipro, he hasn't been coy about that. What will become of Ukraine when we abandon them, as we always do our allies? What happened in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, in Iraq?

Once America withdraws and the bribe money stops flowing and we aren't propping up Zelensky's farce, there will be a power vacuum and the single biggest and most heavily armed force will be Banderite nationalists. We might be leaving behind a country with an imploded and failed government if the war pressure becomes uncontrollable, in which case it would be a total vacuum. Pretty much the only alternative I see for any long term stability is for west ukraine to be folded into the EU proper and turned into a proper welfare state, a money pit latched onto the EU and siphoning away resources to prop up a country that will look like Dilbert's Elbonia except without any men aged between 18 and 60. At least its plausible for the EU to drag out their slow demise even if the long term sustainability of the EU welfare experiment is dubious.

NATO had been slacking in the years leading up to the Ukraine war, Europe and Canada more so than the US, but even the US military had gotten complacent and bloated. The way I see the macro-developments in the world, major wars are coming our way within the next 30 years anyway, perhaps even during the next 10 years. Getting our shit together, having a potent arms industry and refilling our empty stockpiles was long overdue. So even if the materiel we produce now won't be used in Ukraine because that war is over by next year while the weapons contracts run far longer, it still won't be a waste - it will help make up for the decades of neglect and get our militaries back to required strength.


Fair point.





The Azovites would only be the strongest power in a western Ukrainian rump state if their forces don't get wiped while Ukraine's official military does (in the losing war which led to Russia seizing the eastern half of the country). How likely is that, considering their militarism, their pride and their willingness to sacrifice?

It is a possible scenario, but not particularly likely if you ask me. In Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, it was always obvious that the bad guys would take over the country if we don't keep boots on the ground. Iraq is a special case, god knows which development they'd have taken without Iran's corrupting influence.

well from what I've seen in the post-mariupol stage of the war the azov battalions seem to be mostly operating drones now. part of a reason I'd think they've have some preserved forces even with the end of the conflict.
still when it comes to historical trends, having a heavily armed regressive nationalist military force that was already a big faction, usually spells an obvious sequence of events after a power vacuum.
I'm hardly doing a nostradamus act when I'm just predicting the latest US proxy war has the same result as the last dozen US proxy wars

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1800624301449920815
https://x.com/KyivPost/status/1800528361724486076

Western twitter """reporting""" on the combat death of Shura Ryazantseva, callsign 'Yalta', describing her as Zelensky's personal stylist and one of the posterchild soldiers for Ukraine

what do they fail to mention?
that she was a member of azov and had a gigantic swastika tattooed across her thighs, not just a little swastika like the pussy nazis put on their necks this swastika was most of her leg
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the real Nazis do a good job of jumping up and down screaming that they're Nazis so nobody can possibly deny it.

You don’t get it Goom, the tats are just an inside joke to trigger the vatniks. She was actually a peace loving hippie with a penchant for Hindu symbols.

/s