Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
What is the most powerful flying bug?
This poll is closed.
🦋 15 3.71%
🦇 115 28.47%
🪰 12 2.97%
🐦 67 16.58%
dragonfly 94 23.27%
🦟 14 3.47%
🐝 87 21.53%
Total: 404 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Post
  • Reply
genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Homeless Friend posted:

euros love warring eachother for mostly no benefit, they love that crap

Can confirm

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Meow Tse-tung posted:

I would say thats true, but this is the first time I can remember where all the firefights and drone bombings are being posted all over reddit in HD daily and it definitely has worked its way into every online space I can think of. That feels kind of unique and horrifying to me.

but yeah, the insane levels of propaganda is like they took all the lessons they learned over the last 20 years and are learning to speedrun it

Seems like the big budget sequel to Syria to me.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Homeless Friend posted:

the ap did one of those long rear end news articles on Bucha. lotta dead bodies pictured ofc.

short video too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW8YYhUIK0s

some extremely classic occupation stuff

Yeah, basically standard occupation stuff. Shooting everyone with a gun. Dubious raids. Who told the Ukrainians where to drop the mortar? This whole war thing seems like a bad idea.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Azathoth posted:

I've never heard a story of it, but there's gotta be at least a few. It wouldn't surprise me if the media were just not running stories about them, or literally saving them for some propaganda push later.

On the other hand, it's also possible that people tried and Russia was afraid of them being spooked up and so either outright sent them packing or has them working in a laundry 1000 miles from Ukraine.

Lmao. My fight* for Russia against Western Imperialism (hardcover, 39$)



*peeling potatoes 250km east of Novosibirsk.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Actually, now that I think of it. Wasn't there a story about Syrian volunteers that Turkey didn't let through or something along that line?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

KomradeX posted:

Hey is there any good articles about why Tim Synder sucks as a hisorian that can't be misconstrued as Pro-Stalinist. My Ukrianian friend was telling me he was watching some lecture he gave on YouTube and I told him I wouldn't trust a word he says cause hes ridiculously biased and I'd like to follow it up with a proper source

https://booksandideas.net/Timothy-Snyder-and-his-Critics.html

This one maybe?

Though, on reflection that is maybe not what you're looking for, and some of those critics also seem to be loons.

genericnick has issued a correction as of 14:59 on Nov 4, 2022

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Wheeee posted:

going to buy a shipyard in ukraine for less than the cost of a two bedroom crackhouse in vancouver

War ends after mysterious buyer is revealed as Gazprom

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

HashtagGirlboss posted:

I thought so too until Crowsbeak happened

They’re rare, but they’re real

Isn't that basically always the LaRouchians?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Azathoth posted:

Calling LaRouchites red/brown is one of those things that's broadly accurate but gets less true the more you dig down, because the reality of their beliefs are infinitely dumber and stranger than a basic red/brown or strasserite ideology.

Do they even have believes? They always seemed the opest of ops to me.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

sum posted:

You think that the country that spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on its military can't afford to refurbish its own mothballed inventory?

Would they even help if you don't send maintenance formations along with them?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

samogonka posted:

uh, i really wonder what they try to achieve with such statements

https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1588823475514314752

There are different audiences to cater to and blood and soil rhetoric is what the ultar nats and the Daily Mail want to hear. IS produced flashy snuff movies for the diabetic Saudi millionaires that funded them and to show their possible recruits that they were the biggest psychos in the gang war. All while the US was desperate to find any barely presentable rebels to dump infinite weapons on.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

I'm guessing mass extermination of ethnic Russians in Ukraine is probably not logistically feasible either, so...


I mean we're starting from the assumption that they take Crimea

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Because retaking Crimea seems so self-evidently strategically unfeasible from my perspective. The Russian government and media claim they're pursuing a lot of crazy maximalist goals themselves; that doesn't mean they actually, truly believe they can achieve those goals.

Actually, now that you mention it. What maximalist goal is the Russian government claiming? I remember the initial war goals, but what are they saying now?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1589228312777424897#m

I think we had that article, but the pull quote gives it another spin. The Euros are griping behind closed doors and we should pretend we're seeking a settlement to make them shut up as compared to Joe Biden is looking for an off ramp. Might both be true though.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Russia being able to successfully integrate all of the regions it's officially annexed looks like it could be a tall order going forward. Beyond that, I don't think the Kremlin has dropped its stated war aim of "demilitarizing" Ukraine, and that also probably isn't going to be feasible anytime soon.


Eh. Successfully integrating the regions it took doesn't seem like that tall of an order? If I had to come up with any kind of end the most likely one is that the frontiers are just going to stay in one place with neither Ukraine nor Russia having the ability/political will for new offensive operations. And everything on the Russian side is probably going to more or less get integrated. Like that's just what a ceasefire but no actual settlement looks like after a decade and I don't think the Russians have claimed a lot more territory than they hold already. Certainly seems more likely than Ukraine taking Crimea.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

speng31b posted:


she definitely wrecked his pipeline

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Right but that frontier is going to cut through a lot of what Russia has officially annexed. They haven't had full control over any of the four oblasts since the beginning of October, and I doubt they ever in the foreseeable future.

I mean, we're basically talking about one successful offensive before everything grinds to a halt. Doesn't seem completely outlandish to me :shrug: .

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Outlandish, no - just not super-duper likely, IMO, with the seasonal window closing so rapidly.

Wait, I thought we were talking about end results not what's going to happen before the mud freezes.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

speng31b posted:

well, you have to keep in mind it's the US saying this stuff, you'd need a crystal ball to guess what Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government think is realistic.

The cynical (and quite probably correct) take is that the US sees public support for continued and escalated funding of the war fading, and wants to signal openness to negotiations to Ukraine as well as internal audiences so that public opinion doesn't fade faster than NATO can achieve its goals. But may or may not be actually open to said negotiation.

It's not really clear to me what the offer is supposed to be. Russia gives up territory it still controls, stops its attacks on infrastructure and gets????

Frosted Flake posted:

Canada has the only kilted Irish Regiment in the world, and the Irish Regiment wears the caubeen (same headdress as the Ulster Defence Regiment), just to give you an idea.




Lmao. History is cool.

genericnick has issued a correction as of 18:14 on Nov 7, 2022

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Frosted Flake posted:

As with all things, looking at the literature on Georgia leads to people being more candid than they are about Ukraine. Specifically there is a good deal of anger that Georgia negotiated an end to the war:

"In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, occupied 20 percent of its territory, and got away with it. As a result, today we are all Georgians, in the sense that we are all victims of various forms of Russian aggression emanating from an emboldened Kremlin. The August 2008 invasion of Georgia was a Beta test for future aggression against Russia’s neighbors and a dry run for the tactics and strategies that would later be deployed in the 2014 invasion of Ukraine...Thirteen years ago, a new era of Kremlin aggression began and it went unchecked. Today we are paying the price."

"The conflict provided a number of lessons. First, Putin was prepared to start a war in order to force a country that he regarded as within Russia’s sphere of influence to heel. Putin repeated this with Ukraine in 2014. Second, the US was not able to prevent the conflict (though it tried), but was able to prevent Putin from destroying Georgian sovereignty in the immediate aftermath. The US was able to do much the same for Ukraine: it could not reverse Russia’s immediate gains in Ukraine, but did help Ukraine prevent Putin from destroying Ukrainian sovereignty."

"Thirdly, while Georgia successfully defended its sovereignty with US and European support, it did not use the time gained to strengthen the country from within. Saakashvili’s successor, the Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, won election by capitalizing on Saakashvili’s shortcomings, but has neither continued Saakashvili’s most successful reforms nor launched his own. Georgia’s politics have drifted, with Russian influence slowly growing. Ukraine has done somewhat better maintaining, albeit unevenly, its own reforms, even though it remains under even greater threat of Russian aggression than Georgia."

"The weak international response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia greenlighted Russia’s subsequent military assault on Ukraine. Many senior officials of transatlantic governments with whom I worked to mediate the conflicts over Georgia’s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia condemned Russia’s invasion, but also blamed then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for provoking Vladimir Putin. Hence, the ceasefire agreement brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was one-sided in favor of Moscow, while the subsequent EU report about the five-day war (incorrectly) blamed Georgia for firing the first shots. Later in 2008, Paris announced plans to sell Russia a Mistral-class helicopter carrier, prompting a Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff to declare how much easier it would have been to defeat Georgia with the ship already in Russia’s arsenal."

"The Georgian army held out for two days, but on the third day its lines broke and it retreated toward Tbilisi. The Russians advanced but, with the Georgian army prepared to fight for the capital, stopped short. French President Nicolas Sarkozy then negotiated a flawed ceasefire. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to France and Georgia with fighting still flaring, worked out corrections to the ceasefire, and obtained Saakashvili’s signature."

There's no use to it because liberals deliberately have no memory, but you can very easily link what the perceived shortcomings of the Georgia War were - Why agree to a truce rather than destroy the capital? Why allow mention that the war had causes? Why allow a ceasefire at all? - with the course corrections that have brought us here. They say so in their own words.

"The reaction of the West was slow and weak. French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated ceasefire terms that Moscow largely violated without consequence. The Kremlin learned that the West preferred to ignore or at least minimize Russian bad behavior in the so-called Near Abroad."

So, maximalist war, no negotiation, no ceasefire.

Blatant lying by the Atlantic Council. But I really appreciate how they just write it down.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Frosted Flake posted:

Remember that these Kiev Ukrainian groups immediately sent people to Ukraine to rewrite their constitution, decollectivize agriculture and God knows what else and Freeland still complained that the Ukrainians in Ukraine were not true Ukrainians. I would not be shocked if they also cranked up the pressure at home. They had a free hand to attempt to reshape Ukraine abroad and it still has not succeeded, though 2014 propelled them to new heights.

Also, considering the timespan, it's possible that the less Political Ukrainians assimilated into mainstream Canadian society by the 2000's. Without the fire of irredentism and revanchism burning, as well as a Political project that needed apologia, probably there was less need to get children on board. The German Canadians who grew up bouncing on Opa's knee hearing about the lost territories are probably going to hang onto "Germanness" longer than those who have a German last name and not much else to set them apart. Particularly if their view of the Second World War and its outcome aligns with Canadian society as a whole. I know less about this, but it might have also dovetailed with the end of the USSR as you said.

I haven't seen this reported outside of Canada but Freeland has daily calls with the Ukrainian President and Finance Minister's Offices. She got Petro Poroshenko out of jail singlehandedly. She went on a media blitz to punish the Premier of Alberta for speaking out against the war - https://globalnews.ca/news/9215922/danielle-smith-russia-ukraine-comments-chrystia-freeland/. She's the frontrunner to become the NATO Secretary General, which if she has a free hand, almost certainly means I'll die abroad and some of you may die at home lol jfc https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/world/europe/nato-next-secretary-general.html. Canada is issuing Bonds for Ukraine at her directive https://globalnews.ca/video/9234664/canadas-finance-minister-responds-to-ukrainian-sovereignty-bonds/. Her sole response to inflation, and indeed "energy, economy, climate" has been to blame Russia https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-putin-us-1.6613523.

We let the Minister from CSIS (look into it) accumulate power at our peril, and now Canada's strength, such that it is, has been harnessed for her pet project.

I mean at least NATO general secretary is not a real job, as far as I can tell.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Seatbelts posted:

Here is my nuclear hot take:
The states should have annexed Iraq, turned it into an American state, actually rebuild the local government and shipped nonstop soft cultural influence into the region to repair their image (and get that oil or whatever)
America was seen as very cool and alluring culture in the 70's in Iraq I think they could have tapped into some of that energy.

Thats not even my worst take.

That's a good day's work in the bad take factory. Well done.

How is the US rebuilding the Flint water supply coming along, by the way?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Ardennes posted:

It honestly looks like civilians, I don't think it particularly puts the situation in a great light.

Ah, but didn't you know. All the civilians in Kherson are actually Russian soldiers in disguise.


Little poo poo whose upper class parents were kids when Communism fell: Let me tell you about my lived experience under Stalin.

PawParole posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1589647639678971906

It’s funny because Putin’s original goal was to do in Ukraine what America did in Iraq, set up a unpopular widely despised government, hold a few “purple finger” referendums and leave behind troops to maintain it.

The Russian army sucking so hard is what caused the announcements that they were annexing territories.

Not even sure that was the plan. When they rolled over Georgia they didn't really leave any occupation troops behind after Saakashvily hosed off. Neither did they set up a new government.

V. Illych L. posted:

this was the last major world conflict i recall where norwegian mainstream news covered it in a reasonably enlightening way. it was pretty clear from norwegian state broadcaster coverage that this was a border where there'd been tensions for a while, but the georgians had decided to settle the issue by military force and that ended up backfiring spectacularly

Our state broadcaster still has like one older guy who actually spent a lot of time in Ukraine and tends to push back against the worst bullshit, but once he retires there'll be no unbroken brains left in the whole organization.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Did I miss the rations talk? Have some Russian propaganda.

https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1589751452406550528

Not a big fan of Orwell, but his journal from Catalonia was interesting and he mentioned their best propaganda guy was permanently and loudly lying about the quality of their rations.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Perhaps, but that was probably never on the table anyway. It only takes one member-state to vote "no" to Ukraine's accession because they don't want to risk going to war with Russia. France and Germany were quietly against it in 2008, when the GWB administration first pushed for it, to say nothing of countries like Turkey.

Yeah, but that's libbrain thinking. The only thing of value here is the US going to war with Russia. Which they can do if they wanted and conversely no piece of paper, signed with all due ritual, is going to force them to do it. And the whole point of this affair is to have someone else die fighting the Russians.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Majorian posted:

Right but I'm saying if Ukraine had kept its nukes past the Lisbon Treaty's deadline, Russia would have invaded and taken its own nukes back (since, according to the treaty, they were legally Russia's). And no government would have stuck its neck out for Ukraine in that case; it would literally be a rogue nuclear state.

Yeah, Russia was basically a US colony under Yeltsin. Not difficult how that would have turned out. Unless the world ends of course.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

https://twitter.com/marina0swald/status/1590081626129977345#m

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Dr Kool-AIDS posted:

FWIW Russia should have viewed the Dnieper as a natural boundary once it became clear that they were having to settle for a lot less than they initially planned, so this decision should have been made a long time ago. You weren't wrong that it would be the smart thing to do, Russia just didn't do it.

Are they going to settle though? Or are they going to do another dumbass offensive once they find coats for all the conscripts?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Zodium posted:

the general theme of productive forces receding behind national boundaries is the consolidation of local power in the system by catabolism of absolute system power. as a whole, each directly involved capitalist polity has become weaker in absolute terms via destruction of capital and depletion of military forces. at the same time, the western bourgeoisie wins because ukraine's national assets and the ukrainian working class have been sold to finance the defense. the russian ruling class wins because it has nationalized industries and grown fat on energy crisis money. the ukrainian ruling class wins because they are gorging themselves on nato money and weapons. absolute losers are the larger system of Capital and the working classes writ large, the relative winners are the uninvolved. imo there are no absolute winners except China.

Is even China an absolute winner? Europe is now much more under the US thump compared to if the crisis had blown up over the Taiwan straight. Honestly without the war I'd expect everything to end up the same, but the EU China relations explode later and Viennese Universites simulate weird semi conductors for Chinese companies a few years longer.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

dk2m posted:

that must include civilians too? were there really 115k russian/DLPR troops?

Didn't they claim to have evacuated all civilians?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Zodium posted:

they absolutely are. the point is precisely that it didn't blow up over Taiwan because the process is not random or stochastic such that it could have gone either way. it blew up over Ukraine because the system phase is making inter-capitalist conflict inevitable, but China isn't capitalist and so only indirectly subject to these forces. they already have all the productive forces they need behind national boundaries. what the CPC needs to maintain stability is an uncontested source of energy and raw materials, and it's difficult to imagine a bigger prize in this regard than Russia, while stability for the western bourgeoisie requires them to break either China or Russia.

Blowing up over Taiwan would have been worse for them obviously but the war starting two years later might have been even better.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

stephenthinkpad posted:

Yeah I listen to a politic podcast by a couple unnamed Chinese officials from the intelligence branch and foreign service branch . They have said a few times one lesson the Chinese all agreed on is that there is no scenario of invading the outer islands. The only proper way is start a full scaled war on the main taiwan island.

Why though? Just blockade it.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Vox Nihili posted:

Russia's war aim from the start has been to annex Ukraine at least up through Kyiv and the war is ongoing, no one has really "settled" for anything, least of all Russia which is actively mobilizing a huge number of men

Share your Putin PMs with the class

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Vox Nihili posted:

[Russia sent an enormous column right for Kyiv Tbilisi, did you memory hole that?

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Homeless Friend posted:

We need to have understanding and compassion. Vox Nihili read some super retarded post for a few months and this is his chance for catharsis. How about we let the man vent.

Bad news about what kind of posts he's going to have to read for next few months though

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Ardennes posted:

Also we don’t know the west did or did not demand anything because no one has the clearance level, including probably FF. So it is a completely moot conversation.

Double post

Time for FF to go all War Thunder imo

quote:

War Thunder Player Leaks Classified Military Tank Documents Again]War Thunder Player Leaks Classified Military Documents... Again

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

Azathoth posted:

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they actually thought it would be a short, contained war where they would take a bunch of territory initially, which they did, and then sit at the gates of Kyiv while Zelensky and the Ukrainian populace collectively poop themselves and quickly sue for peace on favorable terms. In that scenario, Russia walks away with not just their prewar goals completed, but Ukraine and everyone else who would think of playing hardball suitably chasened and ready to negotiate favorable terms for whatever Russia wants the next time they come knocking.

When Ukraine didn't capitulate and sue for peace, they didn't have a plan B, they were genuinely shocked and have since been desperately trying whatever they can to force them to the negotiating table under conditions favorable to Russia. But the same material reasons they couldn't actually take Kyiv at the start of the war are the same reasons they can't force them to the table.

As you point out, Russia doesn't have the political will to endure the kind of heavy casualties necessary to force Ukraine to the table under favorable conditions. Ading conscripts to the effort isn't going to work, because well...dead conscripts add to the political pressure in a way that dead volunteer soldiers do not.

Yeah, I agree with this. Russia seems to have been looking for the one weird trick that will get it an advantageous political settlement all the way back since they first started massing troops.
Did they really expect the West would set Europe's economy on fire and risk everything coming down so Ukraine could walk away from Minsk2? After we all had signed up to it once? Did they expect to have to fight a total war against Ukraine? Of course not, in and out in two weeks tops, Zelensky eats his tie and and the tap water in Crimea flows again. After that failed, Zelensky owns no ties, and Ukraine walked away from negotiations they tried to: Hold a gun to their economic life-line's head instead of their capital with the Black Sea ports, sit back and let them run into artillery until they get tired of it, successively make the offered deal worse by formally annexing regions, and now attacking electrical infrastructure while talking up their enormous mobilized forces that will arrive any day now.


Frosted Flake posted:


As others have said, and I don't know what's on Russian TV or what the mood is, the risk is that either the soldiers or the public radicalize one way or another, to transform Russia into a society that can either win or quit the war, and that's dangerous.

Also this. I'd like the Kremlin to be destabilized and a reinvigorated communist party come out in front, but it's not going to happen. It's gonna be the psychos.


Wonder who's the mark since they wrote in the WP that peace talks would be for European consumption.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

stephenthinkpad posted:

I like this theory. It explains why Putin's full scale mobilization was so late.

So Russia tried to sneak in Ukraine at night and do some special force ninja stuff with *not special force but regular untrained troops*, tried to back out with some face saving political settlement (which would also secure Putin's next election); but mastermind grandpa Biden saw an opportunity "to put Russia down permanently", triggered the financial war nuclear option; 2 months later, the whole world found out financial war nuclear weapon was really not that deadly. LOL what a clown show.

Not sure backing out is even the right term for it. The Russians seemed happy to kick the can down the road. After all Minsk2 was never implemented, the Ukrainian armed forces got NATO training and other support, Crimea's water supply was cut off and the separatists were still getting shelled. On the plus side they had NS2 progressing - which would have allowed them to significantly up the economic pressure- and a reasonable expectation that the anti-Russian coalition would fall apart again, as happened with the orange gang. But then it did fall apart and the deescalation faction was if anything more belligerent, their closest friends were tried for treason, the US accelerated arms shipments, Germany dragged its feet with NS2 and once they complained the EU started slapping on sanctions. There was really no way to pretend that they weren't looking at the total collapse of their Ukraine policy. So why not flip the table? Doesn't mean they expected to get the USSR reunited, but the outcome of doing nothing also seemed quite bad from a Russian perspective. And just from watching their behavior they still seem to think they can press the "apply more pressure" button and get "better settlement" out.

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

But also none of that poo poo really affects Russia's ability to wage war in any critical sense. Sure they're not winning, but is there any way for Ukraine to make them accept a loss?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

genericnick
Dec 26, 2012

OctaMurk posted:

I dont think so but if neither side has the ability or will to achieve a decisive result buy also doesnt want to make peace, it can just become a frozen conflict wherever they reach an equilibrium. Maybe rockets and artillery will keep flying over the border and there will still be fighting but not as much -- like how Donbas was before the invasion

Maybe ukraine ends up taking back everything but crimea and seperatist republics and can go no further because the russians will fight harder for territory they actually believe is theirs. And then we're right back to where we were in february 2022

Yeah, but what does that look like in the end? Big Libanon instead of Big Isreal?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply