Germany’s top tank destroyed on Ukrainian Frontlines: Leopard 2A6 and dozens of American Bradleys taken out

[Silver Cat]

The Russian installed leadership or the people that fought against Russia?

It mostly depends on your definition of the word 'Russian'.

The Ukrainians are likewise ready to fight for Crimea.

The difference is that the Ukrainians don't have nukes.

Any European country that lived under Soviet rule has reason to fear Russia, including Ukraine.

And many countries have the reason to fear the USA. It's OK.

I think what the Russians are prepared to say is far different from what they are prepared to do.

May be. May be not. Anyway, official US position is that the USA are not even prepared to say, that they are ready to fight and win a nuclear war against Russia and China simultaneously. And in the case of Russian or Chinese nuclear attack they will try to find the best option possible (which definitely isn't a suicide).

 

[alang1216]

Yes.
View attachment 802362

How about some evidence I can actually read?

 

[alang1216]

More than half of them already returned home. But anyway - there is a difference between understanding what things are right and what do you actually wish to do. How many Americans/Brits/Germans/Poles believe that it is necessary to defend Ukraine, and how many actually came to fight for it?

I wouldn't fight for Ukraine but if they are willing to fight, I'm willing to support them. How many Russians would volunteer to fight against Ukraine? Obviously not enough since Putin was forced to draft additional Russians.

 

[Silver Cat]

I wouldn't fight for Ukraine but if they are willing to fight, I'm willing to support them.

Would you fight for Ukraine if Biden's regime drafted you? Would you support organization of much more larger US Army with conscripts? Would you support exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the USA?

How many Russians would volunteer to fight against Ukraine? Obviously not enough since Putin was forced to draft additional Russians.

It's difficult to say, but those who don't support this "collective self-defense " are absolute minority. Less than 1% of the population. Others are like: "Of course I support this collective self-defense, but the government don't want me in the regular Army, yet (they prefer me working at plant, for instance). If they ask me personally (or suggest higher salary) - I'll join the Army. "
Right now 204K roubles/month for contractors and 300K/month for mobilized is enough to keep the balance between economy and military forces.

 

[Silver Cat]

How about some evidence I can actually read?

I don't know what you can actually read. Try to use common sense. The Russians are not dumb monsters in a computer game, staying at their location and waiting to be killed by a hero. They are human beings and, therefore, they are smart, highly intelligent social animals. And one of the most important features of social animals is 'collective self-defense'. You attack one of them - you attack all of them.

 

[alang1216]

Would you fight for Ukraine if Biden's regime drafted you? Would you support organization of much more larger US Army with conscripts? Would you support exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the USA?

No.

It's difficult to say, but those who don't support this "collective self-defense " are absolute minority. Less than 1% of the population. Others are like: "Of course I support this collective self-defense, but the government don't want me in the regular Army, yet (they prefer me working at plant, for instance). If they ask me personally (or suggest higher salary) - I'll join the Army. "
Right now 204K roubles/month for contractors and 300K/month for mobilized is enough to keep the balance between economy and military forces.

"Difficult to say" but you can put an number accurate to within 1%. Seems that is a contradiction and another assertion with zero evidence to back it up.

 

[alang1216]

I don't know what you can actually read.

You try and read that graphic you posted and you learn.

Try to use common sense. The Russians are not dumb monsters in a computer game, staying at their location and waiting to be killed by a hero. They are human beings and, therefore, they are smart, highly intelligent social animals. And one of the most important features of social animals is 'collective self-defense'. You attack one of them - you attack all of them.

The same can be said of the Ukrainians and since the war is being fought inside Ukraine I'd say it carries more weight for them.

 

[Silver Cat]

No.

The Russians are ready to stake bets as high as an all-out nuclear war, the USA are not (because right now the USA do not real capability to fight and win a nuclear war). That's why the Russians can win simply by raising the stakes. Of course, they would prefer to win the war paying a lower price.

"Difficult to say" but you can put an number accurate to within 1%. Seems that is a contradiction and another assertion with zero evidence to back it up.

Yes, of course. There are millions of Russians and they all believe in different things and many of them just don't care. Is there any organised political opposition to the very idea of this "collective self-defense"? Is there anybody who can publically said: "We should allow Ukrainians kill the Russians, and we should allow NATO to use the land of Ukraine to prepare further attacks against Russia" No, there are not.

 

[Silver Cat]

You try and read that graphic you posted and you learn.

It's a picture with possible scenarios of possible conflict started in Estonia. And there is no such thing as "The Estonians just killed all local Russians. Estonia won. Game over. "

The same can be said of the Ukrainians and since the war is being fought inside Ukraine I'd say it carries more weight for them.

And it depends on your definition of the terms "Russians" and "Ukrainians". The questions of identity are most complicated questions of the human nature. Ukraine (Borderland) is not "Russian Vietnam", it is more like the "Russian Confederacy". The difference (cultural and lingustical) between an ordinary guy from Samara and an ordinary guy from Kiev (or even Lvov) is lesser than the difference between guys from New York and West Covina, California. Actually, many people (including Ukrainians) would say that Kiev is more Russian city than Kazan or Grozniy. Most of Russians (as well as many Ukrainians) see Ukrainians just like another kind of Russians (like most of Americans see Texans .

Thats why the question of Ukrainian identity is quite dualistic. From one hand it is narrow nationalistic (only West Ukraine is "True Ukraine" and in this case South Eastern regions of Ukraine are not "Ukraine" at all), from another it may be quite cosmopolitic ("We are civilisation, and those Moscowites are not", but in this case they must explain why "Eurointegration" means deindustrialisation for them). The problem is that the most of Ukrainians don't buy it, and too many of them prefer leave Ukraine or to cooperate with the Russians.

 

[alang1216]

The Russians are ready to stake bets as high as an all-out nuclear war, the USA are not (because right now the USA do not real capability to fight and win a nuclear war). That's why the Russians can win simply by raising the stakes. Of course, they would prefer to win the war paying a lower price.

Are the Russians ready for all-out nuclear war? They are having enough trouble in a conventional war, why would anyone, you or they think their aged nukes will work as designed? What makes you think the USA does not have real capability to fight and win a nuclear war?

Yes, of course. There are millions of Russians and they all believe in different things and many of them just don't care. Is there any organised political opposition to the very idea of this "collective self-defense"? Is there anybody who can publically said: "We should allow Ukrainians kill the Russians, and we should allow NATO to use the land of Ukraine to prepare further attacks against Russia" No, there are not.

Which countries have NATO invaded? How does that list compare to the countries Russia invaded?

 

[Silver Cat]

Are the Russians ready for all-out nuclear war?

Yes, they are.

They are having enough trouble in a conventional war, why would anyone, you or they think their aged nukes will work as designed?

It's not a war yet, it's a mere 'military operation' from their point of view. And they just don't bite more than they can chew. And political cleansing (de-nazification) takes time.

What makes you think the USA does not have real capability to fight and win a nuclear war?

The American nuclear arsenal was not designed for the first counter-force strike, the USA can't find and destroy all Russian mobile ballistic complexes before they launch their missiles, the US National Reserves are at historically lowest levels, ABD is nothing but joke and FEMA isn't able to patch-up even a weakened Russian retaliation strike.

Which countries have NATO invaded? How does that list compare to the countries Russia invaded?

NATO-countries invaded in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, they are.

And just how do you know that?

It's not a war yet, it's a mere 'military operation' from their point of view. And they just don't bite more than they can chew. And political cleansing (de-nazification) takes time.

The Wagner group was cofounded by a Nazi sympatizer. Russia needs to clean its own house first.

The American nuclear arsenal was not designed for the first counter-force strike, the USA can't find and destroy all Russian mobile ballistic complexes before they launch their missiles, the US National Reserves are at historically lowest levels, ABD is nothing but joke and FEMA isn't able to patch-up even a weakened Russian retaliation strike.

NATO-countries invaded in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

How many are they still in?

 

[AntonToo]

Who are we to determine if Russia is “justified“ in this war? We have invaded many countries.

We are men with head on our shoulders. Who are you?

Iraq war was not justified, most Americans know that. But name one country who's lands United States annexed in modern history.

You can't because there are none - so there go bullshit equivalences.

 

[AntonToo]

Interests? What interests does the U.S. have in a country on the other side of the world?

That is a seriously ignorant, shallow understanding of Americans interests.

Our over-arching interest is stable, open and economically expanding world.

Russia's flaunting of international law by invading and annexing it's neighboring countries directly contradicts all of that.

This war of Putin's choice is immoral and incredibly destructive to both Russia and Ukraine, but also to global economies and principles of international order.

 

[AntonToo]

In 2014, the eastern territories of Ukraine decided to secede after an armed coup in Kiev brought nationalists to power.

Pure bullshit, it was Russians that annexed Crimea, led and armed separatists in Donbas.

Without Russians like Girkin organizing and taking on weak-at-the-time Ukranian army with Russian army hardware there would have never been any separatism to speak of in Ukraine.

 

[AntonToo]

NATO-countries invaded in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

Which country's lands did they annex?

 

[Silver Cat]

Which country's lands did they annex?

They did much worse - they chaotised those lands. Annexation means responsibility. Chaotisation means deaths and suffering for much bigger number of people than even moderately bad tyranny.

 

[AntonToo]

They did much worse

Horsecrap. All the countries are better off today except Afghanistan (where war was justified) and Syria (where Russians propped up the tyrant).

Iraq in particular is doing much better off without a volatile tyrant running their country.

 

[Silver Cat]

No they didn't idiot.

How many Iraqis had been killed by Saddam? How many of them were killed as result of anarchy after his death? How safe and prosperous is human life in Iraq, Syria and Libya now?

 

[AntonToo]

How many Iraqis had been killed by Saddam? How many of them were killed as result of anarchy after his death? How safe and prosperous is human life in Iraq, Syria and Libya now?

Many were killed by Saddam, that's why it's good that he is gone, duh.

Iraq is MUCH better off today, even if invasion was grounded on false premise.