No problem. Better worthless ruines (and not only in Ukraine) than NATO forces. Anyway, buildings are expendables. We easily build new ones. Did you watch recent videos from Mariupol? Its almost entirely new city.
As well as invading in other spheres of influence. NATO invaded in Russian sphere of influence, Ukraine invaded in DPR and LPR. So, they are going to suffer death and destruction.
NATO never invaded anyone. Ukraine defended their borders. Russia invaded Ukraine to keep its satellite state, who doesn't want to be a Russian satellite state.
Of course they can. It is exactly what Baltic states did, and they, as you say, are examples of "democracy". I believe you don't want that kind of "democracy" in America.
Printing money as any other Ponzi scheme eventually collapse. And after this collapse - quite likely, there will be a civil war. Anyway, if you establish Baltic or Ukrainian type of democracy in America - you'll have civil war, too.
I'm not hoping for this. Just illustrated what kind of democracy they have in Baltic states and Ukraine.
Same are Russians, and Ukrainians, and Iraqis, and Syrians and Yugoslavians. Xenophobia is quite universal thing. Sometimes a government can handle it, sometimes not. Do what Kievan regime do, and you'll have a Civil War even without any Russian influence.
It was kinda exaggeration. In fact, America can accept a defeat in a nuclear war even after losing lesser than one million of civilians. Montana and Wyoming might die out, but who really cares about them?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. In his famous quote, Albert Einstein ponders the uncertain future of warfare and foresees a grim outcome for humanity. His words, "I know not with what weapons World War III wil
It looked bad (after being a part of Ukraine and after destruction during the battle), but now its looking pretty good and getting better. So, it's not a big deal.
Not "if", but "when". You can't pay your debts and you are going to be bankrupts. And you government (and Congress) seems to make it happen rather sooner than later. More you use dollar as weapon - lesser it is usable as a currency.
Kiev is not "xenophobic" at all. Actually, 80% of Kievan toddlers, who go in kindergarten don't know "Ukrainian" words, they speak Russian at home. But Ukrainian regime, actually the very idea of Ukrainism as ideology, is pretty xenophobic by its very nature (say nothing about Western money, payed exactly for xenophoby). Ukrainians are, in fact, Russians, and when they live with Russians, when they speak with Russians, they became Russians. You know, like Vance, who was born as Hillbilly, but he joined Army, he studied in American University, he married non-Hillbilly and finally he became an American. If you want to creat "Hillbilly nation" - one of the first things you should do, is to enforce them to hate Americans. "We, Hillbillies are not Americans, because only we are true Americans, while all those Washingtoners (meaning those Americans who are not Hillbillies nor Cajuns) are N-ggers and Indians, influenced by freaking Italians".
In normal life you just laugh about those stupid statements (for you know that Hillbillies are, in fact, Americans). But when they start to demonstratively kill Americans of non-Hillbilly origin and their "government" support it... Ok, Washington won't have other option but send National Guard and US Army to eliminate them.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. In his famous quote, Albert Einstein ponders the uncertain future of warfare and foresees a grim outcome for humanity. His words, "I know not with what weapons World War III wil
Exactly. He didn't know what weapon WWIII will be fought. We know. Do you know city of Las Vegas, Nevada, right near Nevada Testing Site? There was almost one thousand of nuclear bursts during it active usage. And what happened with Las Vegas? Pretty nothing bad, as far as I can judge.
We can calculate consequences of fallouts after massive nuclear attacks. There will be decent fallouts after 400-800 100kt ground bursts at silos of Minutemen III (some non-evacuated regions of Montana, Wyoming and South/North Dakota might die out) or other deep and hardened targets. There will be no significant fallouts after destruction of cities, because for destruction of cities we use air bursts.
In the "normal" scenario (plan "A") America accept quite generous Russian peace offers after first Russian counter-force strike and suffer "tragical, but not catastrophic" losses (highly likely it might be even lesser than one million killed Americans) and with international help millions more will be saved. America will return Alaska and California to Russian Federation, and there will be necessary to evacuate significant part of population of Wyoming, Montana and may few other states for no more than two weeks. Then, people will be able to return, but farmer production might demand additional control.
Nothing that you can't handle (especially if peace treaty is signed and international help is available). Terrible, but definitely not catastrophic consequences even for the USA.
If the USA refuse those generous peace offers and retaliate against Russian cities (this strike will be quite limited and will be partially intercepted by Russian ABD) Russia will bomb American cities and infrastructure sites until unconditional surrender (according American articles it might happen after death of 30-50% of American population). The USA will cease existence, but, say, American People Republics will be able to save, say, more than 30% of American pre-war population. This is "plan B". But, as I said, it won't add significant amount of radioactive fallouts.
If American peope refuse to surrender and prefer to fight until last man, woman and transgender - no problem. There is "plan C" - after destruction of American cities and towns, Russia (and one way or another - the rest of the world) will haunt survivors mostly with AI-controlled drones. (Did you watch Terminator movie? 2029 AD is close.) And plan C is quite environmental-friendly.
Not "if", but "when". You can't pay your debts and you are going to be bankrupt. And your government (and Congress) seem to make it happen rather sooner than later. More you use dollar as weapon - lesser it is usable as a currency.
Kiev is not "xenophobic" at all. Actually, 80% of Kiev toddlers, who go in kindergarten don't know "Ukrainian" words, they speak Russian at home. But Ukrainian regime, actually the very idea of Ukrainian as ideology, is pretty xenophobic by its very nature (say nothing about Western money, payed exactly for xenophobic). Ukrainians are, in fact, Russians, and when they live with Russians, when they speak with Russians, they became Russians. You know, like Vance, who was born as Hillbilly, but he joined Army, he studied in American University, he married non-Hillbilly and finally he became an American. If you want to create"Hillbilly nation" - one of the first things you should do, is to enforce them to hate Americans. "We, Hillbillies are not Americans, because only we are true Americans, while all those in Washington (meaning those Americans who are not Hillbillies nor Cajuns) are N-ggers and Indians, influenced by freaking Italians".
You are misinterpreting the divisions of culture here in the US. As far as race, blacks, are a 13% minority, and there are many shades of black, have a racial component. Trump won black men's votes in the last election, which has democrats going crazy. There are poor white people, if they live in a trailer park somewhere they are still not called "hillbillies". JD Vance used the term "hillbillies" more as a joke to name his book, than as a description of his family, call them "poor rural" people. "Hillbillies" are all American, they all fly American and Trump flags, and most enter the military to get the GI Bill to pay for college. The fight in Washington is between Republicans and Democrats, not between ethnic or racial groups.
Exactly. He didn't know what weapon WWIII will be fought. We know. Do you know city of Las Vegas, Nevada, right near Nevada Testing Site? There was almost one thousand of nuclear bursts during it active usage. And what happened with Las Vegas? Pretty nothing bad, as far as I can judge.
We can calculate consequences of fallout after massive nuclear attacks. There will be decent fallout after 400-800 100kt ground bursts at silos of Minutemen III (some non-evacuated regions of Montana, Wyoming and South/North Dakota might die out) or other deep and hardened targets. There will be no significant fallout after destruction of cities, because for destruction of cities we use air bursts.
In the "normal" scenario (plan "A") America accept quite generous Russian peace offers after first Russian counter-force strike and suffer "tragic, but not catastrophic" losses (highly likely it might be even lesser than one million killed Americans) and with international help millions more will be saved. America will return Alaska and California to Russian Federation, and there will be necessary to evacuate significant part of population of Wyoming, Montana and may few other states for no more than two weeks. Then, people will be able to return, but farmer production might demand additional control.
Nothing that you can't handle (especially if peace treaty is signed and international help is available). Terrible, but definitely not catastrophic consequences even for the USA.
Ridiculous. Seriously. The US, according to START has 1,550 nuclear weapons. A Russian first strike could not stop a massive US and NATO retaliation, and and end to Russian civilization.
If the USA refuse those generous peace offers and retaliate against Russian cities (this strike will be quite limited and will be partially intercepted by Russian ABD) Russia will bomb American cities and infrastructure sites until unconditional surrender (according American articles it might happen after death of 30-50% of American population). The USA will cease existence, but, say, American People Republics will be able to save, say, more than 30% of American pre-war population. This is "plan B". But, as I said, it won't add significant amount of radioactive fallout.
If American people refuse to surrender and prefer to fight until last man, woman and transgender - no problem. There is "plan C" - after destruction of American cities and towns, Russia (and one way or another - the rest of the world) will haunt survivors mostly with AI-controlled drones. (Did you watch Terminator movie? 2029 AD is close.) And plan C is quite environmental-friendly.
We have better drones, better AI, a better military, and more guns here in the US than any "invaders" could handle. Besides, a post-WW3 world would be about survival during a "nuclear winter" not about land battles for territory.
Now think what they do on occupied territories....
I said it many times, and I will repeat. Muscovite imperialists don´t give a damn about life, they are not humans. Ukraine are fighting against a legion of 666- demons...
Putin´s army " look, we caught you a fa**ot who escaped. He's going to sиck c0cks. He's a fиcking b1tch. He's a wh0re. He is a hole (they're going to rаре him)."
As I said earlier - annexation means responsibility. Just compare humanitarian and economic situation in annexed Texas and "liberated" Iraq. And no, post WW2 order was destroyed not by annexation (like the West Germany annexed DDR), but by illegal and unprovoked aggressions.
Those goals are tightly linked. Russia have to stop NATO not only because it is a military alliance, but because it is anti-Russian military alliance, and as anti-Russian alliance, it consists of Nazies, who discriminate, abuse and try to genocide Russians. So, "defending ethnic Russians" and "rolling back NATO" are just two sides of one coin.
You are misinterpreting the divisions of culture here in the US. As far as race, blacks, are a 13% minority, and there are many shades of black, have a racial component. Trump won black men's votes in the last election, which has democrats going crazy. There are poor white people, if they live in a trailer park somewhere they are still not called "hillbillies". JD Vance used the term "hillbillies" more as a joke to name his book, than as a description of his family, call them "poor rural" people. "Hillbillies" are all American, they all fly American and Trump flags, and most enter the military to get the GI Bill to pay for college. The fight in Washington is between Republicans and Democrats, not between ethnic or racial groups.
Ukrainians are all Russians. The fight in Ukraine is not between [ethnic] Russians and [ethnic] Ukrainians. It is, mostly, the fight between Vatniks and Banderlogs.
Doesn't matter how many nuclear weapons do you have during peace time. What matters is how many of them will survive Russian counter-force strike, how many of those leftovers will be able to come through ABD, and what destruction they will be able to cause.
Of course, no. In the case of a smart Russian attack, you are going to lose all Minutemen III silos, all bombers, all SSBNs in bases and few of them in the open sea. It means that in the realistic scenario you have only one SSBN survived in Atlantic in 15 minute readiness, another one in Atlantic which will need at least two hours to prepare to attack Russia, and three of them in Pacific, which you'd better to keep in sleeve to detter China (and anyway, they need days or even weeks to prepare to attack Moscow, and during this time Russians and Chinese will try to find and kill them).
If you order immediate retaliation strike by your only now ready SSBN - it means 20 missiles with, say, 3 RVs each. 60 warheads. Moscow ABD will intercept them all. If you wait two hours til the second one SSBN is ready (and you have 120 warheads to overwhelm Moscow ABD) - Russian have time to drink their tea, and without hesitation go to the shelters. With 20 warheads penetrated the ABD bubble you'll destroy half of Moscow buildings, but with Russians in the shelters you'll kill only 5% of Moscow population, lesser than one million killed. Something pretty acceptable (comparing with, say, losing twenty million Russians in Ukraine or total genocide in the case of Western victory).
Not much of the arsenals. If you decide to fight until the last American man, woman and child and use all your SSBNs - you'll kill no more than five million of Russians, but the Russians will kill all of you.
Thats why in "First strike" movie the POTUS accepted Russian ultimatum.
We have better drones, better AI, a better military, and more guns here in the US than any "invaders" could handle. Besides, a post-WW3 world would be about survival during a "nuclear winter" not about land battles for territory.
As I said earlier - annexation means responsibility. Just compare humanitarian and economic situation in annexed Texas and "liberated" Iraq. And no, post WW2 order was destroyed not by annexation (like the West Germany annexed DDR), but by illegal and unprovoked aggression.
Those goals are tightly linked. Russia has to stop NATO not only because it is a military alliance, but because it is anti-Russian military alliance, and as anti-Russian alliance, it consists of Nazies, who discriminate, abuse and try to genocide Russians. So, "defending ethnic Russians" and "rolling back NATO" are just two sides of one coin.
After Russia invades Ukraine and threatens nuclear war is not a good time to try to play the victim. There are no Nazis only countries who formed a defensive alliance to keep Russia from invading anyone. If Ukraine survives it will be a buffer between NATO and Russia. If Russia captures Ukraine it will be a buffer between NATO and Russia. The war is just a meat grinder.
Ukrainians are all Russians. The fight in Ukraine is not between [ethnic] Russians and [ethnic] Ukrainians. It is, mostly, the fight between Vatniks and Banderlogs.
Doesn't matter how many nuclear weapons do you have during peace time. What matters is how many of them will survive Russian counter-force strike, how many of those leftovers will be able to come through ABD, and what destruction they will be able to cause.
Of course not. In the case of a smart Russian attack, you are going to lose all Minutemen III silos, all bombers, all SSBNs in bases and few of them in the open sea. It means that in the realistic scenario you have only one SSBN survived in Atlantic in 15 minute readiness, another one in Atlantic which will need at least two hours to prepare to attack Russia, and three of them in Pacific, which you'd better to keep in sleeve to deter China (and anyway, they need days or even weeks to prepare to attack Moscow, and during this time Russians and Chinese will try to find and kill them).
If you order immediate retaliation strike by your only now ready SSBN - it means 20 missiles with, say, 3 RVs each. 60 warheads. Moscow ABD will intercept them all. If you wait two hours til the second one SSBN is ready (and you have 120 warheads to overwhelm Moscow ABD) - Russian have time to drink their tea, and without hesitation go to the shelters. With 20 warheads penetrated the ABD bubble you'll destroy half of Moscow buildings, but with Russians in the shelters you'll kill only 5% of Moscow population, lesser than one million killed. Something pretty acceptable (comparing with, say, losing twenty million Russians in Ukraine or total genocide in the case of Western victory).
We have a saying here "assumption is the mother of all ****-ups".
Our generals and admirals are not stupid, plus they have more money than the next 10 militaries combined, not to mention the NATO militaries. Russia knows the math, that's why MAD has worked since WW2.
Not much of the arsenals. If you decide to fight until the last American man, woman and child and use all your SSBNs - you'll kill no more than five million of Russians, but the Russians will kill all of you. That's why in "First strike" movie the POTUS accepted Russian ultimatum.
As I wrote earlier - there were illegal and unprovoked aggressions against Serbia and Iraq. You current aid to Ukraine is legal, just stupid, and likely - suicidal.
If they feel need to defend themselves from Russia - they are anti-Russian. If they are anti-Russian - they are Nazies. (That's basically what the word Nazies means for Russians).
No. If Russia had Ukraine captured, and there still no the system of equal safety in Europe (like removing NATO bases from eastern Europe, including Kosovo) and equal rights to Russians in Baltic states - there will be other wars (local, regional or even large-scale).
Highly likely, its just a warming up before a real meat-grinder.
Of course nobody can be sure about heroes and zeros, but what is definitely clear - is that the strike first is much more safer than striking second (or allowing uncontrollable escalation).
Our generals and admirals are not stupid, plus they have more money than the next 10 militaries combined, not to mention the NATO militaries. Russia knows the math, that's why MAD has worked since WW2.
How the hell did they get on a German warship ? If their security is this lax they are fucked or this whole thing is bullshit to drum up support against Russia. Sounds like a Reichstag fire scenario to me.
How the hell did they get on a German warship ? If their security is this lax they are fucked or this whole thing is bullshit to drum up support against Russia. Sounds like a Reichstag fire scenario to me.
General Patton was murdered by the agents of SRALIN´S NKVD
AND HE did not die immediately....I SAY : Moscow EMPIRE MUST PAY !!!
general was murdered by the agents of NKVD, the Moscow security in charge of political assassinations and espionage, by using an odorless poison. Bazata also swore that Wild Bill Donovan of the OSS paid him $ 10,000 Dollars plus another $ 800 in expenses for his role in Patton’s death. But many believe Bazata’s story is far fetched. No projectiles were ever found, and surely Woodring, Patton’s driver, and Gen Hap Gay who was accompanying...
As I wrote earlier - there were illegal and unprovoked aggression against Serbia and Iraq. Your current aid to Ukraine is legal, just stupid, and likely - suicidal.
Serbia was a slaughter, called "ethnic cleansing" that NATO stopped. Iraq was under Saddam Hussein and his brutal larvae. You forgot Libya and Gaddafi. We remove bad guys, too bad the Russian people don't know how to rid themselves of Putin.
If Ukraine needs to defend themselves from Russia - they are anti-Russian. If they are anti-Russian - they are Nazies. (That's basically what the word Nazies means for Russians). If Ukraine survives it will be a part of Russia.
No. If Russia had Ukraine captured, and there still no the system of equal safety in Europe (like removing NATO bases from eastern Europe, including Kosovo) and equal rights to Russians in Baltic states - there will be other wars (local, regional or even large-scale). Highly likely, its just a warming up before a real meat-grinder.
NATO and the EU is NONE of Russia's ******* business. Russia needs to stay inside its borders or get thrown back into its borders. Russia is a paper-tiger, Ukraine proved that. Putin needs to import fighters from China and North Korea, even then he is not winning. Trump need to end Putin's oil revenue to end the war.
Of course nobody can be sure about heroes and zeros, but what is definitely clear - is that the strike first is much more safer than striking second (or allowing uncontrollable escalation). There is no MAD, if most of your nukes are destroyed by our first strike.
Serbia was a slaughter, called "ethnic cleansing" that NATO stopped. Iraq was under Saddam Hussein and his brutal larvae. You forgot Libya and Gaddafi. We remove bad guys, too bad the Russian people don't know how to rid themselves of Putin.
There is no reason to call the names and use labels. As if leaders of the USA, NATO countries or Israel are somehow better
Anyway, there are only two possible legal reasons for a force usage in the post-WWII political system. Self-defense and permission from UN SC. In both cases there were non of it.
Of course there is end in sight. Actually, even three possible outcomes.
1) The West decide de-escalate, and Russia defeat Ukraine (and denazificate it) in few months.
2) The West decide to keep situation more or less at the same level then, in few years Ukraine lost all adult males and all territory, France and England lost at least half of their SSBNs, the USA lost few SSBNs and B-52s.
3) The West decide escalate. In this situation Russia attack first, eliminate England, France and the US nuclear forces by a counter-force strike, the USA lose Alaska and California.
NATO and the EU is NONE of Russia's ******* business. Russia needs to stay inside its borders or get thrown back into its borders. Russia is a paper-tiger, Ukraine proved that. Putin needs to import fighters from China and North Korea, even then he is not winning. Trump need to end Putin's oil revenue to end the war.
If Russia is NATO's business (and, in fact, Russia is the most important NATO's business), NATO is definitely Russia's business. And either you roll your forces back as a result of a diplomatic solution, either we'll eliminate them.
Are you kidding? 500 Marines? It's nothing. Actually, its just a stupid show and imitation of the activity. American start to shoot - Californians and Mexicans shoot them back. That's why, its almost certain that Trump will just f#ck off from California as Biden was f#cked off from Texas.
Of course no. If we shoot first and shoot accurately - we are alive and you are defeated (if you surrender after the counter-first strike) or dead (if you don't surrender and try to retaliate).
There is no reason to call the names and use labels. As if leaders of the USA, NATO countries or Israel are somehow better
Anyway, there are only two possible legal reasons for a force usage in the post-WWII political system. Self-defense and permission from UN SC. In both cases there were non of it.
The UN Secretary General Authorized the bombing of Milosevich. As you say, Russia and China opposed it.
I forgot a lot of the details. All we saw were photos of the "ethnic cleansing" killing fields.
Twenty-five years ago, on March 24, 1999 NATO launched 11 weeks of air strikes on Yugoslavia to force it to end its bloody crackdown on separatists in Kosovo.
Of course there is end in sight. Actually, even three possible outcomes.
1) The West decide de-escalate, and Russia defeat Ukraine (and denazificate it) in few months.
2) The West decide to keep situation more or less at the same level then, in few years Ukraine lost all adult males and all territory, France and England lost at least half of their SSBNs, the USA lost few SSBNs and B-52s.
3) The West decide escalate. In this situation Russia attack first, eliminate England, France and the US nuclear forces by a counter-force strike, the USA lose Alaska and California.
I'll give you a #4. NATO leads a boycott of Russian oil, and Putin run out of money, then ends the war in exchange for oil revenue and the end of sanctions.
If Russia is NATO's business (and, in fact, Russia is the most important NATO's business), NATO is definitely Russia's business. And either you roll your forces back as a result of a diplomatic solution, either we'll eliminate them.
Are you kidding? 500 Marines? It's nothing. Actually, its just a stupid show and imitation of the activity. American start to shoot - Californians and Mexicans shoot them back. That's why, its almost certain that Trump will just f#ck off from California as Biden was f#cked off from Texas.
Of course not. If we shoot first and shoot accurately - we are alive and you are defeated (if you surrender after the counter-first strike) or dead (if you don't surrender and try to retaliate).
Not much "rain". The budget is surprisingly small, even if Canada puts up $50b. Musk has to mend fences with democrats. His fight with Trump is like fake WWE wrestling.
The UN Secretary General Authorized the bombing of Milosevich. As you say, Russia and China opposed it.
I forgot a lot of the details. All we saw were photos of the "ethnic cleansing" killing fields.
Twenty-five years ago, on March 24, 1999 NATO launched 11 weeks of air strikes on Yugoslavia to force it to end its bloody crackdown on separatists in Kosovo.
UN SC didn't authorize it and it wasn't self-defense. Therefore it was an illegal and unprovoked aggression. You've killed Miloshevich but you raised Putin to power.
I'll give you a #4. NATO leads a boycott of Russian oil, and Putin run out of money, then ends the war in exchange for oil revenue and the end of sanctions.
It won't work. Without Russian oil on Western market - west industry will suffer. With Russian oil on Russian and Eastern markets - Russian and eastern industry will raise. Right now Russia produces twelve times more ordnance than the whole NATO. In your scenario Russia will produce twenty four times more ordnance than the whole NATO and then Russia will simply kill you all. And no, Putin can't run out of money - he can print them.
Not much "rain". The budget is surprisingly small, even if Canada puts up $50b. Musk has to mend fences with democrats. His fight with Trump is like fake WWE wrestling.
UN SC didn't authorize it and it wasn't self-defense. Therefore it was an illegal and unprovoked aggression. You've killed Miloshevich but you raised Putin to power.
It won't work. Without Russian oil on Western market - west industry will suffer. With Russian oil on Russian and Eastern markets - Russian and eastern industry will raise. Right now Russia produces twelve times more ordnance than the whole NATO. In your scenario Russia will produce twenty four times more ordnance than the whole NATO and then Russia will simply kill you all. And no, Putin can't run out of money - he can print them.
Or, from Russian point of view, it was an illegal and unprovoked aggression to support Muslim terrorists who have been slaughtered Slavic Orthodox Chiristians (one didn't need to have a great imagination to find out the parallels between the situation in Chechnya).
No for two basic reasons. The international law was effectively destroyed by the American aggressions in Serbia and Iraq, and therefore, the only international law remaining is - "The Might is Right". Russia is might, therefore, Russia is right. The second reason is even simplier (while quite formal) - Russia recognised independence of DPR and LPR, and signed mutual defense agreement with them. Ukraine attacked them, and, therefore, attacked Russian Federation itself. It is pure self-defense.
Or, from Russian point of view, it was an illegal and unprovoked aggression to support Muslim terrorists who have slaughtered Slavic Orthodox Christians (one didn't need to have a great imagination to find out the parallels between the situation in Chechnya).
OK. When one ethnic group pushes other groups around, and violence erupts, ethnic cleansing happens. In DPR & LPR it was said that Ukrainian kids were sent to Russia for indoctrination, just like the Hitler Youth.
No for two basic reasons. The international law was effectively destroyed by the American aggression in Serbia and Iraq, and therefore, the only international law remaining is - "The Might is Right". Russia is might, therefore, Russia is right. The second reason is even simpler (while quite formal) - Russia recognised independence of DPR and LPR, and signed mutual defense agreement with them. Ukraine attacked them, and, therefore, attacked Russian Federation itself. It is pure self-defense.
LPR & DPR were part of Ukraine, so they didn't have the authority to act independently of Ukraine. But the past is past and now they are part of Russia because "might is right". Same way Crimea is now part of Russia. If Putin stops now he is ahead, if he keeps going then he runs into the "Law of Diminishing Returns". The next meter of territory captured is always more expensive.
California is a mess. Corrupt democrat politicians keep getting elected by stupid voters. It looks like the riots are calming down. No one wants Trump to unleash the Marines on rioters.
OK. When one ethnic group pushes other groups around, and violence erupts, ethnic cleansing happens. In DPR & LPR it was said that Ukrainian kids were sent to Russia for indoctrination, just like the Hitler Youth.
Indoctrination? Really? My Mom was born in Mariupol and my cousin still live there. In there opinion, Ukrainians are a kind of Russians. Like, say, Hillbillies or Rednecks are Americans. Of course, any government "indoctrinate" people. Washington, New York, Moscow, Kiev or Donetsk - they all have their own understanding of what indoctrination is necessary. But, the people in the South-East of Ukraine, in their everydays life see, that the difference without difference is not a difference. There is no difference between Russian-speaking Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Russian, living in Ukraine. And, of course, the difference between "Russian" and "Ukrainian" speech is quite elusive. Like if you change most of vowels on "i" and change "i" on "y", it's not another "language", it is just accent. If you change normative words on another, also understandable, like "red" on "crymson" or "parents" on "dads" (as if every Ukrainian child has two fathers) - its funny, but it is not another language, it is a "dialect". When you have some borrowed foreign words like Tirkish "Maidan" instead of Polish "plosha" or Russian "ploshad" - it's also just a dialect, as like Russians in Far East instead slavic "stolovaya" or French/English "cafe" they say chifan'ka (from Chinese 吃饭 - to eat food).
There is such thing as "the right for rebellion", if you see that your rights are violated and the government is discriminative, abusive and genocidal. Albanians in Kosovo has the right to declare independence and Russians in Donbass (and other regions of former Ukraine) has right to declare independence. And other countries has the right to recognise their independence.
But the past is past and now they are part of Russia because "might is right". Same way Crimea is now part of Russia. If Putin stops now he is ahead, if he keeps going then he runs into the "Law of Diminishing Returns". The next meter of territory captured is always more expensive.
Actually, no. There is such thing as a "Law of falling tree". When the integrity of the trunk is degraded to the certain limit - the tree falls almost without efforts from lumberjack. Of course, in the western Ukraine, beyond Zbruch, where Russophoby is more or less mainstream, denazification will be much more messy things... Like, you know, to eliminate all true Democrats and Dem-supporters in California. But South-East and Central Ukraine is different. Its, you know, like eliminate all LGBT-activists in Texas
California is a mess. Corrupt democrat politicians keep getting elected by stupid voters. It looks like the riots are calming down. No one wants Trump to unleash the Marines on rioters.
www.themoscowtimes.com
www.socratic-method.com
traditional values 
vatniks talk about?
occupied territories....
