Russia will never be awarded Ukraine territory gained by Russia's invasion

Hey Moscow Bob, newsfalsh for you: Russians shit themselves in Ukraine.

The guage "on Russian capabilities" at the start of the full scale invasion was 1-2 weeks to Kiev. Instead it's been retreat for a year and slow grind with inability to capture even one major city for 3 more.
We are not in land-grabbing business, and it was told from the very beginning. We are in the Nazi-killing business, and business is going quite well. In few more years it will be effectively finished and Ukraine will be really de-nazified.
 
Hey Moscow Bob, newsfalsh for you: Russians shit themselves in Ukraine.

The guage "on Russian capabilities" at the start of the full scale invasion was 1-2 weeks to Kiev. Instead it's been retreat for a year and slow grind with inability to capture even one major city for 3 more.
The sıgn of Ukrainian prowess, no less, Kiev Bob, is it not?


Fast and steady on the road to the Stone Age.
 
You are arguing from silly ignorance.


Zelenskyy has banned INVADER'S PROPAGANDA DURING THE WAR FOR THE VERY SURVIVAL OF UKRAINE. Which is a no brainer for anyone who actually grasps situation Ukraine is in.

So banning the other side's opinion is necessary to ensure Ukraine's survival? FDR used similar logic when he imprisoned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WWII.

Russian Orthodox Church is Putin's proganda machine ran by an ex-KGB agent named Kirill. ROC spends it's time convincing Vankyas to go die in Ukraine for Putin. This is the chuch you expect Zelenskyy to keep operating in Ukraine?

Um, yeah, I expect freedom of religion to be respected if you are going to claim to be a democracy on my dime.

Silly nonsense - Russia has no means to wage WW3, they can't even get a handle on Ukraine.
Um, you mean other than those 5000 nukes they have?
All they could do is make a big nuclear wasteland out of Moscow. Nothing about Ukraine would will ever make Putin reach for that self-destruct button.

Um, yeah, about that.

How close did we come to nuclear war over Cuba in 1962?
 
Silly nonsense - Russia has no means to wage WW3, they can't even get a handle on Ukraine.

All they could do is make a big nuclear wasteland out of Moscow. Nothing about Ukraine would will ever make Putin reach for that self-destruct button.
That's my *****! "Reality is optional", isn't it?

 
So banning the other side's opinion is necessary to ensure Ukraine's survival? FDR used similar logic when he imprisoned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WWII.

Um, yeah, I expect freedom of religion to be respected if you are going to claim to be a democracy on my dime.

There is no imprisonment or some sort of singling out of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, your comment is obviously a false comparison.

No country would EVER allow invader's propaganda operations while it's struggling for it's survival, get your head out of your ass.

This was not the case in Ukraine before full scale invasion in 2022 and they DID allow pro-RF propaganda, protests, politicians, political parties and Moscow controlled church.

How close did we come to nuclear war over Cuba in 1962?

That is not a known, but again, you are using a completely false comparison, there has been zero talk about deploying nuclear arms in Ukraine or any other country bordering with Russia.

I will repeat again - nothing about Ukraine will make Kremlin self-immolate. NOTHING. The moment they use any sort of nuclear weapon, even a small targeted one, China and India are out and Russia becomes another economically isolated North Korea.

Asians don't give a shit about Ukraine, but they are not playing around with that fire.
 
Last edited:
“We have a big Russia problem”
"We can't be under any illusions: At the end of a conflict in Ukraine — however, it concludes — we are going to have a very big Russia problem. We are going to have a situation where Russia is reconstituting its force, is located on the borders of NATO, is led by largely the same people as it is right now, is convinced that we're the adversary, and is very, very angry."
— Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, supreme allied commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command last year.

“Russia is convinced we are the adversary”
Wow!
I wonder why?
Oh well, a problem arises when you get too close to Russian borders after multiple warnings through many years. Thinking from the Russian perspective you can clearly see the reason Russia took towards violence.
 
It worked quite well in time. At least we won the next war with United Europe. It wouldn't be possible with White government in 1920-30s. What do I think about Perestroika and The New Thinking? Many people believe that it was a bad choice, and thermonuclear war in 1985 would be better. I'm not sure, details are important. And most of those details are still classified.


Only a madman would think that spending three generations in the pursuit of an ideological dead end, not to mention having an army of nazis march right up to your capital's suburbs,

"quite well".
 
Only a madman would think that spending three generations in the pursuit of an ideological dead end, not to mention having an army of nazis march right up to your capital's suburbs,

"quite well".
Back in 1812 the Army of United (by Napoleon) Europe not just marched to Moscow's suburbs (pillaged everything at its way), but even captured and burnt it down. But then we have their Grande Armée totally annihilated and won the war. In 1814 Russia brought civilisation and international law to Europe at Vienna congress and established decades of peace and prosperity when "no cannon in Europe was able to shoot without Russian permission ".
 
Back in 1812 the Army of United (by Napoleon) Europe not just marched to Moscow's suburbs (pillaged everything at its way), but even captured and burnt it down. But then we have their Grande Armée totally annihilated and won the war. In 1814 Russia brought civilisation and international law to Europe at Vienna congress and established decades of peace and prosperity when "no cannon in Europe was able to shoot without Russian permission ".

lol. If having your capital captured and burned can still be part of a "quite well",

then why all the whining about ukraine joining nato?

The only way that makes sense, is if you are worried about the potential threat to russia.

BUT, if you are willing to take the hit of having your capital occupied and burned as part of your standard war fighting strategy,

then why do you care if the next war opens with a nato blitz capturing Moscow?
 
lol. If having your capital captured and burned can still be part of a "quite well",

then why all the whining about ukraine joining nato?

The only way that makes sense, is if you are worried about the potential threat to russia.

BUT, if you are willing to take the hit of having your capital occupied and burned as part of your standard war fighting strategy,

then why do you care if the next war opens with a nato blitz capturing Moscow?

It's quite simple. There are such things as "acceptable price of a victory" - you can have your capital and most of your main cities burnt to ground and, say, 10 or even 30 percent of your population killed, but if you won and have acceptable peace established - you can rebuild your cities and women can born more children; and "unacceptable price of peace" - if your adversary suggest you to give up say, twenty million of Russian people and significant, strategically important territories, it means that in few more years he'll start a war and kill much more Russian people.

To lose twenty million killed and establish a good, reliable peace for next eighty years - is a better case. To lose twenty million surrendered and lose fifty more millions in next ten years (or even be totally genocided, if unlucky) - is much worse case.



That's why we prefer to prevent situations when the enemy can attack us first. There are diplomacy, there are covert operations, there are lower levels of conflicts for it. But sometimes all those things fails. And then we have no other option but to fight for our survival and then almost any price is acceptable. It doesn't mean that we don't care about our potential losses, we are not a horde of zombies or bloodthirsty goons. We are quite reasonable human beings. We do what is necessary in the face of the vital threat.
 
It's quite simple. There are such things as "acceptable price of a victory" - you can have your capital and most of your main cities burnt to ground and, say, 10 or even 30 percent of your population killed, but if you won and have acceptable peace established - you can rebuild your cities and women can born more children; and "unacceptable price of peace" - if your adversary suggest you to give up say, twenty million of Russian people and significant, strategically important territories, it means that in few more years he'll start a war and kill much more Russian people.

To lose twenty million killed and establish a good, reliable peace for next eighty years - is a better case. To lose twenty million surrendered and lose fifty more millions in next ten years (or even be totally genocided, if unlucky) - is much worse case.



That's why we prefer to prevent situations when the enemy can attack us first. There are diplomacy, there are covert operations, there are lower levels of conflicts for it. But sometimes all those things fails. And then we have no other option but to fight for our survival and then almost any price is acceptable. It doesn't mean that we don't care about our potential losses, we are not a horde of zombies or bloodthirsty goons. We are quite reasonable human beings. We do what is necessary in the face of the vital threat.


YOur pride prevents you from taking the L for your rulers past blunders.

And thus you argue yourself into corners that make no sense.


YOur population is crashing. It is nonsense to talk about taking tens of millions of deaths and then rebuilding.

Because your women are not having children. Your future population will not be able to hold your borders, even if you get to expand to better borders.


It would have HELPED, if ukriane had falled in quick order. But that didn't happen. THe plan failed.

Now you are just throwing good money after bad. And when I say money, I mean money AND MEN.
 
lol. If having your capital captured and burned can still be part of a "quite well"...
I remember another capital city that was also burned down like Moscow during the war of 1812. True, it was on the other side of the globe. That also ended “quite well.”

:abgg2q.jpg:
 
I remember another capital city that was also burned down like Moscow during the war of 1812. True, it was on the other side of the globe. That also ended “quite well.”

:abgg2q.jpg:

Canada is still independent. Not exactly a W for US.
 
YOur pride prevents you from taking the L for your rulers past blunders.
Of course no. The genre "Time portal fiction" is quite popular in Russia. "What mistakes were done in past and what should we do to avoid them in future?" is one of the most popular plots for writers, and especially popular for time travelling is time before WWII. "The lost chance of Stalin" (not attacking Germany in 1941), "The lost chance of Khrushchev" (not attacking USA in 1962), "The lost chance of Andropov" (not attacking NATO in 1983) are quite popular matter for discussions among Russians.

And thus you argue yourself into corners that make no sense.


YOur population is crashing. It is nonsense to talk about taking tens of millions of deaths and then rebuilding.
Of course it is not. It is much better than be meekly genocided. While, of course, we prefer to roll NATO back peacefully.

Because your women are not having children.
There is a reason for it. Modern warfare demands more steel, than meat. That's why women are making more weapons than children.

Your future population will not be able to hold your borders, even if you get to expand to better borders.
It will be able to hold the borders if the enemies are dead.

It would have HELPED, if ukriane had falled in quick order. But that didn't happen. THe plan failed.
It is not over until it's over.

Now you are just throwing good money after bad. And when I say money, I mean money AND MEN.
No. We are just warming up and making preparations to war. You know - the only purpose of peacetime army is to heroically die in near border battles, but buy some time for mobilisation. The only purpose of mobilised army is to heroically die in battles of attrition, but buy time for building up winning army. And this third army is going to destroy the enemies and raise our flags over radioactive ruins of their capitals.
You know, like in the popular song: "The medal for capture of Washington"
 
Canada is still independent. Not exactly a W for US.
The USA turned South and took 2/3 of Mexico instead. I wonder if there is any alternative history book about the USA with Canada, but without Texas and California?
 
Europe is still paralysed by denial over the threat it faces from Putin.

According to The Independent newspaper.

IMG_2588.webp
 
15th post
Of course no. The genre "Time portal fiction" is quite popular in Russia. "What mistakes were done in past and what should we do to avoid them in future?" is one of the most popular plots for writers, and especially popular for time travelling is time before WWII. "The lost chance of Stalin" (not attacking Germany in 1941), "The lost chance of Khrushchev" (not attacking USA in 1962), "The lost chance of Andropov" (not attacking NATO in 1983) are quite popular matter for discussions among Russians.

i don't think 62 was all that good of a chance for russia.

But still, sounds like a good, healthy genre of fiction. Good for them.


Of course it is not. It is much better than be meekly genocided. While, of course, we prefer to roll NATO back peacefully.

YOu are being meekly genocided. And you are doing it to yourselves, by not having children.


There is a reason for it. Modern warfare demands more steel, than meat. That's why women are making more weapons than children.

Coping is just a way of NOT SOLVING PROBLEMS.

A lot of that going on in the world today. The later you wait to actually try to address a problem, the more it is going to **** you up.



It will be able to hold the borders if the enemies are dead.

Turkey's demographics are pretty good. India... well, better than yours. Both of them are walking distance from your lands. Your increasingly empty lands.

It is not over until it's over.

It kind of is. THe damage is done, even if you won the war tomorrow. YOung men that you needed to be home making babies, were in the field, missing years of family making time, not to mention the ones that won't be coming home.


No. We are just warming up and making preparations to war. You know - the only purpose of peacetime army is to heroically die in near border battles, but buy some time for mobilisation. The only purpose of mobilised army is to heroically die in battles of attrition, but buy time for building up winning army. And this third army is going to destroy the enemies and raise our flags over radioactive ruins of their capitals.
You know, like in the popular song: "The medal for capture of Washington"

That type of talk might have made sense. Back when your women were having 4 or 5 kids each.

Now it is empty bluster.

make peace, make babies, and hope for the best. It is the only sane path remaining for you.
 


Europe today, has the material resources to defend themselves from Russia.

They have mostly NOT been translating that into the actual military power to deter war.

They have allowed AMERICA to carry that weight.

And as a result, they are resentful, because it is hard to be GRATEFUL, especially to a nation you want to look down on.
 
Back
Top Bottom