Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
History Learner
Well-known member
The cite is from a Non Russian tweet?
The position that the 100k estimate has practically no bearing on military casualties?
What, that the 100k estimate is mostly civilians?
If you did some math instead of juggling rhetoric like a clown you would spare yourself a lot of typing.
That's why the 100k you quoted is an estimate too, not data, poindexter.
Megadeath
Well-known member
"not occupying Ukrainian civilians"? ...? Anyway... Moving past the fact that particular statement wouldn't pass the Turing test, the actual argument goes beyond idiotic. I mean, I guess their were no UK civilian casualties in WW2, since the Germans never occupied British civilians? Large scale bombing and artillery strikes are famous for the fact that they're physically incapable of hitting the wrong target.
There's just too much wildly blatant misrepresentation here for it to be taken seriously. They're running out of half decent modern missiles, so they're forced to use older and role inappropriate weapons to make up the shortfall. Because they're forced to use shitty weapons, their accuracy sucks. Because their accuracy sucks, they have to fire more to have a decent chance of hitting their target. Because they're firing larger amounts of less accurate fire, they're more likely to cause collateral damage, including civilian casualties. Because the Russian leadership are 10 pounds of shit stuffed into a 5 pound bag, they don't care. Ergo, greater civilian casualties tha and necessary, even if they weren't practising scorched earth policies and indiscriminate targeting on the attack.
No, it's confirmation bias, and the degree to which you've decided to support an extraordinary partisan view is as confusing as it is sad.
I mean... That's not what projection is? As for what I personally am hoping to achieve, I'd like for idiots spouting bullshit to shut up, so I can use the thread as a source for details I might otherwise miss, and in a secondary role of showing a different political POV on that info. I don't come here to see a surprisingly clever, trained Russian dancing bear.
And, as we have all learned from your previous proclamations, all trends, no matter how short or what the surrounding context is, can be extended arbitrarily into the future for however long you'd like to give you the inescapable gospel truth.
Mate... If all you've seen in everything I've said is personal attacks, you've probably got a problem with egocentrisim too, or even narcissistic personality disorder making it hard to separate someone pointing out the things you say are stupid, as opposed to saying you are stupid.
If you think I left because you posted a bunch of links that you were prepared to argue yourself blue in the face to say they supported whatever bs you were on about at the time, well good for you. I hope you pat yourself on the back and treat yourself to a special cookie for your victory. The reality is that the shit you say is so disconnected from reality, and the arguments you make so entirely predicated on that confirmation biased view, I truly CBF to argue you any more.
You're right that I'm not going to change your mind. I can only hope that eventually reality will. In the meantime, despite some deeply unpleasant interactions, and huge amounts of hostility I've been met with elsewhere on the board, congratulations on being the first person I truly felt I had no point talking to, and nothing to gain from such, and thus making the one and only spot on my ignore list!
She was there because she plays basketball there during the off season, and she was detained for having cannabis oil.
And yes she has.
They were quoting what a Russian source said...
That was it?! I heard she had pounds of weed...'course, now that I think on it, I've not looked closely at any of this. It's not important to me so I haven't invested any time verifying said reportage.
Russian, no? The Soviet Union hasn't existed since 1991, after all.
Taking on Putin through porn: how Russians are finding out the truth about Ukraine | Jemimah Steinfeld
Little moderation, huge audiences and biddable owners make porn and gambling sites a safe haven from censors, says Jemimah Steinfeld, editor-in-chief of Index on Censorship
www.theguardian.com
From what I remember yeah, it was just cannabis oil or the cannabis vape juice.
They raised the Soviet Flag. 👌
Simpsons reference strikes again!
On the one hand, we have the existing Russian regime saying that Lenin's national self-determination policy was a mistake:
Vladimir Putin accuses Lenin of placing a 'time bomb' under Russia
Russian president blames revolutionary’s federalism for break up of Soviet Union and creating ethnic tension in region
www.theguardian.com
On the other hand, though, Russia still loves the Soviet Union enough to raise the Soviet flag in Russian-occupied Ukraine.
A split mentality?
Why Donald Trump is primarily responsible for the Ukrainian war
There has been quite a bit of debate about who is responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Putin? No. Only a moron would claim that. Biden? Certainly a candidate, but not the best one -more on that later. Zelensky? Like his predecessor Poroshenko, a puppet not worth attention. But...
eharding.substack.com
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Why Donald Trump is primarily responsible for the Ukrainian war
There has been quite a bit of debate about who is responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Putin? No. Only a moron would claim that. Biden? Certainly a candidate, but not the best one -more on that later. Zelensky? Like his predecessor Poroshenko, a puppet not worth attention. But...
I only really bothered to read the start of that, but it's some high-order alternate-reality Russia apologism combined with TDS.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
I think thats the Victory Flag. Russians fly it to celebrate a victory
It's a perfect Rorschach test article.
The guy basically argues that contrary to the common democrat theories that Trump was a Russian puppet, Trump has destroyed all hopes and dreams of the Russia appeasement lobby so throughly that they couldn't even pull Biden to their side because of it. He obviously sounds like he aspired to membership in it, and from that perspective it first the TDS club. But if you think that's a good thing....
FWIW, in May 2014, a majority of the people in the Donbass supported either a federal Ukraine or outright secession from Ukraine:
So, the separatist movement there actually was genuine, even if it was led by some (often Russian) bad apples.
Off-topic, but which countries have ideal borders from a geographical perspective? I'm trying this into the concept of natural borders here:
historum.com
historum.com
I can think of:
-Small island countries such as Britain and Japan
-The Byzantine Empire before the 1071 Battle of Manzkiert. Back then, it had the Danube River as its northern border in Europe and the Taurus borders as its eastern border in Asia (well, OK, it went a little bit beyond the Taurus, but this was even more beneficial for the Byzantines)
-France during the Napoleonic Wars, when it expanded up to the Rhine River in the north and northeast. France was also bordered by mountain ranges on its other borders.
-Interwar Italy: Surrounded by the Alps on all sides where it is not surrounded by seas.
-Austria-Hungary: Defended by the Sudeten Mountains in the northwest and by the Carpathian Mountains in the northeast and east. Would have been even better had it not included Galicia, though, since Galicia is harder to defend.
Who else would qualify for this?
Natural borders for various countries
What I find interesting is the fact that, before WWI, Hungary had what might be called natural borders. Same for Italy between the World Wars. What I mean by this is that, based on topographic features (as opposed to demographic features), Hungary's pre-WWI borders and Italy's interwar borders...
historum.com
Cases of countries expanding up to their "natural borders"?
This academic journal article about France's pursuit of and expansion up to its "natural borders" in the 16th century and beyond made me interested in the question of "natural borders" in general...
historum.com
I can think of:
-Small island countries such as Britain and Japan
-The Byzantine Empire before the 1071 Battle of Manzkiert. Back then, it had the Danube River as its northern border in Europe and the Taurus borders as its eastern border in Asia (well, OK, it went a little bit beyond the Taurus, but this was even more beneficial for the Byzantines)
-France during the Napoleonic Wars, when it expanded up to the Rhine River in the north and northeast. France was also bordered by mountain ranges on its other borders.
-Interwar Italy: Surrounded by the Alps on all sides where it is not surrounded by seas.
-Austria-Hungary: Defended by the Sudeten Mountains in the northwest and by the Carpathian Mountains in the northeast and east. Would have been even better had it not included Galicia, though, since Galicia is harder to defend.
Who else would qualify for this?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
FWIW, in May 2014, a majority of the people in the Donbass supported either a federal Ukraine or outright secession from Ukraine:
So, the separatist movement there actually was genuine, even if it was led by some (often Russian) bad apples.
Was this poll taken before or after Russian forces rolled in, and also, who took it?