This one was the moment went after Kyev.Not all wars are total wars you dolt.
This one was the moment went after Kyev.Not all wars are total wars you dolt.
your reading comprehension is abysmalThis one was the moment went after Kyev.
Okay cool.Oil refineries produce fuel that is a cornerstone of civilian infrastructure.
The distribution of all goods, particularly food, relies on oil refineries.
Also helps for electricity production to provide heat in the winter.
Yes it is also used by the military.
The military also consumes food, water, clothing, and electricity for heating in the winter so you do not freeze to death. None of those things are military products just because the military consumes them.
Fuel is not a military target, it is a civilian target that the military needs.
By claiming it is a military target you are being dishonest.
This is a major escalation towards Total War.
Don't be dishonest and admit what is going on.
lmao he did not. I don't know who Putin actually supports deep down but its almost certainly Trump since the two had good relations and Trump wants to prevent any aid to Ukraine. Him saying he prefers Biden was an obvious troll and I hope no one is pretending to actually have believed that.
I don't know what to tell you, this is the best you are going to get from the US. When Biden is replaced with Trump support for Ukraine is going to halt and he is going to push for a negotiated settlement.
You seem to have missed the fact that the Russians have been fairly explicit about genocidal intentions towards Ukraine.Tank factories, gun factories, ammo factories, gunboat factories, military jeep factories, and various other factories.
But yes, a lot of shit is civilian infrastructure, go figure.
congrats on finally understanding the difference between Total War and regular war.
This is called shifting the goalposts.You seem to have missed the fact that the Russians have been fairly explicit about genocidal intentions towards Ukraine.
When has russia bombed ukraine's fuel infrastructure?Part of how war works is that when the enemy starts engaging in tactics, it is then fair play to use such tactics against them, as far as such things go in war. There are some lines moral men still should not cross, but bombing oil refineries is not one of them.
Uh...no the aspect if bombing if civilian electrical grids leaving entire cities without power. Targeting of apartment buildings, churches, schools, hospitals.....When has russia bombed ukraine's fuel infrastructure?
Genuine question here. So far the only civilian infrastructure you guys posted russia blowing up was nordstream (blatantly the USA. biden even said so in interview. later ukraine said it was a political rival of zelenski who blew it up on a sailboat with some friends against orders), and that water dam (which has no evidence of being russia)
So when lordsfire said "respond in kind" he meant "civilian for civilian" rather than "fuel for fuel"?Uh...no the aspect if bombing if civilian electrical grids leaving entire cities without power. Targeting of apartment buildings, churches, schools, hospitals.....
The children in a building that said "children inside"....
Huh, how many more can I name.
Tons. I jist don't have time to go through 2 years of war footage to get them all in a reasonable timeframe
He is saying the Russians have been doing this kind of targeting since the ear startedSo when lordsfire said "respond in kind" he meant "civilian for civilian" rather than "fuel for fuel"?
That is a more coherent argument if that is what he meant.
It's relevant to note Ukraine has a single-digit number of refineries because they're small (and were more an oil transit-point from Russia to Europe than a domestic refiner themselves).When has russia bombed ukraine's fuel infrastructure?
No, I am not shifting the goalposts.This is called shifting the goalposts.
You went from arguing "fuel is military infrastructure, not civilian infrastructure" (in any war)
To instead arguing "ok I admit fuel is civilian. But it is ok in this specific war because self defense genocide"
It's relevant to note Ukraine has a single-digit number of refineries because they're small (and were more an oil transit-point from Russia to Europe than a domestic refiner themselves).
That said, Russia droned what wikipedia claims to be the largest refinery in the country in September of last year (and the article notes had attempted strikes before as well).
The wiki-claimed second-largest refinery in the country was attacked in April of the previous year directly in the aftermath of the hostilities starting (captured later in the year).
Luhansk Oblast Governor: Russian forces shell oil refinery in Lysychansk.
Serhiy Haidai said that a fire broke out in an area of 5,000 square meters following the morning attack, and workers are still extinguishing the flame. Shelling still continues in residential areas of Lysychansk and locals are asked to remain in shelters, the official added.kyivindependent.comRussian invaders fired on Lysychansk oil refinery â Haidai
Russian invaders have fired on the Lysychansk oil refinery, remaining oil sludge is still burning. â Ukrinform.www.ukrinform.net
Also in April two years ago there were Russian strikes on (wiki-claimed fourth-largest) oil refinery and storage in Odessa.
So, even restricting the conversation entirely to oil (which isn't exactly an equal comparison since a lot of Ukraine's fuel is coal or nuclear and both have also been recipients of Russian missiles or drones), targeting oil refineries is nothing new. Ukraine is by no means breaking new ground on that front.
It is also worth note that Ukrainian strikes have, to-date, struck refineries and such more consistently than Russian strikes which have overlapped, by either failed targeting or intention we can't for-certain say which, into strikes on apartment buildings and other much more explicitly fully-civilian structures. Part of that is probably a function of Ukraine having less capability in general for these strikes so lower sample-size, and part of it is probably western aid allowing better targeting on their part than Russia...And they're probably incentivized to avoid bad PR for them while Russia has much less of a problem with that.
And intentional strikes on civilian buildings to encourage surrender would not be unheard of from Russia and, particularly, Putin, since it was practiced in Grozny.
*BIG BREATH*
AND to drag this back to some semblance of the thread's topic, that's why the Biden administration's messaging/handling of the issue is bonkers and something he absolutely deserves to take political heat on. Trying to arm-jaggle Ukraine not to actually fight the war we encouraged them towards and have expressed support for is some grade-A silliness. Bad enough when political bullshittery from the 'Best and Brightest' got injected into America's Vietnam war by those folks and got America's ass thrown out, now we're trying to vicariously sabotage our patsies/puppets/allies/clients war efforts on the same political bullshit-basis (and it's not even a very good political bullshit-basis...Putin may be many things, including much more inured to civilian deaths than the West is--which also probly goes for Ukraine in general as well--but he's not an irrational actor by all we can tell, merely a very, very Russian one with a completely different realm of interests and historiography, even).
Anyhow, The State Department is full of imbeciles who are convinced they're intelligent.
Yes, because the argument he wants a full on abolition of Abortion is false ans they can't push it as what he will do.Hoping to try and bring this back on track...
So Trump came out with a video where he said that abortion is now a matter for the states.
Does this significantly disarm the Dems push to reinvigorate the Abortion debate and gin up emotional anger in their base?
It disarms them among what actual moderates exist out there. Lefties and those who refuse to get out of leftist media bubbles will still swallow whatever is fed to them.Hoping to try and bring this back on track...
So Trump came out with a video where he said that abortion is now a matter for the states.
Does this significantly disarm the Dems push to reinvigorate the Abortion debate and gin up emotional anger in their base?
No that isn't what he said, I watched the video when it came out. He's asked which candidate is better for Russia and he says, "Biden because he's more predictable," and it's pretty clear both from the context of the video, the smirky face Putin makes, the conversation around the time the video was recorded (right after the Tucker interview) and just the consensus among Russians both outside of this video and when discussing it that Putin is taking the piss to trigger the left and it worked. If you think he is dead serious about preferring Biden I don't know what to tell you, it wasn't a serious answer and Putin loves to troll anti-Russian westerners.Okay cool.
Still a military target and perfectly viable according to the laws of war. It's dual purpose, doesn't make it not a target.
Russians can survive without oil, they can still travel snd the like.
its mot like they have to take cars ir busses everywhere....
He outright says he prefers Biden because he knows he can get away with so much more under Biden.Putin Says He Prefers More 'Predictable' Biden Over Trump
Russian President Vladimir Putin described U.S. President Joe Biden as more "predictable" than former President Donald Trump, but said the Kremlin is prepared to work with whoever wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election.www.google.com
And because Trump would attempt a peace deal, Ukraine would rather die then let Russia win a war of aggression.
So Trump winning could mean more support if Russia and Ukraine can't compromise, or something escalates.
So...you would rather have Trump NOT use the argument that Putin endorsed Biden and make a Russian collusion story even more plausible by having it be known that Russian leaders support Trump.No that isn't what he said, I watched the video when it came out. He's asked which candidate is better for Russia and he says, "Biden because he's more predictable," and it's pretty clear both from the context of the video, the smirky face Putin makes, the conversation around the time the video was recorded (right after the Tucker interview) and just the consensus among Russians both outside of this video and when discussing it that Putin is taking the piss to trigger the left and it worked. If you think he is dead serious about preferring Biden I don't know what to tell you, it wasn't a serious answer and Putin loves to troll anti-Russian westerners.
He definitely never "endorsed" Biden and it's ridiculous to even claim so, however a number of his lackies like Dugin have 100% endorsed Trump and Trump (and Elon) is a favorite among Russian bloggers and nationalist podcasters e.g. Russians with Attitude.
No I'm really just saying Putin is a troll, and gave Trump the ability to push back against collusion while smirking about it, not that you shouldn't roll with it (you should.)So...you would rather have Trump NOT use the argument that Putin endorsed Biden and make a Russian collusion story even more plausible by having it be known that Russian leaders support Trump.
Yes, very nice....