Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Marduk said:
a) Moving them is risky and would incur losses, withdrawals under attack do that. Meanwhile the positions themselves are well stockpiled and fortified due to being the skirmish line for years.
b) Moving them would grant a morale boost to the enemy.
c) The ceded territory may need to be taken back at greater cost in the future.
d) The encirclement potential is real, but the sources claiming that it is just about to happen are so far bullshit - consider the fact that they were claiming that since the beginning of the war. Brought to you by the same people who greatly exaggerate Russian territorial gains.
e) Said forces in their fortified positions are tying down a considerable amount of enemy resources, which could be redirected elsewhere if they did withdraw, in addition to unblocking some potential logistical routes.

The messenger is to the left of CNN, on this and many other topics.
The messenger is so left wing that even wikipedia calls him far left, and that's with wikipedia editors generally being pretty left wing.
If that sounds good to you, i have no choice but to consider you a leftist. And i just don't trust leftist sources.
Click to expand...
I told you, I am not into strawpeople, unlike some other people here with a cultural proclivity for them.
I repeat, AGAIN, YOU ARE ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, NOT THE MESSAGE, THAT INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENTS.
YOU ARE JUST REEING.

Is Tucker Carlson on the left?
Is BPS on the left?
Is AcademicAgent left?
Is CRP, the guy who said that Pinochet was probably Chile's best ever leader, on the left?


Because they have a lot of talking points in common with these guys.

Obviously you don't get it yet.

We are beyond just left and right, right now we are in a war where the enemies are the establishment and everyone else.
 
Agent23 said:
I told you, I am not into strawpeople, unlike some other people here with a cultural proclivity for them.
I repeat, AGAIN, YOU ARE ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, NOT THE MESSAGE, THAT INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENTS.
YOU ARE JUST REEING.

Is Tucker Carlson on the left?
Is BPS on the left?
Is CRP, the guy who said that Pinochet was probably Chile's best ever leader, on the left?


Because they have a lot of talking points in common with these guys.

Obviously you don't get it yet.

We are beyond just left and right, right now we are in a war where the enemies are the establishment and everyone else.
Click to expand...
Sorry, i have better things to listen to than over 2 hours of Alternet grade anti-western autocrat shilling.

Imagine writing in all caps and accusing the other guy of "just REEEing".
For all the beef i have with western establishment, simping for other shitty establishments is not a worthwhile way of sticking it to them.
Some probably do it for the money, but that's no reason to take this more seriously than Raid: Shadow Legends ads some do semi-ironically.
 
Agent23 said:
Anyways, here is Colonel Macgregor with some redpills, like for example:
1) There is a deficit of truth in the West.
2) Zelenski is bullshitting.
3) Russia is winning.
4) Azov are fanatics that actively stopped the evacuation of civillians.
Click to expand...
Well... 2, 3, and 4 are just wrong.

So I wouldn't put much stock in anything else this guy has to say.
 
Marduk said:
Imagine writing in all caps and accusing the other guy of "just REEEing".
For all the beef i have with western establishment, simping for other shitty establishments is not a worthwhile way of sticking it to them.
Some probably do it for the money, but that's no reason to take this more seriously than Raid: Shadow Legends ads some do semi-ironically.
Click to expand...
And there you go, accusing me of being paid troll again.

Stay classy, now.Personal attacks are a cheap trick.Cheaper than even attacking the messenger.

1) The Minsk peace process was never implemented, because of Ukraine.
2) There are substantial neonazi forces in Ukraine.
3) The place is corrupt and run by Oligarchs.
4) Russia has legitimate security concerns and stated red lines.

5) We have gone over all of the above, in detail.You have no adequate rebuttals to any of that, other than parroting the same, useless talking points.

Vaermina said:
Well... 2, 3, and 4 are just wrong.

So I wouldn't put much stock in anything else this guy has to say.
Click to expand...
Humm, whose word would I take, that of an actual career military officer that dislikes the corrupt establishment, or that of some rando on the interwebz....
Lol, tough choice, but the answer is "not you".

EDIT in response to @Marduk s edit : McGregor's segment is under half the length of the video, and there is this neat trick where you can play the video at 2x the speed, even faster if you use 3rd party software like NewPipe.
Oh, and BTW, the Allcaps is because I thought you might be having trouble with your eyesight.
 
Last edited:
Agent23 said:
And there you go, accusing me of being paid troll again.
Click to expand...
Not you. Your sources. I'd accuse you of something else but it would be a flame.
Agent23 said:
1) The Minsk peace process was never implemented, because of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Minsk was always a joke made deliberately in bad faith, at proverbial gunpoint. Now everyone knows this.
Agent23 said:
2) There are substantial neonazi forces in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Very right wing of you to accuse nationalists of being neonazis. Are you going to believe it when journos call the right wing half of sources you listed nazis too?
Agent23 said:
3) The place is corrupt and run by Oligarchs.
Click to expand...
What isn't? Don't say Russia...
Agent23 said:
4) Russia has legitimate security concerns and stated red lines.
Click to expand...
Russia needs to learn that if legitimacy of security concerns doesn't end at its recognized borders, perhaps other countries should start having the same regarding Russian territory.
Agent23 said:
5) We have gone over all of the above, in detail.You have no adequate rebuttals to any of that, other than parroting the same, useless talking points.
Click to expand...
Not as useless as yours.

Agent23 said:
Humm, whose word would I take, that of an actual career military officer that dislikes the corrupt establishment, or that of some rando on the interwebz....
Lol, tough choice, but the answer is "not you".
Click to expand...
Wanna play that game? Ok, you bring a US colonel, i bring you a US general.
 
Agent23 said:
I told you, I am not into strawpeople, unlike some other people here with a cultural proclivity for them.
I repeat, AGAIN, YOU ARE ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, NOT THE MESSAGE, THAT INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENTS.
YOU ARE JUST REEING.

Is Tucker Carlson on the left?
Is BPS on the left?
Is AcademicAgent left?
Is CRP, the guy who said that Pinochet was probably Chile's best ever leader, on the left?


Because they have a lot of talking points in common with these guys.

Obviously you don't get it yet.

We are beyond just left and right, right now we are in a war where the enemies are the establishment and everyone else.
Click to expand...
See, here's the thing; you are actively denying anything that is not pro-Russian or goes against the Russian narrative of things, and have for a while you cling to just a few sources, some of which can be directly tied to Russia via money with just a bit of research (not Tucker Carlson, obviously; he's properly skeptical of both sides). While the most of the rest of us actually try to find sources that do not have partisan links to either side or narrative, because we care more about facts than narratives.

And do not dare imply that I am some shill for DC because I'm calling you out.

You damn well know I have repeatedly had to fight off half this thread myself, because I have dared to doubt DC and the West's bullshit just as much as Russia's, and I've gotten repeatedly shit on for not hating Russia hard enough.

Yet unlike you and other Russian shills, I am not acting like Russia is the good guy here, even if Azov taints Ukraine's PR, and Iam not kneejerk attacking any incident that makes Russia look bad as a 'false flag' or Western propaganda.

So how about you stop ree'ing and attacking anyone who doesn't follow the Kremlin's line.
 
Vaermina said:
Well... 2, 3, and 4 are just wrong.

So I wouldn't put much stock in anything else this guy has to say.
Click to expand...
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Where in that link does it state that, even the Washington Compost only called him "a racist crackpot who is pro-Russia, anti-Merkel, anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican."

Anyone who hates Merkel and who triggers the BezzosCompost must have something going for them.:devilish:

Now, life is short, and fools are many, so so long and thanks for the fish!

Bacle said:
See, here's the thing; you are actively denying anything that is not pro-Russian or goes against the Russian narrative of things, and have for a while you cling to just a few sources, some of which can be directly tied to Russia via money with just a bit of research (not Tucker Carlson, obviously; he's properly skeptical of both sides). While the most of the rest of us actually try to find sources that do not have partisan links to either side or narrative, because we care more about facts than narratives.

And do not dare imply that I am some shill for DC because I'm calling you out.

You damn well know I have repeatedly had to fight off half this thread myself, because I have dared to doubt DC and the West's bullshit just as much as Russia's, and I've gotten repeatedly shit on for not hating Russia hard enough.

Yet unlike you and other Russian shills, I am not acting like Russia is the good guy here, even if Azov taints Ukraine's PR, and Iam not kneejerk attacking any incident that makes Russia look bad as a 'false flag' or Western propaganda.

So how about you stop ree'ing and attacking anyone who doesn't follow the Kremlin's line.
Click to expand...
1)Russia is protecting the people of the Donbass from the Ukrainian neo-nazi infested pro-Western regime.That gives them the moral superiority in this particular situation.
An actual UN report said that 16 thousand people there have died and that 81% were ethnic Russians.

2)If China was to put missiles 600 km from Washington and try make first install a pro-China government in Mexico, then add Mexico into a military alliance, what would the USA do? Especially after you state a few times that you do in fact have red lines?

So they are "in the right" where realpolitik is concerned.That was stated by Mearsheimer, kennan and other realists.


3)I have zero trust in Western social media, the US blob, and US news outlets, and the whole "Support Russia/Zelenski" stinks of astroturfing.

4) I am seeing the economy of Europe and my own purchasing power being damaged by this situation, and the fastest way for it to be resolved is for the US and their social media and UK to stop interfering in European affairs in a way that eggs on and favors a corrupt shithole, and the Poles are carrying water for them because of their little historic issues with Russia and because they can not part ways with the ghost of their little Commonwealth.
The price of flour, for example, went up about 50%!

5) My news sources are primarily non-mainstream rightwingers, you can check them out above.
 
Last edited:
Battlegrinder said:
What else did Afghanistan have that we wanted? Sand and rocks?
Click to expand...
Let's not be disingenuous here, even if he's a shill for Russia.

We hit A-stan because of Osama, but we stayed because of the rare earth deposits in A-stan's mountains, and because Bagram was only an hour's flight from China; very useful if we wanted to stage bombers to hit the CCP's interior.
 
Bacle said:
Let's not be disingenuous here, even if he's a shill for Russia.

We hit A-stan because of Osama, but we stayed because of the rare earth deposits in A-stan's mountains, and because Bagram was only an hour's flight from China; very useful if we wanted to stage bombers to hit the CCP's interior.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's likely that those metal deposits were worth enough to make the entire war even remotely profitable.

And as far as I can tell, most of China's industrial production, population, military infrastructure, and anything else we might want to bomb, is largely concentrated in the coastal regions on the opposite side of the country from Afghanistan. Carrier based aircraft can hit that easily, and anything that doesn't fit on a carrier doesn't need nearby bases (and if it does, we have other, closer airfields in Japan).
 
Battlegrinder said:
I don't think it's likely that those metal deposits were worth enough to make the entire war even remotely profitable.

And as far as I can tell, most of China's industrial production, population, military infrastructure, and anything else we might want to bomb, is largely concentrated in the coastal regions on the opposite side of the country from Afghanistan. Carrier based aircraft can hit that easily, and anything that doesn't fit on a carrier doesn't need nearby bases (and if it does, we have other, closer airfields in Japan).
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten all those military bases China built in Tibet to deal with India, along with those missile silo's deep in the interior; Bagram was the only US base that could hit those areas without first going through the most heavily defended areas near the coast. Also, Bagram was pretty useful for striking the Russian interior as well, and is a lot closer to it than any of our other bases were.

As for whether those deposit's were profitble; more profitable than trying the same sort of mining in the US or most western nations with similar deposits (which are few to begin with) as there is no OSHA or EPA in A-stan.
 
Bacle said:
You seem to have forgotten all those military bases China built in Tibet to deal with India, along with those missile silo's deep in the interior; Bagram was the only US base that could hit those areas without first going through the most heavily defended areas near the coast. Also, Bagram was pretty useful for striking the Russian interior as well, and is a lot closer to it than any of our other bases were.
Click to expand...

I believe modern nuclear missile silos are too hardened to be disabled by aircraft, the way to take out a nuclear silo is with another nuclear weapon.

Bacle said:
As for whether those deposit's were profitble; more profitable than trying the same sort of mining in the US or most western nations with similar deposits (which are few to begin with) as there is no OSHA or EPA in A-stan.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be more profitable than mining in the West, it needs to be so profitable that it makes up for the extreme expense of running a countrywide occupation, including all our equipment, the stuff we gave the Agfan government, thier training, etc.

There's no way those mines made that kind of money. If they did, we would still be there.
 
Battlegrinder said:
I believe modern nuclear missile silos are too hardened to be disabled by aircraft, the way to take out a nuclear silo is with another nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...
You do realize we have made a new update to the B-61 to make it a bunker-buster nuke, mostly to deal with Nork TEL bunkers, right?

Those same updated B-61s would be rather useful against those silo's, and Bagram's close enough to have allowed a first strike against said silo's with said bombs.

But it's all academic now, because we turned Bagram over to the Taliban/effectively the CCP.
Battlegrinder said:
It doesn't need to be more profitable than mining in the West, it needs to be so profitable that it makes up for the extreme expense of running a countrywide occupation, including all our equipment, the stuff we gave the Agfan government, thier training, etc.

There's no way those mines made that kind of money. If they did, we would still be there.
Click to expand...
The desposits were never seriously exploited by us, though the profitability was there, because we could not secure the country enough.

However, what we did do was keep those deposits out of China's hands; guess who is exploiting them now?
 
Terthna said:
To you, it comes across that way. To me, it matches with a lot of what I already knew; the situation in Ukraine is the west's fault, and economic sanctions, much like protests, are useless. You don't have to believe that, but painting everyone who disagrees with you as a "socialist pinko" just demonstrates that you're not coming at this from a position of reason; you're coming at it from a position of faith, and you're lashing out at the non-believers who threaten your beliefs by refusing to share them.

Quite frankly, I think any hope for a rational discourse regarding what going down in Ukraine died long before any of us were born. Because this isn't about what's actually happening there now; it's about the Cold War, and people who could never accept that it was over.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to present any actual evidence that the 2014 coup was actually an illegitimate thing. Until you can pose a meaningful argument there, you have no grounds to claim anyone else is operating on 'a position of faith' rather than 'a position of reason.'
 
Chiron said:
1. It was actual video evidence plus the Ukrainian MoD's own public statement, plus a WSJ article. Try again Comrade.

2. So what? You have no more an accurate map than anyone else. And given the constant back and forth of the fighting as both UkA and RuA pursue aggressive attacks and counter-attacks per their base doctrine which they both share, there will likely never be a 100% accurate map. But overall, the Russians are advancing and grinding up the UkA which is losing combat effectiveness at an increasing rate. Russia can afford its losses, the UkA can't not with large numbers of Military-Aged males fleeing and being forced to arm teenagers.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't, it was video of the reinforcements getting captured.

The evidence shows you're wrong, the evidence show's it's Russia getting ground up and loosing combat effectivness at an increasing rate.



sillygoose said:
Where does it say that? All I see are the same idiots claiming anyone who doesn't support official US foreign policy are Putin agents.
Click to expand...
Right here?
Kosovo War

In 2014, Macgregor went on Russian state-owned RT to express his opposition to U.S. intervention in the Kosovo War.[19]

Ukraine and Russia
2014 Russian annexation of Crimea

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and was engaged in a conflict with Ukraine over its eastern parts, Macgregor appeared on Russian state-owned network RT where he called for the annexation of the Donbas and said residents of the region "are in fact Russians, not Ukrainians, and at the same time, you have Ukrainians in the west and in the north, who are not Russians."[19][34]
Click to expand...
The Russian's paid him to go on their state owned media and make statements.
 
Vaermina said:
Right here?

The Russian's paid him to go on their state owned media and make statements.
Click to expand...
He made a one time guest appearance on a US based RT program in 2014. Source is the Euromaidan press:
Video conveniently unavailable.

No evidence from a neutral source he was paid. The US RT channel according to the people that worked there they experienced zero editorial control in their opinion programs, which is where he appeared.

Try again.
 
sillygoose said:
He made a one time guest appearance on a US based RT program in 2014. Source is the Euromaidan press:
Video conveniently unavailable.

No evidence from a neutral source he was paid. The US RT channel according to the people that worked there they experienced zero editorial control in their opinion programs, which is where he appeared.

Try again.
Click to expand...
I literally posted two examples of him going on their networks...

Also all TV guest appearances are paid...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top