TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I remember on the Jimmy Dore YT channel video on this they were recommending TONS.
I use Brave. It's even quicker then chrome.
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
I remember on the Jimmy Dore YT channel video on this they were recommending TONS.
I use Brave. It's even quicker then chrome.
Floridaman
Well-known member
I mean russia hasn't been pushed back, they seem to be a little slower than expected but they are still gaining ground. So the question of what if Ukraine pushed into crimea and past the Donbass is not a relevant topic since it is not really feasible.
I think you are vastly overestimating how much people will put up with to screw over Russia, particular with the economic/social effects of the Wu Flu still in play.
More likely, the pain will result in more poverty, more unnecesary deaths, and more lasting damage to the poorest people in the West, more destruction of more of the middle class, and more political polarization as people try to blame everything bad on Russia instead of trying to limit the damage domestically.
The West/US will survive, but a lot of people who were already in iffy situations are going to be permanently harmed by the fight over Ukraine, even if they are an ocean away. All while people like Buttgeige says 'well, gas prices don't matter to EV owners', as if the rising cost of gas won't make everything more expensive.
bintananth
behind a desk
I remember a (probably aprocyphal) story of a Soviet General telling an American that when he heard about Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (i.e.: "Star Wars") he knew that it wouldn't work and that the USSR just lost the cold war because the USSR could not afford to attempt something that expensive.
hm, I feel the meme needs a little bit extra to pull it together. Something in the second panel like "why do people think its acceptable to invade countries?" or something like that. As is it just leaving things hanging a bit.
The bottom of it is cut off in the embedded tweet, but fully visible on Twitter itself.
The bottom says "Why is Russia so aggressive?"
Vietnam was us bailing the French out and to fight communists.
Korea was us literally just helping them after the Japanese fucked thier shitnup and help them rebuild, and then the Norskies attacked.
Cambodia and Loas was us fighting the NVA and the VC
Iran is threatening to kill America.
Iraq had WMDs and we won
Dunno about others,but in Vietnam USA did everything they could to help commies.
1. - they could deliver french planes,but they waited till they fall.
2.CIA made putch to remove emperor Bao,who hold commies in check
3.They made putch to kill president who hold commies in check.
4.After giving power to morons,they finally cut military help.
And commies win.suprise,suprise.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Sure, sure.
I shall make a note and call Zelenski The Baghdad Bob of Kiev.
Or The Brandon of Kiev.
Or The CNN of Kiev.
bintananth
behind a desk
Heck, Ho Chi Minh wasn't even a real commie. He just wanted the French to leave and asked the US for assistance first. The US said "no". The USSR said "we'll help" and that's when the fustercluck started.
The Vietnamese actually overthrew a "communist" dictatorship and restored a monarchy (Cambodia's, i.e.: they got rid of Pol Pot).
Last edited:
The risks of success against Russia
Vladimir Putin’s actions have brought us to this dangerous moment, but Western leaders are now deciding how the conflict will end. While we all want Russia to lose, if it loses by too much, we will all lose.
A lot of same points Tippy made in his post about the risks of 'winning' against Russia in Ukraine are echo'd here.
Trying to cause the collapse of Russia's military by bleeding them in Ukraine, and trying to cause an economic collapse via sanctions, have every real risks of pushing Russia/Putin to escalate in order to ensure the survival of the Russian military and economy.
Trying to crush Russia and punish them for what they've done might feel nice, but there are real risks that we are backing a nuclear armed power and it's leader into a corner they might decide they have to use nukes to break out of.
Edit:
That is...really bad and I've been hearing stories of failed chutes on Russian ejection seats as well. I guess Russia's parachute producers may have been cutting corners.
Last edited:
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
- You weren't even there that much before Tonkin. Which everybody knows it was made up.
- Funny you mention Korea since the US refused an unified Korea and that was the reason it remained split.
- How targeting civilians of other countries is fighting the NVA and the VC?
- How Iran is a threat to America ? A threat to your bases in the totalitarian theocratic monarchies of the Arabian penisula? The only threat they can pose to the United States is just overthrowing the Americanophile sultans and that's about it. Because muh oil!
- That's a funny way of mispelling "we killed over a million people just because the crazy cunt of Saddam wanted to sell in euros instead of dollars". Hussein was a piece of shit with pieces of shit as sons and heirs and people obeying him. That doesn't excuse the fact that :
- ISIS became a result of American intervention because abolishing Saddam's army was Bush's idea
- Consecutively you caused the worsening of 3 countries at least : Syria, Lebannon, Turkey.
- Consecutively you caused one of the worst migration crisis in the world. AND WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH THAT IN ITALY AND THE REST OF EUROPE!
Well the US did open up to China to fuck up with the USSR. The even sided with USSR in the Biafran War.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Tech won't be useful when you have companies like Lockheed and "generals" like Milley.
Well yes - how much money is being spent by itself does not tell one whether the money is being spent wisely. Especially in a context where "bleeding edge" tech might or might not work out. Or be rendered obsolete soon.
bintananth
behind a desk
Or if it's being spent on something new with a very high up front cost that'll last awhile that's also low maintanence to own and operate.
Well, that's what the people marketing it will tell you...
Keyword being *might*.The risks of success against Russia
Vladimir Putin’s actions have brought us to this dangerous moment, but Western leaders are now deciding how the conflict will end. While we all want Russia to lose, if it loses by too much, we will all lose.www.afr.com
A lot of same points Tippy made in his post about the risks of 'winning' against Russia in Ukraine are echo'd here.
Trying to cause the collapse of Russia's military by bleeding them in Ukraine, and trying to cause an economic collapse via sanctions, have every real risks of pushing Russia/Putin to escalate in order to ensure the survival of the Russian military and economy.
Trying to crush Russia and punish them for what they've done might feel nice, but there are real risks that we are backing a nuclear armed power and it's leader into a corner they might decide they have to use nukes to break out of.
Strategically though, this thought absolutely needs to be buried in a concrete coffin. The very existence of it among the leadership would provoke escalation. If this precedent was set, that the west has to let nuclear powers have wars of aggression and win them under threat of nuclear escalation... if not Russia, some other nuclear power will eventually go out of its way to abuse that.
If only Soviets and China thought in this surrender-deescalatory way in Vietnam...
Imagine the thoughts in Kim Jong Un's head when he finds out that he can fix up his constantly failing economy and reduce sanctions by using nuclear threats more.
Russia already has the luxury of withdrawing from the war whenever it wants to. Sure, the political fallout would be massive...
But still nowhere near as bad as nuclear annihilation with its own kind of fallout.
Last edited: