Russia/Ukraine Megathread V5

[Darkballs]

I'm not reading this, just a head's up

That's fine.

In my experience, most russians run away from fights they can't win.

 

[The Diplomat]

Is what I said false? The US board of geographical locations said Kyiv in 2006. Ukranians prefer Kyiv. What's the issue?

 

[curryjunkie]

Again, there is no 'you guys', and we don't all think the same things.

We can see what's happening, and it's obvious Putin would have removed the Zelensky government had things gone as smoothly as initially expected.

It didn't, he hasn't, and now he can't do anything about Kyiv's governance short of 'accidentally' killing Zelensky.

Nobody is fooled about the grand objectives.

The totally separate argument you're having about people being fooled by propaganda is totally different to simply acknowledging that Putin wanted to 'denazify' Kyiv, which can ONLY mean terminating Zelensky's leadership.

 

[Cole train]

Is what I said false? The US board of geographical locations said Kyiv in 2006. Ukranians prefer Kyiv. What's the issue?

I checked english dictionaries for hell of it and seems going by both is ok since they seem to include both

 

[curryjunkie]

basically this

thats not a position that everyone is denying , but it makes him feel good to think only he has the intelligence to see it. i recall several posters in these threads basically saying the same thing.

 

[The Diplomat]

I checked english dictionaries for hell of it and seems going by both is ok since they seem to include both

It's just a matter of linguistic preference. Although if one chooses the Russian spelling over the Ukranian, I think it shows their views on the situation.

 

[Da Speeit]

https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukraine-hes-holding-back-heres-why-1690494
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why

As destructive as the Ukraine war is, Russia is causing less damage and killing fewer civilians than it could, U.S. intelligence experts say.

Russia's conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader's strategic balancing act. If Russia were more intentionally destructive, the clamoring for U.S. and NATO intervention would be louder. And if Russia were all-in, Putin might find himself with no way out. Instead, his goal is to take enough territory on the ground to have something to negotiate with, while putting the government of Ukraine in a position where they have to negotiate.

"We need to understand Russia's actual conduct," says a retired Air Force officer, a lawyer by training who has been involved in approving targets for U.S. fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. The officer currently works as an analyst with a large military contractor advising the Pentagon and was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly.

"If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict."

"I know it's hard ... to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is," says the DIA analyst. "But that's what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations."

"I'm frustrated by the current narrative—that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians, that it is demolishing cities, and that Putin doesn't care. Such a distorted view stands in the way of finding an end before true disaster hits or the war spreads to the rest of Europe," the second U.S. Air Force officer says.

Heartbreaking images make it easy for the news to focus on the war's damage to buildings and lives. But in proportion to the intensity of the fighting (or Russia's capacity), things could indeed be much worse.

"I know that the news keeps repeating that Putin is targeting civilians, but there is no evidence that Russia is intentionally doing so," says the DIA analyst. "In fact, I'd say that Russian could be killing thousands more civilians if it wanted to."




Huh, Newsweek must be have been taken over by the Russians, they're saying the same shit I've been saying in here.

 

[Da Speeit]

It's just a matter of linguistic preference. Although if one chooses the Russian spelling over the Ukranian, I think it shows their views on the situation.

It was Kiev until like a month ago when the libs and Boomercons on Twitter decided to sound more informed than the rest of us.
You should have deleted that second sentence, it's absurdly childish.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/236703/chef-johns-chicken-kiev/

Do you eat Chicken Kyiv at your Politically Correct Intellectual Cafe?

 

[Da Speeit]

basically this

What's this based on? You opinion?
He doesn't have Crimea in writing.
What of the 200k pro-Russian Ukrainians waiting to come home?

You have any more video-game esque tweets of things going boom or any actual opinions on the matter?

 

[Da Speeit]

That's fine.

In my experience, most russians run away from fights they can't win.

God this stuff is so cringe dude lol

 

[Source]

United States has lowered the estimation of dead Russians from a floor of 7,000 to a floor of 3,000
So we've gone from Iwo Jima to half an Iwo Jima in the matter of a week. Hilarious.

Don't believe your common sense that shows maybea couple dozen tanks blown up, and zero serious ground or firefights, believe the US state department and their pets KI and Nexta.

Source? I haven’t seen the US floor of 7k.

 

[Da Speeit]

Source? I haven’t seen the US floor of 7k.

I posted it many times.
Source was NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/russia-troop-deaths.html

The conservative side of the estimate, at more than 7,000 Russian troop deaths, is greater than the number of American troops killed over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

It is a staggering number amassed in just three weeks of fighting, American officials say, with implications for the combat effectiveness of Russian units, including soldiers in tank formations. Pentagon officials say a 10 percent casualty rate, including dead and wounded, for a single unit renders it unable to carry out combat-related tasks.

Their source is an anonymous intel official.

 

[Da Speeit]

I checked english dictionaries for hell of it and seems going by both is ok since they seem to include both

It's Kyyiv in Ukrainian @The Diplomat
Bigot

 

[Darkballs]

Huh, Newsweek must be have been taken over by the Russians, they're saying the same shit I've been saying in here.

No.

This source is explaining why Putin isn't indiscriminately shelling cities more than he already is, because he fears repercussions. This is not Newsweek arguing that getting your shit pushed in for four weeks is a brilliant strategy.

Because you know what would be better than both indiscriminately leveling a city and having your armor exposed and wrecked? A sound a competent military capable of resorting to neither scenario.

But as a general question: When are you able to decide which western sources are propaganda, and which western sources you want to post to back up russia's failing military adventure? Because you seem to switch between supporting western media and crying about it, at the drop of a hat. It seems almost as if you are willing to post western sources only when you think they support your side, but then whine when the ball doesn't bounce your way.

 

[The Diplomat]

It was Kiev until like a month ago when the libs and Boomercons on Twitter decided to sound more informed than the rest of us.
You should have deleted that second sentence, it's absurdly childish.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/236703/chef-johns-chicken-kiev/

Do you eat Chicken Kyiv at your Politically Correct Intellectual Cafe?

In 2006, the United States Board on Geographic Names, a federal body that standardizes geographic names, adopted “Kyiv” as the preferred spelling. In 2019, the board retired “Kiev” as an alternative.
www.wsj.com/amp/articles/is-it-kyiv-or-kiev-and-why-the-pronunciation-changed-11647715295

KyivNotKiev is an online campaign started by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) together with the 15 member centre for strategic communications "StratCom Ukraine" on 2 October 2018. Its goal is to persuade English-language media and organisations to exclusively use Kyiv (derived from the Ukrainian language name Київ) instead of Kiev (derived from the Russian language name Киев) as the name of the Ukrainian capital.[1][2] It is a part of the wider campaign "CorrectUA". It is also part of a global trend of city name changes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev

Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...n-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/

 

[Darkballs]

God this stuff is so cringe dude lol

Is it? I think it's more cringy to run away by spamming "lol, didn't read," when you have no rebuttal, as opposed to just laughing at the guy for running away.

 

[jimbob27]

https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukraine-hes-holding-back-heres-why-1690494
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why

As destructive as the Ukraine war is, Russia is causing less damage and killing fewer civilians than it could, U.S. intelligence experts say.

Russia's conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader's strategic balancing act. If Russia were more intentionally destructive, the clamoring for U.S. and NATO intervention would be louder. And if Russia were all-in, Putin might find himself with no way out. Instead, his goal is to take enough territory on the ground to have something to negotiate with, while putting the government of Ukraine in a position where they have to negotiate.

"We need to understand Russia's actual conduct," says a retired Air Force officer, a lawyer by training who has been involved in approving targets for U.S. fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. The officer currently works as an analyst with a large military contractor advising the Pentagon and was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly.

"If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict."

"I know it's hard ... to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is," says the DIA analyst. "But that's what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations."

"I'm frustrated by the current narrative—that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians, that it is demolishing cities, and that Putin doesn't care. Such a distorted view stands in the way of finding an end before true disaster hits or the war spreads to the rest of Europe," the second U.S. Air Force officer says.

Heartbreaking images make it easy for the news to focus on the war's damage to buildings and lives. But in proportion to the intensity of the fighting (or Russia's capacity), things could indeed be much worse.

"I know that the news keeps repeating that Putin is targeting civilians, but there is no evidence that Russia is intentionally doing so," says the DIA analyst. "In fact, I'd say that Russian could be killing thousands more civilians if it wanted to."




Huh, Newsweek must be have been taken over by the Russians, they're saying the same shit I've been saying in here.

Russia has been using it's bombers, but almost exclusively with stand-off missiles fired from within their own territory as they don't want their most expensive assets blown out of the sky.

I agree they're not aiming for maximum civilian casualties. Artillery is a psychological weapon just as much a physical one. Putin's original plan seemed to be march up to Kiev and have the whole country surrender within 3 days.

He still thinks they're ready to surrender, they just need a bit of shelling to convince them. He's still far far removed from reality regarding Ukrainian resolve and patriotism.

 

[Source]

I posted it many times.
Source was NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/russia-troop-deaths.html



Their source is an anonymous intel official.

One anonymous official is hardly an official US estimate. For them to back off their estimate as you claim they would have had to officially release one. You’re being intentionally dense.

 

[Da Speeit]

No.

This source is explaining why Putin isn't indiscriminately shelling cities more than he already is, because he fears repercussions. This is not Newsweek arguing that getting your shit pushed in for four weeks is a brilliant strategy.

Because you know what would be better than both indiscriminately leveling a city and having your armor exposed and wrecked? A sound a competent military capable of resorting to neither scenario.

But as a general question: When are you able to decide which western sources are propaganda, and which western sources you want to post to back up russia's failing military adventure? Because you seem to switch between supporting western media and crying about it, at the drop of a hat. It seems almost as if you are willing to post western sources only when you think they support your side, but then whine when the ball doesn't bounce your way.

I didn't say it was a brilliant strategy, that's you injecting your own bias into my argument.
I said it's his strategy. Not right, not brilliant, just what's happening

It's Newsweek saying that the narrative that he's stalled out or getting his ass kicked is wrong. This was a well-written article free of the bullshit narratives you guys have convinced yourselves of and has great interviews with experts who methodically take clear actions and diagnosis them then assign possible motive instead of the reverse-osmosis you guys keep entrenching yourselves into.

Don't you think it's strange every time someone posts something contrary to your narrative you have to spin it around into something it's not until it's A) Part of your narrative all along or B)Russian propaganda?
You can't render this article as the latter, so you're trying the former, and it's weaksauce. The gist of the article is that Putin has barely made a push to Kiev, has not targeted civilians, two things I've said at length and been told I am wrong about for weeks, and you still have to find a way to spin it to where, ACKSHULLY IT SAYS YOU'RE WRONG.

This whole "you think Putin is right" shtick is something you have to get over. I don't think he's right, I don't think this move on Ukraine was brilliant, I just am offering a diagnosis of what is going on and why, other than he's an evil retard.

 

[The Diplomat]

I didn't say it was a brilliant strategy, that's you injecting your own bias into my argument.







I said it's his strategy. Not right, not brilliant, just what's happening















It's Newsweek saying that the narrative that he's stalled out or getting his ass kicked is wrong. This was a well-written article free of the bullshit narratives you guys have convinced yourselves of and has great interviews with experts who methodically take clear actions and diagnosis them then assign possible motive instead of the reverse-osmosis you guys keep entrenching yourselves into.















Don't you think it's strange every time someone posts something contrary to your narrative you have to spin it around into something it's not until it's A) Part of your narrative all along or B)Russian propaganda?







You can't render this article as the latter, so you're trying the former, and it's weaksauce. The gist of the article is that Putin has barely made a push to Kiev, has not targeted civilians, two things I've said at length and been told I am wrong about for weeks, and you still have to find a way to spin it to where, ACKSHULLY IT SAYS YOU'RE WRONG.















This whole "you think Putin is right" shtick is something you have to get over. I don't think he's right, I don't think this move on Ukraine was brilliant, I just am offering a diagnosis of what is going on and why, other than he's an evil retard.

All you ever do in this thread is argue and play useful idiot from Russia's pov.