Jump to content

Russia v Ukraine - How This Is Going To End


Pinetree
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Fanta said:

De facto NATO members - indeed. I have been reading up on the history of the expansion of NATO and I am starting to believe that Putin has a point. Take all the “nasty Russians” talk and speculation of Putin’s desire to recreate the USSR away and the fact remains that placing troops on Russia’s border is an existential threat. The same way that Russian troops in Ukraine represents an existential threat to NATO which we see Stoltenberg acting upon now. Ukraine could be the bleating sheep tied to a stake for the hungry bear. Mearsheimer may well be correct. 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

He doesn’t (have a point) Not Really.

Only a useful Orwell 1984 State Propaganda Play: the ever - present Foreign Enemy, distracting population from the economic & political ruin of a deteriorating failed Russia. 😡

Nations will continue to place troops anywhere they like within their lands.😉

Absurd that NATO would physically invade a nuclear-armed Russia. 🤣

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Terrorists? How coincidental that only now do you label Russia as terrorists after Elenskky pronouncement in the last 24 hours that Russia are the world biggest terrorists. You don’t even know public attention, and your own, are being directed away from the grimmer facts. Sadly 18 Ukrainian civilians died yesterday in the shopping center incident while probably 5 times that number in UAF soldiers being encircled at Lysychansk and who knows how many civilians killed in Donetsk from the UAF shelling of civilian areas. But not a squeak about that from Kyiv or the MSM. btw: no comment on the map KRLMRX posted showing impact location? 

Oh dear, Putins defender has taken umbridge.

Simple answer, if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, no, I repeat no attrocities would be happening.

It is very simple Putin is leading the world into Armageddon yet you refuse to hear anything negative about him.

As an Army Russia are a better demolition company, but my advice to the manager would be to have a look at the Health and Safety aspects of your company as there seems to be far too many accidents taking place.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

Putin receives a billion dollars daily from European partners.  

Do you think it is a problem for him to spend several million a day on the bombing of Ukrainian partners, who in turn receive tens of millions of dollars a day from Putin for the supply of raw materials to European partners?  

Something turns out too many hypocritical partners ...

You missed the targetting of civilians/ civilian buildings in Putins special operation, not war.

Did you notice the civilians driving past taken out by your leader, comrade...?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

I sometimes have trouble with your reasoning and logic, so your logic is because he is getting a billion dollars a day, he has to spend it in a sovereign country killing their citizens. Most decent people if they were getting a tidy amount every day might spend it on a holiday to Majorca, but not go on a murderous killing spree.

the opponent's remark was about the high cost of missiles produced in Ukraine. I showed you the proportions that indicate that this is not a problem for Putin.

And, more importantly,

Zelensky and his fans say that this is a war with the risk of destroying Ukraine. but at the same time, Ukraine trades with those who destroy it.

And European partners who talk about a military victory over Russia are also trading with it.

Doesn't this look like schizophrenia? Oh no, it's just business, nothing personal.

In Russia, in such a situation, they say (I will simplify a little for understanding): "you either remove the Catholic cross from your chest, or put your pants on your bare butt"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KRLMRX said:

the opponent's remark was about the high cost of missiles produced in Ukraine. I showed you the proportions that indicate that this is not a problem for Putin.

And, more importantly,

Zelensky and his fans say that this is a war with the risk of destroying Ukraine. but at the same time, Ukraine trades with those who destroy it.

And European partners who talk about a military victory over Russia are also trading with it.

Doesn't this look like schizophrenia? Oh no, it's just business, nothing personal.

In Russia, in such a situation, they say (I will simplify a little for understanding): "you either remove the Catholic cross from your chest, or put your pants on your bare butt"

Nothing what you say, (and I hear what you are saying,) will ever justify the murdering of innocents, and let's face it, all Ukraine are innocent, they didn't ask for Russia to invade their country, the Russians are the aggressors here and no excuses will ever change that fact!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Simple answer, if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, no, I repeat no attrocities would be happening.

What is done is done and regrets are for the regretful. You either ignored or missed my stated and unstated points entirely. Our attention is being directed and you are parroting the propaganda. If you are OK with that then prepare for a feast as there will be plenty more where that came from if Ukraine continues losing this war. 

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fanta said:

What is done is done and regrets are for the regretful. You either ignored or missed my stated and unstated points entirely. Our attention is being directed and you are parroting the propaganda. If you are OK with that then prepare for a feast as there will be plenty more where that came from if Ukraine continues losing this war. 

You sound like a child in a playground saying 'my dad can fight your dad.

And by saying "what's done is done" still does not and never will justify the Russian invasion nor the barbaric attrocities they have committed since marching into Ukraine.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

the opponent's remark was about the high cost of missiles produced in Ukraine. I showed you the proportions that indicate that this is not a problem for Putin.

And, more importantly,

Zelensky and his fans say that this is a war with the risk of destroying Ukraine. but at the same time, Ukraine trades with those who destroy it.

And European partners who talk about a military victory over Russia are also trading with it.

Doesn't this look like schizophrenia? Oh no, it's just business, nothing personal.

In Russia, in such a situation, they say (I will simplify a little for understanding): "you either remove the Catholic cross from your chest, or put your pants on your bare butt"

There's me thinking/reading the West are looking to drop Russia trading, something that for many can't be done with the click of one's fingers.

You continuously make excuses for Russia, comrade, a rather tiresome one way street praise of your murdering regime.. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Nothing what you say, (and I hear what you are saying,) will ever justify the murdering of innocents, and let's face it, all Ukraine are innocent, they didn't ask for Russia to invade their country, the Russians are the aggressors here and no excuses will ever change that fact!

Member Fanta actually laughed at your post, I will be proved right in the end......😉

  • Like 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this analysis accurately reflects the missile attack that resulted in a shopping centre being destroyed in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/61967480

Watching the video of the park and the first alleged missile hit (this video allegedly shows both), it is very difficult to believe Russian claims, which are seeming to be conflicting in their statements, as the article above notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3VjMFn-J_M

In part of the footage of the park, you can clearly see a cloud rising far away from the vicinity of the exploding missile captured as part of the park footage. The Park images, clearly align to the Google satellite photos and hence can be geolocated by their design. It is interesting to note that the debris is not scattered very far. The significant blast cloud from the first missile can be seen in the distance in the park footage.

The image of the first missile striking is clearly beyond a tree line. Whilst the structures of this aren't as recognisable for such a clear geolocation analysis as the park, the similarities are clear and definitely point to the missile hitting away from the factory. Across the tree line there is only one building. That is the shopping centre. 

The facts support the Ukrainian position. Russian propagandists are trying to spin a perspective that simply cannot be supported. Some of their statements are really quite naïve and rather silly. 

Unfortunately, all this means little other that to demonstrate Russia's clear intention that they don't care and are simply hellbent on destroying what is Ukraine and its people. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Transam said:

There's me thinking/reading the West are looking to drop Russia trading, something that for many can't be done with the click of one's fingers.

You continuously make excuses for Russia, comrade, a rather tiresome one way street praise of your murdering regime.. 

The West can refuse resources from Russia right now.  You just have to incur significant costs.  And the lives of Ukrainians do not matter here.  

So its you are justifying the hypocrisy of the West.  

Again, in Russia there is a saying for this case - "eggs prevent a bad dancer from dancing well."  

What authorities are preventing the Ukrainian leadership from stopping trading with an aggressor who is killing civilians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden officials privately doubt that Ukraine can win back all of its territory. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/white-house-ukraine-projection/index.html

Just more ”news” from unnamed official sources (aka click bait), planning for the worst while hoping for the best or a  realization that the impact of 4, 8, 48 or 88  HIMARS’ against hundreds of Russian MLRS’ with similar capabilities won’t turn the tide let alone win the war so as to recapture occupied territories? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Biden officials privately doubt that Ukraine can win back all of its territory. 

From your own link:

US officials emphasized to CNN that this more pessimistic assessment does not mean the US plans to pressure Ukraine into making any formal territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the war. There is also hope that Ukrainian forces will be able to take back significant chunks of territory in a likely counteroffensive later this year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

The West can refuse resources from Russia right now.  You just have to incur significant costs.  And the lives of Ukrainians do not matter here.  

So its you are justifying the hypocrisy of the West.  

Again, in Russia there is a saying for this case - "eggs prevent a bad dancer from dancing well."  

What authorities are preventing the Ukrainian leadership from stopping trading with an aggressor who is killing civilians?

Says the expert that denies Russian slaughter of the innocent, your communist like rhetoric here is noted, but sadly not removed...😏

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

In my opinion, this analysis accurately reflects the missile attack that resulted in a shopping centre being destroyed in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/61967480

Watching the video of the park and the first alleged missile hit (this video allegedly shows both), it is very difficult to believe Russian claims, which are seeming to be conflicting in their statements, as the article above notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3VjMFn-J_M

In part of the footage of the park, you can clearly see a cloud rising far away from the vicinity of the exploding missile captured as part of the park footage. The Park images, clearly align to the Google satellite photos and hence can be geolocated by their design. It is interesting to note that the debris is not scattered very far. The significant blast cloud from the first missile can be seen in the distance in the park footage.

The image of the first missile striking is clearly beyond a tree line. Whilst the structures of this aren't as recognisable for such a clear geolocation analysis as the park, the similarities are clear and definitely point to the missile hitting away from the factory. Across the tree line there is only one building. That is the shopping centre. 

The facts support the Ukrainian position. Russian propagandists are trying to spin a perspective that simply cannot be supported. Some of their statements are really quite naïve and rather silly. 

Unfortunately, all this means little other that to demonstrate Russia's clear intention that they don't care and are simply hellbent on destroying what is Ukraine and its people. 

 

that is, according to this article, the first blow fell on the plant, the second on the mall.

could the second missile be deflected due to Ukrainian air defense actions?

Could there have been a hit in the mall by an anti-missile air defense of Ukraine?

could the second hit on the plant cause the detonation of ammunition or substances in the tanks next to the plant and the one seen in the video?

Such questions are completely justified in the conditions of hostilities in cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

that is, according to this article, the first blow fell on the plant, the second on the mall.

could the second missile be deflected due to Ukrainian air defense actions?

Could there have been a hit in the mall by an anti-missile air defense of Ukraine?

could the second hit on the plant cause the detonation of ammunition or substances in the tanks next to the plant and the one seen in the video?

Such questions are completely justified in the conditions of hostilities in cities.

It always amazes me that the Americans can drop a bomb down a chimney with such great accuracy and the Russians can't hit a barn door from 3 metres away.😂😂😂

"Such questions are completely justified in the conditions of hostilities in cities."

I think you should change "questions" to 'excuses' 😉

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

that is, according to this article, the first blow fell on the plant, the second on the mall.

could the second missile be deflected due to Ukrainian air defense actions?

Could there have been a hit in the mall by an anti-missile air defense of Ukraine?

could the second hit on the plant cause the detonation of ammunition or substances in the tanks next to the plant and the one seen in the video?

Such questions are completely justified in the conditions of hostilities in cities.

More total nonsense, I don't know how you get away with it...🥴

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

From your own link:

US officials emphasized to CNN that this more pessimistic assessment does not mean the US plans to pressure Ukraine into making any formal territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the war. There is also hope that Ukrainian forces will be able to take back significant chunks of territory in a likely counteroffensive later this year.

I read the article. Is your point that all hope is not lost? “Significant chunks of territory” are not the same as Zelenskky stated desire to take ALL territory including Crimea, the LPR and DPR. There is a reason Crimea fell so quickly in 2014 - it had been an autonomous pro Russian region since 1991. Hardly the “stolen by Russia” story believed by some. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fanta said:

I read the article. Is your point that all hope is not lost? “Significant chunks of territory” are not the same as Zelenskky stated desire to take ALL territory including Crimea, the LPR and DPR. There is a reason Crimea fell so quickly in 2014 - it had been an autonomous pro Russian region since 1991. Hardly the “stolen by Russia” story believed by some. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

Read your link again.

It states "likely take back large chunks this year" emphasis on the this year. IMO this war may drag on for years, but there again who's to say that NATO might have to get involved should Russia put a foot wrong (just a thought), nobody knows what direction this war will take.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Biden officials privately doubt that Ukraine can win back all of its territory. 

They don’t have to in order to win the war. Never mind the west’s objective and the Ukrainian one are not quite the same. 
 

The question isn’t can Ukraine win back all its territory. It’s does Ukraine need to defeat the Russian army, or can they win by just rendering it combat ineffective? Two different things. That asked, it is clear Putin is doing everything in his power to make the job easier for Ukraine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Transam said:

More total nonsense, I don't know how you get away with it...🥴

about the hit of one missile in the plant is written in the BBC article.  

You, as a prosecutor, must immediately demand the arrest of this journalist. he is clearly a Putin's spy

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

what air defense system does the chimney owner have? Ah, the old Kalashnikov.

but I think you should stop believing everything that is written in the BBC and try to start thinking. It gets exciting.

At the moment krlmrx, your interpretation of this war is very questionable and I can't be more polite than that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithydog said:

In my opinion, this analysis accurately reflects the missile attack that resulted in a shopping centre being destroyed in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/61967480

Watching the video of the park and the first alleged missile hit (this video allegedly shows both), it is very difficult to believe Russian claims, which are seeming to be conflicting in their statements, as the article above notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3VjMFn-J_M

In part of the footage of the park, you can clearly see a cloud rising far away from the vicinity of the exploding missile captured as part of the park footage. The Park images, clearly align to the Google satellite photos and hence can be geolocated by their design. It is interesting to note that the debris is not scattered very far. The significant blast cloud from the first missile can be seen in the distance in the park footage.

The image of the first missile striking is clearly beyond a tree line. Whilst the structures of this aren't as recognisable for such a clear geolocation analysis as the park, the similarities are clear and definitely point to the missile hitting away from the factory. Across the tree line there is only one building. That is the shopping centre. 

The facts support the Ukrainian position. Russian propagandists are trying to spin a perspective that simply cannot be supported. Some of their statements are really quite naïve and rather silly. 

Unfortunately, all this means little other that to demonstrate Russia's clear intention that they don't care and are simply hellbent on destroying what is Ukraine and its people. 

 

In my opinion the BBC article shows clearly it’s intention in the first sentence and only debunks 2 things. That the shopping center was unused and that the attack was staged. The repeated claims that the shopping center was targeted is unproven and is likely  unprovable. 

Within hours of the attack on a shopping centre in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk, false and unproven claims began circulating online”

Note that the BBC states that is an attack on a shopping center with a missile also hitting a repair facility, not an attack on a repair facility with a missile also hitting the shopping center. Besides that

1) The satellite images offered as proof of  the missile strike locations are absent from the article. Why? 

2) The post strike satellite image supplied by KRLMRX shows the shopping center with it’s roof largely intact.  These missiles have at least a 450kg warhead. I presume that would flatten the place. 
Summary - a missile hit a facility and perhaps a shopping center. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

The question isn’t can Ukraine win back all its territory. It’s does Ukraine need to defeat the Russian army, or can they win by just rendering it combat ineffective? Two different things. That asked, it is clear Putin is doing everything in his power to make the job easier for Ukraine. 

Elenskky’s goal that he has stated repeatedly is to reclaim all Ukrainian territory. Rendering the Russian armed forces ineffective does not achieve this until Russia decide to leave Ukraine. That will take a decade - ask anyone in Afghanistan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fanta said:

I read the article. Is your point that all hope is not lost? “Significant chunks of territory” are not the same as Zelenskky stated desire to take ALL territory including Crimea, the LPR and DPR. There is a reason Crimea fell so quickly in 2014 - it had been an autonomous pro Russian region since 1991. Hardly the “stolen by Russia” story believed by some. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

Crimea only became “ pro- Russian “ when deliberately repopulated / colonized with ethnic Russians starting 1920s by Stalin. Few Russians there previously. Too many Russians established there for too long now ( four generations) and annexed by nuclear Russia so cant reverse process. 
 

Unlike Baltics where thankfully a shorter colonization period after WW2 enabled the unwanted incompatible colonizer Russians there to be deprived of citizenship post-1991 so forced back out to motherland. Nothing in common with native Baltics.

  • Like 3
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use